It looks impressive but I have doubts as to its effectiveness. You can click on the picture and see it full size.
It took considerable chutzpah to sell this things to troops on the front. I hope it either worked or the troops got leave to discuss the item with the war profi — whoops, I mean, manufacturers.
James Pilant
It’s pretty, isn’t it!
James Pilant
The author argues that even without an agreed up objective standard of morality, there can still be a discussion of morality based on the “cultural constructions,” – how well the society succeeds in its purposes based on its ideas. This is a particularly significant passage –
What that leaves us with can vary depending on whom one talks to, but among other things, it is possible to critique cultural constructions from within their very constructedness without having to appeal to an objective standard. In fact it is the constructions themselves that are critiqued: arguments and their consequences are not without consequences simply because they are not objective. The real does not dissolve when dualism is questioned but becomes a part of discursive practices that have real effects on real beings whose discursive aspects do not render them less real or less prone to suffering.
I freely admit that I may not understand the argument as well as I should but I am delighted with the idea of still having a “common” ground discussion of a society even without an agreement on what form of morality should be the standard.
James Pilant
via blog@
This is a (fairly outraged and rightfully so) discussion of MERS, the electronic system used by the foreclosure industry to prove ownership of homes. Depending on the state, it proves a little or a lot. It appears as time has gone by that the faults of the system have become more and more obvious.
Of course, many who lost their homes to companies using this system never really got a day in court since this weakness in the ownership status has only recently become well known. This was not fair and that it produces strong feelings of rage and hopelessness is not surprising.
I hope the thoughts here can help some people get justice.
James Pilant
(When we speak of the Met, what is being referred to is the Metropolitan Police.)
One of the police officials who resigned on Monday had taken gifts and trips from the Murdoch holdings. Since the police are implicated in covering up the crimes of the News of the World and also implicated in providing the scandal sheets with information about crimes and victims, it is not surprising that in hind sight taking these gifts were a mistake.
From the essay – No official in the course of their job, should accept gifts, hospitality or other benefits of any value from anyone other than their employing agency without the explicit consent of their employer. In the vast majority of circumstances, the only reason anyone would give such benefits relates to the exercise of functions by that official – either before decisions are made or following the making of decisions. It is difficult to conceive of a gifting purpose unrelated to either “oiling the wheels” or to recognise the favourable way the wheels have turned for the person making the gift.
If a gift is to be accepted, that acceptance must be transparent. This involves open disclosure to a superior officer, the granting of approval, and formally recording the benefit in a publicly accessible register.
It would be difficult to say it better than this author in these paragraphs.
James Pilant
Here are some very challenging thoughts about basic cultural beliefs. Here is a key paragraph –
I was thinking in church today how often we make wild assumption about God acting via our state, and that the state is essentially a Good Thing. In fact, whilst it is entirely appropriate to question belief in a deity, it is sacrilege to question the assumption of the Great United Kingdom. Some of us might laugh at the USAmerican assumptions of moral goodness and influence in the world, yet the truth is that we also talk in this way. Not only is the state good because it is good to ‘us’ (in the process dismissing all those who do not experience good things from the state as being somehow outcasts), ‘we’ are agents of good in the world. To assume that our commitment to the gospel of Christ might be in conflict with the working of the state is to label ourselves as fanatical – possibly dangerous – fundamentalists.
This is tough and difficult for many to accept. But we should think about these things. The status of “city on a hill” is not given but earned.
James Pilant
This is marvelous. Here we have some subversive, original thinking about our current state of morality. Do the ends justify the means? Murdoch’s empire is a vicious example of raw power in action. It deserves some tough satire.
James Pilant
via QA
We do need a new vocabulary to discuss what is happening economically today. Take for example, the middle class, once a vibrant part of our society, has now diminished in numbers so much that it has divided. The current definition is so loose that those earning 300,000 dollars a year consider themselves middle class. There are those with millions of dollar in property consider themselves struggling citizens. The comedic beliefs are possible when once defined terms have collapsed into gibberish.
The middle class should probably be defined into a band roughly from 30K to 60K. Below this are the lower class; above this the upper middle class which ends at around 200K. Above this are the upper class. At one million dollars and above are the wealthy.
Please read the thoughts from NCPrism’s Blog.
James Pilant
via NCPrism’s Blog
In this articles, a British student thinks about the job market and the unemployed. This guy thinks his own way based on the data before him. In my opinion as an instructor, he may not make a lot of money, but he will spend his life in the world of ideas with a mind never subject to boredom because of inaction. He will live a life rich in thought and deed.
Maybe, just maybe, he hears the music of the spheres.
James Pilant
I read Paul Krugman’s columns in the New York Times on a daily basis. In this book, Krugman argues that government policy during the New Deal was responsible for creating a Middle Class society in the 1950’s and 1960’s and that if we so desire we can accomplish this again. He argues and I believe argues successfully that the destruction of American manufacturing, the decline of wages and the stagnation of our job opportunities are neither inevitable or the product of natural forces.
Here’s a nice paragraph –
A Progressive agenda, then, would require major changes in public policy, but it would be anything but radical. Its goal would be to complete the work of the New Deal, including expansion of social insurance to cover avoidable risks that have become vastly more important in recent decades. And as an economic matter, achieving that agenda would be eminently doable. It would amount to giving U.S. citizens no more than the level of protection from financial risk and personal misfortune that citizens of other advanced countries already have.
I am very much enjoying the book. If you want a copy you can go here on Amazon.
James Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.