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.
The difference in perception between book readers and those relying on other media is dramatic. Books convey a subject with considerable depth and sophistication. A post like this one is just too brief to cover a subject adequately but I, of course, have to work within the limitation of the media I’m using. Too few companies control too many books. How sad. How dangerous.
James Pilant
Books must stop being a sideshow to mass media | Al Jazeera America
An influential editor at Pantheon Books and later a founder of the New Press, Andre Schiffrin was an outspoken critic of the corporatization of publishing, which he saw as an attack on freedom of speech. With his death on Dec. 1 at 78, we lost one of the great publishing figures of the 20th century.
But his arguments still live — and they must. The merger between Penguin and Random House this year has created a giant company that will control 25 percent of the global book trade. The big five U.S. publishers — Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster — control roughly two-thirds of the U.S. consumer book publishing market. This narrowing of the industry to a few megapublishers threatens to marginalize novel ideas and place the world of books under corporate control.
In setting up the New Press and its public-interest mandate — to publish underrepresented voices and simultaneously reach out to an audience “intellectually red-lined” by commercial publishers — Schiffrin became a trailblazer for not-for-profit publishing.
Schiffrin also argued that books are a crucial (according to him, “just about the only”) venue for nonmainstream expression in the face of an increasingly corporate-owned press. He was the first, for example, to translate and publish Mich
This has got to be one of the shortest quotes I have ever used and one of the best. The pope wants pastors not bureaucrats. How sublime. Sometimes, the world changes for the better. It’s always nice to be watching at just that moment.
James Pilant
‘He Wants Pastors’ | Crooks and Liars
“The pope doesn’t want bureaucrats,” Galeazzi said. “He wants pastors.”
I’m not familiar with the term but it sounds like the reckless behavior associated in the United States with one of the degrees of manslaughter. Will any justice be done here? I don’t know. I intend to wait and see but I am confidant there were no real penalties for the American companies misusing this vulnerable population.
James Pilant
Bangladesh Factory Owners Charged In Deadly Fire
Police charged the owners of a Bangladeshi garment factory and 11 employees with culpable homicide Sunday for alleged negligence leading to the death of 112 workers in a raging fire that engulfed the factory last year.
It was the first time Bangladeshi authorities had sought to prosecute factory owners in the world\’s second-largest garment industry. A series of recent deadly disasters — including the Nov. 24, 2012, fire and a factory collapse in April that killed more than 1,100 workers — exposed how harsh and often unsafe conditions can be for many of the country\’s 4 million workers providing clothing to major Western retailers.
Affluenza: the latest excuse for the wealthy to do whatever they want | Jessica Luther | Comment is free | theguardian.com
The prosecutors had asked for Couch to receive 20 years in prison. Instead and as a result of the defense\’s argument, Judge Jean Boyd ordered Couch to a long-term, in-patient facility for therapy, no contact with his parents, and 10-years probation. His attorneys have stated that his parents have offered to pay for him to do his in-patient therapy at a center in Southern California that costs $450,000 a year. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Judge Boyd said that \”she is familiar with programs available in the Texas juvenile justice system and is aware that he might not get the kind of intensive therapy in a state-run program that he could receive at the California facility suggested by his attorneys. Boyd said she had sentenced other teens to state programs but they never actually got into those programs.\” Ethan Couch, therefore, will spend no time behind bars for killing four people and paralyzing another despite admitting guilt and despite the fact that the diagnosis the defense centered their case around – that of \”affluenza\” – is not even recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as an actual mental illness. On top of it, it appears that the judge found therapy and probation to be valid because his parents could pay for an expensive c
Pope says he is not a Marxist, but defends criticism of capitalism | World news | The Guardian
Pope Francis has rejected accusations from rightwing Americans that his teaching is Marxist, defending his criticisms of the capitalist system and urging more attention be given to the poor in a wide-ranging interview.In remarks to the Italian daily La Stampa, the Argentinian pontiff said the views he had espoused in his first apostolic exhortation last month – which the rightwing US radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked as \”dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong\” – were simply those of the church\’s social doctrine. Limbaugh described the pope\’s economics as \”pure Marxism\”.\”The ideology of Marxism is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don\’t feel offended,\” Francis was quoted as saying. Defending his criticism of the \”trickle-down\” theory of economics, he added: \”There was the promise that once the glass had become full it would overflow and the poor would benefit. But what happens is that when it\’s full to the brim, the glass magically grows, and thus nothing ever comes out for the poor … I repeat: I did not talk as a specialist but according to the social doctrine of the church. And this does not mean being a Marxist.\”
Steven Mintz, the Ethics Sage, has written a post on charitable giving. He has very kindly offered me the opportunity to put it up early. As always, I am privileged to be a party to his writing and his continued drive for ethics. (His web site is here!)
James Pilant
Global Survey: U.S. Now #1 in Charitable Giving: American Exceptionalism Lives On
The Ethics of Charitable Giving and the Goodness of Americans
The United States now ranks the highest in terms of charity in a comprehensive global survey conducted by Charities Aid Foundation (CAFAmerica), a member organization of the United Kingdom based Charities Aid Foundation International Network of Offices, providing charitable financial services to individuals, global corporations, charities, and foundations. The 2011 survey reflects an increase from fifth place (2010) to first place.
According to those surveyed, two out of three Americans said they donated money to charity (65 percent), more than two out of five volunteered their time (43 percent) and roughly three out of four helped a stranger (73 percent).
This is an impressive example of the goodness of the American people and one reason why the U.S. is a beacon of hope for so many in need of help to survive, to better themselves, and to thrive in an increasingly global competitive economy.
For the past five weeks I have blogged about the decline of ‘American Exceptionalism.’ From excessive and senseless violence, to fraud and corruption ingrained in our systems of government, to a declining work ethic and level of competency that goes along with it, to a perpetually troubled education system that is failing so many kids, to our inability to effectively establish an immigration reform program, the U.S. has remained stagnant and developed ineffective approaches to solving the most important problems of our time, especially those that deal with quality of life issues that are a symbol of an exceptional society.
This is why it is so heartening to me that the U.S. is the most giving nation in the world. Clearly, this is a sign of an exceptional society. From the Bill Gates’ and Donald Trumps’ to middle class Americans, to low-income people, the U.S. has a long record of helping others to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and provide a foundation to improve one’s lot in life.
We certainly do this for our own citizens. Think what you may of unemployment insurance, SNAP (i.e., food stamps), Medicaid, and other government assistance, these are programs that demonstrate the humanity Americans have as citizens towards their fellow citizens in need of a helping hand.
Returning to the CFA report “World Giving Index (WGI) 2011”, the second through fifth countries are all English-speaking — Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The four new countries in the top 20 compared to the 2010 WGI report are Thailand, Morocco, Nigeria and Liberia. Of these, Liberia has enjoyed the biggest rise from 39th to 14th place, although Morocco’s increase from 33rd to 12th is equally notable. Other major shifts in the rankings include the rise of the United Kingdom from eighth to fifth, and Thailand’s neighbor Laos moving to tenth place. Perhaps not surprising, although somewhat concerning given their rapid economic development in the past twenty years, China, Russia and India are among those near the bottom of the list.
The WGI report is based on over 150,000 Gallup polling interviews with members of the public in 153 countries. The 2011 report looks at three aspects of giving behavior of individuals in the preceding month, asking if they have donated money to a charity, volunteered time to an organization, or helped a stranger. The U.S. has shown a steady increase in each of the three measures over the past year, ranging from four percentage points ‘volunteering time’ and to eight percentage points ‘helping a stranger.’ It is this even progress across all three measures that underlie the country’s rise to the top of the Index.
Charitable giving does have an ethical component to it. Aristotle and Aquinas assessed it using such factors as the object of the action, the circumstances of the action, and the end of the action. Aristotle believed that the act of charity is a virtuous one if it is done for its own sake and not some external reward. Using the example of giving to charity, exercising the virtue of charity (or generosity) requires that the giving be done for the sake of giving. In other words, the charitable act should be done because of the commitment to aid others and the way it makes one feel inside, not for the sake of getting a tax break.
What about those who give because their religion demands it? Here, we need to examine why the religion holds such a position. Typically, it is for good reasons – to help others and express our humanity towards others. No doubt peer pressure works in these cases.
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher and central figure in modern philosophy, claimed that what matters morally is the good will and not what the good will accomplishes. Reasoning from that premise, if a person wills the moral law, then that is what matters. Whether the person accomplishes anything practical or not is not relevant to the ethics of the matter. In the case of a charity, what would presumably matter is that a person will in the appropriately good way and the consequences would not matter morally. This would certainly match the idea that what matters in a charity is that this will be shown by focusing on minimizing overhead and maximizing what goes to the charitable cause.
From a utilitarian perspective, what matters is not the intention of the giver, rather it is the consequences of one’s giving. If a large portion of one’s giving never gets to those in need, but is swallowed up by bureaucracy in administering the charity, then a utilitarian might reason the ends of giving and helping others do not justify giving freely of one’s own resources.
So, in this journey I have identified one very important reason why the U.S. is an exceptional nation. While it is true our government gives generously to many countries, there almost always is an ulterior motive for the giving making it less than a virtuous act. Our motive may be to win friends and influence people, or gain help in monitoring and controlling terrorism, or for us to help develop a country economically so its markets expand; business opportunities increase for American capitalists; and low-cost alternatives to needed products emerge to the benefit of the American consumer.
It is not government aid that makes us exceptional. In this season of joy and wonder we should remember that our charitable nature is linked to giving by the average citizen. This is the heart and soul of America – the essence of our giving spirit. We do so out of goodness, caring, compassion, and to help in the effort to wipe clean the image of starving people with little food and water to sustain themselves. This is the exceptionalism of America.
Ethics Sage — December 6, 2013
From around the web.
From the web site, Little Laos on the Prairie. (Which is just a fun site!)
Have a ‘sue kwan’ blessing for your first born and the Lao will come in droves. Your aunts, uncles, cousins and cousin’s cousins will shower you with lump sums of money and food. Have a fundraiser for a charitable cause like say, UXO removal, and maybe one or two Lao will show up with a few bucks to donate here and there. Beyond the excuse of being constantly broke, it’s the current reality of Lao American giving. It’s not to say that the Lao are terrible charitable givers, but it raises the discussion about what, how and why do Lao Americans give in the first place.
Dad said the true soul of Lao people consists of two main characteristics: humility and generosity. The Lao will cherish a single grain of rice under the most difficult financial times, yet they will tell you they don’t need any pity saving (or as some will call it “vow keu” aka they’re just pretend-saying that they don’t need saving, but really they want you to save them in some significant way).
The Lao in need don’t just need your money. They want a sustainable way of improving their livelihoods. Show them. Teach them. Provide them with resources and training. You’ll see how they pave the path towards prosperity on their own terms.
Monday was the last night with the flu. My sinuses are still swollen but that is my usual lot in life. I feel washed out like old denim but I will begin posting tomorrow night (Wednesday). I thank you, my kind readers, for your loyalty and forbearance.
My friend, Jayaraman Iyer, made this comment on one of my posts and I want to share it with all my readers.
James Pilant
“Yes, children do learn ethics in schools and No, they don’t learn to practice greed in the universities. You have to continue teach them business ethics. But they should learn how to measure ethics, subtler than the subtle.
First in the series of CREAM™ Report on Corporate Rating I have created a rating system on Hindustan Unilever that leads towards self-governance. JP Morgans, or Lehman Bros cannot be controlled but we can measure them with the published materials as to the extent of ethical values practiced within. We let them commit attrocities and try catch them. No, we have to have rating system on real-time.
CREAM™ Report on Corporate Rating on Hindustan Unilever is about 350 pages [A4] of 189 issue areas with no single issue analysed beyond a single page.The data is shrunk to arrive at their rating of 1,1,1,2,1, for the years 2008-09 onwards till date. With the optimum level of 5 the study suggests areas how they should work towards reaching self-governance.
The measurement methodology adopted is unique. I want universities and corporate to learn the technique of evaluating by ethical responsibility. It fetches more $ and better stability. Companies with better rating will attract the public to invest, as Paul Polman CEO of Unilever says: Increasingly consumers will vote with their wallets for companies that are just and equitable. More importantly the Society is benefited. We don’t need JP Morgans but we should learn how to create companies practicing self-governance as corporate culture.
Jayaraman Rajah Iyer is a Chartered Accountant from ICAI, New Delhi (1966) who has a unique insight into major changes in accounting in India’s history culled from experience with major firms across the globe. He interned at Hindustan Lever, worked his way up holding key positions at API and Mafatlals. He introduced the principle of Likely Ultimate Cost while appointed as Forestry Operations Accountant at Wimco. Leaving India in 1977 was appointed as General manager of ITI Nigeria, Lagos. Selected by Sir William Castell who is now the Chairman of the Wellcome trust, joined the Wellcome Foundation, UK to set right the accounting functions of Wellcome Nigeria. He had also been visiting faculty at SPJIMR, SIES School of Management, and Vivekananda School of Management where he taught Balanced Scorecard and Strategic Cost Management based on the Proprietary IBCM (Jayaraman owns the copyright to Inactivity Based Cost Management, 2006).
He is the son of the renowned educationalist late Rajah Iyer, Headmaster, policy maker and Member of the Legislative Council of Tamil Nadu till his death in 1974. Jayaraman’s Rajah Iyer Foundation provides a support system for teachers.
Beccaria says that punishment should be based on the harm done to society not the actor.
Which does more harm to society: 1) manipulating the companys books to reflect profits when in fact the company was losing money or 2) robbing a grocery store and taking $180 from the register while threatening a crowd of people with a firearm?
The collapse of the company caused the loss of all the employees pensions and benefits. The company had more than twenty thousand employees, many close to retirement. The profit and loss manipulations of the companys books made the officers of the companies, millionaires many times over.
Who does more harm to society? Why?
What punishment would be appropriate?
My Answer –
Manipulating the company’s books does more harm to society.
Retirees are probably between 50 and 70 at most companies. For many the loss of pensions will mean delayed retirement and years of more labor. For those unable to continue working, this means living off social security which average 1, 250 dollars a month. Generally speaking the elderly are sicker than the general populations and living on a tiny budget often means going without food, medicine or adequate housing. In these situations, the elderly may have to choose which prescriptions medicines to buy and which ones to try to live without.
But even more, these individuals thought that they would have a surplus of money beyond their basic needs. After all, they worked for it and sacrificed for it.
For these people, there will be no vacations, there will be no helping hand extended to children and grandchildren in need, there will be no retirement in Florida, or on the beach or the waterfront or in the mountains – just wherever it’s cheapest to live.
These retirees might live another ten or twenty years, every single night staring at the ceiling wondering whether there will be enough money for groceries or medicine. – ten or twenty years going without a car, not going anywhere, not ever eating out or going to a movie. Their pain is almost endless.
Yet, the person who cooked the books, who stole tens of millions of dollars, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars, will appear in court in a fine suit with fine recommendations from his wealthy and well placed friends. He is unlikely to spend much time in jail, and when in society, his friends and family will not ostracize him but welcome him back.
This second insult to society does far more harm than either crime in itself because this reprobate getting away with little or no penalty does serious harm to the moral fabric of society. This kind of “justice” harms us all.
Beccaria is very deliberate in his approach to analysis. He views the law as a tool for preventing violence and suffering, rather than a tool for punishment. He defines laws as “the terms under which independent and isolated men come together in society” (Williams 442). Rather than advocating for extreme individualism, he argues for some restrictions on freedom for the good of society as a whole. Beccaria views individuals outside of society as men who are “wearied by living in an unending state of war” whose freedom is made useless because there is “uncertainty of retaining it” (Williams 442). According to him, men sacrifice a certain degree of freedom in order to live in the sovereign of the nation and “the sovereign is the legitimate repository and administrator of these freedoms” (Williams 442).
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.