Nothing But Words™…

Human beings can be very selfish creatures. We come up with a gadget, an idea, even a word and we immediately seek to reserve it for only those people we like and punish those whom we see as stealing “our” creation. This trait has only been exacerbated  by the current global economic system of trade marks, patents, copyright, etc, where legal and monetary punishment tries to limit the use of an idea. While I understand that this system is, in theory, to prevent the exploitation of someone’s creative work ( thus allowing them to make a living off their idea), it has been corrupted in some truly bizarre ways–to the point that preexisting words, created by no one still living, are now being fought over in court.

Take for example the NFL’s recent failed attempt to claim exclusive rights to the phrase “who ‘dat”. The phase has long been in common usage and started being used by Saints fans in the 1970’s. To make matters even more confusing it was registered by two different groups in the 1980’s. But should the phrase even fall under copy right laws? After all, historians trace its usage back to the 1800’s so it was hardly the creative work of anyone now trying to claim it, and has there hasn’t been any alteration to the phrase to make it distinguishable from its generic form (such has how APPLE ®  is different from an apple).

Such disputes as the one above are quite common throughout the world and occur over almost anything you can think about. For some ludicrous examples of the global fight over names of common food products (such as catfish) read this article from Time magazine… However the fight over preexisting words can extend beyond economic greed and turn into issues of cultural heritage and exclusivism and it is these cases that really make one consider how important certain words can be to our identity.

One such case is the current dispute in Malaysia over who can use the word Allah (Arabic for God). Recent violence  has erupted over the decision of the Malaysian High Court to strike down a ban on non-Muslims using the word Allah in their literature. This issue is tied to identity and discrimination of religions minorities by the state. The population of Malaysia is largely Muslim, but also has an established Christian community which argues that it is perfectly acceptable from them to use Allah as it is common word for God used in the country. However many Malaysian Muslims argue that the word Allah is exclusive to Islam and is an integral part of Muslim identity.

Now this is an interesting case. Can it really be argued that one group has exclusive rights to a name of the divine? Yes there are countless groups out there who argue theologically that they are the favored people, that their gods are the true gods, etc, but does that mean they have an exclusive LEGAL right to a description of the holy? It can be argued that certain words have power, (true names, etc), and that they are vital part of the identity of a certain group–and by taking that word away, (i.e. letting outsiders use it), you in fact destroy the group. And what about the argument put forth by many  groups about cultural exploitation? While these arguments certainly have merit, particularly in relation to the issues of globalization and the oppression of indigenous peoples, can their line of logic be applied to something as universal and deeply personal as the divine?

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter….

Big Brother and the Internet.

News and Analysis…

At a recent meeting of the D.C. based Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG) the FBI once again pushed for expanded data retention on the part of internet service providers (ISPs). Always a touchy subject in relation to privacy rights, the FBI is trying to extend the regulations to require ISPs to record which web sites costumers visit and retain the records for two years; a demand which generated much conversation among technology and justice groups over the feasibility and wisdom of such an action.

CNET | FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users’ “origin and destination information,” a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday.

As far back as a 2006 speech, Mueller had called for data retention on the part of Internet providers, and emphasized the point two years later when explicitly asking Congress to enact a law making it mandatory. But it had not been clear before that the FBI was asking companies to begin to keep logs of what Web sites are visited, which few if any currently do.

The FBI is not alone in renewing its push for data retention. As CNET reported earlier this week, a survey of state computer crime investigators found them to be nearly unanimous in supporting the idea. Matt Dunn, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in the Department of Homeland Security, also expressed support for the idea during the task force meeting.

The Technology Liberation Front | But the strongest objection came from John Morris of the Center for Democracy & Technology, who rightly noted that no amount of government subsidies for data retention could prevent leakage of sensitive private data. For this reason and because of the basic civil liberties at stake whenever the government has access to large pools of data about its citizens, Morris argued that we need to strike a balance between how we protect children & the values of free society. Dave McClure of the US Internet Industry Association (USIIA) seconded this point powerfully: If such vast data is retained, it will be abused.

The Next Web | Another concern is whether or not such a law for logging data explicitly for the purpose of federal investigation in some way violates the Constitution. For example, American citizens are entitled to an expectation of privacy. In my opinion, this if you’re just visiting a website in your home that doesn’t have any social features, this activity should be considered private. If, on the other hand, you’re on a site interacting with users, then you’re being less private.

Personally, any proposals for data logging set off my internal Orwellian sensors. The FBI argument will be that more data will allow for better policing of criminal activity, but that’s also the problem: all of the user data collected would be more or less for the purpose of prosecuting people. And the last thing we need in the US is more ways to put people in jail.

Ars Technia | The two-year data retention request has remained consistent over the last four years, even as the Europeans have tightened up many of their data retention policies. That might be, in part, because the US has no equivalent to the EU’s Article 29 Working Group, made of of national data privacy commissioners; here, the push for privacy comes largely from nonprofits outside the government, not from within.

But Europe does face conflicts between its privacy advocates and law enforcement, instructive to consider since the EU is ahead (in a temporal sense) of the US on these issues. While the Article 29 group pushes Internet companies to retain data for no more than six months, the 2006 EU Data Retention Directive requires ISPs and Internet companies to retain certain kinds of data for six months to 24 months. The rule has to be made into law by each EU member state, and was to be fully in place by the end of 2009. Each state can choose whatever retention period it likes best, and can even go beyond two years if desired. (Much like the FBI’s request, the EU rule requires source and destination information, but not the actual contents of communications.)

The US has not adopted either comprehensive data privacy or data retention legislation. The FBI has not been shy about making its views on the matter heard, but the fact that four years have passed without Congress giving the Bureau what it wants shows what a low priority the matter remains.

Best of the web…

Vegetative State Patients Can Respond to Questions  | BBC News

The research, carried out in the UK and Belgium, involved a new brain scanning method.

Awareness was detected in three other patients previously diagnosed as being in a vegetative state.

The study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that scans can detect signs of awareness in patients thought to be closed off from the world.

Patients in a vegetative state are awake, not in a coma, but have no awareness because of severe brain damage.

Costa Rica Elects Female President  | Aljazeera

Costa Ricans have elected their first female president, with Laura Chinchilla, the ruling party candidate, taking 47 per cent of the vote.

Chinchilla declared victory early on Monday, with votes way ahead of her rivals and above the 40 per cent needed to avoid a run-off.

Study Finds Tree Growth Spurt  | The New York Times

Forests in the eastern United States appear to be growing faster in response to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a new study has found.

The study centered on trees in mixed hardwood stands on the western edge of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland that are representative of much of the those on the Eastern Seaboard.

All are growing two to four times as fast as normal, according to a study published in Tuesday’s issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Help for Haiti edition

Analysis …

NPR reported this weekend that logistical bottlenecks in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince was keeping aid, such as food, water and medicines, from reaching those in the earthquake-stricken country who need it. Chaos and violence were causing additional woes. Meanwhile, as people in the U.S. sought ways to aid  earthquake’s victims, some folks began to wonder what actions they could take to help — and also wondered whether donations would really make a difference and if they really would go to the people who could benefit from them.

Lawyers, Guns and Money |  “(You simply can’t offload supplies from ships without dock cranes. You can’t land planes full of relief shipments and inflatable hospitals without a functional control tower. To save lives, search and rescue crews must get their equipment from tarmac to disaster zone efficiently. Helicopters need landing zones not decimated by rubble. And most importantly, military folks with the choppers need to be able to communicate with the civilian aid agencies who have the supplies.)”

Felix Salmon |  “It’s human nature to want to believe that in the wake of a major disaster, we can all do our bit to help just by giving generously. And if there’s a silver lining to these tragedies at all, it’s that they significantly increase the total amount of money donated to important charities by individuals around the world. But if a charity is worth supporting, then it’s worth supporting with unrestricted funds. Because the last thing anybody wants to see in a couple of years’ time is an unseemly tussle over what happened to today’s Haiti donations, even as other international tragedies receive much less public attention.”

Philanthrocapitalism |  “Effective giving needs the head and the heart. As all our hearts go out to the people of Haiti, we offer three thoughts about how to give. First, give money. This may sound obvious, but aid agencies are swamped at this time with offers of food, clothing and other goods. Even when these goods are needed, it is far more cost effective for charities to buy and ship exactly what they need than sorting out gifts in kind. Second, give it to an organisation with a track record of effective action. Thanks to the internet, it has never been easier to find out who those organisations are. Third, why not match fund what you have given to Haiti with a gift through kiva or globalgiving to someone suffering just as much, but less dramatically, elsewhere in the world?”

Global Post |  “If you’re considering doing your part, that’s great. But, experts say, whatever you do, don’t donate anything but money. Under no circumstances should you mail care packages, toys, food or clothes. Don’t even think about sending drugs. The response to prior disasters shows that regardless of your intentions, you will only be making matters worse.”

This Week in Education |  “After you’ve used your cell phone to text a donation to help the people of Haiti — last night’s edition of  Marketplace reported that over $3 million has already been donated this way — start thinking about how cellphone microdonations might change the face of education giving in the future.  With text message giving, no credit cards are required, not even a visit to a computer.  Even the smallest amounts can help.  It’s an easy, fast way to give in a world that really likes thing easy and fast.”

Stuff White People Do |  “I’ve often watched privileged people make themselves feel a little better about the relative advantages they have by donating money to various “causes.” Some big-name organization will come along soliciting donations, and because the privileged person recognizes the big-name, they feel safe giving money to it. Or rather, they think, giving money through it. Because they’ve heard the big non-profit’s name before, they feel assured that the money will get to the people in need that the organization claims to be helping. Trouble is, many of these big-name organizations don’t end up giving all that much of the donated funds to the people who need it.”

Foreign Policy |  “This September, Haiti qualified for the cancellation of $1.2 billion of its $1.9 billion in external debt.  To ensure the recovery of the nation and the livelihoods of its 9 million citizens, the IDB and any other lenders should fully cancel any remaining debt obligations.”

Salon |  “The explosion of Haitian text-giving is proof that new technology can give a boost to our better nature, even as it simultaneously enables our most prurient impulses. For every flame war, let’s have a virtual food-bank drive. For every nasty-gram, let’s, in some small way, try to help alleviate suffering somewhere. It’s easy. All you need is a phone.”

Also on the Web …

What Martin Luther King Would Say About Haiti on His Birthday  |  Jack & Jill Politics

Today is Martin Luther King’s birthday. Today a horrific tragedy is going on in Haiti. While some men of the cloth are using the incident to spread their twisted world views, Martin surely would’ve used the occasion to spread wisdom and good will and encourage his fellow man to help out our Haitian brothers and sisters in need. But still what happened in Haiti is deeper than that.

For King, giving money to Haiti would not be enough. In order to be good citizens of the world, it is not good enough to just to give money, we must make sure to end the economic and social climate that led to the disaster.

The U.N.’s Loss  |  Alas, a Blog

Humanity’s best impulses will be what helps the nation of Haiti to rebuild from the catastrophe in Port-au-Prince, and not just in the immediate future. The United Nations will remain in Haiti long after the minicams have gone home. They will not solve all the problems that plague Haiti; no organization can. But they will continue to help, as they have been helping for years.

And while it’s fashionable in some corners to criticize the United Nations, I hope we don’t forget that.

Requiem for Port-au-Prince  |  Foreign Policy

Port-au-Prince bustled. The garden-filled capital city of 3 million was flocked with hills, covered in chalk-white buildings, home to palaces and slums. Tap Taps, the colorful shared taxis, ported citizens through the city, the onomatopoetic name referring to the custom of tapping coins on the side of the cab to stop it. Tourists walked through the Champ de Mars. Tiny fishing vessels filled the bay, cruise ships looming further out. For the first time in decades, Haiti was peaceful and growing, President Réné Préval well-liked internationally and at home, the economy expanding while nearly every other in the Caribbean contracted.

The day before yesterday, a high-magnitude earthquake leveled much of Port-au-Prince. Here is a remembrance of the city — founded 260 years ago — in the words of famed residents and visitors, including Langston Hughes, Edwidge Danticat, and former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Haiti in Ink and Tears: A Literary Sampler  |  The New York Times

The energy of souls not lost springs back into the living world, not only through one of the few surviving religions that allow believers to converse face to face with the gods, but also in an extraordinarily rich, fertile and (in spite of everything) optimistic culture. Haiti offers, keeps on offering, a shimmering panorama of visual art and a wealth of seductive and hypnotic music, much of it rooted in the rhythms of ceremonial drumming. For the past 50 years a remarkably vivid and sophisticated Haitian literature has been flowing out of Creole, an ever-evolving language as fecund as the English of Shakespeare’s time. The Haitian world is not all suffering; it is full of treasure. Here are a few of the many voices, native and not, inspired by Haiti. —Madison Smartt Bell

Band Aids and Beyond

Analysis…

The Ethiopian government is asking for emergency aid of $285 million to feed 6.2 million people.  The country, faced with extreme drought and 4 years of bad harvests, is requesting donations from the international community.  A report titled Band Aids and Beyond calls on international donors to adopt a new approach that focuses on preparing communities to prevent and deal with disasters before they strike. The report also focuses on providing resources for communities, such as irrigation for crops, grain stores and wells.

Matthew Yglesias | I don’t think we should construe the existence of famine conditions in the Horn of Africa (there are problems beyond Ethiopia) as a reason not to send additional troops to Afghanistan. But I do think it’s a reminder that we shouldn’t look at individual elements of our foreign policy in isolation, or see the Afghanistan situation with tunnel-vision. Is there some reasonable calculus of risks in which it makes sense to spend tens of billions of dollars on prevent a situation of chaos in Central Asia but doesn’t make sense to spend a fraction of that in the Horn of Africa? Alternatively, if the US lacks the tools and skills to solve profound governance and economic problems in the Horn of Africa why do we have the needed skills and tools to solve the in Central Asia?

The Moderate Voice | The human race, generally, tends not to want to act in its long-term best interests, reacting to emergencies rather than proactively avoiding or planning for them. So, it’s anybody’s guess as to whether OxFam will be heeded. But the fact is that drought need not lead to famine, as tragically, it so often has in Ethiopia and elsewhere.

NPR Blogs | Ethiopia is asking for $285 million in emergency food aid for 6.2 million people facing famine. Oxfam says that the imported aid helps, but that the country needs longer-term investment in irrigation and well systems to avoid a food crisis every time drought strikes.

Shakesville | In the long term, Ethiopia needs “drought-resistant seeds and technical support to incorporate soil conservation and soil improvements on their small plots of land” and “more family planning services are needed so the population doesn’t double again in another 25 years.” The international director of Oxfam, Penny Lawrence, also notes: “If communities have irrigation for crops, grain stores, and wells to harvest rains then they can survive despite what the elements throw at them.”
So, Shakesville can go in one of two directions (or both): In support of providing immediate food aid (Americans: urge your congress people!), and in support of providing long-term tools.

News…

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming  |  Pew Research Center

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

For Some Parents, Shouting Is the New Spanking  |  NYTimes

Many in today’s pregnancy-flaunting, soccer-cheering, organic-snack-proffering generation of parents would never spank their children. We congratulate our toddlers for blowing their nose (“Good job!”), we friend our teenagers (literally and virtually), we spend hours teaching our elementary-school offspring how to understand their feelings. But, incongruously and with regularity, this is a generation that yells.

Does Military Service Turn Young Men into Sexual Predators?  |  AlterNet

A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the Gulf War found that almost 8 in 10 had been sexually harassed during their military service, and 30 percent had been raped.
Yet for decades, in spite of the terrible numbers, the military has managed with astonishing success to get away with responding to grievances like Krause’s with silence, or denial, or by blaming “a few bad apples.” But when individual soldiers take the blame, the system gets off the hook.

‘Family values’ of Mexico drug gang  |  BBC

They decapitate, torture, and extort. Then they pray, and donate to charity.
The “Familia” cartel is perhaps the most extreme example of the paradoxical enemy which Mexico faces as it tries to defeat organised crime.
It is a fight which would be much easier if the cartels were simply maverick gangs on the fringe of society.
But they are, in many areas, part of society.

Denied!

Analysis…

Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to purchase the NFL’s St. Louis Rams has stirred vast debate amongst Republicans and Democrats this week.  Limbaugh’s unremitting racist commentary has yielded immense criticism over the years, ultimately causing NFL officials to deny his bid.  The talk radio show host has gathered support from thousands of conservatives while simultaneously repulsing countless progressive thinkers, feminists and, apparently, NFL officials.

Here are a few of the comments I read regarding the matter:

The Huffington Post |  Poor Rush Limbaugh. His dream of one day owning and trading Negro men has been shattered by the liberal media, which keeps making up lies about him. Lies, I tell you! The wingnutosphere insists: Rush has never, ever made a racist comment! Ever!
Except for this one. And this one. And this one.

Pandagon |  So, just to be clear: a man who has spent the better part of the past two decades systematically assaulting black culture, weaving an asinine fantasy of liberal persecution and promoting a paranoid, hateful form of politics should be allowed to own an NFL team because a prominent black professional athlete, [Serena Williams], got angry after a bad call, [yet owns a part of the Miami Dolphins].  I don’t know what the word is for when you equivocate drastically different behavior between two people of different races to excuse the behavior of the person who’s of your preferred race, but I hope someone can come up with it soon.  It would be helpful.

PoliBlog |  I would say that in regards to Limbaugh:  if one makes a living as a provocateur, then one ought not be surprised if people are sometimes provoked.
This story is not about free speech (as some are making it out to be).  It is very much a business story and, believe it or not, a story about voting rules.
On the business side I would make two quick points.  First, the NFL is extremely image conscious and Rush makes a living going out of his way to say things that make somewhere between 30%-60% of the population mad on a daily basis (depending on what he is talking about).  As such, it is hardly a shock that some NFL owners are a bit skittish about welcoming him into their ranks.
The second business point I would make is that this is a case of pure capitalism at work:  private owners making decisions concerning with whom they are willing to do business.  Conservatives really have no ideological grounds to object if the NFL owners have found Limbaugh too controversial for their business tastes.   Heck, if Major League Baseball thinks Mark Cuban is too controversial, it is hardly a shock that there was pushback on Limbaugh from the NFL.

Ta-Nehisi Coates @The Atlantic |  Let’s be very clear about what we’re debating–Rush didn’t lose because he’s pro-Life, because he doesn’t support the public mandate, or because of his stance on Afghanistan. Rush lost because he once claimed that Donovan McNabb, a quarterback who in ten seasons has never thrown more interceptions than touchdowns, and is one of the greatest quarterbacks of his generation was being overpraised because he was black. Rush Limbaugh lost because thinks slavery had some merit. Rush Limbaugh lost because he compared NFL players, en masse, to gang-bangers. Rush Limbaugh didn’t lose because he’s a conservative. He lost because he’s a white populist.

The American Prospect |  Limbaugh’s “political views” weren’t the problem. His racial views were the problem. The players and NFL officials who spoke up didn’t complain that Limbaugh was a Republican, they didn’t even complain about his “views.” They complained about actual things he said about black people that made him an inappropriate candidate to own a team in an organization with such a large contingent of African Americans.
The NFL is an organization made up of a lot of people who make a great deal of money — I would guess that on average, management and ownership probably skews Republican. But it’s also an organization made up of a lot of black people — and while the right was focused on debunking racist things Limbaugh didn’t say, they pretty much ignored Limbaugh’s record of racist commentary, which includes not only a habit of comparing black athletes to gang members but a general hostility toward black people. Limbaugh only recently suggested that having a black president encouraged black children to beat up white children — he’s also compared President Obama’s agenda to “slavery reparations,” used epithets to reference his biracial background, and compared Democrats responding to the concerns of black voters to rape. In the fevered swamps of National Review, where they’re still defending William F. Buckley’s support of segregation, this kind of behavior is described as Martin Luther King like.

News…

Anti-obesity ad shocks New Yorkers  |  BBC

A glass of thick, yellow human fat, marbled with blood vessels, is the latest weapon in America’s war on obesity.
The new shock adverts, which are accompanied by the words “Are you pouring on the pounds?”, target the billions of hidden calories which Americans consume each year in sodas and other sugary drinks.

Multiplication Hip-Hop  |  NPR

Rapping the Times Tables and the ABCs on Educational Music CDs
“Multiplication has always been kind of tough for kids,” Printis tells NPR’s Bob Edwards. “It was tough for me when I was a kid. This [CD] just makes it an easier way for them to grasp it. They just listen to it. You know how kids are. They just listen to the same thing over and over anyway. So why not something like this that’s going to give them a positive result?”

Chocolate revolution transforms the world’s favorite treat  |  Guardian

Fairtrade chocolate does more than keep consumers sweet – it keeps children off plantations and puts money in the pockets of the poor

Does the brain like e-books?  |  NYTimes

Is there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium?

Pay for Facebook?

In this week’s Newsweek, Daniel Lyons wrote an article advocating for websites that are currently free (such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter) to start charging for their services.  His argument is purely economic: that these sites are ignoring an opportunity to make millions more than they are through advertising.  He writes:

Why not charge people to use these sites? If the service is so useful, surely people should pay. Nevertheless, the prevailing wisdom in Silicon Valley today is that everything on the Internet must be free. Enslaved by this dogma, tech companies keep bending themselves into pretzels trying to invent ways to “monetize their traffic,” as they say in Valley-speak.

He goes on to tell the story of Paltalk, a video-chat service, which charges for its services and continues to turn a profit.  He thinks the Paltalk model will work for other sites.  The comments on his article are many and varied.  One commenter says, “I fully agree with the idea to pay for services you find useful. I don’t understand why there is an expectation that everything should be for free on the internet.”  A dissenter writes, “I wish I could charge a fee to write an article with zero value too.”  This is an issue about which people are obviously divided.  Addressing the former comment, I would like to ask if the author would feel the same way if he/she could not afford the charges.  The most enlightening comments were those that pointed out that if a site like Facebook started to charge for its services, a free copy-cat site would appear to which the Facebook users would transfer to avoid paying.  It’s a good argument, based in seeing a pattern of websites that have tried to charge for their services and instead failed.  And, since the business of America is business, I should perhaps be satisfied with this argument.  But, I’m not.  (Probably because of my bleeding Liberal heart)

When I asked my brother what he thought of websites charging, he said, “I’m against it.  Because I’m poor.”  I wrote back, “Me too.”  The most glorious thing about the internet is that it is free and equal to use it.  If Donald Trump and I both entered a search for “cheesy rice recipe,” we would see the same results.  There is no better internet (in terms of content, not speed) for some people and a limited version for those who cannot afford it.  Public libraries provide access to the internet for even those who cannot afford it in their homes.  And so, although I also disagree with Lyons about charging for some sites, it is for idealogical rather than economic reasons. 

I was disturbed when I read the article that Lyons did not even mention the effect charging for websites would have on those who cannot afford it.  Only one of the comments I found disagrees with the author for the same reason I do.  He/She writes, “What you are suggesting is two-tiered internet. Those with money and those with not.  The Internet is created to trade ideas and communication with people from all over the world.”  The internet is the marketplace of ideas put into practice.  If we limit who can buy or sell at that market, then the free flow of ideas is inhibited and we are all worse off for it.

Just this evening, I searched over 15 things on Google.  If I were paying per search, it would limit my information.  You may ask, “why is this important?”  Yesterday I searched “California, food stamps” to find out how to apply for food stamps online so I could help someone.  I know Lyons didn’t advocate for Google to charge in his article, but it seems that is where the ‘We Should Pay for Valuable Websites’ train is headed.  I’d like to derail it now.  What do you think?

Ethics in Poverty?

By Anna M. Holloway

Is buying a shirt a moral decision?

For most of us, it would be obvious.  The shirt looked good on me, it was a Calvin Klein, for cryin’ out loud, and it was under $7 dollars.  (Yes, that was seven.)  Why wouldn’t I buy it?

The tag said it was made in Hong Kong, where workers are underpaid by U.S. standards, but which is better than Indonesia or Honduras, I suppose.  Since it was originally supposed to cost $45 in a “better department store,” the corporate giants who exploited the cheap labor in Asia and took the jobs out of the U.S. were making practically nothing on this particular shirt.  And because it had been through at least two U.S. stores (supposedly) and had definitely been marked down twice at the discount place I was standing in, it had contributed to several U.S. jobs and, through their spending, the U.S. economy at large.  However, the shirt came into existence in a Hong Kong sweatshop at the behest of a corporation that, as all responsible corporations do, seeks to make the largest possible profit for its stockholders.

With all these factors in play, would buying this shirt be a moral act or not?

Some years ago I chose to do what feeds my soul and let money be a secondary concern.   I now live in what I call technical poverty: in terms of the number of dollars in my income, I am poor.  I actually live very well; certainly if I can afford to agonize over whether it’s moral to pay $7 for a nice shirt, I am not in any way desperate.

The companion term is functional poverty.  Many Americans with what most of us would call adequate middle class incomes live as if they are poor, and in functional terms, they are.  For many it’s debt — school loans, credit cards, medical debt — that keeps them poor.  The level of debt in middle income America is staggering, and the current roller coaster of interest rates makes managing debt increasingly complex and hence more difficult.

Those of us who are technically (but not functionally) poor and those who are living in functional (pragmatically real) poverty are buying less.  We are also buying more often from discount and less expensive sources.  The moral issues arise from what makes things less expensive.

The human cost is usually high, so one way for manufacturers to make money on a poverty economy is to find ways to pay workers less.  This is the primary reason that jobs have migrated away from the U.S.; the cost to the manufacturer is much lower in places where not only the pay rate is lower, but also where regulation of how workers are treated is lax or non-existent.

We want to maintain our standard of living (which may be a foolish goal), and we find ways to do it as cheaply as possible.  Often this includes buying clothing and other items made by child labor in Asia, or buying chocolate and coffee farmed by slave labor in Africa.

How do we make ethical choices when we are economically up against it?  If you want to have coffee every day, can you afford to buy Fair Trade coffee?  What do you do if the answer is no?  Some of us choose to drink less coffee, some choose to spend a little more on the coffee and cut somewhere else, some of us buy the coffee we can afford and either ignore or never know what the human cost of our coffee might be.

For me, the ability to make moral choices in purchasing is one way that I know, despite an income that qualifies me for public assistance, that I am not living in poverty.  I don’t always make the “moral” choice.  I have bought coffee and chocolate that has no Fair Trade certification.  I did buy the Calvin Klein shirt.

What would Jesus do?  That may be one way of deciding.  What would you do?  What choices do you face?

Anna M. Holloway is a graduate student in the University of Oklahoma professional writing program and a pulpit supply minister for small Unitarian Universalist churches in Oklahoma.

Why Not Here? The Ethics of Guantánamo Bay

News that the first Guantánamo detainee has arrived in the U.S. will undoubtedly restart a debate that has been simmering on the back burner for a few weeks now.  The arrival of Ahmed Ghailani to stand trial in Manhattan for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya marks the first test of public resolve to keep terror suspects out of the United States.  That resolve is apparent in polling data concerning national opinions on the proposal to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

This week’s Economist/YouGov poll  |  Economist.com (May 28^th)

THIS week our pollsters at YouGov fielded a set of questions about the possible closing of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay. The issue has caught the attention of many Americans, with 60% saying they are following the news “somewhat” or “very closely”. Predictably, half of Americans want the prison to remain open, while 31% want to see it closed. And by a 55-32% margin the public opposes moving the Gitmo prisoners to high-security prisons in America. Perhaps we should’ve asked if they know that many terrorists are already imprisoned in America.

Over 60% of Americans want to see the terror suspects stand trial, with a similar number favouring military tribunals over trials in American courts. In one of the more interesting findings, only 64% of respondents said a suspect should be released if he is tried and found innocent. That speaks to the stigma attached to both the jail and its prisoners. Regardless of guilt or innocence, 15% want to hold prisoners indefinitely, while 21% are unsure. For an issue that many Americans are following closely, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty amongst respondents on even the most straightforward questions.

65% Oppose Closing Gitmo  |  Humanevents.com

A USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday states that “most oppose closing Gitmo,” reporting that “by more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn’t be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.” But nowhere in the USA Today story do they post the actual percentage points or the even more convincing internal results.

Real Clear Politics and Byron York of the Washington Examiner (who had an inside look at the internals of the poll) reported that a very large majority  — 65% — oppose closing the suspected terrorist detention center, Guantanamo Bay and only 32% believe it should be closed.

…

The internal results of the new USA Today/Gallup poll find that an overwhelming 74% oppose having Gitmo detainees in their state, while only 23% are okay with it.

The GOP has taken a strong and effective stand on the “not in my back yard” approach posting internet videos and statements steadily.

While I find all of these numbers valuable, it is the attitude behind them that is most interesting.  Michelle Oddis sums it up in her description of the GOP political strategy: “not in my backyard.”  David Kirkpatrick and David Herzsenhorn of the NY Times note that Congressional Democrats joined in their opposition to the White House plan, but they go on to raise an important point:

Armed with polling data that show a narrow majority of support for keeping the prison open and deep fear about the detainees, Republicans in Congress started laying plans even before the inauguration to make the debate over Guantánamo Bay a question of local community safety instead of one about national character and principles.

It may seem convenient to pin this debate on the actions of the GOP, but at its core this issue lies in the hearts and minds of our citizenry.  Attempting to lay blame at the feet of a political party only serves to distract us from the larger underlying concern: why is local community safety a higher priority than our national character and principles?  And if the concern is truly with local community safety, what about the safety of the people of Cuba, who have over 200 terror suspects held in their backyard right now?

Choosing one aspect over the other does not mean that we haven’t answered them both.  By ignoring the question of values and principles in favor of neighborhood security we are actually wearing our ethics on our collective national sleeve.  The ideas which are not being spoken, that our homeland is more valuable than yours, and our concern is for our own security, even at the expense of yours, are perhaps more telling than any of the words that are being said.  These unspoken implications are unsettling in their self-centeredness and their lack of respect for our neighbors in Cuba, and by extension throughout the world.

I hope by raising these concerns you will take a moment to think about the other side of this debate and feel compelled to revisit the question of national character and principles.  Is the moral direction in which we as a people are headed really the path we want to chart for our country?  Ultimately, it is up to us to decide.

Asleep at the Switch(board)

The trajectory of modernity that started several centuries ago continues to bring profound changes and challenges to the entire world even now. The processes of modernity (and their postmodern offspring) have wrought a number of positive changes, and yet there are negatives as well. In this series, Xenia Fellow Thomas Burns explores some of the paradoxes inherent in these changes.

By Thomas J. Burns
Professor of Sociology
University of Oklahoma

Officials in Australia are scrambling to “overhaul the system” after a teen hiker whom they easily could and should have helped was left to die.  The young victim, David Iredale, had run out of water and was lost and disoriented in a rugged area west of Sydney.  He did have a cell phone, however, which he used to call the emergency “000” number (the Australian concomitant to 911) no less than seven times, over a period of hours.

Subsequent investigations indicate that as time went by he became more pleading and desperate.  He clearly communicated that he had a bona fide emergency to people in a position to have helped him.  But they did not help. Some time shortly after his seventh call, it appears that David Iredale lost consciousness, and he died not long thereafter.

What of the emergency operators who let him die? Apparently, they had been trained to use a screen that required filling in a street address of where the emergency was. This, of course, makes no sense if the person is not at a street address. The young man was ignored, hung up on and shoved aside until at last he died of exposure and dehydration, apparently because he did not fit into one of a limited array of preordained frames.

How does such a thing happen?  Where did the “system” fail?  It does bear acknowledging that what makes a system and grinds it into place are the actions of the people in it iterated over time. Those actions may be unreflective to the point, they are habituated into mind-numbing bureaucratic practices.

But what happens when you have a society of individuals, each with the attitude of “just doing my job” without reflecting on how it fits into any sort of a bigger picture?  Social theorist Hannah Arendt held that this very sort of situation would lead to “the banality of evil”— each person doing something they could judge to be righteous, based on following rules, even while progressively turning a blind eye to someone else’s humanity. What gets lost is a sense of responsibility, not just for one’s actions, but for refusing to see the plight of another. It yields a culture where plausible deniability becomes a more familiar concept than epistemic responsibility.

There are other broad questions to be sure.  How does anyone handle the chaos of information coming in too quickly to process?  How are we to make discerning judgments in a world with many different ethical systems? How do these factors interact to make life in the 21st century, if not harder than in previous times, challenging in different ways?  How much of the general culture, locally, nationally and worldwide, are culpable for such a tragedy?

The lack of compassion that killed David Iredale was a type of distracted, addled consciousness — one that was tuned in sufficiently to follow some script, but not attentive enough to realize what a twisted caricature that script had become.  That is a dangerous combination indeed.

This phenomenon is found at all levels.  It becomes increasingly ominous when people in positions of real power are asleep at the switch. We now, for example, have been involved in a seemingly interminable war that was started under what we now know (at least those who are willing to see) were false pretexts.

As the discussion continues into whether former President George W. Bush and his inner circle were guilty of war crimes, the question of what they knew, and when, will become more crucial. Like Lyndon Johnson not knowing about the fabrications of Vietnam casualty statistics by his secretary of defense, and Richard Nixon not knowing about plans to break into Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate, not knowing passes for justification. What does it say about a society when not knowing becomes the preferred position?

There are, of course, a number of complex issues involved, and the problem of war cannot be reduced to one cause.  Yet it would be a mistake to discount the influence of human consciousness on all manner of outcomes, from micro level interactions to macro level social problems.

One of the fundamental insights of the Buddha was that consciousness and compassion can feed each other in a healthy synergism and, at some point, become the same thing.  Different paths may emphasize one or the other, but ultimately they become one path.

As the people in Australia seek to overhaul their system, we can only hope as well for some serious thought and soul searching by the people who comprise the system.  Their system is, I suspect, not unlike many others around the globe, including ours.

The emergency line operators on whom David Iredale relied for his life failed him, as did the system of which they were part.  His pleas not only slipped through the cracks, but they did so on seven occasions over a course of hours and with a number of operators.  What were they thinking?  Chances are not much of anything.  What does this tell us about the level of consciousness of these people and of the place collectively?  Do they feel remorse?  How much of their time and consciousness is now taken up with justification?  No doubt a good part of that justification is in the language and frames of the bureaucracy.  Let us hope some thought, however peripheral, goes into rethinking the frames themselves.

Torture, Politics and Ethics

By Clint Collins

The question of the use of torture in the U.S. carries both short- and long-term implications for the policies, relationships and even the cultural fabric of our country.  As of late, however, the issue seems to have become a hot potato that’s being tossed back and forth between competing political interests.  Instead of focusing on questions of relevance, such as “Does torture actually produce actionable intelligence?” or “Under what circumstances (if any) does torture carry ethical cache?”, the news has become littered with the question of who knew what, and when.  But is this the discourse we really want?

While questions of accountability are important in maintaining (or re-establishing) the credibility in government, I fear we have become distracted from the greater moral question facing us: What is torture and are we willing to condone it?  Today we stand seventy years removed from the last adopted revision of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.  With the face of contemporary conflict changing from Cold War era conventional warfare to the new paradigm of asymmetric warfare conducted against sub-national entities, how are we to deal with those now defined loosely as “enemy combatants”?  Do our current statutes provide a clear legal basis for engaging in or prohibiting the practices we have carried out or are considering?  Should we be asking the global community to weigh in as well, since the drafters of the Geneva Conventions clearly could not envision these new military developments?

Stuart Taylor and Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute raise similar concerns:

But Congress, the media, and other critics have continued to focus so intensely on the sins of the past, particularly in light of President Obama’s release of the prior administration’s formal legal opinions on coercive interrogation, as to neglect serious analysis of what is at this stage a far more important question: What rules should govern future interrogations? In particular, what should our government do the next time it captures known terrorist leaders who likely possess information that could save lives yet who are fiercely determined not to divulge that information? Should the law prohibit CIA interrogators from using any coercion at all, as the Democratic-led Congress voted to do in 2008, and thereby reclaim some international good will by disavowing what may prove an important safeguard against terrorist mass murders? If not, then exactly how much coercion should Congress allow, using what interrogation methods, on what kinds of prisoners, and with what high-level approvals and congressional oversight?

Sadly, our political leaders appear to no longer be serving the public discourse, but are instead serving their own political ambitions.  Even more sadly, the media seems to be doing too little to keep the question in focus.  If we are to have a real dialogue on the ethics of torture, it looks like it will be up to us, the American public.

• Related link: News for May 13: Torturous Logic  |  Xenia Institute

Clint Collins is pastor of First Christian Church in Tahlequah, Okla.

Next Page »