Union Rights

New Jersey, June 19 , 2012 – Don Vito Corleone has filed suit in federal court alleging that the State of New Jersey has abridged his rights. The whole point of organized crime, he argues, is lost if the state removes his right to enforce membership in the syndicate. The ability of crime bosses to break a few kneecaps is essential to maintaining unity in the family in their continuing struggle to protect their interests. If individuals were free to choose whether or not to join the organization, the system would encourage freeloading, where the mobsters could merely ride on the coattails of the godfather, without actually contributing to the fight. This situation, says Corleone, is intolerable.

The don, through a press release, emphasized the strong popular support organized crime enjoys in society, and warned New Jersey legislators that they would interfere in syndicate rights only to their peril. Thousands of Americans benefit from the services of prostitutes, illegal drugs, and gambling, and organized crime is an important source of jobs and prosperity.

The family has mounted a recall effort against the legislators who have attacked the rights of crime bosses. Campaign funds have poured in from the Cosa Nostra, which according to the US Supreme Courts, has the same free speech rights as any other person. “If New Jersey goes, it will only be a matter of time before the rights of criminal groups to organize are lost everywhere,” Corleone stated.

A Problem of Pronouns (Part 2)

The Hatfields and McCoys and the Abuse of “You” and “Me”

“You violated over one hundred Indian treaties” or “We failed to end slavery in this country until the middle of the 19^th century.”

A second problem of the (intentional) sloppy use of pronouns is the perpetuation of tribal conflicts. The statement, “We failed to end slavery until the mid 19th century” is meaningless. If the word “we” is replaced by “I” (first person singular), it can’t be true, since I wasn’t alive then. If it is replaced by “you” (everyone left in “we” when I am removed), then it is equally meaningless, since you weren’t alive then either.

A politically-correct use of the word “we” when referring to some historical sense of guilt can easily be corrected by substituting the word “I.” If it doesn’t make sense (“I interned the Japanese Americans during WWII” or “I displaced the Native Americans when I migrated westward”), then use of the word “we” isn’t appropriate either.

The pronoun “you” is even more problematic, because it is both singular (you as an individual) and plural (you and everyone like you). Its indiscriminate use automatically creates “us and them” divisions and class separation. “You discriminated against us.” “You invaded my country.” “You need to solve your problem with fatherless families.”

The use of “you” and “we” in this way can put the listener on the defensive, and create barriers to solutions to real problems. Consider instead the statement, “Due to historical patterns of discrimination, an African American child born in poverty has an especially difficult time achieving the American dream.” There isn’t any “you” and “we” here, or an implication that I personally discriminated against this child’s ancestors. It is more likely that the listener, as a fellow human being, will be more sympathetic to the plight of this child and open to solutions.

This isn’t to suggest that historic conflicts between races, tribal groups, or classes haven’t existed, or aren’t important. But solutions are more likely to come through appeals to common humanity and concern for others. When a speaker puts himself or herself in the “we” camp and the listener in the “you” camp, the divisions and conflicts are perpetuated.