Our communications on the internet, our browsing habits, our social media, etc. should all be free of government surveillance. Why? Because that is where a great deal of our lives takes place. The Internet has taken the place of television, radio and the public commons. It’s where we live.
Without privacy, it is difficult to have an effective life, a life worth living. A life under the microscope of government and private interests is a much diminished life.
James Alan Pilant
Internet privacy as important as human rights, says UNs Navi Pillay | World news | The Guardian
The UN general assembly unanimously voted last week to adopt a resolution, introduced by Germany and Brazil, stating that \”the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy\”. Brazils president, Dilma Rousseff, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, were among those spied on, according to the documents leaked by Snowden.The resolution called on the 193 UN member states \”to review their procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, with a view to upholding the right to privacy of all their obligations under international human rights law\”. It also directed Pillay to publish a report on the protection and promotion of privacy \”in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance … including on a mass scale\”. She told Berners-Lee it was \”very important that governments now want to discuss the matters of mass surveillance and right to privacy in a serious way\”.Berners-Lee has warned that online surveillance undermines confidence in the internet, and last week published an open letter, with more than 100 free speech groups and leading activists, to protest against the routine interception of data by governments around the world.
We have planted new ideas in the political discussion from outside the incompetent and insular beltway. And these ideas aren’t going away.
James Pilant
The Year in Inequality: Lots of words, but will actions follow? | Al Jazeera America
Occupy Wall Street began more than two years ago with a bang as loud as a thousand bongo drums. It essentially vanished from the public eye a few months later when New York police cordoned off Zuccotti Park and forcibly removed its new occupants under the cover of night and a media blackout.
But despite its quick end two years ago, the conversation Occupy started is just beginning to gain traction in the United States.
OWS members may no longer be on street corners, but the movement’s vocabulary of economic injustice, previously common only on college campuses, has become more accessible to a wide variety of Americans.
This year, as the disparity between rich and poor continued to grow to levels not seen since 1928, the nation’s new consciousness about the economy allowed income inequality to take hold of the country’s conscience.
Indeed, 2013 was the year of thinking and talking about income inequality.
From the article: “This is the Pope we have been waiting for a long time.”
Pope addresses first Christmas message to those hoping for better world | World news | theguardian.com
Pope Francis has addressed his first Christmas message to every man or woman \”who hopes for a better world, who cares for others while humbly seeking to do his or her duty\”.He appeared at the vast balcony at the front of St Peters basilica to be greeted by screams fit for a pop star. Below him in St Peters Square was a crowd brimming with enthusiasm for the new pontiff and his humble, ascetic and socially aware form of Catholicism.That view of his faith was at the heart of his address. \”Looking at the child in the manger, our thoughts turn to those children who are the most vulnerable, victims of wars, but we think too of the elderly, of battered women, of the sick,\” he said.\”He exemplifies what a pope should be,\” said Marian Merrett from Belleville, Ontario. \”Hes like Jesus. Jesus too fed the poor and cared for the sick. He exemplifies what Jesus stood for. He lives like Jesus.\”In his sermon at the Christmas Eve mass, Francis had returned to his favourite theme, declaring that the shepherds who according to the gospels were the first to see Jesus after his birth \”were the first because they were among the last, the outcast\”.\”This is the pope weve been waiting for for a long time,\” said Anna Maria Pistorio as she waited by the barriers erected in St Pet
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.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.