Although the world is sadly marked by “hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism,” as well as by various forms of terrorism and crime, I am convinced that “the many different efforts at peacemaking which abound in our world testify to mankind’s innate vocation to peace. In every person the desire for peace is an essential aspiration which coincides in a certain way with the desire for a full, happy and successful human life. In other words, the desire for peace corresponds to a fundamental moral principle, namely, the duty and right to an integral social and communitarian development, which is part of God’s plan for mankind. Man is made for the peace which is God’s gift.
Pope Slams Capitalism, Inequality Between Rich And Poor In New Years Message
I do not believe that the headline is an accurate description of the Pope’s brief statement. The Pope says “unregulated financial capitalism.” It would appear to me we are talking about unregulated financial markets and there is probably a veiled reference to the banking scandals of 2012.
I have read a good deal about Catholic Social Doctrine but had never considered it anti-capitalistic. I had certainly noted it as being extremely hostile to free market fundamentalism but I don’t mistake that belief system for capitalism.
Maybe the headline was just meant to attract readers to click in on it, but I think what the Pope says about our current financial system is worth reflecting on.
“The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy” or simply “free economy.” But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. …
What grasped my total interest and attention was his just attack on unrestrained capitalism without any ethics. He wrote, “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty. “ As someone who has been concerned with anarcho-capitalism (an economic system that destroys government regulation of the economy, and creates anarchy within the global economic system) I think the Pope’s comments on capitalism is timely.
The conscious deregulation of the economy that started during the Reagan administration in the U.S. reached its climax during President George W. Bush’s tenure and has brought the global economic chaos the world is in at the moment. Their bankrupt economic theory of the market policing itself, has proven to be as hollow as their dreams of making trillions of dollars without manufacturing anything.
The pope said economic models that seek maximum profit and consumption and encourage competition at all costs had failed to look after the basic needs of manyThousands of peace marchers carrying rainbow banners released balloons in cold St Peter’s Square as the pope spoke.
A longer version of the Pope’s annual message was sent to heads of state, government and non-governmental organizations on December 14th.
Reuters reports that in that message “the Pope called for a new economic model and ethical regulations for markets, saying the global financial crisis was proof that capitalism does not protect the weakest members of society.”
The pope said economic models that seek maximum profit and consumption and encourage competition at all costs had failed to look after the basic needs of many and could sow social unrest.
Insight: How Colombian drug traffickers used HSBC to launder money | Reuters
In a typical transaction, a middleman in a drug cartel would offer to deliver consumer goods, such as computers or washing machines, to Colombian businesses on favorable terms. Another person in the United States would buy the goods from firms using funds from drug trafficking, and fulfill those orders.
Money launderers exploited the laxness of HSBC in policing shadowy money flows, the Department of Justice said earlier this month. Failures included not conducting due diligence on customers, not adequately monitoring wire transfers or cash shipments and not having enough employees to run anti-money laundering systems. U.S. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer called the lapses “stunning failures of oversight.”
The situation was so bad, according to the Department of Justice, that in 2008, the head of HSBC’s Mexican operations was told by Mexican regulators that a local drug lord described the bank as “the place to launder money.”
The Chaparro probe, led by ICE and the Justice Department, converged over the past two years with two other investigations – led by federal prosecutors and investigators in West Virginia and by the Manhattan district attorney – resulting in this month’s settlement with HSBC.
HSBC and its employees avoided criminal indictments, as the bank agreed instead to a deferred-prosecution deal that forces it to strengthen controls and accept a compliance monitor.
Where to start? This bank has committed crimes on a scale almost beyond comprehension.
Our first question; is this good business ethics? Under Friedman analysis that a corporation’s sole purpose is to serve the shareholders, the HSBC’s actions were a marvelous success. The bank paid a fraction of its profits on its wrongdoing. Further it evaded any prosecution and the resulting loss in prestige and publicity damage that would have resulting from actual criminal punishments. But even more important when looking at the profit side of the ledger, a precedent has been set that if a bank has reached a certain size, it is beyond prosecution. This insures that banks of this size can in the future launder money with confidence that it will both be profitable and free from criminal charges.
Is this bad business ethics? The bank laundered about nine billion dollars in drug money from the Mexican cartels. These financed the drug trade smoothing the shipment of drugs into the United States and other countries. It paid for assassinations and kidnappings, bribery of public officials, and the creation of large heavily armed criminal mafias capable of exerting control over large geographical areas. The was at the very least a subversion of the government and economy of Mexico. Similar but smaller effects were felt in the United States.
However, this is not the whole story, the banks also laundered money for Saudi and Bangladeshi clients who were highly likely involved in terrorists activities and in some cases known have links to terrorists. I don’t think I need remind you that the United States has embarked and continues a “war” against terrorism. The bank actively subverted that war. In addition, the money helped finance rogue regimes like Iran in defiance of American sanctions, strengthening the nation’s enemies, and making those regimes more able to resist reform and democracy.
There can be no doubt that the religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and a giant list of smaller religions would find these acts in violation of their rules of ethical conduct.
Philosophically, unless you consider Friedmanism, a legitimate source of wisdom, almost all philosophical schools with the probable exception of Nietzsche, would condemn the bank’s actions.
Capitalism is in a crisis. This is not an isolated example of few individuals’ greed. This is a giant financial institution deliberately acting against the interests of its host countries and financing murder and mayhem around the world. But further, have we not seen banking incompetence and law breaking on a massive scale on a regular basis since the 2008 financial crisis. This hardly seems to be passing phase.
This particular bank makes more money than most of the nations on earth. Its power to cause harm is enormous and it deliberately, over a long period of time, with direct knowledge of its leadership, caused that kind of harm.
This is a moral and ethical bankruptcy that is not just wrong but endangers the long term welfare of citizens in the United States and the rest of the world.
It’s hard to think of any phrase more sad when have knowledge of these crimes than, HSBC Avoids Criminal Charges.
James Pilant
From Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
Though this was not stated explicitly, the government’s rationale in not pursuing criminal prosecutions against the bank was apparently rooted in concerns that putting executives from a “systemically important institution” in jail for drug laundering would threaten the stability of the financial system. The New York Times put it this way:
Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that the reasoning here is beyond flawed. When you decide not to prosecute bankers for billion-dollar crimes connected to drug-dealing and terrorism (some of HSBC’s Saudi and Bangladeshi clients had terrorist ties, according to a Senate investigation), it doesn’t protect the banking system, it does exactly the opposite. It terrifies investors and depositors everywhere, leaving them with the clear impression that even the most “reputable” banks may in fact be captured institutions whose senior executives are in the employ of (this can’t be repeated often enough) murderers and terrorists. Even more shocking, the Justice Department’s response to learning about all of this was to do exactly the same thing that the HSBC executives did in the first place to get themselves in trouble – they took money to look the other way.
From further down in the article:
On the other hand, if you are an important person, and you work for a big international bank, you won’t be prosecuted even if you launder nine billion dollars. Even if you actively collude with the people at the very top of the international narcotics trade, your punishment will be far smaller than that of the person at the very bottom of the world drug pyramid. You will be treated with more deference and sympathy than a junkie passing out on a subway car in Manhattan (using two seats of a subway car is a common prosecutable offense in this city). An international drug trafficker is a criminal and usually a murderer; the drug addict walking the street is one of his victims. But thanks to Breuer, we’re now in the business, officially, of jailing the victims and enabling the criminals.
This is the disgrace to end all disgraces. It doesn’t even make any sense. There is no reason why the Justice Department couldn’t have snatched up everybody at HSBC involved with the trafficking, prosecuted them criminally, and worked with banking regulators to make sure that the bank survived the transition to new management. As it is, HSBC has had to replace virtually all of its senior management. The guilty parties were apparently not so important to the stability of the world economy that they all had to be left at their desks.
The following are findings from the Senate report:
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., known as HBUS [pronounced H-Bus] functions as the U.S. nexus for HSBC’s worldwide network. HSBC has 7,200 offices in more than 80 countries and 2011 profits of $22 billion; HBUS has 470 branches across the United States with 4 million customers. HBUS provides accounts to 1,200 other banks including more than 80 HSBC affiliates.
In 2010, HSBC was cited by its federal regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), for multiple severe anti-money laundering deficiencies, including a failure to monitor $60 trillion in wire transfer and account activity; a backlog of 17,000 unreviewed account alerts regarding potentially suspicious activity.
HBUS offered correspondent banking services to HSBC Bank Mexico, and treated it as a low risk client, despite its location in a country facing money laundering and drug trafficking challenges. The Mexican affiliate transported $7 billion in physical U.S. dollars to HBUS from 2007 to 2008, outstripping other Mexican banks, even one twice its size, raising red flags that the volume of dollars included proceeds from illegal drug sales in the United States.
Foreign HSBC banks actively circumvented U.S. safeguards at HUBS designed to block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes. In one case examined by the Subcommittee, two HSBC affiliates sent nearly 25,000 transactions involving $19.4 billion through their HBUS accounts over seven years without disclosing the transactions’ links to Iran.
HBUS provided U.S. dollars and banking services to some banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh despite links to terrorist financing.
The HSBC deal includes a deferred prosecution agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office and the Justice Department. The deferred prosecution agreement, a notch below a criminal indictment, requires the bank to forfeit more than $1.2 billion and pay about $700 million in fines, according to the officials briefed on the matter. The case, officials say, will claim violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and Trading with the Enemy Act.
Prosecutors found that HSBC had facilitated money laundering by Mexican drug cartels and had moved tainted money for Saudi banks tied to terrorist groups.
On November 11 HSBC said it had “reached agreement with United States authorities in relation to investigations regarding inadequate compliance with anti-money laundering and sanctions laws.” The bank is also expected to reach a settlement over the matter with Britain’s Financial Services Authority, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.
November 10, federal and state authorities also won a $327 million settlement from Standard Chartered, a British bank. The bank, which in September agreed to a larger settlement with New York’s top banking regulator, admitted processing thousands of transactions for Iranian and Sudanese clients through its American subsidiaries. To avoid having Iranian transactions detected by Treasury Department computer filters, Standard Chartered deliberately removed names and other identifying information, according to the authorities.
But HSBC is not being indicted and nobody will be criminally prosecuted because of the perceived or projected threat to the financial system if such a large bank and its officers were penalized criminally for commission of crimes that everyone agrees did take place. Why? Because HSBC is too big to indict.
The obvious answer here is to dismantle the mega banks that are so big that their every move produces swings in the financial markets. Instead DOJ and other law enforcement agencies have given a green light to anyone who can build a bank that big. They can now commit crimes with impunity, which is to say that we are guaranteed to see repeat behavior. Now when a smaller bank engages in the same illicit schemes, it too can point to the fact that law enforcement decriminalized what is clearly a crime under all applicable statutes.
“The Tinkerers”: How corporations kill creativity by Alex Foege – Salon.com
In August 2010, Paul Krugman published a piece in the New York Times titled “America Goes Dark.” He described how the United States, “a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System” was now dismantling its infrastructure.
Krugman’s main point was that the U.S. government was not investing stimulus funds in the tools needed for our own economic growth. Three decades of antigovernment rhetoric had convinced many Americans that spending taxpayer funds on anything was a waste of taxpayer funds. But government—the US government, specifically—had built this country into an innovative economic powerhouse by investing in “lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.”
I would take Krugman’s point one step further and argue that the American government and people helped the country grow both by investing in innovation and by committing themselves to the traditional tinkerer spirit. A sophisticated, cutting-edge infrastructure was the perfect crucible for the kind of innovation the United States embodied.
The point about the devolution of tinkering in American life is not that we have lost a physical connection to the work that we do. It’s that the notion that we can fix any problem or achieve any goal that we set for ourselves has deteriorated into a sanitized, corporatized version of what constitutes achievement.
Corporate America has grown rigid as it has grown larger. Despite the dot-com era’s many images of creative whizzes reweaving the very fabric of innovation, it remains extremely difficult for the freethinking alchemists of today to perform their peculiar strain of magic and thrive while doing it.
This was a great article much longer than the brief excerpt I have placed here. If at all possible, please go to Salon and read the whole thing. The gentleman has several books out, so you might want to look into acquiring those as well.
Yet, these pressing needs seem to register very little as a governmental concern. We’ve already had collapsing dikes and bridges. What kind of crisis will it take to make this a critical issue that gets addressed?
Maybe the flesh is willing but the spirit is weak? Where’s that “can do” spirit that built buildings, monuments and wonders of technology? Where has that gone?
I like to read yearbooks from the 1960’s, Britannica, World Book, etc. and in them I find a spirit of optimism and a certainty of success that no longer is predominant in our culture. Much of our current angst can be traced to the thought that things are only going to get worse.
I agree with Mr. Foege, we need change.
We need to act and we can’t wait for the “road fairy” to repair out problems.
James Pilant
P.S. You could argue that there is no business ethics here. After all we aren’t speaking of deliberate sabotage of America’s infrastructure. Certainly I hope not. But business ethics is also a positive force. Good business ethics would embrace creativity and long term growth as manifested in infrastructure development and preservation.
In mid-January, the American Society of Civil Engineers (asce) convened a series of five roundtables in Washington, D.C., that were conceived as in-depth discussions of how best to address the nation’s significant infrastructure deficiencies, which threaten not only the safety and welfare of the public but also the nation’s economic growth and competitiveness. Each roundtable had its own moderator and slate of participants, and the participants included well-respected political leaders, policy leaders, and members of asce who are well versed on the subject of critical infrastructure. The starting points for these discussions were the five key solutions outlined in asce’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, which was released in March 2009. In essence what these roundtables were striving to achieve was to develop a framework for giving full dimension to these solutions and securing for them positions of high visibility and high priority on the national agenda. which was released in 2003. The 2001 report card conferred an overall grade of D+; the 2005 report card, a D; and the 2009 report card, a D. The 2003 progress report also conferred a grade of D. These assessments have trained a spotlight on the fact that America’s critical infrastructure—principally its roads, bridges, drinking water systems, mass transit systems, schools, and systems for delivering energy—may soon fail to meet society’s needs. The underlying threats—and these threats are quite significant—are those of deteriorating economic strength within the global marketplace and a diminished quality of life across the spectrum of American society.
Now is the time to act to bring up the level of repair of our infrastructure. The reasons?
• the cost of borrowing the money to do this is approximately 0%. We will never get a better deal.
• the number of out-of-work construction workers is huge which has depressed the cost of labor.
• the money paid to the architects and engineers and laborers and suppliers of raw materials and truck drivers will be spent almost immediately by those folks which will stimulate the economy. Plus there is time for the money those folks spend to be spent again (by the subsequent recipients) before the next year is out, amplifying the effect. (Economists call this the multiplier effect. In this case $1 spend on construction creates well over $1 of economic activity.)
• the problems with our infrastructure will only get worse and will cost even more as time goes on. It is not like they will “heal themselves” like a cold will if you just wait.
• all of the expenditures will go to Americans and American companies. The jobs cannot be “outsourced.”
If China is willing to lend us the money to make this nation stronger, creating jobs that generate more than enough tax revenue to pay off those loans, we will be fools if we don’t act. The more we wait the more it costs us in the long run.
“Over the next several decades, Illinois’ infrastructure needs will likely exceed $300 billion, yet the state does not have a comprehensive plan to address this critical need. There are real costs associated with underfunding of infrastructure: shipping and travel delays, congestion, pollution, and diminished economic growth.” State Budget Crisis Task Force Illinois Report.
For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive country in the world we need a first class infrastructure system—transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at reasonable cost by land, water and air; transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of energy sources, and water systems that drive industrial processes as well as the daily functions in our homes. Infrastructure is the foundation that connects the nation’s businesses, communities and people, driving our economy and improving our quality of life.
ASCE urges the administration and Congress to focus on policies that will create jobs and continue to grow the economy. ASCE will work with the new Congress and the President to rebuild and revitalize the very foundation of our national economy. Roads, bridges, levees, and dams not only provide security, but also allow businesses to move goods, reach global markets, grow their market share and create new jobs.
And if Harvard MBAs get it, and corporate titans understand it, we certainly ought to focus our attention on the issue of business ethics as one of the most relevant concerns of anyone interested in tikkun olam – perfecting the world.
When we talk about the importance of business ethics as a barometer of spirituality, we need to remind ourselves of the remarkable passage in the Talmud that tells us that after we leave this earth to face our divine judgment, there are many things we will be queried about as the heavenly court reviews our lives. Yet the very first question posed will be: “Were your business dealings conducted honestly?”
And no one will be able to justify his misdeeds by claiming “It was only business!”
I want to put more in the blog about religious ethics. I strongly believe that it is neglected and often discarded in discussions of business ethics. But religion has much to say about business conduct from the Old Testament’s demand for just weights to Islam’s ban on interest payments.
If the company never seriously thought about whether it is ethical and corporate social responsibility issues, these six can provide guidance to start the process. Although it is important to behave ethically, it is equally important to get the message to the public if a company wants to take advantage of “doing well”. 1. Define what your company stands for and what values it places on the market. Public awareness of these values? Do they have a positive reaction to them? 2. Check the internal and external relations of the company. Do not they make sense and reflect the values of society? Public and the media frequently proclaim the guilt of the association. To search for new relationships with companies that meet ethical standards. 3. Understanding what the public expect from a company today. Are you ready to meet those expectations? 4. Check the location of assets, liabilities, and promises of brands, products, public sector and community initiatives. 5. Compare your public profile, in which private actions. Are in conflict? 6. Do not be shy about spreading the word through the media, employees and community.
Ethics involves the notion of morals however they’re different but interrelated concepts (Ethics and morality, n.d.; Tallman 2009). Morals are the individual establishment between right and wrong whereas ethics occurs in the context of groups of individuals who build shared values and standards creating a culture in which decisions influencing the causal relationship of right and wrong exist (Clawson 2006 ; Hrebiniak 2005 ; Klebe Treviño, Pincus Hartman & Brown 2000 ; Northouse 2009 ; Schein 2004). There’s a philosophical question of whether businesses have ethics due to the notion that business is apart from society (Longstaff 1991). However, individual people who constitute the business are part of multiple collectives defining the wider societal and cultural values environment in which ethics resides and the business operates (Huntsman 2008 ; Longstaff 1991).
Have you ever saw the definition of business? If you have then you know what I am talking about. In defining a business, ethics don’t play in to the picture at all. Sole purpose of a business is to increase the value for its stakeholders. Thus, can you blame those businesses, who are taking advantage ofthe lower tax policies in Ireland to increase their net income? It might be morally wrong forthose businesses to show all of their profit in Ireland, while they get their 50-70% profitfrom United States, but you can’t do anything about that. As more and more countries loosen their tax policies to attract foreign businesses, there would always be somecompanies who want to move there to increase their net profit by paying lower taxes there.
Netflix now has the right to share your viewing habits – Salon.com
After nearly two years of intense lobbying, Netflix has won the reform it needs to integrate its services with Facebook. Ars Technica first reported that the Senate quietly passed a reform to the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) last week, giving video streaming companies the right to share your data for up to two years after asking for your permission once. (Mother Jones notes that “The Senate didn’t even hold a recorded vote: The bill was approved by unanimous consent”).
This is a government subsidy to a business, in this case, a particular business. The act gives away a right to privacy with no return to the consumer.
Is this good business ethics? One of the first tests of ethics is the question, “Is it legal?” The “reform” makes what was previously illegal into a legal act. It’s also intensely profitable. This passes the sole test of Friedman’s code, “Does it enhance shareholder value?” Yes, it makes more money for the company. I would expect the company’s value to be enhanced.
But this is slicing good business ethics pretty thin. It’s legal and profitable. But so are a great many things that we can be ashamed of.
Is it bad business ethics? It takes a public good, privacy, and converts it to private profit. What did consumers gain from allowing Netflix to sell their information to other companies? That easy, they won the right to be specifically targeted in advertising. Their viewing habits can be used to get a handle on their political beliefs, whether they have children, etc.
It might be argued that the consumer has to give permission to access his records. A blanket right has been abolished and replaced with a private opt out clause. One of the things I have learned is that few of my students even though they are computer literate have any concept of how their data can be used against them. Considering that observation and the mass of e-mails we are bombarded with, I find it unlikely an informed decision is going to be made in many cases.
A company has been profited at a cost to the public interest. It is a government subsidy with all that implies. The company could have done better.
James Pilant
From around the Web –
From the web site, 33 Bits of Entropy: (This article highlights another important issue in online privacy. jp)
New lines will need to be drawn defining what is acceptable data-release policy, and in a way that takes into account the actual re-identification risk instead of relying on syntactic crutches such as removing “personally identifiable” information. Perhaps there will need to be a constant process of evaluating and responding to continuing improvements in re-identification algorithms.
Perhaps the ability of third parties to discover information about an individual’s movie rankings is not too disturbing, as movie rankings are not generally considered to be sensitive information. But because these same techniques can lead to the re-identification of data, far greater privacy concerns are implicated.
Today, Netflix presented at the F8 conference to talk about their planned integration with Facebook. You can see what you friends are watching and they can see what you are watching on Facebook. Not only on a granular level, but Facebook will present what it finds to be interesting trends among your friends’ viewing habits. Mark Zukerberg’s example showed that four of his friends just watched movies staring Johnny Depp. Netflix will be integrating with both Facebook’s newly announced Timeline as well as their OpenGraph platform. Facebook will have similar integration with Hulu.
An archaic 1988 law, the Video Privacy Protection Act, currently prevents the sharing of your video watch lists, such as with services like Netflix or Hulu, on social media outlets such as Facebook or Google+. Earlier this month, the US Senate put through an upgrade to the bill to address this issue, to little notice. It was a minor correction to an old set of laws. But when the US House got ahold of it, they put forth some edits, which is where the problem begins.
These changes, as reported by the ACLU, divorces the bill from a larger set of laws, called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In so doing they eliminated protections which were in place to require a warrant for accessing of cloud-based private electronic communications and other content, such as email, private social network posts, any information stored on cloud based servers. Instead, a subpoena is all that is required, a legal process but one which does not require the due diligence of a warrant, not even requiring an active investigation to acquire.
This is Ethics Bob’s take on the recent movie, Zero Dark Thirty. As with all of his work, it merits reading.
James Pilant
Zero Dark Thirty: Did torture lead us to Osama bin Laden? « Ethics Bob
For many years before Zero Dark Thirty, arguments raged about whether torture was acceptable, and the arguments turned largely on whether torture—euphemized into enhanced interrogation because torture is illegal—was effective. Arguing for torture was the CIA; opposing it was most of the FBI. FBI agents reported that detainees that were treated decently, even kindly, were founts of valuable intelligence until CIA interrogators took over and turned to torture, at which point the detainees clammed up.
Bigelow’s and Boal’s sources were largely CIA, so it figures that they were told that torture played an important role. Had their sources been FBI the movie’s depiction of the interrogations would have different.
So did torture lead us to UBL? I’m inclined to think that it was of little help, but I can’t really know. See the movie and keep an open mind.
What’s my take? Torture is against American and International law. If an American uses torture, he should be prosecuted for the crime or handed over to international authorities for punishment.
Is it worth a come-see? Assuredly. By the fanatic long lines even late at night, this is the pic to see. And probably 90% went out satisfied. But is it /all that/? Not so sure. Bigelow earns her stripes/, *The Hurt Locker*/ won Best Pic of 2008, and merited it. Moreover, probably few directors could have landed this baby as well as she. But somehow I think the hype is selling this sizzle more than the steak.
Just to reiterate the consensus: torture did not help national security. The chairs of the Senate intelligence and armed services committees, in addition to a recent Republican presidential nominee and torture survivor, and the acting head of the CIA, have all publicly announced that the film’s depiction of torture exaggerates its usefulness.
In fact, as they have all confirmed, the information that led to the death of Osama bin Laden was gained through traditional intelligence methods, not the unconstitutional “enhanced interrogation” human rights abuses illegally concocted by former Vice President Dick Cheney, Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, and others.
Not only was torture unhelpful as an interrogation method, it was actively counterproductive: it fueled the recruitment of new terrorists by our nation’s enemies, and undermined our nation’s moral standing in the world, degrading the “smart power” that was responsible for our triumph over the Soviet bloc and the relative peace in the decades following WWII.
In my opinion, Zero Dark Thirty does not glorify torture. The film is very objective. It shows us what happened and it’s up to us to determine how we feel about it. I think a lot of people are used to being told what to think and mistake the clinical representation of these events as condoning torture. However, showing and endorsing are not the same thing. A lot of people are misinterpreting what’s happening in the film, have already made up their mind before they’ve seen the film, or worse, actively lie about what happens in the film to better support their own arguments. After all, how can we confront them when we haven’t seen the film? Many have claimed this is the sequence of events in the film: Chastain’s character and the CIA physically and mentally torture prisoners, get information, find Bin Laden. This is not true. Chastain and the CIA torture a prisoner in the beginning of the film, but he gives them no information. Over and over he refuses to tell them anything. They get the information from him by tricking him.
You can argue the film says they were able to trick him because of all torture he was subjected to, but in a scene where Chastain watches countless interrogation tapes that involve and don’t involve torture the film goes out of it’s way to show that she found the same information from many people who were not tortured at all. Every prisoner that was tortured in the tapes said nothing. Plus, the film shows multiple terrorists attacks that happen while the CIA is still using torture techniques. Wouldn’t a pro-torture film ignore those events to perpetuate their pro-torture agenda? In the context of the whole film it seems pretty obvious Zero Dark Thirty is not pro-torture. Furthermore, the idea that is glorifies torture is asinine. These sequences are disturbing and sickening. There’s nothing enjoyable about watching these scenes, and if you understand cinematic language it’s glaringly obvious we’re meant emphasize with the people being tortured. The CIA agents are the monsters.
Why do I do this? I teach creative nonfiction. More importantly, I teach critical thinking skills, which, if Wayne LaPierre is any example, are in short supply in this country. I insist that students read books about difficult topics precisely because I want students to understand how to pick apart a difficult argument and how to see through the eyes of someone else, or because I simply want to see if my students’ vision of life squares up with those that they read. Sometimes, they are able to see themselves depicted in those pages, and sometimes they are able to examine their own prejudices (be they class, gender, race or education level) by being forced to look at the world through the eyes of the other.
I, too, teach critical thinking skills. It’s an uphill battle. My students having endured years of NCLB testing are superb factual test takers but have little experience with expressing an informed opinion. Quite often, a request for an opinion results not in an informed opinion based on any kind of fact or thinking but a reiteration of the worst elements of talk radio and 24 hours “news.” Simple tests where opinions and facts are listed and the student asked to identify which is which are routinely failed even by good students.
Business ethics and business law both demand higher level thinking skills. Deciding what should be done when there are ethical questions can well depend on religious beliefs, philosophical perceptions, life experience and practical considerations all at once. Critical thinking is key to making intelligent business decisions both routine and ethical.
Critical thinking refers to a process of judgment taken after an analytical evaluation of a problem. It can be developed through the practice of intentional analyzing of every situation in life. Critical thinking skills can be developed by inculcating a habit of analytical and strategic thinking. If you can get yourself into the habit of analyzing every situation critically, you will gradually acquire critical thinking skills.
Your educational background plays a major role in the development of your thinking skills. Education that requires you to think analytically, the education that instills in you the principles of analytical thinking and reasoning leads you to become a critical thinker. The development of problem solving and reasoning skills since an early age is an excellent way of developing critical thinking skills. Fields that require you to acquire and evaluate information before reaching a conclusion indeed help in the development of critical thinking skills. Exposing yourself to questions that stimulate thinking can develop critical thinking skills.
No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish interests. We gossip, boast, exaggerate, and equivocate. It is “only human” to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills, but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed. Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the following:
Rationality We are thinking critically when we • rely on reason rather than emotion, • require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and • are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions.
How do we focus on the teaching of Critical Thinking skills in a standardized test focused curriculum? What a fun topic for me this week (per usual for edchat). I actually almost missed it as I was running late from a meeting. Don’t tell my superintendent, but I may have pushed the speed limit a bit in a school vehicle to get to my computer. As an administrator for the past 9 years, I have wrestled with this question often. I feel horrible about focusing so much on the test when I know that focusing on the test probably isn’t what is what our kids need for being better thinkers.
Many strong opinions were shared during this amazing fast paced hour of learning. It is hard to argue that critical thinking skills are vital to be taught and what we SHOULD be teaching. However, it is scary for teachers and administrators to deviate from not teaching to the tests when the system is currently set up with sanctions and penalties for those schools that do not do well on the tests. It was agreed by many, including me, that great teaching that includes teaching students how to think, rather than what to think, while ultimately produce strong results.
The Crime Report Chooses the Top Ten Criminal Justice Stories
The Crime Report is an informative web site. This is some fine writing and some excellent choices. Please go, visit the web site and read these ten stories in full.
Some of the most notable efforts include the closure of juvenile training schools and other youth detention facilities around the country, as authorities began a fundamental re-think of how they deal with juvenile offenders.
“The large congregate juvenile facility is a dinosaur,” Krisberg commented in a note to us, “as states increasingly move towards home-based care and the use of smaller facilities closer to home.”
Not coincidentally, “Close to Home” was the name of a landmark program launched by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2012, with bipartisan support, to create facilities for young offenders in their own communities rather than shipping them upstate—an innovative program which by its own merits would otherwise have earned special mention in the Top Ten.
Adding to the impact of the Court ruling and state actions, efforts to end such egregious practices as solitary confinement for young offenders and placement of youth in adult detention took a huge step forward during the year.
The nation’s so-called War on Drugs took a significant turn in 2012, when Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational marijuana use. Voters’ decisive approval of Colorado’s Amendment 64 and Washington’s Initiative 502 will permit those 21 years of age and older to purchase up to one ounce of marijuana.
Whatever your feelings on drugs, it’s hard to overlook the votes’ significance—as a sign of a new pragmatic approach towards grappling with the nation’s addictions. “It directly challenges the ‘reefer madness of the last century; and most importantly eliminates (in these two states) a widely used means of police control that’s resulted in criminal records for tens of millions of Americans,” comments TCR Los Angeles bureau chief Joe Domanick.
Any shift towards legalization or even modification of federal policies will also have international ramifications—particularly in Latin America, where governments have keenly felt the murderous impact of drug cartels serving the U.S. market.
Imagine being a 14 year-old boy who takes a classmate on a bike ride one spring evening. In the days to follow, the classmate is found dead and you stand accused of rape and murder. There’s no direct physical evidence tying you to the crime, but that doesn’t matter. In a lightning fast trial you are convicted and sentenced to death. As far as the press and public are concerned, you are guilty and deserve to die. Such was the fate of Steven Truscott, living with his family on an army base in small-town Ontario in 1959. Read the shocking true story of a terrible case of injustice and the decades long fight to clear Truscott’s name.
The FBI has created a list of different characteristics to identify serial killers. In order to be classified a serial killer, murderers must have 15 out of 21 of the characteristics; they must be methodical with their killings, killing three or more people over a period of time, spanning at least 30 days. It’s fascinating to peek into the minds of serial killers, who are the most abhorrent examples of human kind.
From the web site, Movies Based on Crime Stories: (Yes, I am well aware that this is not about Hollywood movies but Bollywood movies. The facts are simple. Twenty years ago, American access to Bollywood movies was very tiny. Today, hundreds are available on You-Tube and commercial sites like NetFlix. Bollywood is a huge industry with offerings both delightful and dramatic. It’s time to get familiar with a larger world. JP)
Salman Khan’s Wanted Dead And Alive opened with very good response at Box Office. But received average talk from audience and poor reviews from most of the critics. By the end of the week movie went to super hit range. Finally managed to satisifie Salman Khan fans a lot
After 2 years Salman Khan has bagged a super hit. This is an action movie with some good comedy and romantic scenes. story revolves around Radhe ( Salman Khan) a goon joins with a mafia gang and kills opponent gang.
Crime stories often restore order to chaos, whether a police procedural or a gang story. Readers may or may not be aware that this is something they also want from a book; that is not just a story, but to know that even though the world is crazy, things will be ok, there is hope.
There are also many levels to crime fiction. When one looks deeper into a story, there is often a grain of truth to them, a subliminal message, that perhaps even the writer is not fully aware of and the full impact that their story can have. Sometimes this can be soul searching, or even a message about the society that we live in.
Limitations on H1-B Visas Harm Economic Growth in the U.S. – Ethics Sage
Life in immigration limbo is awful. Immigrants on H1-B visas, which are issued to workers, must be sponsored by a specific employer. This visa can be used to employ a skilled foreign national for up to six years. They cannot change jobs without jeopardizing their application. Their careers stagnate. They do not know whether they will be deported, so they hesitate to put down roots, buy a house or start a company. Sometimes their spouses are barred from working. More and more immigrants look for alternatives and places such Canada, Australia and Singapore are ready to welcome them with open by handing out visas swiftly and without hassle.
Steven Mintz, better known as the Ethics Sage see problems in the way America’s Visa program for professionals and entrepreneurs works. He believes in the need for H1-B Visa Reform. Obviously, an article thoroughly grounded on facts, often unpleasant deserves attention and action.
I decided to interview a fellow international friend of mine, who graduated from American University in May. In the short interview she describes the difficulty of finding a employment due to her international status and its links with the H1-B program. It’s just one example of thousands of how difficult it is for recent graduates to find jobs. This interview also brings to light the necessity of colleges and universities better training its international students on immigration policy. While I know immigration policy is one we have to run after, it would be interesting to have more seminars on campus about the transition of student to employment authorization status to H1-B status. The more recent graduates can learn about the H1-B process prior to graduating, the better off they are in their job search process.
Two weeks back, the quota for H1-B Visas ran out within just 10 weeks of time after it was opened on April 1st. In year 2010 quota was completed in Jan 2011, and in 2011 cap was filled in Nov 2011. First every quota was established in year 1990. This is good news for immigrants and the employers who are petitioning because of the improving job market. Bad news for the US citizens, they want skilled immigrants to stay competitive in the market.
Most of them still think H1-B workers take US jobs, but this isn’t the case. Hiring of these skilled workers doesn’t come at very less cost, government and legal fee runs in thousands of dollars. Fee of $ 1,500 must be paid by US Companies for each H1-B petition for training and scholarship fee. So for a year 65,000 visas, it comes up to $2 billion according to NFAP. This amount is used for more than 53,000 scholarships for students, several programs for 190,000 students and 6,800 school teachers and train up to for more than 55,000 US workers.
From the web site, Definitely Filipino: (I went a little lengthy on my quote. The author has so much interesting to say. JP)
Let’s just say their chances depend on the basis of qualification alone, how sure are we that human resource/personnel departments do not adjust their preferences, in favor of co-Americans to subscribe first, to the Obama Act and second, to the American nationalism?
If this is the case, why give H1B visas intended for foreign nationals, if there are no U.S. companies/institutions ready to provide sponsorship at all? False hopes or merely a part of U.S. recovery efforts? By the latter means the government admits its failure to achieve an acceptable standard, in terms of economics. To date, there are still no instructions that temporarily prohibit the provision of H1B, so we expect more casualties coming for the next quarters.
Critics including H1B holders themselves are saying that Obama’s resolution on the matter directly contradicts the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity and the United State’s principal role in advocating globalization, which means being in subscription to the free market of labor and workers. (H1B Visa and Employment, published September 21, 2010)
The agony and hopelessness that foreign visa holders experience will definitely strengthen their cores. But more than anything else, this clearly shows a piece of evidence that America is suffering from many different insecurities, a direct contradiction to its superpower facade.
For H4 visa holders, we shall say, analyzing their situation is like looking at a glass, half-full or half-empty.
This is an excerpt from a study done about gun violence in the Balkans. I found it largely by accident and it was insightful, enjoyable reading. Most academic writing is barely penetrable. This is lively and interesting. An academic dealing with gun issues, in particular criminal justice, will find this interesting reading if only for the summary of Eastern European gun laws in the appendix. It is a very fine example of social science research.
James Pilant
From the Introduction:
This study is based on the premise that culture is not static but is constantly evolving and changing and it is not just a product of past traditions but develops and is reinterpreted as society changes. This report will focus on ‘culture’ to mean a society’s particular set of values, norms – both social and legal – and meanings that render an action or thought acceptable and legitimate. Guns are not separable from the cultural environment in which they are acting and this means that the prevailing norms and values that render certain gun ownership and use acceptable must be understood within a geographical, political, historical and socio-economic context. ‘Gun culture’ lacks an established definition and is subject to continued debate, so this report will take ‘gun culture’ to be the cultural acceptance of gun ownership in situations where the principal motivation or justification for it is not for utilitarian or economic reasons but because their society has a set of values and norms that deem it acceptable behaviour. A simple example would be when a man carries a gun, primarily not for hunting or for protection, but because his ‘culture’ interprets his behaviour as a sign of masculinity and status.
From later in the same study:
Notions of anarchy strongly influenced 18th and 19th century folklore. Tales abound about the revolutionary movements of the Balkan Christians such as, the formation of rebel groups, dangerous trips to remote towns to buy guns and ammunition, heroes being chased by the enemy or engaged in long battles. The ending usually either laments the tragic deaths of the heroes or celebrates victory over the Turkish forces. Typically these heroic epics are exaggerated tales about the beauty, physical strength, honour and courage of the heroes. They are about men trying to prove their worthiness to be the leader of a haidouk (rebel) group, showing off their marksmanship, horse riding and sword fighting skills. People glorified haidouks as saviours who could protect them from attacks by the Turks or bandits. Stories and songs about the haidouk recount how the groups acquired weapons, the struggles for leadership and the battles they fought. They often describe haidouk everyday life, making contrasts between their joyful, romantic daily routines and the cold winters when the haidouks hid their guns and returned to their homes.
Here is the link to the full pdf file, so you can read the study in its entirety – (To my shock, after careful reading I discovered I was writing about two different studies – the one quoted is list first and the other on domestic violence is afterwards. They are both wonderful. JP)
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.