ED GORDON, host:
This is NEWS & NOTES. I'm Ed Gordon.
On today's roundtable, the Democrats' new push against the war and reports are surfacing concerning Fidel Castro's health. Joining us today from NPR West, George Curry, editor in chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service; in our New York bureau, Pedro Noguera, professor of education at New York University; and joining me here in Washington, DC, at our headquarters here, Karen Narasaki, president and executive director of the Asian-American Justice Center.
Before we get started, though, one correction. On a recent roundtable, we talked about an incident on the University of Chicago campus where a party had been taking place in a dorm, non-white students--or I should say white students were dressed in hip-hop garb and quote, "acting out hip-hop culture and the like." It received a lot of controversy in the news, and one of our participants, Julianne Malveaux, had this to say about the party.
(Excerpt from a previous NEWS & NOTES)
Dr. JULIANNE MALVEAUX (Economist, Author): You know, the students had to get university approval to do this party and that's what troubles me the most.
GORDON: And, Julianne, I....
Dr. MALVEAUX: And that really does speak to a hostile...
GORDON: ...and I don't know for sure--perhaps you know--but ofttimes in dorm parties, particularly smaller ones, kids will just throw them and put up their own posters and the like. I'm not sure that this was a university-sanctioned party.
Dr. MALVEAUX: No, I went online and looked at it, and it was something that they did have to submit, according to a couple of things that I saw. Somebody approved this party. I believe--and I can't prove it--but from what I've seen on the Net, campus funds were used. I think that that's disgraceful.
(End of excerpt)
GORDON: All right, Julianne Malveaux. I tried to save you there. Larry Arbeiter, director of communications at the University of Chicago, wrote us and had this to say--or I believe we even talked to him. `Now this is incorrect. University staff did not approve the theme.' He suggests that they don't often ask about themes for those parties that the university sanctions. `We did not sponsor it, being this particular party, or use our funds. This was a private party held behind closed doors for about one hour. There was no advertisement for it and it did not spill out into the hallway. And no one in the administration knew about the theme until it was brought to our attention well after it had ended.'
So there we have it from the University of Chicago. So for Julianne, let me say sorry to the University of Chicago there, and we appreciate that you were listening and pulled our coattails on that. So that being said, we'll move on to what will be I hope an errorless roundtable today.
Let's talk a little bit about, George Curry, what everyone is talking about, and that is Congressman Murtha's attack on the White House, on the administration in terms of the reasons that we're at war and, in fact, the idea that we need to, in his words, `pull out immediately.' We are seeing and we've just heard in our interview with Senator Kerry a sharper attack, sharper than ever before from Democrats against this White House.
Mr. GEORGE CURRY (National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service): Yeah, I think people can dismiss Kerry, and they have on the other side of saying, `OK, what do you expect from him?' But Murtha is a different case. This is a prominent Democrat who's an--a hawk, a decorated veteran, and he's saying it's time to go and immediately--for him, immediately is about six months. And, you know, this is a person's visit to veterans and when one was possibly not going to get a Purple Heart, he said, `I'll give you one of mine.' And, yet, when he makes these earnest comments, obviously heartfelt, tearful even, people are already trying to discredit him in saying, `Well, he has political motivation.' No, he has the valid criticism, he has the stature to do it and as he pointed out, unlike the people who were chicken hawks who didn't go when they had a chance.
GORDON: Pedro, we're seeing, to some degree, the White House pulling back a bit today on the personal attack. They have sent their representatives out all over the media today to say that they respect, obviously, this man's background. But they're holding true to the case and the thought that, `Hey, you had the information that we had. You voted for the war just as we sent these young men and women in.' As we heard from John Kerry in our interview previously and what I found most interesting when I asked the senator--and I didn't necessarily expect him to say this. I asked him whether he believed that they deliberately held back information, he suggested that they knew some of this information was unreliable. This is something that I think you don't hear most often from Democrats, the idea that they are now saying they believe, in fact, that this was intentional.
Professor PEDRO NOGUERA (New York University): Well, it is clear that the administration had information, intelligence information that the Congress was not privy to and you would expect that. This is a war, after all, and there was intelligence information that they knew ahead of time was not credible. So I do think that the sharp criticism now coming from the Democrats is warranted, it makes sense, and I think we're going to see a lot more of it, particularly given the polls. The question is whether or not the administration will be able to continue to just say, `Hold the course,' as the news from Iraq continues to be bad as we saw today. So I think that even though Murtha's proposal may not necessarily be a sound one--that is, pulling out and risking civil war and greater chaos in Iraq may not necessarily be the best strategy--the fact is that the current strategy is not a strategy at all except for more death and destruction.
GORDON: Karen, here's the interesting part for me. We've seen Cindy Sheehan, we've seen some protests. If in fact this is as clear-cut as many, many people are saying, why aren't we seeing more upheaval and righteous indignation, if you will, from the American public?
Ms. KAREN NARASAKI (Asian-American Justice Center): Well, I think there is a lot of righteous indignation happening. You can see it in the polls; you can see it in the protests. I personally feel that the issue to me is no longer did he--you know, did the administration mislead us into war? I don't think anybody could have foreseen how badly they would wage war. And that is the problem that we're seeing now, and I think that's one of the things that has sparked where Murtha's coming from. We need to get out because we're not doing a very good job. We're not going to achieve the objective in the way that we're trying to approach that. And I do think there's going to be growing organizing around the country if this administration continues to take the position that it really doesn't have to listen to anyone, including people who know as well as Murtha does what the costs are and what we should be doing strategically.
GORDON: George, the idea that the president we saw again yesterday and today, as he often does, is hunkering down and standing strong in gale wind for what he says is right. How long can he hold to this position? Do you expect him, if the ship--I stress and underline if, underscore that--if the ship goes down, you expect him to go down with it?
Mr. CURRY: Well, we're certainly on shaky waters, that's for certain. I mean, the president keeps shifting responsibility, you know, Congress' fault, United Nations' fault, Democrats' fault, allies gave a false intelligent. The fact is they had intelligence, flawed intelligence, they knew that some of it was flawed, yet they went forward. They used selective information in terms of trying to persuade the American public. He's already having a problem within his own party, with moderate Republicans, even some conservatives, of saying it's time to go. And it's not so much of saying, `Oh, we're just going to pull out.' Basically, Murtha was saying, `Hey, we accomplished our mission, six months, they got the constitution, they can run their own country. It's time to bring the soldiers home.' And, yes, he's already paying for that politically.
GORDON: All right. Let's turn our attention to something that, quite frankly, rumors have been swirling about this for years and years and years, but the buzz just seems to be a lot heavier, and that's over the health of Fidel Castro, Cuba's leader who's outlived many of our leaders politically and literally. Karen, when you think about what this man has meant to this hemisphere and the world, one has to ask the question: What will happen when he either dies or steps down, and what that means to the relationship between Cuba and the United States?
Ms. NARASAKI: Well, I'm hopeful that it will be an opportunity to really re-engage with Cuba. Because of the US embargo, the infrastructure there is crumbling. Doctors make more money as tour guides than they do actually providing health care. Free speech is still severely curtailed there. I think, you know, Cuba has so much to offer in terms of culture, in terms of some of the experiments they've had in how they have provided assistance in terms of education that it would be important for the United States, I think, to rethink its relationship.
GORDON: Pedro, when you think about how long this has gone on, the back and forth between the United States and Cuba, if, in fact, Castro is removed by whatever means, can this be--and for those of us who've been to Cuba, you understand the dynamic that could be--but could this be the devil you know?
Prof. NOGUERA: Well, I think that that's a good point. We don't know what will happen after Fidel dies and whether or not there'll be a successful transition of some form in Cuba. It would be great if they would, on their own, begin to democratize the country and allow the very successful social programs that have developed as result of the revolution to remain, as opposed to seeing some abrupt change where the Cubans from Miami descend and try to reclaim the island, causing all kinds of havoc and I think quite a bit of violence that would ensue. So I think it would be in everyone's interest to see a more peaceful transition. Whether or not we have the diplomatic skill either here in the US or in Cuba to pull it off, I think, is a question that we haven't seen an answer to yet.
Mr. CURRY: Well, I've been to Cuba as well, as you know, Ed, with a group of journalists. And, you know, the US embargo is not really hurting Cuba because Europe certainly has not adopted the same posture, so I don't seem them suffering that way. But we're talking about somebody who will be 80 years old next August, but they can't decide what he's supposed to be dying of. Sometime they say pox and disease, sometime they say cancer. And in all likelihood, his young 74-year-old brother probably will be his successor, who's over at the Defense Department now, and I don't see that being much of a change. Our policies are really outdated and we need to engage with Cuba more.
GORDON: All right. Turn to another interesting battle, if you will, this on the legal side and that's Wal-Mart. Now Wal-Mart over the course of particularly the last year or so has been engaging in these little battles, if you will, all around the country. The latest is a showdown in Maryland with the Maryland Legislature there. And essentially, Wal-Mart has been making overtures to lobbyists there--or their lobbyists, I should say, have been making overtures to lawmakers there, including a $10,000 donation to black lawmakers to help pay for a recent conference they held. And that is with the thought of they're trying to derail, if you'll allow that language, legislation that would force the company to boost spending on employment health benefits. Karen, when you look at this, and we should note that your organization has received moneys through the years from Wal-Mart, and we should note they have a large philanthropic arm. That being said, when you see this kind of fight on both sides, it looks a little strange. It's that whole politics and strange bedfellows, and now you're leaving the money by the nightstand, so to speak.
Ms. NARASAKI: Well, I think in this case, what the money is buying is clearly access and opportunity for them to tell their story. The challenge is that their story is not necessarily a pretty one. I mean, to try to make the argument that they are improving the health benefits for their workers and yet saving millions of dollars in doing so really strains any sense of credibility on that issue.
I think that as a company they would do better to start speaking out about the issues about health care generally in this country. They're not the only company that is not providing health care adequately to their workers. And--but, you know, they should be held to a higher standard. If you look at the income from--that they receive, the revenues per year and compared it to the GDP of the world's countries, they would rank in the top 15. They are a major economic force. And, you know, the fact that they're not speaking out against what happened last night in the dead of night when Congress cut hundreds of millions of dollars for food stamps, for children's health insurance, for student loans, for Medicaid is a mark of how out of touch they are. They could be a force for good, and I think--actually, I'm happy that they're not deciding that there's no point in talking to black lawmakers, that there's actually effort to engage. But they really need to get a little bit smart about what they're actually doing.
GORDON: George, how much of this is just the sin of being so large, if you will, because I'm sure Wal-Mart would march out the idea that while you may look at Wal-Mart in this instance as the bad guy, there's a lot--I mentioned the millions and millions of dollars they give to charities and the like--there's a lot of, quote, "good" they do as well.
Mr. CURRY: Well, all corporation give to charity. That's not put in too good of a context; it's a tax write-off for most of them, so let's put that in context. Look, what you have is a real war going on here. You have several prominent anti-Wal-Mart sites, Web sites. That's all they do, just focus on Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, itself, recently has had some top political guns--Mike Deaver, who was in the Reagan administration when I was covering the White House for the Chicago Tribune, they've hired Carville on the left, and they are really fighting back. But I think that fundamentally they're going to have to make some basic changes. I think there's some signs they're already about to do that. They can't weather this kind of criticism. They have to make some fundamental changes and even so, if you're out there like Wal-Mart is, you'll always have a target on your back.
GORDON: Mm-hmm. Pedro, the idea that many of the people that are targeted, the lawmakers that are targeted are, in fact, minority lawmakers with the thought and the idea that many of the locations for Wal-Mart stores and many of the employees are minorities--so, therefore, you're reaching out to the people who can talk to this constituency.
Prof. NOGUERA: Well, that's very smart. And we're seeing a similar battle taking place right now in Oakland, where they've appealed to members of the council there to support the development of a Wal-Mart there in Oakland and with some support in the community. I think what makes this difficult is that in many particularly low-income communities, there is a desperate need for jobs and an appreciation for the kind of low-cost goods that Wal-Mart specializes in. The other side of it is that what kind of jobs and will these--does Wal-Mart actually benefit an economy? And I think that that level of discussion doesn't happen sufficiently either at the level of local government or state government. And as a consequence, we find that we're often just chasing whatever the major corporations have to offer and not thinking in the bigger picture what is--what will ultimately lead to the health and well-being of our communities. And I think as a consequence, we get very short-sided policies that result in going after whatever bone is thrown to us.
GORDON: Hey, George, does this put the lawmakers in a precarious position with the idea that if the community sees them, quote, "voting the wrong way," when you know that moneys have been bandied about, even with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, it does somewhat put you between a rock and a hard place.
Mr. CURRY: Well, I mean, you have a problem. But first of all, you're talking about $10,000 shoe shine money, you know, for most of us. Not you, Ed, but for most of us. And I just think that the problem is a larger problem, period, with our civil rights groups as well. When they're taking corporate money, some people see it as hush money. And I there have been instances where you see them compromise. So that's something they got to balance. I mean, who are you really representing? The people you're supposed to have served or the people who are paying you money? And that's a lifelong dilemma.
Ms. NARASAKI: Well, the--as a civil rights organization that takes corporate money, it is a challenge, but I would say to you it's a challenge if you take any corporation's money because I don't view any corporation as having totally clean hands.
GORDON: So...
Ms. NARASAKI: I do think there...
GORDON: ...real quick for me, Karen.
Ms. NARASAKI: ...is some opportunities for some strange bedfellows here because, for example, Wal-Mart came out in support of raising the minimum wage...
GORDON: Yeah.
Ms. NARASAKI: ...which is an issue that is near and dear to many minority communities. So, you know, it's always going to be a challenge...
GORDON: Yeah.
Ms. NARASAKI: ...you do have to balance.
GORDON: That's why I say it's often a two-sided coin for corporations like that. Karen, Pedro and George, thanks so much for joining us today. Greatly appreciate it.
Mr. CURRY: Thank you.
Prof. NOGUERA: All right.
You're listening to NEWS & NOTES from NPR News.
Copyright © 2005 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.