tagged w/ Ethics
-
If you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets that you take his word at face value, you would be in good company, but you might be terribly wrong. Organizations well versed in the agricultural issues facing developing nations are saying his annual letter, released last week, is completely mistaken when it asserts that a lack of support for GMO crop development is responsible, in part, for allowing world hunger to endure. We interviewed Heather Pilatic, Ph.D., co-director of the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), to show us the other, important side of the story.
TakePart: In the introduction to his letter, Bill Gates cites the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, saying scientists created new seed varieties for rice, wheat, and maize, and that this resulted in increased crop yield and a decrease in extreme poverty around the world. Do you agree that this is a model to use moving forward?
Heather Pilatic: The Green Revolution is a story that some people like to tell, but it has little basis in historical fact. Take the Green Revolution’s origins in 1940s Mexico, for instance. It was not really about feeding the world; Mexico was a food exporter at the time. Rather, the aims included stabilizing restive rural populations in our neighbor to the south, and making friends with a government that at the time was selling supplies to the World War II Axis powers and confiscating oil fields held by Standard Oil (a funding source for the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the key architects of the Green Revolution).
We can also learn from India, the Green Revolution’s next stop after Mexico. India embraced the Green Revolution model of chemical-intensive agriculture. Now it is the world’s second biggest rice grower with surplus grain in government warehouses. Yet India has more starving people than sub-Saharan Africa—at more than 200 million, that’s nearly a quarter of its population. History shows that a narrow focus on increasing crop yield through chemical-seed packages reduces neither hunger nor poverty.
So no, we do not agree that the Green Revolution offers a promising model for addressing poverty.
TakePart: Bill Gates is urging that more money be donated to agricultural innovation, including crop GMOs, because "one in seven people will continue living needlessly on the edge of starvation." Of course, this argument worries all of us. Will you explain PANNA's perspective?
Heather Pilatic: We could not agree with Gates more on the first point. Investment in agriculture in the developing world is enormously efficient and more impactful on the ground than investment in just about any other sector. It is also true that more people than ever before are going hungry, needlessly. We have enough food to go around now. We disagree with Gates on two points—one scientific and one political.
First, the science. Most of the rest of the world's experts agree that GMOs are not what the world's poor need to feed themselves. The science simply doesn't bear this claim out. Our staff scientist was a lead author in the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture ever undertaken, the UN & World Bank's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (the IAASTD). After four years and with the input of over 400 experts, and reams of evidence, the IAASTD concluded that the developing world's best bet for feeding itself in the 21st century was explicitly not the kind of chemically intensive farming that accompanies GMO seeds. Rather, these experts found that smaller scale, farmer-driven, knowledge-intensive, ecological agriculture is one of the most promising ways forward for the developing world in particular. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has reported that ecological farming can double food production within 10 years. This is the kind of agriculture we should be investing in.
Second, the political—and this cuts two ways. We must finally recognize that hunger is a problem of poverty and access to resources, especially land, not agricultural yield. The solution to world hunger is a political one: stop kicking farmers off their land and dumping product on the world market that puts them out of business; protect farmers’ rights to save and exchange seed; kick the bankers out of food-crop commodities speculation, they're playing roulette with our food system; write fair trade policies; listen to the world's poor, they know what they need...in short, democratize food and farming if you want to address hunger.
Finally, here in the U.S., kick the farm lobby out of Congress and the pesticide industry out of our federal regulatory agencies (EPA & USDA). Together, these two special interests have a chokehold on U.S. farm, aid and trade policy, and dominate our agricultural research agenda in ways that make it possible for a smart man like Bill Gates to believe and prosyletize on behalf of an approach to agriculture that A, the rest of the world knows is defunct; and B, has failed—after 14 years of commercialization and billions of dollars in public research funding—to deliver on a single one of its promises to the public.
More at the linkIf you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets... more
-
-
-
Last week, the London Olympics were wrapped in fresh embarassment and controversy as Mayor Boris Johnson’s ‘ethics Tzar’ resigned live on BBC Newsnight over fears that her ethics and sustainability concerns with regards to sponsors simply weren’t being listened to. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman she announced that her position at the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) was no longer tenable in light of the LOCOG’s continued relationship with and defence of the Dow Chemical Company.
The moment: Meredith Alexander appears live on the BBC's Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman to announce her resignation from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012
“By coming on air tonight, I’m taking the decision to resign my position and stand up for my principles… I feel that I was part of a body that has been used to legitimize Dow’s involvement in the games.” Dow took over Union Carbide Corporation in 2001, but neither company have addressed the ongoing issue of water and soil contamination in Bhopal that continues to kill thousands and afflict even more with chronic illnesses.
Coverage of the ongoing Bhopal tragedy, and the controversy over Dow and London 2012, went through the roof and Meredith acquired overnight celebrity status in India. Her resignation live on British television resulted in an outpouring of hope, gratitude and optimism from those still living in Union Carbide and Dow’s toxic shadow.
This week, the Bhopal Medical Appeal caught up with Ms. Alexander for a chat…
BMA: What were the main reasons for your resignation from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) ?
MA: All the evidence I have read has convinced me that Dow Chemicals is responsible for the deaths of more than 20,000 people in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas leak. The assets and liabilities of the company involved at the time – Union Carbide – are in Dow’s hands. Londoners, and other people, who are rightly excited about the London games, should not have this toxic legacy on their conscience.
BMA: At what point did your position became “untenable” and why?
MA: The tipping point for me, was the correspondence between Amnesty International and Lord Coe [Chair of LOCOG]. The latest response from Amnesty, just last week, pointed out how LOCOG have become apologists for Dow, falsely legitimising Dow’s stance that it bears no responsibility to the victims of the disaster and their families. I feel that the Olympic bodies are supporting Dow’s line and have failed to take the victim’s views into consideration.
BMA: Last week, Sebastian Shakespeare published a controversial column in the London Evening Standard with the bold headline “The Olympics should be no place for ethics.” Have you read it, and if so, what did you think?
MA: I have read it. And I actually submitted a letter to the editor yesterday about it. I think most Londoners share my view that ethics and sport can and must go hand in hand. Yet as things stand, the enjoyment of the Games risks being hampered by the toxic legacy of one of the sponsors: Dow Chemicals. When London bid to host the 2012 Games, we made a promise to the world that it would be most sustainable Games ever. [Read Meredith's whole letter to the ES newspaper here.]
BMA: Based on your resignation, can you further tell us why you think that ethics, morality, and sustainability are an important part of the Olympics? Why shouldn’t we just accept that commercial sponsorship is inevitable and ‘get over it.’
MA: I think it’s important to remember that there was absolutely no need for the London 2012 organisers to award anyone the contract for this wrap. It’s a completely optional item that is not essential to the design of the stadium. It will not help a single athlete run faster nor will it help spectators have a better view. Dow’s connection to the Olympics is a slap in the face to the victims of Bhopal, but the fact that this wrap is unnecessary makes this particular deal even more galling for those who have spent decades fighting for justice.
More of the interview at the linkLast week, the London Olympics were wrapped in fresh embarassment and controversy as... more
-
-
(This is my piece.) And as noted in this KOS piece from yesterday, KOMEN supporters jump ship, even before this decision "people have been uncomfortable with SGK's marketing, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (my cap), and pushing small groups around over copyright and trademark. This Planned Parenthood thing has just finally pushed them over the edge."
As a physician, I am very concerned. They made a medically unethical decision without hesitating. Just how many others have they made over the years? If they allowed one big funder to tell them to do this, what pressure have they bowed too previously from Big for-profit Health? You know the Right Wing/Big Health mantra is 'die quick, die cheap'...and that most especially goes for women.
I am about to propose to those who ask, that any woman getting treated for breast cancer discuss with her doctor if he uses any KOMEN funded research, asks why...and then asks to be treated by another standard!http://tinyurl.com/7gz7buj(This is my piece.) And as noted in this KOS piece from yesterday, KOMEN supporters... more
-
-
LOrion
-
added this
-
7 days ago
- |
-
The London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as Meredith Alexander, a Sustainability Commissioner and Ethics Adviser for the games, resigned live on the BBC’s flagship news program Newsnight. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman she announced that her position at the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) was no longer tenable in light of the LOCOG’s continued relationship with and defence of the Dow Chemical Company.
She stated, into TV cameras; “By coming on air tonight, I’m taking the decision to resign my position and stand up for my principles… I feel that I was part of a body that has been used to legitimize Dow’s involvement in the games.” She went on to state that while Dow Chemicals have an ‘army of PR people’ she hoped that her resignation could bring some attention to the continuing plight of victims in Bhopal.
The Dow Chemical Company took over Union Carbide corporation in 2001, but neither company have addressed the ongoing issue of water and soil contamination in Bhopal that continues to kill thousands and inflict even more with chronic illnesses. Lord Coe and LOCOG have been criticised for allowing Dow Chemical’s the opportunity to sponsor the London 2012 stadium.
Dow Chemical is currently a named respondent in two court cases pertaining to the Bhopal disaster and Dow’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Union Carbide, is involved in a US court case relating to the ongoing contamination. Union Carbide is also still wanted on criminal charges in India and the Indian courts have stated that Dow is ‘harbouring fugitives from justice’.
Further into the Newsnight interview, Ms. Alexander hinted at a developing crisis within the CSL regarding the Dow issue and stated that some of her fellow commissioners were also “very concerned” but she would not comment on the prospect of further resignations.
More at the linkThe London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as... more
-
-
Researchers from Newcastle University have been funded more than $9.3 million by the Wellcome Trust to begin experimenting with a method that could lead to children having DNA from three people to eliminate some genetic disorders.
According to the Telegraph, the technique involves removing the nucleus from a donor cell and inserting a fertilized nucleus from the hopeful couple or the unfertilized nucleus of the mother for fertilization later. This effort, researchers believe, could help couples where the mother has known genetic disorders carried on her mitochondrial DNA — DNA found in the mitochondria of a cell.
Mitochondrial DNA, which composes 0.2 percent of a human‘s DNA and doesn’t influence traits like physical appearance, is passed down from mother to offspring. But, there are several genetic disorders, such as muscular dystrophy and ataxia, which are associated with this type DNA.Researchers from Newcastle University have been funded more than $9.3 million by the... more
-
-
The American College of Physicians has new ethics guidelines to help doctors in handling sensitive issues related to patient care including end-of-life care, complementary and alternative medicine, taking care of VIPs and using social media.The American College of Physicians has new ethics guidelines to help doctors in... more
-
-
.
The Atlantic
.
Dead Cow Walking: The Case Against Born-Again Carnivorism
By Marc Bekoff
Dec 27 2011, 8:53 AM ET 614
Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are sentient beings with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief.
.
"Eating Animals," by Nicolette Hahn Niman, a livestock rancher, with help from deer hunter Tovar Cerulli and butcher Joshua Applestone, caught my eye because, at first, I thought this essay was authored by Jonathan Safran Foer, who wrote a best-selling book with the same title. While Niman and her friends do rightly argue against consuming factory-farmed animals -- who live utterly horrible lives from the time that they're born to the time that they're transported to slaughterhouses and barbarically killed -- these three born-again carnivores, all former vegetarians or vegans, now proudly eat animals and think that it's just fine to do so. They gloss over the fact that even if the animals they eat are "humanely" raised and slaughtered, an arguable claim, they're still taking a life. These animals are merely a means to an end: a tasty meal.
The defensive and apologetic tone of this essay also caught my eye, as did the conveniently utilitarian framework of the argument. The animals they eat were raised simply to become meals because Niman and others choose to eat meat. I like to say that whom we choose to eat is a moral question, and just because these three now choose to eat animals doesn't mean that other people should make the same choice. Note that I wrote "whom" we eat, not "what." Cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are sentient beings who have rich emotional lives. They can feel everything from sheer joy to deep grief. They can also suffer enduring pain and misery, and they don't deserve to have the good and happy lives provided by Niman and others ended early just so that their flesh can wind up on what really is a platter of death.
Wolves, lions, and cougars are not moral agents and can't be held accountable for their actions. But most humans know what they're doing and are responsible for their choices.
Cows, for example, are very intelligent. They worry over what they don't understand and have been shown to experience "eureka" moments when they solve a puzzle, such as when they figure out how to open a particularly difficult gate. Cows communicate by staring, and it's likely that we don't fully understand their very subtle forms of communication. They also form close and enduring relationships with family members and friends and don't like to have their families and social networks disrupted. Chickens are also emotional beings, and detailed scientific research has shown that they empathize with the pain of other chickens.
Raising happy animals just so that they can be killed is really an egregious double cross. The "raise them, love them, and then kill them" line of reasoning doesn't have a meaningful ring of compassion. And this isn't mercy killing (euthanasia) performed because these animals need to be put out of their pain. No, these healthy and happy animals are slaughtered, and if you dare to look into their eyes, you know that they're suffering. If you wouldn't treat a dog like this, then you shouldn't treat a cow, a pig, or any other animal in this way.
As a field biologist who studies animal behavior, I feel that the authors' appeal to what happens in the natural world -- "life feeds on life" -- is an illogical justification for their food choices. I've seen thousands of predatory encounters. I cringe when I see them, but I would never interfere. Wild predators, unlike us, have no choice about whom or what they eat. They couldn't survive if they didn't eat other animals. And indeed, many animals are vegetarians, including non-human primates, who eat other animals only on very rare occasions.
Jessica Pierce and I wrote about how appeals to nature are misleading and illogical in our book Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. We argued that wolves, lions, and cougars, for example, are not moral agents and can't be held accountable for their actions. They don't know right from wrong. On the other hand, most humans do know what they're doing and are responsible for their choices. When it comes down to whose flesh winds up in our mouths, we can make choices, and in my view, eating animals is wrong and unnecessary, even when they are "humanely" raised and slaughtered. Let me add a caveat here because, as a world traveler, I do know that many people do not have the luxury of making a choice about their meals and must eat whatever is available to them. However, those who do have that luxury can easily eat an animal-free diet. And we can work to show others that a vegetarian or vegan diet can be very economical and healthy.
Niman and her friends also note that vegetarian and vegan diets have "never really taken hold." So what? This hardly means that we shouldn't try to do the right thing. They write, "The vast majority of Americans who do try vegetarianism or veganism -- about three-quarters of them -- return to eating meat. Rather than urging people to consume only plants, doesn't it make more sense to encourage them to eat an omnivorous diet that is healthy, ethical, and ecologically sound?" No, it doesn't. What it means is that these people should try harder and not give up just because it might seem difficult to change their meal plans. Perhaps they just need more time and encouragement from other vegetarians who can show them how easy it is to stop eating animals.
It's easy to add more compassion to the world and to expand our compassion footprint. Excuses such as "Oh, I know they suffer, but don't tell me because I love my burger" add cruelty to the world, even if the animals people are eating weren't raised on factory farms and killed in slaughterhouses. You're eating a dead animal who really did care about what happened to him or her. When I ask people how they can dismiss the fact that an animal was killed for their pleasure, they usually fumble here and there and offer no meaningful answer. When I ask them if they'd eat a dog, they look at me with incredulity and emphatically say, "No!" When I ask them why they wouldn't eat a dog, they can't really tell me, offering statements laden with dismissive phrases, such as "Oh, you know...." Because I often travel to China to help in the rehabilitation of Asiatic moon bears who have been rescued from the bear-bile industry, people sometimes ask me, "How can you go there? Isn't that where they eat dogs and cats?" I simply say, "Yes, it is, and I'm from America, where they eat cows and pigs, who are no less sentient and emotional beings." Animals really are very much like us.
No matter how humanely raised they are, the lives of animals raised for food can be cashed out simply as "dead cow/pig/chicken walking." Whom we choose to eat is a matter of life and death. I think of the animals' manifesto as "Leave us alone. Don't bring us into the world if you're just going to kill us to satisfy your tastes."
.
Image: Kurt De Bruyn
..
The Atlantic
.
Dead Cow Walking: The Case Against Born-Again Carnivorism... more
-
-
ButterballAbuse.com...
Mercy For Animals....
.
Butterball has become synonymous with turkey. But how do the millions of turkeys who end up in the grocery store, or served at restaurants, under the Butterball brand, really live and die?
A new Mercy For Animals undercover investigation reveals the truth: extreme cruelty and violence is the harsh reality for birds on Butterball's factory farms.
Between November and December of 2011, an MFA undercover investigator documented a pattern of shocking abuse and neglect at a Butterball turkey semen collection facility in Shannon, North Carolina.
Hidden-camera footage taken at Butterball reveals:
Workers violently kicking and stomping on birds, dragging them by their fragile wings and necks, and maliciously throwing turkeys onto the ground or into transport trucks in full view of company management;
Employees bashing in the heads of live birds with metal bars, leaving many to slowly suffer and die from their injuries;
Turkeys covered in flies, living in their own waste, with some unable to access food or water and suffering from severe feather loss
Birds suffering from serious untreated illnesses and injuries, including open sores, infections, rotting eyes, and broken bones; and
Severely injured turkeys, unable to stand up or walk, left to die without any veterinary care, because treating sick or injured birds was too costly and time consuming, as the farm manager explained to MFA's investigator.
After viewing the undercover footage, Dr. Sara Shields, research scientist, poultry specialist and consultant in animal welfare, said, "Turkeys are fully capable of feeling pain, fear, stress and of suffering, and the way they are treated in the video is clearly abusive."
Dr. Debra Teachout, a practicing veterinarian with experience in farmed-animal welfare, agrees, stating, "The birds are not living a life remotely worth living. Their world is full of fear, distress, pain, injury and illness as witnessed by this video. A culture of blatant and severe animal mistreatment has been allowed to flourish unchecked, and for that reason, this facility should be shut down immediately."
Following the investigation, MFA immediately went to law enforcement with extensive video footage and a detailed legal complaint outlining the routine violence and cruelty documented by the investigator at this Butterball facility. On Thursday, December 29, state law enforcement officials obtained a warrant and raided the facility on grounds of cruelty to animals.
Unfortunately, the lives of turkeys in Butterball's factory farms are short, brutal and filled with fear, violence and prolonged suffering. While wild turkeys are sleek, agile and able to fly, Butterball's turkeys have been selectively bred to grow so large, so quickly, that many of them suffer from painful bone defects, hip joint lesions, crippling foot and leg deformities, and fatal heart attacks.
This genetic manipulation creates birds that are so large they cannot even reproduce naturally, meaning that artificial semen collection and insemination have become the sole means of turkey reproduction at Butterball facilities.
Even though domestic turkeys have been genetically manipulated for enormous growth, these birds still retain their gentle, inquisitive and social natures. Oregon State University poultry scientist Dr. Tom Savage says that turkeys are "smart animals with personality and character, and keen awareness of their surroundings." In fact, animal behaviorists, veterinarians, and scientists now agree that turkeys are sensitive and intelligent animals with their own unique personalities, much like the dogs and cats we all know and love.
While MFA works to expose and end animal abuse at Butterball and other giants of the meat, dairy and egg industry, consumers can help prevent the needless suffering of turkeys and other animals by adopting a compassionate vegan diet.
.
.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/ht_butterball_abuse_tk_111228_wg.jpg
.
.
Click here to view undercover video:
http://www.butterballabuse.com
.ButterballAbuse.com...
Mercy For Animals....
.
Butterball has become... more
-
-
NATO may have ended its operations in Libya, but the Western presence is far from over - with big companies replacing the warplanes. The countries that bombed the oil-rich country are now getting lucrative contracts to rebuild it. RT's Laura Smith adds up the profits of war.NATO may have ended its operations in Libya, but the Western presence is far from over... more
-
-
The global challenge of climate change poses a perfect moral storm — by failing to take action to rein in carbon emissions, the current generation is spreading the costs of its behavior far into the future. Why should people in the future pay to clean up our mess?
by stephen gardiner
Sometimes the best way to make progress on a problem is to get clearer on what that problem is. Arguably, the biggest issue facing humanity at the moment is the looming global environmental crisis. Here, the problem is not that we are unaware that trouble is coming. After all, the basic science is both well known and continually being reiterated in major national and international reports. Rather, the core problem is that thus far effective action seems beyond us. We seem at best paralyzed, and at worst indifferent. Put starkly, there seems little place within our grand institutions and busy lives for what may turn out to be the defining issue of our generation.
Why? In my view, at the heart of the matter is the fact that humanity is in the grip of a profound ethical challenge that our current institutions and theories are ill-equipped to meet.
Sebastian Junger’s book The Perfect Storm tells the story of a fishing boat caught at sea during the rare convergence of three independently powerful storms. Similarly, the global crisis of climate change brings together three major challenges to ethical action — and in a mutually reinforcing way. It is genuinely global, profoundly intergenerational, and occurs in a setting where we lack robust theory and institutions to guide us. Neglect of this perfect moral storm leads us to underestimate the climate problem and fail to appreciate the wider implications in predictable ways.
Conventional wisdom identifies climate change as primarily a global problem. Wherever they originate, emissions of the main greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) quickly become mixed in the atmosphere, affecting climate Those least responsible for past emissions are likely to suffer the most serious impacts.everywhere. According to the standard analysis, this makes climate change a traditional “tragedy of the commons,” played out between nation states that represent the interests of their citizens in perpetuity. In Garrett Hardin’s tragedy, each herdsman prefers the collective outcome where none over-consume — so that the commons is not overburdened. Nevertheless, when acting individually each prefers to over-consume himself, no matter what the others do — with ruinous results for all.
In climate change, we are often told, states reason in the same way. Each prefers the collective outcome where none over-consume with carbon emissions — so that dangerous climate change is avoided. Yet, when acting individually, each prefers to over-consume, no matter what the others do — so overconsumption is rife. In both cases, then, we are led to an outcome that no one wants, and which is severe enough to seem tragic.
Unfortunately, this traditional model is at best dangerously incomplete. To begin with, it ignores one central spatial aspect of the climate problem. Those least responsible for past emissions are likely to suffer the most serious impacts (at least in the short- to medium-term). This is partly because the poorer nations are disproportionately located in more climate-sensitive regions, but it is also because, being poor, they lack the resources available to the rich to address negative impacts. Since it ignores this basic problem of fairness, the traditional model underestimates the nature of the relevant “tragedy.”
Even more importantly, the traditional model obscures the temporal aspect of the perfect moral storm. Once emitted, a substantial proportion of climate emissions typically remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, and some persist for tens — even hundreds — of thousands. This means that the current generation takes benefits now, but spreads the costs of its behavior far into the future.
Worse, many of these benefits are comparatively modest (e.g., those of bigger and more powerful vehicles), and many of the projected costs are severe, even catastrophic (e.g., severe flooding and famine). Worse still, the problem is iterated: The same temptation to take modest benefits now even Most victims of climate change cannot hold us to account, being very poor, not yet born, or nonhuman.in the face of severe costs to the future is repeated for subsequent generations as they come to hold the reins of power. Hence, there are cumulative impacts further in the future. Worst of all, such impacts may eventually provoke the equivalent of an intergenerational arms race. Perhaps some future generations will face such appalling environmental conditions that they are entitled to emit more in self-defense, even foreseeing that this behavior makes matters even worse for their successors. And so it goes on.
The third storm exacerbates the situation. Climate change brings together many areas in which our best theories are far from robust, such as intergenerational ethics, global justice, scientific uncertainty, and humanity’s relationship to nature. The problem here is not that we do not have any guidance at all. For example, the idea that imposing catastrophe on the future for the sake of our own modest benefits is not a defensible way to behave is a relatively secure basic ethical intuition. Rather, the problem is that it is difficult to move beyond those basic intuitions to deal with the details, and we are too easily distracted by counterarguments, especially from theories that have merits in other contexts, but fail to take the future seriously enough.
For example, some influential economists claim the current generation is justified in moving slowly on climate change because future people will be richer due to economic growth, and so should pay more. But are we entitled to assume that the future will be richer even in a climate catastrophe? And even if they are, why should they pay to clean up our mess?
More at the link
___________________
The decisions we all make now have an effect on future generations. To leave this world this way for future generations is a moral crime.The environmental debt we leave our children is even more heinous a crime than the economic debt we leave them. I will never understand the mindset of the quick fix.
http://cugh.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/climate-change.jpgThe global challenge of climate change poses a perfect moral storm — by failing... more
-
-
British Conservative Party defense secretary Liam Fox is in the midst of scandal that has grown deeper as ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are revealed. Pressure has been growing on Fox in recent weeks after having been caught in a lie about unethical dealings with his friend and former flatmate, and more ethical problems arising from the operation of a recently-dissolved, ALEC-connected "charity" Fox founded.
Improper Dealings, Friend Given Inappropriate Access
Liam FoxIn June, a businessman had a private meeting with Fox in a Dubai hotel to ask the defense minister to put pressure on United States corporation 3M regarding a $41 million dispute over technology sales. Fox initially claimed the meeting was a chance encounter, but The Guardian revealed that the get-together was organized by Adam Werrity, Fox's longtime friend and the best man at his wedding. A lobbying firm linked to Werrity also received payment for his fixing the meeting.
Werrity was not a public employee and had no security clearances, but had been handing out business cards embossed with Parliament's logo that described him as an "adviser" to Fox. Other evidence suggests Werrity had an inappropriate level of access to British government affairs. He accompanied Fox to meetings with overseas dignitaries like the president of Sri Lanka, and met with Fox multiple times in the defense secretary's offices. Werrity has unofficially been at his friend's side throughout Fox's career, taking director positions at companies in the health industry when Fox was health secretary for the minority party, and moving to the defense industry when Fox became defense secretary.
British newspapers have been closely tracking allegations that Werrity has been profiting off access to Fox, his friend and former flatmate. According to The Guardian, concerns about these types of conflicts-of-interest are "why special advisers now have to be vetted, why they must observe their own code, and why there is a compulsory register of their interests -- these are part of the machinery of good governance about which this government is beginning to look casual." Having an "off-the-books" advisor like Werrity, The Guardian writes, "deprives officials of their essential role as guarantors of the public interest."
Fox had been a star of Britain's Conservative Party, and like ALEC-connected Republicans in the United States, he attacked public employees earlier this year, responding to budget woes by cutting unionized civil service jobs. But the Werrity scandals could be his downfall. Even the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid The Sun said the arrangement with Werrity "oozes access-and-influence" and called for Fox's ouster.
Fox Founded ALEC-Connected Group, Headquarted in Public Office
snip
In a press release (pdf), ALEC described the project as aiming to "foster positive relationships between conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic, so that they may further the ideals exemplified by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher," which some have called an effort to "import U.S.-style conservatism to the U.K." When the project was announced in 2007, ALEC stated that it had 27 European Parliament members "and expects to increase that number substantially through the project." It is unknown how many European politicians are currently ALEC members.
The organization's advisory council as of 2010 consists of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Rep. John Campbell (R-California), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Sout Carolina), former Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Florida until 2011), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connectucut), and Sen James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). All but Kyl and Lieberman are known ALEC alumni.
snip
Inquiry Into Charitable Status Mirrors U.S. Effort
In July, Common Cause requested that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service conduct a similar inquiry into ALEC for possibly violating its status as a tax-exempt "social welfare" charity under U.S. tax law. As a non-profit organized under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, "no substantial part" of ALEC's activities can be spent on lobbying, which Common Cause alleges ALEC violates by drafting and affirmatively promoting corporate-sponsored "model legislation." The letter to the IRS concludes:
"By claiming to be a charity and calling participating legislators "members," ALEC attempts to evade disclosure of its lobbying, allows corporate members to deduct their payments as charitable contributions rather than non-deductible lobbying expenses, and does an end-run around state ethics laws intended to restrict the ability of businesses to buy access to legislators in order to promote their policy agendas. The IRS should stop allowing the continuation of this charade".
More at the linkBritish Conservative Party defense secretary Liam Fox is in the midst of scandal that... more
-
-
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/09/defend-america-defend-the-foreign-corrupt-practices-act.html
Last Friday several anti-corruption and oversight watchdog groups pushed back on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's campaign to undermine the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which for more than three decades has served as a deterrent to bribery.
We at POGO wrote a letter to lawmakers opposing the Chamber’s proposals to weaken the FCPA, which include:
* removing liability for subsidiaries that bribe;
* allowing mergers to provide immunity for past bribery;
* creating exceptions for companies that have a “compliance program;”
* requiring not only intention to bribe, but that it also be a “willful” act; and
* narrowing the definition of a “foreign official.”
At a briefing in the Capitol building on Friday sponsored by the Open Society Policy Center, Transparency International, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other groups, a panel of experts discussed the fallacy of these proposed amendments, with the overall conclusion being that they would make it easier to get away with bribery. Harvard professor of law David Kennedy and Northeastern international law professor Dan Danielson, authors of Busting Bribery, a lengthy report on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s attempts to weaken the FCPA, argued that all of the Chamber’s proposed amendments would simply serve to limit corporate liability for bribery.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the Chamber’s proposal to add a “willfulness” requirement to the FCPA, wherein it would have to be shown not only that a company was guilty of bribery, but that they also knew they were violating the FCPA. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it even for the most innocuous offenses (as anyone given a parking ticket can attest)—so why should it be an excuse for bribery? The law professors' report notes that this proposal “looks much more like a license to commit pervasive and intentional bribery than a modest attempt to eliminate the risk of prosecutorial over-reach.”
Pervasive bribery is not just morally and ethically wrong—it’s bad for business. As the “Busting Bribery” report notes:
Widespread corruption abroad imposes enormous costs on American business, damages the global business environment and undermines the integrity and effectiveness of governments. A culture of corruption raises the costs of penetrating foreign markets and undermines predictability and business confidence. It imposes particular hardships on small and medium sized American enterprises seeking to participate in the global economy. Fighting these obstacles to American business has required a long-term commitment by the U.S. government and by American companies to change the climate for global commercial activity and the culture of business-government relations in countries across the world.
In this economic climate, we cannot afford to undermine the ability of small- and medium-sized American businesses to compete in foreign markets. Allowing the largest corporations with the greatest resources available to bribe undermines the spirit of entrepreneurship. This crony capitalism is bad for business, investors, and consumers.
The FCPA is an invaluable tool in U.S. foreign policy that exports to the world the ideals of equal opportunity and free enterprise this country was founded upon. As Bennett Freeman, head of Calvert Asset Management’s Sustainability Research Department noted at the briefing, there would be a grave hypocrisy if we were to roll back our landmark anti-corruption law while we are promoting anti-corruption abroad. Today, President Obama will launch the Open Government Partnership, an international initiative with dozens of other countries designed to encourage governments to become more open and fight corruption. Now is not the time economically or politically to weaken the FCPA.
Ben Freeman is POGO’s National Security Fellow.http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/09/defend-america-defend-the-foreign-corrupt-prac... more
-
-
"A liberal advocacy group is filing an ethics complaint against Rep. Darrell Issa, alleging that the California Republican has repeatedly used his public office for personal gain.""A liberal advocacy group is filing an ethics complaint against Rep. Darrell... more
-
-
Cabal
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
-
-
Avior
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
The first thing to understand is that your brand is on the line. And while successes can be quite specific, disasters generalize. For instance, say you sign on to represent the local charitable outreach division of Acme Widgets. And you do a great job, promoting all kinds of positive programs that benefit the communities Acme serves. Then it’s revealed that Acme execs knowingly covered up data demonstrating that their next-generation widget technology causes pregnant women to miscarry. You may have some nice pictures from that Boys & Girls Club opening in Peoria, but what people are going to remember is the dead babies, which are hanging around your neck like so many albatrosses even though you never got anywhere near the company’s product promotion business. Seriously, do you think my mind will ever be able to unhitch Brown Lloyd James from the massacres in Hama?
We all know it, but let’s say it again: reputations can take years to create and seconds to destroy. This goes for your clients, and it goes for your firm’s brand, too. I’m not saying that you should only cherry pick the easiest and least challenged clients (I mean, I love a challenge and I’m idealistic enough to believe that I can effect change, given the chance), but I am saying – as I have suggested before – that I don’t think every client out there deserves professional representation.The first thing to understand is that your brand is on the line. And while successes... more
-
-
The National Day Labor Organizing Network tries "TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF DAY LABORERS IN THE UNITED STATES. NDLON UNIFIES AND STRENGTHENS ITS MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS TO BE MORE STRATEGIC AND EFFECTIVE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO DEVELOP LEADERSHIP, MOBILIZE DAY LABORERS IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND EXPAND THEIR CIVIL, LABOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS."
http://ndlon.org/
Families are torn apart when immigration officials take parents away from their children. We in the U.S. benefit from day labor in the inexpensive produce we all eat to stay healthy. Is it too much to ask that the people who put food on our tables be treated like human beings?The National Day Labor Organizing Network tries "TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF DAY... more
-
-
CNN...
.
August 9th, 2011
08:00 AM ET
Should bullfighting be banned?
By Stephanie Garlow, GlobalPost
.
First Catalonia outlawed bullfighting, which the Economist likened it to a German state banning wurst or a French region condemning berets.
Now Peru's minister of culture has said the sport is "terrible" and that it causes excessive suffering for the animals.
So is bullfighting on the way out? Is it a "tradition of tragedy," as PETA claims, that kills 250,000 bulls annually?
Activists who gathered in Lima last week to protest the mistreatment of bulls would seem to agree. "Bullfighting promotes violence, torture and cruelty to animals for no reason," William Soberon, of the Anti-Bullfighting Front of Peru, told La Republica. "We're not in the colonial era."
Peru's newly appointed minister of culture, Susana Baca, said she felt sorry for the animals and that she cried when she once attended a cockfight. "I've never been to a bullfight but from the little I've seen in the media, I know it's terrible and I had to close my eyes," she said on the program "Buenos Dias, Peru."
But protests against bullfighting are nothing new in Peru. And comments by Baca that she would analyze the practice during her tenure quickly sparked controversy.
Bullfighter Fernando Roca Rey told La Republica that bullfighting should be seen as a cultural event and that "the minister can give her opinion, but that cannot be applied to the whole country." Bullfighting celebrations have been held in Peru since 1766 and the Plaza de Toros de Acho bullring is the oldest in the Americas and second-oldest in the world, reports AFP.
And the Spanish government recently dealt a blow to efforts to outlaw the sport when it ruled that bullfighting is an "artistic discipline and cultural product." The country's Ministry of Culture will now be responsible for the "development and protection" of bullfighting, a move that supporters hope is a step toward protecting the tradition from further regional bans.
Bullfighting is also practiced in Portugal and the south of France and is widespread in Latin America. Mexico City's Plaza Mexico arena is the biggest in the world with seats for up to 55,000.
And while public opinion might be swinging away from bullfighting — a poll last year for El Pais found 60 percent of Spaniards did not enjoy bullfighting — the sport still has big-name supporters. Peruvian novelist and Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa campaigned to convince UNESCO to classify bullfighting as part of Spain's national heritage.
And in novelist Ernest Hemingway, the sport found one of its most enduring voices of support. The art of the bullfighting, Hemingway wrote in "Death in the Afternoon," "is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death and in which the degree of brilliance in the performance is left to the fighter's honor."
.CNN...
.
August 9th, 2011
08:00 AM ET
Should bullfighting be banned?... more
-
-
A recent segment of Koch Brothers Exposed examined the intricate right-wing echo chamber the brothers fund in order to propagate policy lies into the mainstream debate. Unsurprisingly, Fox News was a key outlet through which they could accomplish this.
http://tinyurl.com/6j86mtfA recent segment of Koch Brothers Exposed examined the intricate right-wing echo... more
-
-
LOrion
-
added this
-
7 months ago
- |
-
Are MDs More Ethical Than Mechanics?
Probably not. But I got a posting from a frantic MD today whose knickers were painfully twisted over the prospect of the US Gummint, through one or another of its agencies, sending investigators to MD’s offices to assess the alignment of their servicesAre MDs More Ethical Than Mechanics?
Probably not. But I got a posting from a... more
-
