Look, if this had been a once-off, or a first offense for Searls I might not be as upset. But, it wasn’t, and it’s not. He worked his con three times over the course of two years. That’s not making a mistake, or a single offense. He intentionally targeted people in and around the autism community. Let’s face it, autism research just isn’t sexy. The people who typically buy fund-raising raffle tickets are those with loved ones diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, or someone who knows someone like that. These are people who are already financial stretched. And he did this with the promise that the proceeds would go to fund autism research. Which also gives false hope to those buying the tickets, as well as to the charity expecting the money.
In addition to Searles’ scam not being an isolated incident, this isn’t the fist time he’s been caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar. According to the Olympian article, “ In 2011, Searles was the subject of a court order in Washington barring him from acting as a mortgage broker because he violated the Mortgage Broker Practices Act.” He was also issued a cease and desist order in regards to any kind of solicitation in the state of Washington.
I’m unhappy with the sentence in this case, 90 days home confinement and a $5,000 dollar fine. He’s a repeat offender and he gathered up 277 thousand dollars with this scam. I have seen white collar crime punished more lightly than virtually any other crime imaginable over the course of my life. It is so unfair. Shouldn’t penalties be assessed in some measure on the harm done and less on the social class of the perp?
The next mayor of New York, if he or she is to do a good job, will have to say “no” a lot. “No” to public employee unions who want a retroactive raise the city can’t afford. “No” to city councilmembers who will try to spend every tax dollar that comes in instead of rebuilding the city’s reserve funds. “No” to NIMBYs who don’t want anything new built in their neighborhoods. “No” to commuters seeking relief from fare increases, bridge tolls, parking fines, and an alleged “war on cars.”
Now, I will note that as far as I know, Josh Barro has not personally killed any kittens. He merely advocates that others do it, a candidate for major in particular, pointing out the “real New Yorkers” don’t care about this. I have had the pleasure of meeting New Yorkers and those have I met strike me as a compassionate and worthy lot. Perhaps he meets a different group.
New York does not need a mayor with the “resolve” to kill kittens. New York is not yet a business theocracy where order is preferred over the democratic rabble. Those kitten lovers, those unions, those neighborhoods are constituents in a democracy. They have a voice. They deserve that voice. They participate in society. They pay taxes and obey the laws. That they don’t meet the standards of Josh Baro is not a legitimate reason to disenfranchise or ignore them.
There is a certain implication here that killing kittens, ignoring unions and overruling local populations is a matter of courage. I often hear that acting in defiance of the wishes of those that elected you, for instance, cutting medicare and social security, is a matter of resolve and courage. No, it’s a matter of acting anti-democratically. It’s a matter of denying necessary benefits long proven successful because it disempowers millions of Americans and making them subject to the whims of our “betters.”
We can safely assume that the title of the article is meant to be provocative. I’ll buy that. But I think he means it. And I have seen a number of kitten hating blogs take up the cry and I find this depressing. There is a place for compassion and kindness and I believe that what “real New Yorkers” believe is far more varied than Josh Barro’s friends in the business community.
How can we have business ethics if we live in a country where order and profits (saving time by running over kittens with subway trains) trump moral and compassionate concerns? We might as well fold up our ethics tents and drift away in the night.
I have seen a good number of ethics professors and textbooks explain that business ethics is actually profitable. Businesses that practice ethics have greater customer trust and loyalty, and over time this and other ethics practices produce profits. I don’t doubt this for a moment but it misses the point of ethics. We do it not because it is profitable but because it is right. We do it because we want to live with some sense of purpose beyond counting our money and giggling like Bond villains.
Ruthlessness and profits above all other values are popular right now with the one percent. That you and I are not wealthy is a sign of our unworthiness. But we in the middle class, who do the work, who sacrifice for our values, and who do the jobs of fireman, teaching and policeman are the heart of the nation, the ones that make this country work. I have nothing but pride for being one of those citizens.
Four Percent of Americans think that the U.S. is winning the war on drugs.
The number of Americans who support the War on Drugs is getting lower and lower. In the most recent poll by Rasmussen, only four percent said they think the United States is winning the War on Drugs. That’s down from 7 percent in November. The number who think the United States is losing remains steady at an overwhelming 82 percent, with 13 percent undecided.
The so-called “War on Drugs” declared by President Richard Nixon in 1971, has turned out to be an expensive and violent international prohibition endeavor, that, more than 40 years later, is partially to blame for the United States’ bloated prison population.
Americans continue to overwhelmingly believe the so-called war on drugs is failing, but they are more divided on how much the United States should be spending on it.
Just four percent (4%) of American Adults believe the United States is winning the war on drugs, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Eighty-two percent (82%) disagree. Another 13% are undecided.
I’m puzzled. Four percent still don’t get it? Did they misread the question?
Of course, it is important to note how many Americans do get it, do realize that this is a doomed endeavor that on any cost benefit analysis has been a loser for a very long time.
We’ve packed prisons that we built with desperately needed tax fund. Tax funds that were diverted from colleges, universities, schools, roads, parks, social services, etc. We’ve taken our police who we have taught our children should be treated as friends and transformed then into semi-mercenaries dressed like commandoes in a B move. Kevlar armored, camouflage uniformed, black helmeted, soldiers carrying automatic weapons do not conjure up pictures of Andy Griffith as sheriff of Mayberry. They look remarkably like soldiers on a mission. That’s not police or policing.
You see, police work with the support of the public. They defend and serve. When talking to regular citizens who are not committing crimes they are respectful and can even be kind.
Soldiers maintain order and their power doesn’t come from respect except the respect accorded the barrel of a gun. They don’t talk to you. They order you.
And the regular police have become more and more militant as a result of our failed drug wars. They are now much more violent in their own “defense,” that is, shooting family pets.
The really sad thing about the police shooting of dogs is how little time it took me to come up with that many.
Let’s call an end to the war on drugs, license them, regulate them, tax them – let’s do something else. We don’t have to live in a militarized society afraid of the police and under surveillance.
The war on Drugs intensified during the Nixon Era.
In 2010, about 200 million people took illegal drugs. The numbers have remained relatively constant for years, as has the estimated annual volume of drugs produced worldwide: 40,000 tons of marijuana, 800 tons of cocaine and 500 tons of heroin. What has increased, however, is the cost of this endless war.
Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In the early 1970s, the Nixon administration pumped about $100 million into drug control. Today, under President Barack Obama, that figure is $15 billion — more than 30 times as much when adjusted for inflation. There is even a rough estimate of the direct and indirect costs of the 40-plus years of the drug war: $1 trillion in the United States alone.
In Mexico, some 60,000 people have died in the drug war in the last six years. US prisons are full of marijuana smokers, the Taliban in Afghanistan still use drug money to pay for their weapons, and experts say China is the drug country of the future.
From the web site, What’s the Truth? (I used almost half the post and I fell guilty about using that much. I hope the site owner will cut me some slack!)
Let me start this out by saying I don’t do drugs, I have no interest in doing drugs. With that said, it is none of our business if other people want to do drugs. Whether their drug is alcohol, weed, or even the heavier stuff, the fact remains they made a choice to do them, and the we can not tell them how to live their private life. When the only victim of the crime is the person committing the crime, it isn’t a crime. That’s would be like saying eating too much is a crime.
According to the federal database on crime, in 2011, over 20% of the people in jail were there for either drug possession or drug distribution.
Percentage of State and Federal Prisoners
Offense
1974
1986
1997
2000
2008
2010
Violent
52.5%
64.2%
46.4%
47.2%
47.3%
47.7%
Property
33.3%
22.9%
14%
19.1%
17.0%
16.7%
Drug
10.4%
8.8%
26.9%
25.3%
22.4%
21.7%
Public-order
1.9%
3.3%
8.9%
7.8%
11.9%
13.4%
Other/unspecified
2.0%
0.9%
3.7%
0.4%
1.2%
0.6%
1/5 of the prison population are in there for a victim-less crime. There were over 2 million people in total incarcerated in 2011. 1/5 of 2 million is 400 thousand. According to this chart it costs on average about $47,000 to jail each prisoner. So if you do the math, that means America spent over $18 BILLION on non violent, victim-less crimes. Seems like a waste to me. Prisons shouldn’t be used for social engineering. You cant use it to change people, and scare them out of using drugs. Despite the threat of jail time over 15 Million still smoke weed. Now some of those people smoke weed for medical reasons, but a lot of them smoke for recreation. Clearly people aren’t threatened by the idea of going to jail.
From the web site, The Fix. ( I, too, fine the militarization of the police and the use of military forces for police work to be troubling phenomenon. When does the defender of the public become a soldier and what does that imply for we, the citizens?)
When 150 New York state troopers, U.S. Marshalls and local city police officers rounded up 52 suspects in a massive multi-city drug raid in the early morning hours of Tuesday, March 27; five members of the New York National Guard Counterdrug Task Force gave themselves a silent pat on the back for a job well done.
The New York National Guard provides law enforcement agencies with equipment and staff to help with intelligence and surveillance. According to the NGCTF website (yes, they have a website), they’ve assisted in raids that have confiscated about $68 million of cash and contraband, and led to the arrest of “just under” 950 people. That yields about $72,000 per person arrested. This assistance includes the use of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft equipped with infrared cameras. Infrared cameras use heat emitted by objects to create an image. Heat signatures can give away the location of drug labs, grow operations, and illegal plants hidden amongst legal crops.
The ethics of using Adderall are relatively clear cut. It provides a competitive advantage, which in and of itself is not a crime. However, the edge is gained in an illegal manner. When I try to make this point to students, I am met with the explanation that gaining a competitive advantage is a long-used technique to get ahead in college.
In debates about the issue, one student asks what is the difference between the use of Adderall and downing an over-the-counter medication such as No-Doz? No-Doz is a caffeine tablet that can help relieve mental fatigue and drowsiness and assist in remaining alert and wide awake so that the user can stay productive throughout the day. No-Doz tablets contain 100mg of caffeine or approximately the same amount as a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, the illegality of how Adderall has been obtained versus the legality of buying No-Doz falls on deaf ears because my students are great at rationalizing unethical action by dismissing illegalities or somehow thinking the rules do not apply to them.
The truth is, as I see it, today’s students are more concerned with an egoistic ethic – how one’s actions improve one’s performance – rather than accepting that societal norms do exist [even though they seem to be slowly disappearing]. Students can be oblivious to basic values of honesty (lying when questioned about the use of Adderall); accepting responsibility for one’s actions (blaming it on the teacher’s excessive demands in class or overly-difficult exams); and basic fairness (other students are playing by the rules and don’t have the same competitive edge).
It’s a good ethical analysis. Please go to the web site and read the whole thing.
Adderall is widely reported to increase alertness, libido, concentration and overall cognitive performance while decreasing user fatigue
That bombshell in a nutshell: Take Adderall—Feel amazing.
“Amazing,” says “Kerry,” 21 year old female student at Florida State University. “That’s how it feels the first time you take it. Like, when I was younger, I remember all that ‘Don’t Do Drugs’ and ‘Just Say No’ D.A.R.E. crap, and I remember thinking, ‘Oh okay, well I’ll just not do drugs and I’ll be okay, right?’ Then my brother gets a prescription for Ritalin, and even as a kid I remember thinking, ‘Wait, what’s the difference between this stuff and the stuff on the streets?’ and so in high school I remember I took Adderall, and I just felt amazing—like I could do anything, you know? That’s the only way I can think to describe it right now.”
A less enthusiastic counter to this is recalled in a recent conversation I had via instant message with “Max,” aged 22, who discusses his prior illicit usage of the drug. “Amphetamines make people schizophrenic,” he writes me. He regales a point in his life where he would snort cocaine, drive at high speeds whilst simultaneously high on Adderall (‘Addy’), caffeine, and cannabis. Drug User Soup. He says he’s been off drugs for awhile; he still drinks occasionally but for Max it seems that days of excess are far behind him. “It’s just nice,” I remember him saying to me, “to not have to wonder anymore what’s real and what’s not real.”
From the web site, Concerta, Profiderall or Adderall.
There are a lot of medicines prescribed to relieve Attention deficit disorder such as Ritalin, Adderall, Vyance or Concerta but all those medicine is seldom are available in the pharmacy Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta and, Vyvance would be the most common medications which might be recommended by medical professionals for treatment of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, even though more often than not they’re not easily available. Then again exactly what are these particular medicines? The typical denominator with regard to these types of medicines is methylphenidate. This particular ingredient is definitely a stimulant which regulates the quantity of receptors that could be located inside the mind. Problem is, these kinds of medicines had been made for people with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder along with other central nervous system conditions ( including narcolepsy), not intended for pupils searching to boost their very own encounter. Certainly , there is a great large risk in getting these types of prescription medicines when a person are not really specially approved these, such as anxiousness, danger of reliance, mood shifts and also seizures Seizures! The main problem of utilizing medicines which contain this particular stimulant is the fact that you can get an unpredictable alter of disposition, anxiety, cravings and seizures.
From the web site, Which study drug is the greatest.
Obviously, a number of options are for sale for treating ADHD, but it is difficult to stumble upon just one of theme…things such as Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta and, Vyvance. But exactly how are these drugs distinctive from each other? Well, there is hardly no distinction between these drugs since they all contain methylphenidate — a stimulant used for the central nervous system. Basically, it’s function will be to control the number of cognitive receptors inside our brains. The main problem is, these drugs are designed for A.D.H.D patients along with other illness just like narcelepsy, not for students attempting to enhance their mental alertness. You will for sure threat yourself having anxiety, addiction, emotional dissorders and seizures. Seizures!
Unexpectedly, methylphenidate also causes serious heart related illnesses like cardiac arrest or even immediate death. I’m up for excellent grades, however , not at that cost. The benefits are certainly not worth the risks, particularly for graduating university students taking a lot more than the recommended dossage. So give me another option.
Frantic efforts to contain radioactive leaks at the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have been dealt another blow after its operator said about 300 tonnes of highly contaminated water had seeped out of a storage tank at the site.
The leak is the worst such incident since the March 2011 meltdown and is separate from the contaminated water leaks, also of about 300 tonnes a day, reported recently.
Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) said it did not know how the water leaked out or where it had leaked to, but it believed that the spillage had not flowed into the Pacific ocean.
Tepco’s spokesman, Masayuki Ono, said the water had seeped into the ground after breaching a concrete and sandbag barrier around the tank. Workers were pumping out the puddle and removing the remaining water from the tank, he added. Despite efforts to contain the spillage, the leak is already the most severe since the crisis began.
This is the worst leak since the 2011 disaster. Fukushima after the disastrous tsunami was a major disaster. It was on the news every day.
Now it’s slow motion disaster. Leakage continues into the ocean while experts solemnly intone that we shouldn’t worry because the ocean is big.
This is business ethics at its worse. A nuclear power plant was built on the coast near an earthquake fault. The safety systems we were repeatedly assured would never fail failed. We don’t find out from the government or the industry that there is a problem. The news media discovers the serious nature of the crisis. A corrupt industry downplays the incident with government connivance. As the disaster worsens, the lies and incompetence become more and more obvious, and gradually it becomes obvious that when confronted by a disaster, the nuclear industry simply has no idea how to fix the problem. This is contrary to what the industry has been saying for decades.
Remember, just repeat, “Nuclear industry is the future. It’s safe and cost effective. Only a handful of people have died in the rare nuclear accident compared to thousands in the coal industry. It’s only fearmongers and environmental cranks who oppose this future.”
See, after a while you feel better about everything?
Highly radioactive water from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is leaking into the ocean creating an “emergency” that the operator, TEPCO, may be unable to contain, said an official from the country’s nuclear watchdog.
“This contaminated groundwater has breached an underground barrier, is rising toward the surface and is exceeding legal limits of radioactive discharge, Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) task force,” told Reuters.
Tokyo Electric Power Co’s “sense of crisis is weak,” Kinjo said. “This is why you can’t just leave it up to Tepco alone” to deal with the ongoing disaster.
“Right now, we have an emergency,” he said.
A total of up to 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium may have leaked into the ocean since the disaster, said TEPCO, insisting that it was within legal limits.
Two and a half years after the Fukashima tragedy Japan does not want to admit how serious it is, but it is obvious the drastic environmental implications are to follow, Harvey Wasserman, journalist and advocate for renewable energy, told RT.
RT: Japanese officials have admitted a leak at Fukushima has been happening for two years and is worse than earlier thought. Why did it take so long to evaluate the actual repercussions of the tragedy and take decisive measures to tackle them?
HW: The Japanese authorities have been covering up the true depth of the disaster because they don’t want to embarrass themselves and the global nuclear industry and they are trying to open up another nuclear plant in Japan. When the Japanese people now find out that the accident is worse than we thought and they have been leaking many tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean for almost two and a half years, this is a catastrophe. Tokyo Electric has no idea how to control this accident. This is absolutely terrifying after two and a half years. To find out that these reactors have been out of control, now that they can’t control this they don’t know what’s going on. This is not a primitive backward country; this is Japan with advanced technology. It has very serious implications for nuclear power all over the world.
RT: Why the plant’s operator failed to contain the leak?
HW: Because they don’t know what to do. This has never happened before. You have three explosions; you have four nuclear reactors that are severely compromised. No one ever planned for this. This is an apocalyptic event. This is something that could contaminate the entire Pacific Ocean. It is extremely serious. The reality is that Tokyo Electric does not know what is happening and does not know how to control what is going on. Our entire planet is at risk here. This is two and a half years after these explosions and they are still in the dark. It’s terrifying.
The New York Times has recently reported that the workers at Fukushima are running out of places to store the water that has been used to cool the radioactive waste. The water is highly radioactive, and is leaking from its storage tanks at the rate of 75 gallons per minute. In other news, the Japanese government is changing the threshold for danger so that people may return. Thus, doses of less than 20mS/y are now acceptable.
This infographic was e-mailed to me from Ultraviolet. I am reprinting with the idea of increasing its circulation. (No copyright infringement is intended). I think as a publisher of an ethics blog, I have a responsibility to spread the word about ethical responsibility.
Le vitrail de la renaissance (Photo credit: Geoffroy65)
Manufacturing Renaissance?
Is there or isn’t there a manufacturing Renaissance? I would love to give you a simple yes or no response but the fact is, it is just too early to tell. There is a wonderful chart provided at http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/26/manufacturing_rennaissance_is_it_really_happening.html from the magazine, Slate, and the article by Matthew Yglesias, that does tend to indicate such a Renaissance is happening. But that is the best evidence I have seen so far, and there is a lot of disagreement.
A manufacturing Renaissance would a game changer in many areas of corporate social responsibility. The idea that global competition is inevitably destructive of the middle class, labor unions and government regulation would be even less intellectually persuasive than it is now.
It would be wonderful for the nation. It would empower American firms and the nation more generally in their dealings with the world. It would increase American revenues and give American workers more income and more bargaining power.
So, I can be hopeful but the evidence is still lacking that this event is actually happening.
A regular theme in this blog has been that America’s strategic prospects are being revived by the dynamism of its private sector even as China faces a more problematic future. As earlier posts (here, here and here) have outlined, the marked surge in U.S. oil and natural gas production that has transformed the country’s energy outlook over the last few years promises to have far-reaching economic and geopolitical ramifications. The bonanza of low-cost energy, which the Wall Street Journal dubs “Saudi America”, has also given the U.S. manufacturing sector a significant competitive advantage.
Separate from the energy boom but fortifying its manufacturing effects are America’s innate advantages in what is becoming known as the “third industrial revolution” – one that is powered by high-skill labor as well as seminal progress in the areas of artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, composite materials, and “additive manufacturing” or three-dimensional computerized manufacturing.
If so, this could mean good news for the economy. Manufacturing represents 67% of private-sector research and development (R&D) spending and 30% of the country’s productivity growth. Every $1 of manufacturing activity returns $1.48 to the economy. For the first time in more than a decade, the number of factory jobs has increased instead of decreased. American productivity growth, compressed wages, and higher energy costs have contributed to the return of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Some of America’s largest blue chip multinationals, like Ford, GE, and United Technologies, are headed back to the states.
For awhile there, I was feeling like a voice in the wilderness. I was going against the tide and still am to some degree. But I no longer feel so much alone.
Now others, with more credibility than me, are saying what I’ve been saying in this blog for more than a year. It was a Wall Street Journal last week from which I felt some vindication. Here’s the headline: “Signs of Factory Revival Hard to Spot.”
And here is the first sentence or the lead, which states it better than I ever have: “The idea that American manufacturing is on the cusp of a renaissance is everywhere these days – except in the hard numbers.”
As my friend Paulie on the Lower East Side would say, “badda bing, badda boom.”
It is still unclear if the “Manufacturing Renaissance” will generate enduring consequences for the U.S. economy—an increase in U.S. industrial production has yet to occur. According to the Federal Reserve, industrial production fell by 0.5 percent in April. Furthermore, although the total number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has increased by 520,000 since January 2010, only 50,000 of those jobs are due to re-shoring. It is therefore disputable as to whether efforts to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. will contribute to profound and lasting benefits for the U.S. economy, or if companies’ current efforts in this capacity will merely amount to a short-lived phase.
Back in May, an analysis by The Boston Consulting Group, was released stating that the rise in China’s labor cost could see a “Manufacturing Renaissance” within the United States, particularly within certain states. It was an uplifting article as it stated, “We expect net labor costs for manufacturing in China and the U.S. to converge by around 2015. As a result of the changing economics, you’re going to see a lot more products ‘Made in the USA’ in the next five years.” The article goes on to state that a number of companies have already begun to rethink their production locations and supply chains for goods destined to be sold in the U.S. It looks as if a window of opportunity is opening within the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy, which should be given serious consideration by all.
In order for the manufacturing sector to truly begin to grow again in the United States, we have to understand where the growth is and promote that. The strengths that we have here is that we are located in a major consumer base, and can produce extremely high quality goods faster than pretty much anywhere else. If the US focuses more on higher end manufacturing, it can still take advantage of the fact that every dollar of manufacturing activity returns $1.48 to the economy, without losing sight of our strengths. This also means that we have to make significant changes to our education system, to ensure that it is giving out the type of education that people need to be successful in this increasingly globalized game.
A quote from the article, Federal Judge Orders Justice Department To Return Over Million Dollars Taken At Traffic Stop By Nebraska Officers, from the web site, Jonathan Turley.
We have previously discussed how police are increasingly doing drug stops on pretextual grounds and seizing any money that a driver cannot explain to their satisfaction. It is called “policing for profit” and departments are able to keep much of seized money in these stops. The federal government is being forced to return over $1 million to Tara Mishra, 33, of California, who was taking her life savings as a stripper to buy her own business. That was before it was seized by Nebraska state troopers who declared that it must be drug proceeds. Even though no drugs were found and there was no basis for concluding the cash was from drug proceeds, the matter became a federal case and the Obama Administration fought her to deny her even a hearing for demanding the money back. Now U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon has ordered them to give back the money. However, this is not considered theft because police officers took the money at a traffic stop. The case is United States of America v. $1,074,900.00 in United States Currency, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11544 (D. Neb. 2013).
Jonathan Turley is absolutely right. This kind of confiscation, “policing for profit,” is ridiculous.
What happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” If you read the following articles, you will quickly note the slender evidence used to seize this money. Is that how things are supposed to work in a democracy? We suspect, therefore we seize?
More to the point, isn’t someone somewhere concerned about the police generating profits from enforcing certain laws? If enforcing drug laws is profitable and enforcing rape laws is not, what does that imply for justice?
Doesn’t that mean that instead of deciding where to deploy law enforcement based on public safety, the decision could be made on the basis of profit? Of what can be profitably seized?
Doesn’t this take police from a public service perspective to a mixed practice of profit and service with the public ignorant of what the proportions are?
What kind of legislators thought this would be a good idea? Are we deliberately trying to create law enforcement agencies based on the profit motive? Is that good policy?
Law enforcement should be profit neutral, so that crimes are handled by their danger to public safety not whether or not a forfeiture is likely.
I don’t have any problems with seizing property used in crime but I have serious doubts about assuming money or property is forfeit when no charges are filed.
George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley’s most recent blog entry claims that behavior like this falls in line with an increasing trend called “policing for profit.” Authorities will conduct a drug stop on “pretextual grounds,” like speeding, and then confiscate any money the driver can’t explain to their satisfaction.
According to the Institute for Justice, police can legally use the money, or profits from selling any other confiscated property, to fund their agencies. So-called civil forfeiture doesn’t require the police to charge owners before confiscating their property.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has won the return of almost $20,000 to a Latino migrant farmworker whose money was taken by police during a traffic stop in Alabama despite criminal charges never being brought against him.
An Alabama circuit judge dismissed the case and ordered the money returned to Victor Marquez. The actions came after the state refused to provide documents and information to SPLC lawyers representing Marquez.
A Loxley, Ala., police officer confiscated the money during a May 2008 traffic stop, claiming it was drug money.
“This traffic stop was nothing short of piracy,” said Mary Bauer, director of the SPLC’s Immigrant Justice Project. “In the end, Loxley authorities apparently thought it was better to return Mr. Marquez’s hard-earned money than to open their practices to public scrutiny.”
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A major News Channel 5 investigation has uncovered serious questions about Tennessee’s war on drugs. Among the questions: are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?
At the center of this months-long investigation are laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash. Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.
It turns out, those kind of stops are now happening almost every day in Middle Tennessee. Case in point: a 2009 stop where a tractor trailer was stopped for a traffic violation, leading to a search and the discovery of large blocks containing almost $200,000 cash — cash that officers keep on the suspicion that it’s drug money.
From the web site, The Intersection of Madness and Reality.
Speaking to then District Attorney General Kim Helper about these stops and seizures in her jurisdiction, when asked if it was a way to make money, she responded, “Well, you know, when you say ‘make money,’ I guess it is a way for us to continue to fund our operations so that we can put an end to drug trafficking and the drug trade within this district.” So how are police officers able to trample one’s 4th Amendment right as it relates to search and seizures? Easy. Under the guise of the “war on drugs,” the state allows police to seize money simply based on the suspicion that it’s linked to drug trafficking. The troubling part about the application of said practice, is that even without an arrest, an individuals money can be seized.
I guess this gives credence to the notion that money has no owners, just spenders.
English: Reigate Town Hall The old town hall was built in 1708. According to the wooden plaque that still hangs inside, it was purchased and returned to the ‘corporation… for the benefit of the inhabitants’ in 1922. It is now home to a cafe. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Benefit Corporation
The rise of the benefit corporation, a type of corporate form that didn’t exist before 2010, is remarkable in its speed. This kind of corporation offers an organization not tied to the narrow goal of short term profit maximization. While the “judgment rule” seems to offer corporations a freer decision making climate to be environmentally friendly and exist with some freedom from being sued for loss of share value, there is some legal uncertainty. The Benefit Corporation removes all doubt. This kind of corporation does not exist for profit maximization.
This offers the opportunity for building purposeful organizations with a stated and legal responsibility to do no harm. This is a far better model than the soulless machines of destruction we often experience as the modern corporation.
This may herald a new era in corporate social responsibility. It only takes a small adjustment in the law to have tremendous effects on the culture over time. This may be one of those historical adjustments.
James Pilant
For my students, the most important concepts here for study are the “judgment rule” and “short term profit maximization.”
Delaware Gov. signs landmark social entrepreneurship law
The benefit corporation, the brainchild of the nonprofit B Lab, is predicated on a simple idea: use the power of business to solve social problems. Companies incorporated under legal frameworks like the one passed in Delaware strive to maximize profits, but can do so while also pursuing a broad range of social and environmental goals, from low carbon emissions to generous employee benefits and transparency in governance. Under traditional corporate law, a firm’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits is privileged over other commitments to social or environmental responsibility. The benefit corporation amends this, legally enshrining the interests of stakeholders, including employees, customers, the community and the environment, alongside those of shareholders. Among other things, benefit corporation status shields a company’s social and environmental objectives when it is up for sale. Today, there are at least 200 legally registered benefit corporations (and likely many more, as some states don’t currently track their incorporation), including large companies like Patagonia and many smaller ones like Vermont-based WomenLead and New York-based Clay Marketing. The “shared value” created by these companies is heralded by benefit corporation enthusiasts as a radical refashioning of contemporary capitalism.
From Wikipedia: (I included this section from the Wikipedia article because I want you, kind reader, to get a grasp on the speed of the change in corporate law. Business law tends to be very conservative and usually slow moving, but not in this case. jp)
In April 2010, Maryland became the first U.S. state to pass benefit corporation legislation. As of January 2013 California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia had all passed legislation allowing for the creation of benefit corporations. Legislation is also pending in Illinois that establishes a new type of entity called the “benefit LLC,” making available to limited liability companies the same opportunities afforded to Illinois corporations under the state’s Benefit Corporation Law.[1] Passage of the bill would make Illinois the first state to offer a social enterprise the opportunity to be a benefit L3C.[2]
Maryland’s legislation was signed into law on April 13, 2010 and became effective on October 1, 2010.
Virginia’s legislation was signed into law on March 26, 2011 and became effective on July 1, 2011.
Vermont’s legislation was signed into law on May 19, 2010 and became effective on July 1, 2011.
New Jersey’s legislation passed on January 10, 2011 and became effective when it was signed into law on March 1, 2011.
Hawaii’s legislation was signed into law on July 8, 2011 and became effective upon signing.
California’s legislation was signed into law on October 9, 2011 and became effective on January 1, 2012.
New York’s legislation was signed into law on December 12, 2011 and became effective on February 10, 2012.
Louisiana’s legislation became law on May 31, 2012 and went into effect on August 1, 2012.
South Carolina’s legislation became law on June 6, 2012 and became effective the same day.
Massachusetts’ benefit corporation legislation became law on August 7, 2012 and became effective on December 1, 2012.
Illinois’s legislation was signed into law on August 2, 2012 and went into effect on January 1, 2013.
Pennsylvania’s legislation became law on October 24 and will become effective on January 22, 2013.
Washington, D.C. legislation was signed by the Mayor on February 8, 2013 will go into effect after 30 days of congressional review.
Arkansas’s legislation was signed by Governor Mike Beebe on April 19, 2013 and will go into effect 90 days after sine die.
Guest post by Layton Olson. Layton specializes in representing tax exempt community, trade, and professional organizations at Howe & Hutton LTD.
Last month, a dozen companies committed to advancing social good filed to be classified as ‘Benefit Corporations’ in California. Their decisions represent a commitment to business strategies that systematically contribute financial, time, human, and other resources to charitable, educational and community improvement initiatives and institutions. California has joined the six states – Vermont, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Virginia and Hawaii- that have enacted so-called public benefit or “B Corp” legislation since 2010. Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and some cities have similar laws under consideration.
While traditional C Corporations are chartered to maximize benefit (i.e. profits) for shareholders, the B Corporation is legally chartered to consider and benefit stakeholders – a group that also includes employees, the environment, vendors, and the broader community… This legal status shields corporate directors from “stock-drop lawsuits,” in which shareholders can sue corporate leadership for knowingly acting in ways that decrease profits (i.e. raising social or environmental standards). Benefit Corporations must also publish an annual benefit report, which publicly discloses environmental and social performance using 3rd party reporting standards – therefore increasing transparency and accountability to shareholders and a burgeoning class of social investors.
What I learned at the workshop was that a benefit corporation is a new corporate legal structure that several states have established (Massachusetts passed BC legislation in August 2012) to provide an alternative to for-profit entities that want to include a public mission equally alongside seeking a profit. This is significant because historically, for-profit corporate legal structures bound CEOs and boards to pursue profit over all other considerations, regardless of the potential social and environmental costs. In addition, while not all corporate lawyers agree, founders and CEOs of traditional for-profit corporations perceived as making decisions that jeopardized the bottom line, can be fired.
Consequently, while there are many contributing factors to the numerous social and environmental challenges humanity’s faces, a very significant factor is the corporation’s pathological pursuit of profit at the expense of public health and environmental sustainability. This pathological pursuit of profit leads many corporate decision-makers to externalize as many costs as possible. As Joel Bakan, highlighted in his book, The Corporation, “It is no exaggeration to say that the corporation’s built-in compulsion to externalize its costs is at the root of many of the world’s social and environmental ills.” (My Emphasis, jp)
From the web site, Pennsylvania Nonprofit Law blog.
This new construct, called a “Benefit Corporation,” stresses sustainability along with financial success. More to the point, this new model is a boon to the non-profit world. It provides the opportunity for increased cooperation with a conscientious corner of the for-profit sector and the potential to leverage more sustainable impacts on business practices beyond existing corporations. Benefit or “B” Corporations redefine the modern notion of commercial success by valuing “stakeholders” above “shareholders.” Unlike traditional corporations, B Corporations must facilitate, and publicly report, positive social and environmental impacts through their work in order to register with the non-profit organization, B Lab (http://www.bcorporation.net). This third-party validation process provides a number of valuable benefits to participating businesses:
Save Money. B Corporations have the potential to deliver immediate financial value, and B Lab has already saved B Corps over $1M through service partnerships.
Set Yourself Apart. B Corporations differentiate themselves in the marketplace, and the certification process allows companies to generate press, meet sustainability requirements set by other companies, enhance reputation and mitigate potential trust erosion from consumers.
Find Common Ground. B Corporations offer a “common ground” for businesses that are committed to both the mission-driven ethos of the non-profit world and the best practices of the for-profit section.
Connect With Your Peers. Through B Lab, B Corporations are encouraged (and incentivized) to collaborate amongst themselves and share best practices in sustainability, marketing, finance, IT, and HR.
Grow Faster and Smarter. The raw numbers (http://www.bcorporation.net/resources/bcorp/documents/2011-AR_B-Index.pdf) demonstrate that registered B Corporations expand at a more consistent rate, work more closely with other area organizations, offer better benefits to their employees, and foster more positive change within their communities than traditional corporations.
From the web site, Class War in America. (I particularly enjoyed this post and recommend you visit the site and read the entire article. jp)
There’s a promising development in the capitalism department these days. It’s called the Benefit Corporation. It’s pretty new, and it’s important. This article in The Nation tells you what’s what.
Benefit corporations are characterized by three things: (1) The purpose of such companies is to support the triple bottom line. That is, they are sworn to protecting the environment and doing good things for the community as well as earning profit; (2) Their social accountability standards are high; (3) They work to build sustainable businesses that are designed to last.
I have shown many films in class over the last five years. I tend to shy away from documentaries and use commercial movies to make points. For instance, I use the film, Sabrina, to bring up the issue of class differences, and it is a consistently successful film commanding class attention and getting intelligent responses when they analyze the influence of class.
However, I have two documentaries that have been consistently successful in class use. One of them is Gasland, the other King Corn.
King Corn is story of two men who do a simple experiment in the pursuit of truth. Concerned by the diminishing life spans of Americans, they discover that their diet is primarily corn. They journey to Iowa and grow an acre of corn to see how the process works. They talk to many people in their travels and these conversations are the best part of the film.
The issues of corn, overproduction, factory farming and high fructose corn syrup are very controversial and can be very emotional. The documentary’s approach, the humble seeker after truth, sets the emotional level very low and the film is amusing and relaxing. Nevertheless my students do leave the film uneasy about the state of American agriculture and there are usually a good many comments about what we should be eating.
I usually add some lecture material on the Cuban Embargo, and go into more depth on the high fructose corn syrup controversy.
If you are a fellow instructor I recommend you use the film. It used to be available of Netflix but now you have to purchase it or find it on the web.
As Ian and Curt discover, almost everything Americans eat contains corn. High-fructose corn syrup, corn-fed meat, and corn-based processed foods are the staples of the modern diet. America’s record harvests of corn are supported by a government subsidy system that promotes corn production beyond all market demand. As Ian and Curt return to Iowa to watch their 10,000-pound harvest fill the combine’s hopper and make its way into America’s food, they realize their acre of land shouldn’t be planted in corn again—if they can help it.
Engrossing and eye-opening, KING CORN is a fun and crusading journey into the digestive tract of our fast food nation where one ultra-industrial, pesticide-laden, heavily-subsidized commodity dominates the food pyramid from top to bottom – corn. Fueled by curiosity and a dash of naiveté, college buddies Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis return to their ancestral home of Greene, Iowa to figure out how the modest kernel conquered America.
There is legislative logic to the flood of cheap corn-based foods. In 2005, federal subsidies spent $9.4 billion in taxpayer money to promote corn production. For Iowa farmers, these payments often mean the difference between profit and loss on a given acre. With subsidies promoting production beyond market demand, the raw materials for an obesity epidemic are readily at hand.
My father calls this part of the U.S. “God’s Country”. And I do believe that he is correct. It is an amazing place in our country, and in the world. But now the corn grown there is not for us to feast on as it used to be. It is used primarily for manufactured sweeteners and animal feed. You can learn more about this when you see the film by two young men determined to discover the genesis and path of our food production. They set out on a journey to grow one acre of corn, and they learned more than they ever knew they would. See King Corn. You can rent it at your local video store. It is worth a watch.
Live from the Union Square subway: A big food message that tips its hat to changing consumer perception. When I saw this poster, the first thing I thought of was the film King Corn. The filmmakers explain that grass-fed cows used to take 2-3 years to get fat and ready for our beef consumption. Once we started feeding them corn, however, they got to the same weight in just 15 months. By changing the diet of our cows, we’re forcing them into false maturation. With this, and so many of our industrial food ways, we wrestle nature into the ground.
On the odyssey of the pilgrim researcher, many experts are consulted. In the set up they visit a lab where they have their hair analyzed to get the data version of the typical American eater. Yup, the hair speaks counter-intuitive truth to reason: a diet of soda and hamburgers and snack foods delivers what they suspected: the main ingredient in their hair is corn. Look in the bioinformatic mirror and you read what you eat/are.
One of the strengths of the film is their respect for the Iowa farmers they encounter. They don’t assume anything about their informants’ lives, opinions or class affiliation. They refrain from interpreting and judging what they learn, but the knowledge they acquire complicates the decisions they have to make. And despite their restraint, those complications are ethical ones.
King Corn is a documentary about two men, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, who study where their food comes from. The film begins with the realization that corn is in most of our foods and that it is one of the most productive and most subsidized grains in the United States. Iowa alone produces 2 trillion corn crops which is the largest in American history and is enough to feed the entire United States (Wolfe, Cheney, Ellis, & Miller, 2012). Ian and Curt move to Iowa to plant their own crop of corn and then follow it through the food system. They end up raising all sorts of questions about the food we eat, how it is farmed, and what happens to it after the harvest.
It’s just amazing to see how much Earl Butz‘s farm policy in the 1970s, which I’m sure he enacted with really good intentions, has changed family farms, our health, and our environment, and all for the worse. Does that mean the old farm policy of the 50s and 60s would work now? I don’t know. But something has got to give, and the farmers in the documentary were in agreement that the ridiculous amounts of corn they produce are, well, ridiculous.
I wish I knew what the solution was. Simply educating consumers to make informed choices is a start, but I just don’t think it’s enough, not when our government is pouring giant subsidies on a crop that no one can eat.
Look, if this had been a once-off, or a first offense for Searls I might not be as upset. But, it wasn’t, and it’s not. He worked his con three times over the course of two years. That’s not making a mistake, or a single offense. He intentionally targeted people in and around the autism community. Let’s face it, autism research just isn’t sexy. The people who typically buy fund-raising raffle tickets are those with loved ones diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, or someone who knows someone like that. These are people who are already financial stretched. And he did this with the promise that the proceeds would go to fund autism research. Which also gives false hope to those buying the tickets, as well as to the charity expecting the money.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.