I am a 53 year old teacher. I have double major in Speech and Criminal Justice resulting in a Bachelor's degree from Northeastern State University in Oklahoma and a law degree.
Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews’ recent announcement that eligibility for the disability pension was to be tightened was a masterful demonstration of political weasel words.
Full marks to the speechwriter, it was a textbook example.
The first thing that Andrews did was to reclassify those on disability pensions. He did this by saying young people on the disability pension sat on couch all the watching television. The reclassification or label that comes with this description is “lazy” and this combines very nicely with “young”. So the new label is now “young and lazy.” It’s very easy for the idea of “young and lazy” to morph into the idea of “dole-bludger.” It’s also interesting to understand that and that the new labelling stresses the young and lazy idea and de-emphasises the idea of disability.
Once the re-labelling has been done it is necessary to construct a narrative to support it. This…
College and University eduction is under attack while at the same time beset by internal crises. The dramatic changes in society over the last decades have changed our class makeups. The economic changes have made colleges more expensive while state and federal aid has declined. And most bizarrely, we are engaged in a debate on whether or not liberal arts education is worthwhile.
Below are two different points of view. Please visit their web sites and read their posts in full.
Higher education also is in the midst of a crisis. Both citizenry and a growing number of work environments require the skills to navigate an increasingly rhetorical- and statistics-based world. But the social insistence on more college has expanded the number of student bodies with different needs, as well as redirected higher education’s focus to student retention and graduation rates. On one side, faculty now struggle not merely to deliver course content for diverse learning habits, but also to ensure diverse student engagement and in-depth content assimilation for an improved likelihood of continued student success. On the other side, academic professionals struggle to identify and resolve bottlenecks in the system and reach-out to previously ignored populations who could benefit from more education.
This re-imagining of higher education coincides with an economic crisis in which people need jobs and employers want higher-quality job candidates. In the face of rising student debt, students and their parents, legislators, and potential employers now question the value of higher education. Meanwhile, our computer-infused work environment demands greater technological and critical-thinking skills for even entry-level jobs — yes, even the jobs that can’t pay back the resulting debt. This conflict has resulted in new entrants in the market who then compete with at least the public colleges and universities, which have had to raise tuition to replace diminishing state funds.
Higher Education has, over the last year, been steadily and increasingly heading toward utter crisis. It is clear that this point has now been reached. Total cuts to university budgets will be over £1.5 billion. It is clear that the disaster set in motion by New Labour is being accelerated by the Conservative Coalition.
The Effects:
These are all stories reported by the BBC during the last five days:
Steven Mintz also known as The Ethics Sage has some thoughts on Sterling’s racial comments and their origin. As always, please go to his site and read the whole entry, stay for a time and enjoy some of his many other posts and then sign up as a follower to get first notice of new posts.
James Pilant
The Ethics Sage
Does Sterling’s Punishment fit the Crime? – Ethics Sage
I grew up in the 1960s and recall many arguments with my parents over the treatment of African-Americans in the U.S. The differences were not whether schools should be segregated or blacks should sit in the back of the bus or that businesses could refuse to serve black people. It wasn’t that blatant an offense that we disagreed about. It was the more subtle issues such as whether blacks were as capable as whites to make a success out of their lives and be contributing members of society or whether they could learn as well as whites or whether they have the same work ethic as whites. I tried my best to convince my parents that the differences they perceived which, in their minds, made blacks an inferior race were born out of a time when blacks were blatantly discriminated against. In other words, the mistreatment of blacks in America for so many years was the basis for thinking they could not accomplish what whites could. How could they at that time given their ability to progress and accomplish what whites had done was held down for such a long period of time.
The legacy of white folk treatment of blacks is marked by years of slavery in America. I believe discrimination still exists today and goes cuts deep into the very core of how we treat others. When I was growing up I remember some of my friends looked downward when a black person passed by or crossed to the other side of the street. This is the essence of racism and, today, we see it in stupid comments made by people such as Donald Sterling, the owner of the NBA franchise Los Angeles Clippers. …
I have personally been a Clippers fan for years now. Win or loss the Clippers are my team. One thing I have known for sometime is that Donald Sterling is a racist, I look back at the day that Baron Davis was the lead star of the team. Sterling would sit on the sidelines and harass him. Yep that’s right harass his own star player with racial slurs. Even when Davis said something it was swept under the rug. There have been numerous other accounts as well. Including settlements outside of court to keep things hush, hush.
This recent audio that has surfaced is truly saddening but there is a wider issue as a whole with the NBA owners in general. Anybody remember when Lebron James left Cleveland and his owner wrote a letter that stated he felt like he owned him personally. As if to imply he was his slave, oh yeah you all let that one pass because you were mad at Lebron. Right???
It was the movie, The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish, that made me a Bob Hoskins fan. Through comic circumstances his character winds up dubbing pornographic films. His female counterpart, making the “other sounds,” is played by Natasha Richardson. Through this unlikely partnership, he falls in love with her. The comic situation had me laughing until tears came to my eyes. There is something delightfully bizarre in two people making the sounds of sex and then falling in love.
I always look for actors who I think would be likable in real life. I always sensed a genuineness in him. I would have like to have met him. I’m sure he would have said something funny.
I saw him in a lot of movies. The first time I became aware of him was as the crusty sergeant in Zulu Dawn. Whatever he played he always stood out, a real individual.
He’s going to be missed. I’m going to miss him.
James Pilant
R.I.P. Bob Hoskins 1942-2014 – Salon.com
Bob Hoskins made Hollywood movies at the peak of his fame in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, but that wasn’t really who he was. As every obituary of the English actor published this week will note, Hoskins’ most widely seen role was probably Eddie Valiant, the toon-hating L.A. private eye in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” Robert Zemeckis’ influential hybrid of live action and animation. But Hoskins drawling his way through an American role never felt (or sounded) right to me. As a man and an actor, Hoskins was a Cockney down to his soul, a product of a bygone working-class London who grew up to become a key figure in the British film renaissance of the ‘80s.
If you look at Hoskins’ bio it will inform you he was born in the country, in the agricultural county of Suffolk, northeast of London. But the year was 1942, and any British person above a certain age will understand the context immediately. London was being bombed daily by the Luftwaffe, and a German invasion still seemed imminent. Pregnant women were routinely evacuated to small towns to give birth, and at the age of 2 weeks, infant Bob returned to the north London neighborhood of Finsbury Park (which, somewhat later, would produce John Lydon, aka Johnny Rotten).
Hoskins’ dad was a truck driver (and reportedly a member of the British Communist Party) and his mom taught nursery school; like most working-class British kids of his generation, Hoskins received only a very basic formal education and left school at age 15 to go to work. According to his own hyperbolic-sounding tales, he picked fruit on an Israeli kibbutz and took care of camels in Syria. An English teacher had apparently implanted a passion for the theater, and in 1972, at age 26, Hoskins accompanied an actor friend to an audition and wound up getting the leading part. He had never acted before in any context and had no training; the method acting so beloved by professionals, he would say later, was “a load of bollocks.”
A great actor has passed away at the age of 71 from complications brought on by Pneumonia. I’m serious by the way. Bob Hoskins may not have been appeared in as many films as Christopher Lee or be able to lay claim to the same level of fame as the great classical actors, Bela Lugosi or Boris Karloff for example but I have fond memories of his movies from my youth. I want to talk about two in particular here. An ode to you Mr. Hoskins.
The first of his films that I loved as a child was the semi-animated, semi-live action comedy “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”. This films was and still s hilarious. Bob plays the role of a surly investigator with a grudge against cartoons. This proves to be quite a problem when he lives in a world where the “toons” co-exist with real life people every day. He is the only hope of a cartoon rabbit called Roger to prove his innocence after being accused of murder.
What I loved about this film was the humour, which wasn’t afraid to go dark, the lighting, the music, the way the actors blended seamlessly with the animated characters, but most of all it was probably just the animated characters themselves. All the famous animated characters from way back made appearances, Buggs Bunny and Mickey Mouse even shared the screen for a scene, it was awesome! Now that I’m older I still find myself easily watching it anytime I need a laugh. Appreciation for a certain character in particular increased as I matured. Ohh Jessica Rabbit… Damn!
Mark Willen’s Blog, “Talking Ethics” has a new post about the basketball team owner, Donald Sterling. He lists five ethics failures associated with the scandal. As you can see with a quick glance at the quote from his blog below, I have only included the first two. That’s because I want you to go to his blog for the other three. I want you to visit, look around and maybe sign up as a follower or read some of his other postings.
He writes essays that I find interesting and enjoyable.
James Pilant
Five Ethical Failures in the Sterling Affair | Talking Ethics
The NBA’s decision to ban Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, is a reasonable first step, but it doesn’t begin to deal effectively with the underlying problems – or even address some of the ethical failures by the too-many actors involved.
Five separate failures immediately come to mind.
1. Sterling’s comments. Now that Sterling has acknowledged that it really is his voice on the tape, there can be no explaining or excusing his views, nor any separate ethical acts he committed be used to mitigate the harm. Racism is inherently unethical, and we’re all obliged to help limit its harm.
2. The NBA’s past actions. While the lifetime ban announced today and the move to end Sterling’s ownership of the Los Angeles Clippers is a big step in the right direction, one has to wonder why the NBA didn’t act a lot earlier. Sterling’s long history of racism was no secret to the league and the other owners. A string of lawsuits for sexual harassment and housing discrimination, including one that led to a $2.76 million settlement with the federal government, provided plenty of reasons to act a long time ago. …
These are sad days in the NBA playoffs this year, and not just because the Knicks did not make it (Knickstape). I’m sure by now everyone who is a fan of basketball and even those who are not, have heard the comments made by LA clipper owner Donald Sterling.
Sterling told his Black and Mexican girlfriend he does NOT want her bringing black people to his games including Magic Johnson in whom she took a Instagram photo with. This statement was recorded and is now being broadcasted all over. No action has been taken yet in any suspension or fine against Sterling. (Yet they will fine JR smith in a hurry for blinking too hard). Apparently they are running a full investigation. Which to me is pointless, it is him and we all know it. He has a very distinct voice so what are we investigating? Hopefully action will be taken sooner than later, as Adam Silver announces “it will move quickly”. Sterling has also been caught in the past making other racist like gestures.
I am positive there are many racist around us daily but as a owner of a NBA team, you should at least try to curve your hatred toward African Americans. The NBA is 78% black. It is horrifying to know that you can say such horrible things to a black woman about black people, when you work with and root for them everyday. What kind of person is Donald Sterling? I say the kind of person that needs to be not suspended, not fined but fired from his position as owner of the LA clippers. There is no room for racist in basketball. This is the one place everyone can come together and forget about color forget about anything. In this game you aren’t judged by who you are but how you can handle a ball. It’s a team.
There is a new organization called Open the Books (this is their Facebook page) which is providing dollar amounts in expenditures in state and federal governments. I will be watching the development of their organization with interest. This first publication that I am aware of, is pretty striking. (It’s the one specifying the 1.2 trillion dollar corporate welfare and that number appears to be only partial.) Certainly, this amount dwarfs the amount spent on education or aid to the poor. And yet while those things are the subject of continuous debate, this kind of expenditure seems by comparison to be little considered.
Maybe that will change now with these new reports.
James Pilant
New Report: Fortune 100 Companies Have Received $1.2 Trillion in Corporate Welfare Recently
Posted by talesfromthelou on March 21, 2014
By Aaron Cantu
AlterNet
Bank of America.(Photo: Stefan Georgi / Flickr)Military contractors, oil companies and banks are the biggest ‘welfare queens’ around.
Most of us are aware that the government gives mountains of cash to powerful corporations in the form of tax breaks, grants, loans and subsidies–what some have called “corporate welfare.” However, little has been revealed about exactly how much money Washington is forking over to mega businesses.
Until now.
A new venture called Open the Books, based in Illinois, was founded with a mission to bring transparency to how the federal budget is spent. And what they found is shocking: between 2000 and 2012, the top Fortune 100 companies received $1.2 trillion from the government. That doesn’t include all the billions of dollars doled out to housing, auto and banking enterprises in 2008-2009, nor does it include ethanol subsidies to agribusiness or tax breaks for wind turbine makers.
What Open the Book’s forthcoming report does reveal is that the most valuable contracts between the government and private firms were for military procrument deals, including Lockheed Martin ($392 billion), General Dynamics ($170 billion), and United Technologies ($73 billion).
It is a primary item of faith among conservatives that the reason we must not have a social system that helps the poor is that poverty is caused by inner-city blacks who refuse to work, belong to gangs, sell and use drugs, are unwed mothers, and so on. All they want to do is live in luxury on the welfare checks we pay for. This is presumed to be because they are naturally inferior and lazy, an argument that is older than slavery. (Every single one of these beliefs is provably false, of course.)
One thing never seems to be discussed: The entire cost to support poor people comes to about $58 billion, most of which would go away if it were possible for the poor to earn a living wage.
This is what the twelve trillion corporate welfare looks like: $12,000,000,000,000.
It seems unreasonable that anyone should receive undeserved money from the government, and the righteous right has been ranting about it since the dawn of time. All this ranting, however, doesn’t prevent the red states from using more federal aid than they contribute, which sounds like undeserved welfare to me.
Plus, for unknown reasons, the right doesn’t rant about the $12 trillion in corporate welfare that the 100 wealthiest companies and their very wealthy officers have received recently. It was handed to rich corporations gratis over the past twelve years, a trillion a year. The $58 billion social welfare cost they object to is 0.06% of one year’s worth of corporate welfare. That’s six hundredths of one percent, an amount that’s less than a typical rounding error.
David Yamada touches upon one of the great tragedies of our time. The new generation is facing a wold in which doing vital, meaningful, satisfying work is not possible. We live in a time where any employment is difficult to find, where job security is a joke and where casual cruelty often substitutes for leadership.
I often wonder how people can seriously talk about an entitlement generation when we live in such times. The new generation faces a future beset by underemployment, high student debt and economic stagnation. Is that what they are entitled to?
Please read Yamada’s work and sign up as a follower on his excellent blog.
James Pilant
For many, the economic meltdown means shelving the idea of a true vocation « Minding the Workplace
In The Four Purposes of Life (2011), Dan Millman identifies a cluster of key criteria for developing a career:
“Do I find the work satisfying?”
“Can I make good money?”
“Does it provide a useful service?”
Some might add factors such as work-life balance, geographic location, and the like, but overall, I’d say that Millman’s three criteria are useful guideposts for most people. And during much of the last half of the 20th century, as America’s post-WWII economy went into high gear and fueled the nation’s growing middle class, having some choice over one’s vocation became a realistic option. Against the backdrop of a robust economy and labor market, people could start thinking about work as being more than a source of income.
Today, however, the scarcity of good jobs is limiting our vistas considerably. Especially for those who have struggled with layoffs and unemployment, finding work that “merely” pays the bills understandably outpaces job satisfaction and notions of service as individual priorities. Millions are just trying to get by.
Is the cliché that all good things, or bad things, come in threes? Never mind, I can’t dictate it for you and you’re likely to take my question as rhetorical. Beginning a blog post with a cliché aside, I figured it was time to update my journey through joblessness. This will be my third and hopefully final post on the subject, unless you count my Gold Coast amendment post made after some criticism I received in relation to comments I made about my dear city in The Year of Living Idly – The Negatives. It will also, which I thought was appropriate, be my third and final, for a while at least, phone blog (or “phlog”). And I’ll presume any criticism of those previous two to be either withheld or still pending.
I have actually worked since initially becoming unemployed in July 2012, but have remained on the dole ever since early in 2013 – after I returned from three months’ glorious yet aimless travelling. Technically, I am now working but I don’t count it because it is only for two days per week, and it is work for the dole. I spend my Wednesdays and Thursdays or Thursdays and Fridays helping cook crisis meals for the disadvantaged and maintaining an about an acre property run by a Christian church. With other unemployed people. Depending on my mood, I either think it’s great or loathe it – just like real work. And my best prospect for some paid employment at the moment is blueberry picking, which was mentioned as an opportunity by my work for the dole supervisor. The system works. Or at least, it might. Such is life.
The blog’s first post is dated April 27th of this year. I like what they have said so far and have my own reservations about corporate control of government. I’ve noticed that they tend to be “outspoken.” Some would use the term, shrill. But I’ve been called shrill myself and sometimes it is very difficult not to be outraged by the things going on in this country.
Please go have a look at this new blog and see what you think. As an example I’ve reprinted their first posting below.
Our blog should start with a bang, and what bigger bang is there than a peer reviewed paper that outlines how the US is now an oligarchy?
To put simply, an oligarchy is a government that is ran by a handful of people. In the case of the US, the government is ran by the 1%. Those “Americans” who can open their pocket books, resources, and offer 6 to 7 figures positions to legislators, judges, cabinet members, and so on, in exchange for massive deregulation, bailouts, and even wars in order to feed their insatiable appetite for profit and power. These “Americans” pull the strings in the US and they don’t give a shit about you.
One of my lasting lessons from political science is that every major society has a pyramid structure in regards to wealth and power. The United States is no exception to this distribution pattern. However, the United States is also supposed to be a democratic society—which seems rather inconsistent with the pyramid.
While the United States does have the mechanisms of democracy, such as voting, it might be wondered whether the United States is democratic or oligarchic (or plutocratic) in nature. While people might turn to how they feel about this matter, such feelings and related anecdotes do not provide proof. So, for example, a leftist who thinks the rich rule the country and who feels oppressed by the plutocracy does not prove her belief by appealing to her feelings or anecdotes about the rich. Likewise, a conservative who thinks that America is a great democracy and feels good about the rich does not prove her belief by appealing to her feelings or anecdotes about the rich.
What is needed is a proper study to determine how the system works. One rather obvious way to determine the degree of democracy is to compare the expressed preferences of citizens with the political results. If the political results generally correspond to the preferences of the majority, then this is a reasonable (but not infallible) indicator that the system is democratic. If the political results generally favor the minority that is rich and powerful while going against the preferences of the less wealthy majority, then this would be a reasonable (but not infallible) indicator that the system is oligarchic (or plutocratic). After all, to the degree that a system is democratic, the majority should have their preferences enacted into law and policy—even when this goes against the wishes of the rich. To the degree that the system is oligarchic, then the minority of elites should get their way—even when this goes against the preferences of the majority.
Knights in Armor and Americans Weigh about the Same?
Percherons are being used for Americans who want to be entertained by riding horses. Percherons, the horses bred as war horses for the heavily armored knights of Europe are necessary to move obese Americans. Historically, in America during the old west, they were used for pulling stage coaches. Now they are necessary for moving single Americans.
James Pilant
Big riders mean bigger horses on US’s western trails | World news | theguardian.com
Wranglers in the US west who have for decades cashed in on the allure of getting on a horse and setting out on an open trail say they have had to add bigger horses to their stables to help carry larger tourists over the rugged terrain.
The ranches say they are using draft horses, the diesels of the horse world, in ever greater numbers to make sure they don’t lose out on income from potential customers of any size who come out to get closer to the west of yesteryear.
“Even though a person might be overweight, or, you know, heavier than the average American, it’s kind of nice we can provide a situation where they can ride with their family,” said wrangler T James “Doc” Humphrey.
Humphrey’s 10-gallon hat, goatee, black vest and spurs are a tourist favorite at Sombrero Ranches, east of Rocky Mountain National Park, where they have 20 draft horses, including Belgians and Percherons, and 25 draft horses mixes.
Ranch operators say they began adding the bigger horses in the 1990s, but the pace has picked up in recent years. Over the last 20 years, obesity has increased to more than a third of adults and about 17% of children age 2 to 19, according to federal statistics.
New York was one of the first US cities to propose a tax on sugary drinks – it was never implemented. However, in recognition of the problem of overweight and obesity among NYC residents, the city health department has a strong focus on addressing this issue. There is an impressive range of strategies and programs in place to encourage people to reduce the amount of unhealthy food consumed, create environments to support people to eat healthy food and to encourage active living. Sugar drinks have been singled out for attention because of their large contribution to added sugar in the diet, the calories they provide and resulting overweight and obesity. The city is one of a number in the US which has run a social marketing campaign since 2009 around sugar drinks to change behavior, particularly in adults and highlight how much sugar is in these drinks and their impact on health. The aim is to highlight the impact of sugary drinks on their risk of developing diseases like diabetes and heart disease, and to encourage people to switch to beverages without sugar instead.
It is my pleasure to publish a posting from The Ethics Sage. As always, I recommend you visit his site and sign up as a follower so you will be notified of each of his postings. I consider him a most capable colleague in the field of business ethics and hope you visit his site often.
James Pilant
The Ethics Sage
What does it take to make Ethical Decisions in the Workplace?
I often discuss ethical decision making in my Accounting Ethics class because accountants and auditors are part of the internal organization structure and have an important role in preventing and detecting misconduct (i.e., occupational and financial statement fraud). I typically start by discussing virtue ethics that posits ethical people possess certain character traits that pre-dispose them to do the right thing when conflicts arise or ethical dilemmas exist. I favor virtue ethics because it provides a basis for evaluating the decision as ethical, which traditional philosophical reasoning methods do as well, and also it can be used to evaluate the ethics of the person making the decision. In other words, ethical decisions and decision-makers reflect honesty, integrity, fairness, due care, and responsibility and accountability in decision making.
One model I draw on to support the discussion is James Rest’s Model of Moral Development. In 1983, Rest proposed a four-stage model of the ethical decision-making process that links to the cognitive processes that individuals use in ethical decision making; that is, it depicts how an individual first identifies an ethical dilemma and reasons through what is the right thing to do, and then continues through her intention and finally courage to act ethically. Here is a brief outline of the model.
Moral Sensitivity
The first step in moral behavior requires that the individual interpret the situation as moral by noticing the moral features of the decision. A moral person ought to have a certain preference about how to behave and then ought to behave in accordance with that preference. Moral features are built around consideration of how our actions affect others and whether we respect the rights of others in decision making.
Moral Judgment
Moral judgment entails finding the ideal solution to an ethical dilemma. It starts with cognition, the process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. It continues by making assumptions and emphasizing some things over others. Typically, philosophical reasoning methods help in the process. An integral part of virtue ethics is the application of practical wisdom, gained through years of experience and developing good habits.
Moral Motivation
Moral motivation reflects the degree of commitment to taking the moral course of action, valuing moral values over other values, and taking personal responsibility for moral outcomes. Moral motivation reflects an individual’s willingness to place ethical values (e.g., honesty, integrity, trustworthiness) ahead of non-ethical values (e.g., wealth and fame) that relate to self-interest. A whistleblower who acts out of moral intent is willing to accept the risk of retaliation in order to follow her ethical beliefs.
Moral Character
Individuals do not always behave in accordance with their ethical intention. The whistleblower may know what the right thing to do is but lack the moral courage to do it. Rest describes moral character as persistence in completing a moral task, having courage, over-coming temptation, and implementing processes that serve a moral goal. A person with a strong ethical character is more likely to carry out ethical intentions with ethical action than one with a weak character because she is better able to withstand pressures from higher-ups in the organization to overlook wrongdoing.
Here are some tips in making ethical decisions in the workplace.
1. Consider how your actions affect others. All decisions have stakeholder effects and ethical people consider how those parties will be affected if I they decide to do one thing or another. 2. Do no harm. Your actions and decisions should never harm another party. One exception is whistleblowing where the greater good may dictate that a decision-maker should report wrongdoing whenever the action of one party harms others (i.e., investors and creditors). A good example is fraudulent financial statements where, under certain circumstances, the accountant or auditor should blow the whistle on fraud by contacting the SEC. 3. Make decisions that are universal. That is, ask yourself whether you would want others to resolve the conflict by taking the same action you are about to take for similar reasons in similar situations. If the answer is ‘yes,’ then your actions have universal appeal. Universality requires that your decisions respect the rights of others. 4. Reflect before deciding. As a final step, think about how you would feel if your actions and decisions appear on the front pages of a newspaper. Would you be proud to defend them; explain them to loved ones; follow-up with ethical behavior in the workplace?
The reason virtue ethics is an excellent tool of ethical decision-making is no matter how “good” an individual wants to be, in the workplace competing forces come into play such as loyalty to one’s supervisor or the organization. It takes a person of courage – integrity – to place the good of others (i.e., public interest) ahead of one’s own self-interest and that of one’s employer. Virtue ethics recognizes that the person must be honest, trustworthy, and fair-minded, and so on for the decision itself to reflect these characteristics.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.