WVUM 90.5FM | WE ARE THE VOICE | University of Miami

Posts Tagged ‘debate’

Counterpoint 4-4-14: “Cuban Twitter” and SCOTUS on Political Donations

By Mike Kanoff | Counterpoint | April 5th, 2014 | LEAVE A COMMENT

 

(Image credit: Living Green)

 

Today, we took on the SCOTUS ruling that set the stage for unlimited political donations. As expected, Jordan opposed and Nicole agreed. Are corporations people? I’m inclined to say no. As for the “money-in-politics” question? I’m actually not too bothered by it; I’d support a flat-amount or a total cap, but that seems rather idealistic. As-is, as much as people complain about it, money in politics kind of keeps the whole game going. I digress; the other part of the show focused on the recent reveal of the “Cuban Twitter” launched by the U.S. I honestly don’t feel too strongly on the subject because the Castro regime isn’t exactly conducive to U.S. interests, nor to the interests of the people. That said, it was probably an over-reach and we probably shouldn’t be launching psy-ops quite so loosely– especially without presidential approval, as recent reports allege. Anyways, catch the re-cap after the break. Keep it locked.

Counterpoint 4/4/14 by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

UMSG Elections 2014–A Conversation With the Candidates

By Hyan Freitas | News Director | February 18th, 2014 | LEAVE A COMMENT

In advance of the 2014 University of Miami Student Government Elections, both tickets (Amplify U and Unite the U) joined a WVUM panel to discuss their platforms in depth and explain their vision for the future of The U.

Their conversation with WVUM’s Maggie Waala, Elena Tayem and Mathew  De La Fe is below.  Stay tuned to the end of the podcast for their analysis of the tickets’ responses.

Voting is open Monday, February 17 through Wednesday, February 19 from 10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m

The next leaders of Student Government will be announced on Thursday, February 20th at 5:30pm on the UC Rock

Originally aired February 14, 2014

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

By Shelly Lynn | NFP | January 18th, 2014 | LEAVE A COMMENT

Founded by a mother whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, Mothers Against Drunk Driving® (MADD) is the nation’s largest nonprofit working to protect families from drunk driving and underage drinking. MADD also supports drunk and drugged driving victims and survivors at no charge, serving one person every eight minutes through local MADD victim advocates and at 1-877-MADD-HELP. Learn more at www.madd.org or by calling 1-877-ASK-MADD.

Sunday, February 9th, 2014, MADD will be holding a certified 5K walk/run and family festival at Tropical Park. For more information or to register, visit www.walklikemadd.org/miami or call (305)-273-3744

 

 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

Counterpoint Recap 7/26: The Value of Higher Education

By Meg McGee | Counterpoint | July 29th, 2013 | LEAVE A COMMENT
Counterpoint's Meg McGee has "the last word" after every new edition of Counterpoint.  After reading her latest recap, hear audio of the discussion she's referencing embedded below the post:

On Friday’s show, we covered a slue of topics, the smoking ban on campus, the Miami-Dade county’s decision to take funding out of libraries, Detroit’s bankruptcy, and the passing of a student loan deal in Congress.

Our entire panel agreed that the cost of college/university is skyrocketing and something should be done to change it. However, our topic grew into a larger discussion over if college is valuable in order to succeed. Matt De La Fe, our conservative contributor, argued that college degrees aren’t necessary for success and that there are plenty of jobs one can go into without a degree. While I think this argument is valid (to an extent), it is far from the reality we live in these days. Yes, there are celebrities, athletes, musicians, artists, and other innovative people in our society that make millions of dollars without having finished college. But the chances of that happening to an average Joe are not that high and if nothing else, a Bachelor’s degree is a safety net in case your multi-million dollar idea goes awry.

Everyone knows the economy and job market is bad, especially for young Americans and post-grads. So naturally, having a college degree gives you a slight advantage over someone who only has a high school diploma. The days of skipping out on college are over, there is no Woodstock, there are no protest movements, millennials have to get to work. We have to go to college and college is not cheap. So while there is no one putting a gun to our heads forcing us to take out enormous loans for college, our society leaves us with few other choices. For me, I have to go to school for what I want to do and not just undergrad but grad school and PhD. program. I think a lot of young Americans are taking huge risks by having $100k in loans but it certainly beats the alternative to working at McDonald’s with no degree. A college degree is the new high school diploma.

Until our country is able to get the costs of education down across the board, we will see more students not being able to go to a 4-year institution and instead having a high-unemployment rate for young adults. Though Congress passed this deal, there are still provisions in it to keep interest rates rising on student loans. I think student loan debt is a problem that Wall Street is cashing in on and once the “bubble” explodes, we could see another financial crisis affecting the next generation of Americans.

Below is audio of the discussion on student loans and the value of a college degree.  Counterpoint airs live Fridays at 1p.m. EST

Counterpoint Clip: Student Loans and the Costs of College by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

 

Amash Amendment Fails: Close But No Wired-for-Sound Cigar

By Mike Kanoff | Counterpoint | July 25th, 2013 | LEAVE A COMMENT

(Image Credit: Florida Today)

 

Well, I was kind of hoping to be writing about a win for the Amash Amendment, but I suppose a loss will have to do. In case you missed it, the U.S. House of Representatives voted and ultimately defeated (205-217 with 12 abstaining) an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would have taken away funding for the NSA’s blanket telephone spying. The day before the vote, the White House and NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander held “emergency meetings” to urge Congress to vote against it.

 

Me being… me, I have to admit that I’m more than a little disappointed that this amendment didn’t pass. It would have been a quick and clean way to put a full stop to blanket phone surveillance while still allowing for targeted surveillance of suspects under investigation. That said, when the White House is scared enough to hold “emergency meetings” ahead of domestic spying prevention votes, I get hopeful. As the advocacy organization Demand Progress put it: “even though we lost, the other side is flipping out right now.” Not bad for an amendment that was voted on only two days after it left committee.

 

So where does this leave us? It seems to me that more or less, the vast majority of people are against the NSA’s surveillance programs (multiple ones have been revealed now: PRISM, ECHELON, BLARNEY, etc.) but it appears as though the tide is only starting to turn on the issue. Obama has welcomed “discussion” on the issue, but it seems almost impossible to have a well-formed discussion about it since the programs are already in place and running: it’s like a kid asking a parent’s permission to eat a cookie after he’s already started eating the cookie. As for curbing the surveillance programs, we might have to wait for the 2014 election cycle: all House seats and 33 Senate ones are up for grabs and at the rate the “spying discussion” is going, it could hopefully become a major issue.

 

In the meantime however, I would remain hopeful: the Amash Amendment might have failed, but that was only looking at phone surveillance, which has historically been less antagonizing than Internet surveillance. It might be just a tick away from justifiable to retain phone metadata, but I have a feeling that Internet surveillance won’t go over so well when the time comes.

 

 

Climate Change Series | Part I: Fact or Hypothesis?

By Jordan Lewis | Counterpoint | July 23rd, 2013 | LEAVE A COMMENT
This post is part of a series aimed at providing one perspective to the broad topic of climate change.  Overall, this series will include mention of the causes of climate change, how it affects us and personal ideas from the writer on approaches that can be taken to solve this complex and global issue.  Facts are facts, but any personal views expressed throughout this series are those of the writer alone.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Is it happening?

Yes. That’s the answer from the scientific community. The International Panel on Climate Change found that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”. A recent study found that 97% of climatologists (out of 12,000 peer-reviewed articles) found that humans are causing changes in our Earth’s climate system. If 97% of doctors recommended a new treatment for cancer, it would change the medical paradigm when it comes to treating cancer.

 

Climate Denial

However, when it comes to climate change, our public and politicians have been slow to embrace decades of research and data. A comprehensive strategy to mitigate climate change is necessary, but has been met with opposition from industry and energy companies. These organizations, led by the Koch Brothers ($67 million by themselves[1]), have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to scientists and climate denial groups to manufacture data and delay critical policy. Brown & Williamson, a tobacco giant, noted in a memo “Doubt is our product”. It’s no wonder that groups such as the Koch Brothers are employing the strategies that the tobacco industry has used to combat evidence that smoking causes cancer. These industry groups have funded studies designed specifically to refute evidence of climate change, and use these studies to challenge the consensus that climate change is caused by human activity. In many cases, these scientists (geologists) have no credentials in the field of climate science. But some Koch Industries-funded scientists have recanted their skepticism of climate change, with one scientist, Richard Muller stating, “humans are almost entirely the cause” of climate change. In any case, the Koch’s are in a paramount position to lobby against climate policy in Congress. As the biggest donors to the Tea Party and conservative front groups such as Americans for Prosperity, ALEC, and Freedom Works, the Koch Brothers have considerable ability to fund campaigns and candidates that are opposed to climate policy. In fact, the increased power of the Tea Party to challenge incumbents has caused Republicans to side with the energy lobby to avoid a primary challenge. As a result, the majority of the Republican Party is at least skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, and has fought against climate policy, to keep oil subsidies, and against the EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gases.

 

Evidence of Climate Change

 Our planet is warming at a pace that is unprecedented in history. This warming directly corresponds to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. We must make a distinction between weather and climate; weather is an indication of atmospheric conditions over a short period of time, while climate is a measure of these conditions over an extended period of time. In this next section, we will use indicators of long-term climate to demonstrate that climate change is occurring at a rapid pace[2].

  • Most of the warming has taken place in the last 40 years, in the same time as carbon emissions have soared.
  • All 20 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1981. All 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 12 years. According to NOAA, 14 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years[3].
  • The argument that solar output causes climate change is a common theory used by climate skeptics. The years 2007-2009 experienced a deep solar minimum, yet were some of the hottest years on record.
  • 2012 was the hottest year on record for the United States, and second most extreme in our history.
  • This year is expected to be no different. The summer in Australia was their hottest ever. This May was the third warmest on record (1998 and 2005 warmer). In the last few weeks, a heat wave struck Alaska, soaring temperatures into the 90’s.
  • The global sea level rose 17 centimeters in the last century. The rate of sea level rise this decade is double that.
  • The top 700 meters of ocean have warmed by .3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. It takes an enormous amount of heat to warm the ocean by that amount.
  • Our ice sheets are diminishing rapidly. Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic km of ice per year from 2002 to 2006. Glaciers have retreated at record rates.
  • The acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by 30%. The amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans increases by 2 billion tons per year.
  • 2012 saw 362 all-time records high temperatures in the United States but no record lows[4]. Last week, Death Valley, California came close to recording the hottest temperature ever on Earth.
  • Every major governmental institution has indicated that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
  • Every nation except the United States and Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, signaling an attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has since confirmed its intent to limit its greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The past few years have seen an increase in extreme weather that can be linked to a changing climate. A warming of the oceans strengthens the intensity of hurricanes. Six of the 10 strongest Atlantic hurricanes on record have occurred in the last 15 years. Hurricane Katrina killed 1,800 people along the Gulf Coast. Last October, Manhattan was under water from Hurricane Sandy, a year after the Northeast was struck by Hurricane Irene. 2012 saw a historic drought in the American heartland and in Russia, both vital breadbaskets for the planet.
  • The past decade has seen record numbers of extinctions and migrations of plant and animals to cooler climates.
  • Scientific records have indicated that such warming is unprecedented by studying the remains of corals and other organisms. The effects of climate change has been predicted and by substantiated by computer models.

 

SOURCES:


[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

[2] http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

[3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/

[4] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/05/1394711/2012-saw-362-all-time-record-high-temperatures-in-us-but-zero-all-time-record-lows/

Race and Justice in America: A Counterpoint Special

By Hyan Freitas | News Director | July 21st, 2013 | LEAVE A COMMENT

Below you’ll find the full audio of Counterpoint’s roundtable discussion on race and justice in America.  We dedicated the entire Counterpoint hour to these topics in light of conversations that have started across the nation following the not guilty verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman.

We also split the show into three segments in case there is a specific topic that might be of more interest than another or if you tuned in late when it aired live.  Each has its own player below.

Part I: Reactions to the Verdict

Part II: A conversation on racial profiling: Is it an issue?

Part III:  The American Justice System:  Is it unfair to minorities?

Counterpoint: Race and Justice Special Edition [Full Audio] by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

 

Counterpoint Race and Justice Special: Reactions to the Zimmerman trial by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

Counterpoint Race and Justice Special- Discussing Racial Profiling by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

Counterpoint Race and Justice Special: Race and the justice system by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

This special aired July 19, 2013 | Counterpoint airs live Fridays at 1pm EST on WVUM 90.5FM | WVUM.org

SCOTUS Decision: I’m Pleading the 5th

By William Ng | Counterpoint | June 26th, 2013 | SHOW COMMENT(1)

On June 17th, the Supreme Court decided to pass a “landmark decision” in regards to Salinas v. Texas which impacts how one can go about claiming the right to not incriminate oneself (otherwise known as “pleading the fifth”).  The decision essentially stated that when an individual is not placed under arrest, the individual must explicitly evoke their 5th amendment right and that simply remaining silent does not mean their right has been evoked.  Depending upon the circumstances, this silence can be used to infer possible guilt of the party in question.

To really understand the context of this ruling, let me first start with a quick background to this decision.

This all started with a murder case conducted in a Texas state court.  In 1992, Houston police officers found two homicide victims.  The investigation had then led officers to Genovevo Salinas. Salinas voluntarily agreed to accompany the officers to the police station, where he was then questioned.  At this time, Salinas was not under arrest and had not been read his Miranda rights.  Salinas had the ability to leave at any point while he was being questioned.

Salinas answered every question until an officer asked him whether the shotgun shells found at the scene of the crime would match the shotgun found in Salinas’ home.  At this point, the defendant fell silent and “looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, and began to tighten up” (according to the statements made by the state prosecutor).

A ballistics analysis later matched Salinas’ gun with the casings at the scene.  Police also found a witness who said Salinas admitted to killing the victims.  In 1993, Salinas was charged with the murders, but he could not be found until 15 years later.

During the trial, the prosecution introduced the evidence of Salinas’ silence and body language in response to the question about the gun casings.  Salinas objected, arguing that he could invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.  The trial court admitted the evidence and Salinas was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The question boiled down to whether or not Salinas’ body language is allowed to be presented as evidence.

I say YES!

First of all, Salinas had the ability to leave the questioning period any time he liked.

All of his answers from this questioning period were applicable to be used in court as evidence.  Since he did not leave nor claim his right to not self incriminate, I believe that the answer his body language gave is also admissible in court.

There’s been plenty of dissenting chatter in the public sphere about Supreme Court’s decision to allow this piece of evidence stand.  Personally, I think it’s time for these chatters of dissent to stop. Ladies and gentlemen please plead the fifth!

Now we are all very familiar with our fifth amendment rights.  Just to recap a bit, the pertaining part of the 5th amendment in this case is “No person shall be…compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.  There are other things the amendment guarantees such as our right in regards to double jeopardy, due process, and eminent domain. The important thing here to focus on is the ability to not self incriminate.

Some people will argue that to not self incriminate is a natural right.

I think they are only partially right.

If one really focused on the language of the Constitution, the key word is compelled.  We are allowed the right to not be forced into incriminating ourselves but that does not stop you from doing it freely.

The Miranda rights are read to you because you are in custody, and you can’t just get up and leave.  If you had incriminated yourself without explicitly knowing your rights under these conditions, the law enforcement officers are essentially forcing incriminating evidence out of you.

Under a different circumstance where you basically waltz into a police department and partake in a questioning period willingly then… anything you say or may do are going to be used against you! (sound familiar?)

There has been all types of people have used their 5th amendment rights in the past, and some of them have gotten off clean while others haven’t.  People such as Don King, Colone Oliver North, Casey Anthony, and even O.J. Simpson have all claimed their right to not incriminate themselves when they were questioned, as well as they should have (and O.J. I’m talking about you especially).

Look, we have all watched enough Law and Order and CSI to know that when you are being questioned, and you get asked that one question where you might start to incriminate yourself…

What do you do?

You shut up and ask for a lawyer.

Salinas paid for his slip up during the questioning period, and he couldn’t answer because he got nervous.  The police had hit the nail on the head.  If he was really trying to evoke his 5th amendment right, we would definitely all be made aware of it (it’s really not that hard).  He got nervous and couldn’t answer because the bullet casings did fit his shotgun.  He got nervous and couldn’t answer because he did murder two innocent people in their own home.  He got nervous and couldn’t answer probably because he started planning for his 15 years of hide-and-seek with law enforcement.  

The take away from this Supreme Court decision?

You have the right to not self-incriminate.

USE IT.

 

Counterpoint 06/14: The Relevance of Affirmative Action

By Meg McGee | Counterpoint | June 15th, 2013 | LEAVE A COMMENT

Our debate on the relevance of affirmative action was easily one of the most heated ones we’ve ever had on the show (a clip is below). Race is always a tricky topic to talk about when many of the issues surrounding it remain unsolved in our country. But debates such as the one we had was one that needed to happen. People seldom confront the issue of race head-on in the media and we at Counterpoint were happy to be able to delve into such a subject.

With that said, I think its important for us (especially as Americans) to not think that because we are starting to see more black people in positions of power that we live in a “post-racial America”. Racism, particularly towards blacks remains an open wound that has not healed even after years of progress. Those who are not minorities may think, “How unfair, why is it necessary to still have these policies when we are not in the 60s?” It is easy to not understand the importance of such policies when you are not a black, Latino, or Asian in America.

Affirmative action opens doors for minorities and with that, it puts people of different backgrounds in settings such as a school or workplace. And in that setting we are confronted with race, we come face-to-face with the ugly history and reality of America. Once confronted with these themes, we can either continue with ignorance or learn to embrace differences with an open mind. Affirmative action is not some gateway for minorities to get whatever job they want or get into a good school without putting forth effort. Actually minorities have to work harder than anyone else to prove stereotypes wrong and break barriers.

 As I stated in the show, you cannot get into Harvard or some other Ivy League school with a bad GPA or test score, regardless of race. And as we all know from our experience of applying to various universities they look at more than just your test score. There’s essays, extracurricular activities, teacher recommendations, etc that also add to your application. So to say that the student at University of Texas was rejected solely on the premise that she’s white, is completely baseless. I can only hope that the Supreme Court will also understand the value of diversity in schools/workplace made possible by affirmative action.

 We should not undervalue or underestimate the importance of diversity. It’s one the reasons I chose UM, even though it still remains a majority white school. But UM still tries to value the diversity of its students by enrolling people of not just different races but also nationalities. Affirmative action is still a work in progress as many universities remain overwhelmingly white but the positives of these policies can be seen  in not just our elected officials like the president but in business, entertainment, and sports.

I’m proud to be a voice for blacks and women on Counterpoint and I hope that our show continues to challenge and inspire not just our contributors but our listeners as well.

 

Below is a clip of our discussion on the subject during our live show.  Counterpoint airs live Fridays at 1pm ET. 

Counterpoint Clip: Affirmative Action by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

Counterpoint: April 12 | Margaret Thatcher, President Obama’s Budget

By WVUM News Staff | April 13th, 2013 | LEAVE A COMMENT

 

Meghan, Jordan, Alex, and Mike discuss the legacy of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and what lessons both the UK and US can draw from it. Also, the panel reacts to what is being seen as huge budget cuts and compromises on social security within the proposed Obama Administration budget released this week.

 

Counterpoint 4/12: Margaret Thatcher & President Obama’s Budget by Wvumnews on Mixcloud