Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono yang selama ini banyak mencitrakan diri sebagai pemimpin yang antikorupsi dan prodemokrasi mulai dipertanyakan berbagai elemen masyarakat.

Keraguan itu muncul setelah melihat sikap Presiden Yudhoyono yang tidak betindak cepat dan tegas dalam menangani kasus penahanan pimpinan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi Bibit Samad Rianto dan Chandra M Hamzah, skandal Century, dan terakhir pernyataannya soal perayaan Hari Antikorupsi Sedunia, 9 Desember 2009. Presiden menyatakan ada motivasi politik di balik perayaan itu untuk menjatuhkan pemerintahannya.

Pandangan itu mengemuka dalam konferensi pers sejumlah aktivis yang tergabung dalam “Petisi 28”, Minggu (6/12). Petisi 28 dideklarasikan oleh 30 organisasi kemasyarakatan dan organisasi kemahasiswaan pada 28 Oktober 2009.

“Saya heran reaksi dari Bapak Presiden yang begitu takut. Kalau beliau antikorupsi, seharusnya justru memimpin gerakan moral pada 9 Desember itu,” kata Sekretaris Jenderal Mahasiswa Islam (PB-HMI) Nasi Seregar, Minggu di Jakarta.

Sekjen Ikatan Mahasiswa Muhammadiyah (IMM) Ton Abdillah juga menegaskan, gerakan moral dan politik harus dilakukan masyarakat karena saat ini eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif tidak berfungsi dengan baik. “Makelar kasus itu ada dalam kekuasaan itu sendiri,” tegasnya.

Dosen Universitas Indonesia, Boni Hargens, juga menyesalkan Presiden yang menuduh gerakan moral sebagai gerakan poltik untuk menjatuhkan kekuasaan. Dia juga meminta Presiden untuk bertanggung jawab karena mengeluarkan pernyataan yang provokatif.

Dia juga merasa geram, Yudhoyono yang dipilih oleh sekitar 62 persen oleh rakyat justru sekarang takut pada gerakan moral 9 Desember mendatang. “Hal ini kontradiktif,” ujarnya.

Agus Jabo Priono dari Partai Demokratik (PRD) bahkan menantang Presiden, apabila memang tidak terlibat, untuk segera mengaktifkan Bibit dan Chandra di Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) dan membongkar skandal Bank Century.

“Orang yang takut dengan gerakan 9 Desember adalah orang yang diduga punya keterlibatan korupsi,” tegasnya.

Intimidasi aparat

Aktivis juga mengakui bahwa saat ini berbagai intimidasi mulai dilakukan aparat untuk menggagalkan gerakan moral pemberantasan korupsi itu.

Lalu Hilman Afriandi dari Liga Mahasiswa Nasional untuk Demokrasi mencontohkan, saat organisasinya membuat pertemuan di kampung, seperti di Makassar ada aparat kepolisian yang mendatangi dan menyebarkan informasi bahwa akan ada provokasi oleh mahasiswa. “Intel juga banyak mengintimidasi masyarakat,” ungkapnya.

Boni menambahkan, saat ini juga ada kelompok lembaga swadaya masyarakat (LSM) yang sengaja dibentuk justru untuk memecah belah atau membenturkan dengan kekuatan masyarakat sipil.

Haris Rusly dari Forum Kepemimpinan Pemuda Indoensia juga mengingatkan, dalam negara demokrasi, gerakan apa pun asal tak menggunakan kekerasan adalah sah. Gerakan untuk menjatuhkan kekuasaan pun sama sahnya dengan gerakan untuk memilih presiden. Karena itu, seharusnya Presiden tidak boleh menakut-nakuti gerakan 9 Desember.

Gerakan moral pemberantasan korupsi ini juga dilakukan oleh masyarakat karena gerakan parlemen telah dikuasai kekuasaan.

Andin Jawaludin dari Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Inndonesia (PMII) juga meminta semua elemen masyarakat untuk tidak gentar memberantas korupsi di tingkat mana pun. Dia pun menegaskan, PMII akan membongkar siapa pun yang terlibat dalam kasus Century.

“Siapa pun yang terlibat harus dibasmi tanpa terkecuali,” tegasnya.

Sumber  :

Aktivis Mulai Pertanyakan | Kompas, 07.12.2009

Meditations in Romans : 14 :  Life by Faith

Rom 1:17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith

One of the strangest things about the human race, something that we largely take for granted, is that we have a moral outlook. Being human means we have ideas of right and wrong. In the modern age in the West, we may be confused and many deny there are absolutes of right or wrong, but in reality when it comes to ‘my’ own life, we do have clear ideas of right and wrong. It IS wrong for you to murder me, assault me, steal from me, and so on. Those things ARE wrong! Godless people have ideas of right and wrong as much as those people who would purport to be godly; the only difference is that godly people look to God for their definitions of right and wrong while ungodly people make up their own rules and work on what suits them for the moment, which may change from day to day.

The Bible uses this word ‘righteousness’ which we have twice in our verse above, to describe a ‘way of being’. In its simplest sense it just means rightness of behaviour as decreed by God. There is self-righteousness that we have referred to already which is rules and behaviour established around ‘self’, but the righteousness that the Bible refers to again and again, is behaviour that conforms to the way God has designed us to be or, if you like, a way of living.

In the Old Testament it was considered that you could be righteous by obeying God’s laws or simply responding to God. “Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.” (Gen 6:9) i.e. Noah’s behaviour and his attitude towards God declared him righteous.  In the Law we find, “Return his cloak to him by sunset so that he may sleep in it. Then he will thank you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in the sight of the LORD your God.” (Deut 24;13) i.e. behaving in this way is an example of righteous behaviour.

There are clear distinctions between the wicked and the righteous: “Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.” (Psa 1:5) and “But may the righteous be glad and rejoice before God” (Psa 68:3). Living in the righteous way IS something that is a clear and tangible way of living: “Thus you will walk in the ways of good men and keep to the paths of the righteous.” (Prov 2:20) and “The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry” (Prov 10:3). ‘The righteous’ in all of these cases (and very many more in the Old Testament) are those who walk with God and follow His ways and are morally upright.

The only trouble about life in that period of Biblical history is that most people could not keep all the laws that came to Israel through Moses and which formed the basis for their understanding of righteousness. Paul struggled with this reality in chapter 7 of this letter. We may know the law, the rules of how to live according to the Creator’s design, but this thing called sin provides a stumbling block to getting it right. We fail and we feel guilty. We try harder and still fail to get it perfectly right. The bar seems to be constantly raised and we fail to clear it and feel bad – and so God feels at a distance.

And then someone comes and tells us about Jesus and tells us that he died for all our failures so that when we come to God He no longer counts them. Instead, when we simply come and say, I believe, He declares us righteous! But I’m not, we protest from inner reaches of honesty. No, but that is how I see you, He responds, and suddenly trying to keep the rules is no longer the important thing. We are overwhelmed by love and in our loving response to Him we inadvertently ‘keep the rules’ but they are no longer the most important thing; it is simply His love. The more we dwell on it, the more we realise it and experience it, the more we are changed, not by trying but by being loved.

Of course it is all a faith thing because we cannot see Him or hear Him audibly with our ears, but we read of Him, we sense Him, and we sense the truth He imparts to us. We sense His love and we are blessed and changed. Yes it is all by faith, it is all by simply responding to what He has said and it is simple! Everything we do as Christians, as His children, we do by faith and as we do it we catch the sense of being loved more and more.

I sometimes think that maturity is simply the ability to believe God when He tells us how much He loves us.  The echoes of Sin from the past challenges the truth of His love and wants us to resort back to self-righteous striving, but the Spirit is there to encourage us in the truth and as we are loved we change. We are righteous because He has said we are. We accept it by faith because that is what faith is – simply believing God and living it.

And that is what it is all about – living!  We live by faith. Love comes to us, we believe it. We respond to it and life flows. Suddenly it is a new life, real life. We are no longer struggling to ‘be someone’ for He has made us ‘someone’, one of His children. We find it hard to believe, yes, but it is true. It is hard to believe that His love is that good – but it is! We may trip over out feet a dozen times a month, but in the recognition and experience of His love, we are still in the category of ‘the righteous’ for no longer does it mean someone who achieves perfection but someone who has received perfection and is working towards an eternal perfection. ‘Working’ towards it?  All right, walking towards it in love!

i had the good fortune of finding myself at a session on using moral dilemmas in the classroom while attending TAGT this past week.  in fact, per my previous post, i enjoyed a wonderful streak of good selections during the conference.  this particular session was about the importance of allowing students to consider moral dilemmas and how important the conduct of the teacher was in these situations.  it was fantastic and when we got to consider a few ourselves and then engage in discussion about our reasoning the time went by far too fast.  clearly using these in the classroom with GT students would be tremendous, but i wonder what it would look like if we were to consider a moral dilemma in the professional development field?  as adults, it plays out very differently because we tend to be set in our ways and beliefs so there wouldn’t be much switching.  we looked at two dilemmas, one dealing with a person stealing and the other dealt with the necessity of using torture as a means of securing our country.  i would love to find a way to put together a dilemma about what i do and use it with my team.  like any of the dilemmas that are used, it needs to be layered and messy so that an answer isn’t clear, although i can’t really think of one that would apply or be of interest to discuss at length.  perhaps it is because the dilemmas that i face aren’t moral in nature.

Frågan om moraliskt ansvar för hemska handlingar fascinerar mig. New Scientist rapporterar om ett färskt brittiskt fall:

Last week, British man Brian Thomas appeared in court on a murder charge after strangling his wife as they slept in their camper van. The prosecution withdrew the charges after three psychiatrists testified that locking him up would serve no useful purpose. The judge said that Thomas bore no responsibility for his actions.

Jag skulle tro att de flesta håller med om slutsatsen, att en person som begår ett brott i sömnen inte är vare sig moraliskt eller juridiskt ansvarig för sin handling. Under sömngående har det t.ex. visat sig att en individ inte har sin omdömesförmåga aktiverad; däremot kan känslomässigt grundade handlingar utföras. Den intressanta frågan är dock hur man ska kunna veta om en handling verkligen har begåtts i sömnen. En misstänkt mördare kan ju alltid hävda att han sov. Tydligen finns vissa sätt att testa saken:

They found that sounding a buzzer during “slow wave” sleep triggered sleepwalking in three of the sleepwalkers under normal circumstances, and all 10 sleepwalkers when they had been kept awake for 25 hours prior to sleeping. None of the control subjects were prompted to sleepwalk when the buzzer was sounded (Neurology, vol 70, p 2284).

Jag rekommenderar slutligen Bellinis opera La sonnambula. Den mest skönsjungande sömngångerskan heter Joan Sutherland.

In Christian Smith’s national study on the religious beliefs of young adults he found that most young Americans subscribe to a form of “moralistic, therapeutic deism” or (as I like to call it) “be good, feel good, believe-in-God-as-a-concept” religion.  While no one has an excuse before God, the self-help and behavior-focused teaching in most churches leaves little room for revelation-based, gospel-centered, sacrificial relationship with Jesus.

Most people have as their central goal to be happy and feel good.  Many pastors cater to their audience rather than oppose this self-centered form of idolatry.  The gospel cannot be stripped of a call to “come and die.”

I have begun reading Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. The simple introduction, preface and notes regarding the work are sufficient to tell me that Orwell is a genius. From the other works I have read of him, I have seen to what extent his writing style is enviable. He uses a fluid array of techniques that convey his ideas with wit, precision, wisdom and ease. My friends and family tend to consider his works complicated and boring, but I find that if you look at all the implications hidden behind each one of his words, the result is simply fascinating. His account of his time as a down and out gives an honest and accurate idea of what life had been in those days, and I feel it is conveyed in a manner few history books can imitate. It may seem like a biased opinion since it is coming from only Orwell and no one else. Yet the way the events are recounted and the manner in which the social hierarchy is portrayed are such that one isn’t submerged by the author’s opinion. A form of neutrality emanates from the subjective point of view. Yet Orwell’s style isn’t the only thing that contributes to the brilliance of his work. One mustn’t forget his activeness and never faltering engagement in a vast number of historical events.
The Spanish Civil War is the kind of event that doesn’t happen nowadays; even if it did, no journalist would venture into the jaws of potential death without a minimum of safety. The journalists reporting news on the Iraqi front are paid to be there, partially protected by international law, and virtually have nothing to gain from being there; it’s just their job. Orwell’s role and mere presence in Spain are a sign of moral and political implication that no other writer can rival. He wasn’t on the field because of this book; this book is the fruit of his involvement, physically and ideologically.
I have reached a passage in the book where he descries the conditions in which he found himself. It isn’t a pretty picture. Horrible hygiene, terrible rations, and overall blistering cold. Het he didn’t falter. He stood firm for what he believed in, risking life and limb for an idea vaguely recognized as socialism. No doubt second thoughts must have crossed Orwell’s mind but his engagement was such that it prevailed over all tests; an inspiring feat which we should all strive to mimic in the most loyal fashion.
Although today there are no such ideological currents that involve this kind of implication we can still conserve a certain moral integrity in everything we do. Adhere to an idea you firmly believe in and do not be afraid to stand firm when faced with criticism. Be civil, respect other opinions (I know I tend to forget to do so), and use rational arguments. Be prepared to accept rebukes and perhaps be convinced, Orwell would have done the same if presented with valid points. But you must be able to have an opinion on anything, an opinion you have entirely forged yourself through experience and reason, and not something that you have read somewhere and taken for your own. Consider everything as an important topic; neglect nothing. And above all, think. Thought is freedom, as Orwell knew all too well as illustrated in 1984. When one’s mind is consumed, all liberty ceases to exist, and man will only be truly free when he actively embraces freedom of though and strives to make the most of it. Winston Smith learnt the hard way. You shouldn’t.

Recently, in my theoretical approaches class we were discussing a somewhat common topic that’s come up multiple times over my 2 years at VFS. No, it wasn’t Helvetica vs. Arial (although that debate was referenced), nor was it centered on a recent fortune 500 company’s rebrand. It can be a bit of a touchy subject as it, in my opinion, has a lot to do with personal ethics; who wouldn’t you work for?

It’s a tough question to answer. As designers, what we really do is get paid to help companies, organizations and establishments make more money. Why does a company need an identity? Or a clever ad? Or a kick ass music video? It’s because they want to appeal to their target audience and, at the end of the day, make them spend their money on whatever product or service that company offers. We dress up the 3 most common techniques in advertising. Association; buying X says you are Y, Contrast; X is not the same as Y, and substitution; buying X buys you Y. Those 3 techniques apply to every design project we take on in one way or another, even if it’s an emotion or a quality you’re ‘selling’. Think about it, as users, we are more inclined to be attracted to ‘pretty’ things that connect with us in some way, and as designers, we place a visual façade over a company, concept or product to get that audience to spend spend spend! I realize that statement reads very negative and harsh, but when you break the purpose of modern day contracted design down, that’s simply what it is. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

The problem regarding who and who not to work for becomes apparent when the designer becomes aware of their power, and it is power. Design has the ability to change the world in that designers, (and pardon my French), are professional mind-fuckers. When a designer is conscious of this fact, moral issues arise. Will you sign the contract to create a brilliant identity for a cigarette company? What about a website for a casino? How about a catalogue for that new clothing line that has production based out of somewhere in Asia that pays their workers like crap and sells a pair of socks for fifty bucks that cost them ten cents to make? Where do you draw the line?

There are some common arguments that always come up surrounding this topic of discussion. “If I don’t do it, somebody else will”, “I need to eat to you know”, “but what if the project will gain me a lot of exposure” and so on. Some are on the opposite side swearing they would never jump at the dangling carrot even if it meant they couldn’t make rent. I’m not sure how I feel about it. I guess it would depend on the project. If it was to sell tobacco to kids I’d probably pass. If it was to make existing smokers switch brands I might do it. I do know I would only work on ‘controversial’ projects if they were all I could get, and I wasn’t in a position to get another job- although we’re designers, there is nothing stopping us from being weekend bartenders to make ends meet.

I think you have to make a decision at some point and decide what is important to you and stick to it. Just as we put restrictions on our work itself by time, medium and style, we should put them on our clients. Sadly, we’re in a situation where the organizations with poor ads, identities and websites don’t have the money to pay us what our work it worth, but they’re the ones who need us the most. Perhaps commit yourself to one project for a non-profit organization once a month or every two?
We have the skills, we need to contribute positively to our communities and use our powers for good, not for evil. If we love what we do, we don’t need big takeover companies as clients. If we truly love what we do, we’d be happy with less money knowing we helped an organization that really needed it.

Very inspirational… it makes us to re-think about LGBT in our society. Salute to Dr Corvino, Let’s make a change…

Thought of the day -
Czech philosopher Václav Bělohradský

Realism in politics worries
people, and they seek refuge from it in an infinite (and thus irresponsible) discourse about eternal values. The final stop on this escape route is totalitarianism, which elevates the single truth of the victor above the inconsistent, and thus contradictory, condition of pluralism – the new era of Communism, the Thousand Year Reich and so on. People want to be liberated from the dramatic time of decision-making and are thus often willing to hand all power to someone such as Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin, or to scientists and experts, who, they cravenly believe, has the truth; that way at least they can shirk the responsibility of making a choice between contradictory alternatives.

http://www.multiweb.cz/hawkmoon/stranacer.htm

Weight, friends, weight.

Weight is the potential measure of my burden of verse; weight is the blockbuster bombshells encasing my most loose thoughts; weight is what I bring to the table; heavy are knowledge and power, like U.S. government-grade stainless steel.

As previously mentioned, this blog is undergoing a constant evolution, or shedding of skin, if you will. Nil of the ideas presented here are on themes of grudge or vendetta.  Presented here are merely questions for ponderance, statements of facts, and arguments for logical modes of life.

Id est, the goal here is not to offend; the goal here is fill everyone in on what’s going on. 

Thanks for stopping by.

Truly yours,

Rice Cutgrass

Ethics: Aristotle, Kant, Fernando Savater on Yareah magazine

The whole issue of December is dedicated to the Ethics. See, for instance, these articles:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/601-ethics-etica-fernando-savater

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/599-ethics-aristotle

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/613-ethic-a-comment-on-the-prologue-and-epilogue-of-etica-para-amador-by-f-savater

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/reviews-criticas/597-review-ethics-for-amador-by-fernando-savater-

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/myths-mitos/594-myths-lilith

And these other ones in Spanish:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/598-etica-apelo-a-riccobono

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/614-etica-critica-del-juicio-de-immanuel-kant-respuesta-al-senor-valdueza

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/600-etica-aristoteles-vs-fernando-savater

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/610-relato-el-deseo

So, I haven’t posted in a while. To be perfectly honest, school happened, along with other issues, including finally playing inFamous. In this game, you essentially play as a flawed comic book character who can either act like a generally good guy, or as the bitter, power-hungry anti-hero, depending on your choices in game. As I’m prone to do, I decided to play as a decent human being, trying to save the city one person at a time, etc. As I got about 2/3 of the way through the game, I came to a simple conclusion: the general civilian population is dumb.

Now, I don’t mean dumb as in “voted for the wrong presidential candidate” dumb, or “2 + 2 = 5″ dumb, or “buying a 500 dollar PS3 two weeks before a 200 dollar price drop” dumb. No, I mean “running directly into my line of fire” dumb. As an unarmed civilian in a combat zone, there are 5 different things you can do when looking at a firefight: you can run to the left of it, to the right of it, in the opposite direction of it, remain immobile, or RUN DIRECTLY INTO IT. I gave these civilians the benefit of the doubt. I assumed that if a civilian sees a firefight between crazy homeless drug addicts and a guy who can shoot lightning from his hands, that said civilian would pick one of the four options that wouldn’t get him or herself killed. I gave them too much credit, apparently.

Now, the penalty for killing a civilian isn’t really a penalty…unless you’re trying to be a goody-twoshoes like me. I mean, how do you save someone who’s clearly suicidal or clinically insane when you’re trying to fight off 14 hobos armed with assault rifles? I guess all I’m really asking for developers to do is to restore my faith in the civilian population by making virtual civilians smarter in their games. Please?

            Something becomes an ethical dilemma when and only when someone observes that something is not completely just.  Thomas M. Garrett of the University of Scranton describes the general sense of ethics as “the science of judging specifically human ends and the relationship of means to those ends” (Garrett 4).  Many people use the word “ethics” too generally, denoting something that is completely wrong as an ethical dilemma; however, an ethical dilemma is to be disputed and analyzed with a goal of finding the most correct solution.  What better subject to discuss possible wrong doing in this day and age than business itself.  The common view of business in the twenty-first century is that of corruption and deceit, but are many of these so called “misdeeds” merely moves in a grand game of chess?  Albert Carr thinks that this assumption is true: “Business is our main area of competition…But the decisions in this area are, in the final test, decisions of strategy, not of ethics” (63).  Thus, what research and different theories illustrate is that the “best story” is that what are perceived as unethical or questionable business moves can ultimately be categorized as necessary business strategies. 

            The textbook Honest Work illustrates the different elements and conceivable perceptions of ethics in the business world such as whether or not to “blow the whistle” within a business, differences between cultures, and even basic discrimination on the job.  What Albert Carr argues in his essay, however, refers to the ethics of business strategy or the active participation of businesses within national and international markets.  Thus, one can argue that a different code of ethics is applicable to business strategy than to some other subjects discussed in the business ethics class.  In his essay, Carr calls this “special ethics” (60).  In society, we believe that killing is wrong in any situation, yet war is seen as an option in international disputes.  We also believe that every life must be preserved no matter the cost, yet we have people who are refused care by physicians based on a lack of health insurance.  There is no one solid code of ethics that can be applied to every situation, so why would business strategy be any different?  Even Kant acknowledges differences between ethics in society and business ethics when he states “One might think that a Kantian theory of leadership is as much an oxymoron as business ethics itself” (547). The example that Carr uses is that of a poker game.  Carr says “A player feels no more than a slight twinge of sympathy, if that, when…he strips a heavy loser…of the rest of his chips” (61).  One controversial argument that might supplement Carr’s argument, and one that must be understood for this essay to hold true, is that of Milton Friedman’s argument of a businesses’ social responsibility: “That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society” (242). Thus, one must determine if what is observed is ethical behavior within a situation, which is precisely what is taught in this particular class. 

            What must be understood before one can talk about business ethics is exactly what it means to “play the game.”  One great example that comes from recent corporate news is the still ongoing situation between British candy manufacturer Cadbury and the Kraft Corporation.  Cadbury, in light of the recent recession, is sustaining a drastic loss in profits just as many other corporations have and will likely be forced to shut down many operations, but Kraft Corporation has offered multiple bids to the Cadbury CEO in an attempt to buyout the company and merge it within the Kraft label.  The CEO of Cadbury, although he realizes that the business would go under with continued operations, has refused the offers every time stating that the company would not be sold.  Weeks later, that same CEO alerted the press that another, more exceptional offer from Kraft would be taken into serious consideration (Rohwedder). The sudden flip-flop or hypothetical change of heart is merely basic business strategy by company officials in order to extract more money and funds from Kraft or other firms considering takeover bids.  This is seen as the status quo in the corporate business world because of the fact that there is a code of special ethics involved in business.  From a social dimension, this strategy would not be as universally accepted.  A college student would not hold “bids” for selling a textbook to a friend.  He would, at least in most cases, merely want to receive the amount which he would have collected from a book store buy-back or sometimes slightly less than he or she paid for the book.  In terms of business though, this strategy is not seen as taboo; on the contrary, the companies bidding for Cadbury would actually expect nothing less from the corporation when businesses are created in order to attain as much profit as possible even in the face of complete eradication.  Thus, in terms of “special ethics”, the fact remains that society cannot hold true the conventional ethics of individuals to the institution of business as interests are completely different between the two. 

            People argue that business should be conducted completely honestly and without any kinds of deception.  This, in economic terms, is called “perfect information” and is not applicable to real life with good reason (Baye 459).  With perfect information comes zero economic profits for businesses and with zero profits comes zero incentive to enter into the business world.  For example, if a customer knows exactly what it costs for a business to create an item and the prices that companies are selling the item, companies would be forced to sell the product at the cost of the product or else they would receive no customers.  Because companies would merely be covering the cost to create an item, what incentive would there be for more businesses to enter into the free market (Baye 336)?  Although it sounds extreme to say that without business strategy there is no business, there is factual and hypothetical economic evidence to support this radical claim.  The book Taking Sides explains Adam Smith’s version of business strategies:

“…(Adam) Smith believed that individual businesspeople acting in their own selfish interest would be guided by an ‘invisible hand’ to promote the public good.  In other words, the individual’s drive for maximum profits and the regulation of the competitive marketplace would interact to create the greatest aggregate wealth for a nation and therefore the maximum public good” (Newton 59).

            People get into the business world because they feel that they can make a profit or their ideas can be translated into profit; not every idea will be translated into a non-profit organization.  With this thought in mind, would it not be seen as “unethical” in theory for a business to not maintain the welfare of itself as well as the employees and investors of the business?  This would be an example of the “manager’s responsibilities to the investor” problem that arises in the corporate world (Friedman 243). 

Even a Kantian view is, in one interpretation, an anti-economic view:  “a business relationship cannot be simply economic; business interactions are interactions among person and thus they are always subject to morality as well…What are the laws that govern such interactions?” (Bowie 548).  This quote takes on too general of a definition of “economic” because anyone that studies this field does in fact know the laws which govern these interactions because they are but the laws of basic economics themselves as Adam Smith states.  They are not written, contract laws, but nonetheless are an “invisible hand” that must be comprehended in order to succeed in the economic conditions.  Such laws are understood that in order to produce profits, a firm must realize the maximum values at which consumers will value a product and then recognize the amount of output at which to set production. In other words, a business cannot simply gouge the general public in order to gain; there are hypothetical but known laws that govern business interactions and if they are not consulted, a firm will lose business as well as profits.  This principle that consumers affect economic decisions in terms of price is called “price elasticity of demand,” and is a measure of how the general consumers will react to price change (Baye 408).  A great real life application of this theory involved what would later be seen as the beginning of the video game industry boom in the 1980’s.  Before the Japanese company Nintendo almost completely took over the market for video game systems, there was the Atari, the first video game system ever made.  While the Atari as an invention was a breakthrough in technology, the company failed because no one was going to purchase such a machine for the extremely high prices the system was demanding.  What was expected by the company was drastic sales revenue and output that could be set at any production, but what occurred was a dearth of sales and a surplus of systems becoming backlogged in storage rooms of retailers.  This occurred because even though Atari was a great breakthrough and felt it could charge any price and maintain sales, it cannibalized itself.  After the fall of Atari, Nintendo stepped in to an otherwise dead market.  What Nintendo proceeded to do was to create and sell a video game system with a much lower price tag than did the Atari, and also controlled the shipment of systems and limited the output in the market (Brandenburger 111-14).  Because Nintendo controlled completely the shipments that were given to retailers, many stores ran out of systems very easily and were unable to serve customers.  Although Nintendo had the resources and manufacturing capacity to create enough machines, it knew that in terms of business, withholding units was the “smart” business strategy and is the way the company “played the game” by using principles of economic theory. 

            These concepts are merely a few economic theories that actually serve as laws of sorts to govern the interactions between “person(s)” as Bowie constructs it in his article on Kantian views.  Thus, in contradiction of the Kantian view, morality is not necessarily the basis for which business interactions are governed.  In fact, Thomas M. Garrett also agrees with this statement when he says:

“Ethics is not the study of morals, whether this word is used to designate conformity to conventional social rules or the existing moral judgments of men.  Although existing norms and judgments may contain valuable insights, ethics does not accept them, but sets out to criticize and test them in terms of more ultimate norms…the accepted courtesies of a society are not the foundation of ethics even though they can provide valuable hints as to what men think” (Garrett 3).

             One interpretation of this quote would be to say that individual and social morality and sense of virtue cannot always play large roles in ethics in general, not to mention business ethics.  A statement which says that business should be collectively made up of managers implementing complete and utter moral ethical practices seems one of economic blindness.  If one were to be technical about business, would the pursuit of profit itself be unethical?  In “moral” ethical standards, charging more than the cost to create a product would be deemed unethical in theory, thus eliminating the field of economics, a system that has been in existence since recorded human history.  Joanne B. Ciulla, in an essay about leadership, actually touches on morality when she states that sometimes humans are faced with “the ends justifying the immoral means” (535).  As business strategy is the method of attaining profit for business, it is necessary and must be observed from an economic standpoint.

            One governing body that understands these economic standards very well is the United States government which enforces laws that we as citizens must obey out of fear of physical punishment.  Law takes on an entire definition when it comes to businesses; in fact the study of business law is developed into an entire college course because of its specificity from generic American laws, thus showing another instance of “special ethics.”  For instance, economics states that monopolies are not beneficial for the public utility, thus the American government has “anti-trust” laws that prevent a company from consuming an entire market and actually encourages competition in business as it is more effective in providing more utility for the general public.  Many occurrences of morals and virtues are often derived from the tangible, stated laws of the land themselves. Thus from Carr’s point of view, these laws go in accordance with what many would consider to be moral standards anyway.  Carr states “As long as they (businesses) comply within the letter of the law, they are within their rights to operate their businesses as they see fit” (61).  It has always been debated whether law and ethics can be related and how much relevance each has with the other.  One statement from a college textbook illustrates that “Some aspects of morality are so widely held, so universal, that society will enact laws enforcing those aspects—putting the weight of government and the machinery of law behind them” (Wines 5).  If the moral “laws” to be enforced no matter what the conditions are embodied within the American government’s set of laws, why would a businessman feel morally obligated to hold his business to a higher standard by not implementing “bluffing” or “playing the game” as part of his company strategy (excluding charitable organizations which are created of course for the public good)?  Business laws aim to restrict strategies sometimes to the extent that businesses are taken to court when, to the public’s eye, no wrong doing has occurred.  Going back to the video game example, after success in American markets, Nintendo was taken to court on suspicion of violations of anti-trust laws.  The issue became the fact that Nintendo placed a security chip within their video game system that restricted games that would play on the system to only those which Nintendo permitted.  This meant that companies that created video game software would have to go through the Nintendo Corporation in order to be able to play their software on the Nintendo system.  Thus, this security chip in the system was deemed by many as being “anti-trust” behavior.  Although Nintendo was taken to court, how can a company be expected to create such complex equipment when the company itself would have no bearing on the software to be used for it (Brandenburger 116-17)?  To the average person the security chip would seem to serve a necessary function, but the government felt that it should be analyzed as monopolistic behavior.  This example shows that laws are in place that not only prevent corporations from complete corruption, but also are there for the good of the public even when the strategy seems to be justified in principle. 

            Not only does the American government prevent much of the corporate activity that would be detrimental to the public, but they serve severe punishment for those who attempt to take advantage of the financial assets of corporations.  The classic example of this severity of punishment comes from the biggest case of corporate corruption in the past decade: the Enron trials.  Enron was a company in the business of trading energy and energy assets nationally and internationally.  The company, illegally, put up a false sense of business success as they deceptively represented the accounting books and numbers to appear as though the company was making a profit when in fact the company was on the verge of complete bankruptcy.  Before the company fell, the highly regarded officers of the company began to sell stock at an alarming rate.  The punishments that were to come for those involved in the massive fraud that cost the general public millions in stock assets was going to be so severe that Cliff Baxtor, a chairman of the company, committed suicide rather than receive the punishment to come (Thomas).  The crackdown on white collar crime is becoming more and more prevalent.

            Strong moral beliefs will always drive individuals separately to exit from business, and for this reason, the business world has been called cutthroat, vicious and not for everyone.  Sometimes even the mere mention of the fact that a person works in a corporate setting automatically brings to mind assumptions of corruption.  However, the fact remains that, because of the nature of business and corporate industry, one must observe “special ethics” as is needed in many other aspects of society because business is not a direct parallel of society in general as interests differ; so morals cannot necessarily be a great barometer for ethical or unethical behavior in the business world.  Even so, we have economic rules and principles (laws) as well as tangible governing body laws of the land which restrict erratic decision making and prevent strategies which will discriminate against the public utility.  Thus, one cannot label a business manager to be unethical for “playing the game” and “bluffing” as means to grow and maintain his business.   

Works Cited

Baye, Michael R. Managerial Economics and Business Strategy. 6th. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2009. Print.

Bowie, Norman E.. “A Kantian Theory of Leadership.” Honest Work. (2007): 547-50. Print

Brandenburger, Adam M., and Barry J. Nalebuff. Co-opetition. New York: DoubleDay, 1996. Print.

Carr, Albert Z. “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?.” Honest Work. (2007): 59-63. Print.

Joanne B. Ciulla. “What is Good Leadership?.” Honest Work. (2007): 535. Print.

Friedman, Milton. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits.” Honest Work. (2007): 241-45. Print

Garrett, Thomas M. Business Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. 3-5. Print.

LaFeber, Walter. Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism. Expanded. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002. Print.

Newton, Lisa H., and Maureen M. Ford. Taking Sides. 10th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print.

Rohwedder, Cecilie. “Cadbury CEO Eases Stance Against a Bid From Kraft.” Wall Street Journal 22 Sep 2009: B1, B2. Print.

Thomas, Cathy Booth. “Called To Account.” TIME Magazine 18 Jun 2002: n. pag. Web. 22 Nov 2009. <http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,263006,00.html>.

Wines, William A. Ethics, Law, Business. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. 5. Print.

The polarization and the conflicting ideals in this country have divided this country since its inception. From day one the emergence of democracy has created a firefight of different ideals that we have felt, as a nation, we should subscribe to. As times have changed, and with them our stand on issues, we have grown and matured with our age. This country was founded by foreigners to this land taking it by force and calling it our own. We invaded this land, tricked those who deservedly were here first and then stood as a beacon of freedom once we gained our independence. We are a nation of illegal immigrants that claimed ‘manifest destiny’ and therefore took what we felt entitled to. We then forged a country, once we felt we were one nation, after killing for and stealing the land we could take, and now we defend it against ‘all threats, foreign and domestic’. Oddly enough, this country of illegals who created laws that established our citizenship are now showing a lack of clarity of how we feel about our lands with conflicting messages; the statue of liberty stands on one border as a wall is constructed on the other.

It is not unlike other times in history where this country has been confused about its identity. The very phrase of ‘all men created equal’ was written without certain men in mind, and of course women. Since our declaration of sovereignty we have molded the words and ideas we used as a credo to fit our own agenda. In the previous quote we redefined the word ‘all’ to fit our definition. This country is notorious throughout history to mold its words to fit its mission. We have never been a nation to really apologize for our mistakes in any real fashion, and we do the same now, fully contradicting the very thing that made this country great, immigration.

Other issues we can cite are feeling of civil rights throughout history. Women were great, as long as they stayed in the kitchen and out of the workplace. We were fine with them, on paper, until they wanted rights. Gays are the same way, we’re ok with them, in theory. No one is prejudice of course, we all are ‘tolerant’ of alternative lifestyles…until they want some rights. Now it’s hands across America to protect the sanctity of marriage; a sanctity with a divorce rate of more than 50% nationally. I guess we heterosexuals redefined the word ‘sanctity’ when the vows we took in front of GOD were seen as flexible. Or maybe it was the time we felt that, as a nation, blacks are fine to be free, but not in my schools. ‘Equal but separate’ was the name of the game, they were totally accepted, but not in white establishments or to receive white services. This kind of bigotry, racism, and sexism, is not dead today; these feelings and ideas have now been relegated to the closet right next to our feeling on foreigners with whom we are just fine, to a point.

In New York is the Statue of Liberty. The great green bitch that stands as a testament to this countries awe-some beginnings and resolve to truly be a free nation. She sits on Ellis Island, the largest immigrant reception point, in its time, where people streamed in off boats to try to secure a free life in America. From the Irish to the Italians and everywhere in between they came, and we accepted them without question. Our population became more immigrants than anything else; they were many ‘American born’ citizens after all. That statue was unveiled in 1886 and has stood ever since as a symbol of the strength, prosperity, and freedom that we are a beacon for. We hold her in the highest regard and like to think we hold to those same values that she represents…or do we?

While the statue of liberty stands as a symbol on one coast, the border fence between Mexico and America stands as another. Along the nearly 2,000 mile border we have been constructing a fence to keep Mexicans out. In 2008 it has been reported that about 345 miles of fence has been constructed. We have been actively pursuing the creation of a fence to keep people out of our country. This fence is supposed to keep out illegal immigrants as well as limit drug trafficking in and out of America. What it does is neither of those things with illegals pouring out of Mexico and drugs and drug related crimes actually rising in Mexico and our border regions. It s ineffective at best and a symbol of our change in ideals and moral compass as we now want to protect our interests and industry from these people wanting a new life on our shores…hmmm, seems not too long ago we were welcoming those same types of people.

I love this country, I do. America is one of a kind and despite her many, many flaws I would rather be a citizen nowhere else. I love the rights, freedoms, and beauty this country has to offer and appreciate that I don’t live in fear; I may live in a state of being nervous or angry sometimes, but that is a small price to pay for what it affords me. I did not immigrate to this country, I was born in San Diego…kind of like Tijuana though when you think about it. I did not earn my status as an American by doing anything but taking my first breaths on the shores of this country. Some have not been so fortunate and they want the same opportunities that I have gotten by default. I know this is a very complicated issue, a fiery, debatable one where no one is ever going to be ‘right’, but I think that it is something we need to take a good long look in the mirror to decide how we really feel.

My problem here is not the fence, it’s not the statue, it’s that they both stand simultaneously and we point to either one depending on the point we are trying to make. At Ellis Island there is an inscription that reads:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

You can read through this and seem the gleaming beacons of hope, acceptance, and promise, that this statue represented in us as a country during that era. Now it seems that we have become jaded and now this is ‘our land’ and we want to keep it that way. There is a sense of entitlement and protectiveness that we have lost since we first read, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free.” Now it seems we don’t want the masses, don’t care about you, the foreigner. The wall along the Mexican border runs roughshod over everything this country, and to a lesser extent, this statue represented in a golden age of truly free immigration in this, a country of great opportunity.

Now I know that in essence I am talking about ‘illegal’ immigrants from Mexico. There is a process, a whole BS system they need to go through, tests and oaths need to be taken, and they must wait patiently while the slow gears of the system churn out Visas and green cards. Well, I remember a few history books that never mentioned that BS at Ellis Island, when many of your ancestors immigrated here for a better life. I don’t ever remember that talk of learning about Presidents and American history to get in. As I understand it, at Ellis Island you registered a name, sometimes it got changed, and you made your mark, and then you were in. Welcome to America…what happened to that? That unregulated passage after seriously treacherous journeys are why we are the country we are. That influx of immigrants and hard working people just wanting a job and freedom are what literally built this country, brick by brick and beam by beam. The people that streamed in, that were welcomed to our shores are the reason we prospered, the reason we became a power, they are the life’s blood of our history; without them this country would not be half of what it is had we closed our borders or deported those people as we do now.

The advent of this idea of security mixed with fear and closet racism has created a duality in this country where we say one thing and mean another. You’re welcome to come in, on our terms though. These conflicting symbols speak to the complicated and partisan era we live in as we try desperately to live up to the ideals that founded this country while protecting what it is today. Without immigration this country simply would not exist, without the free-for-all mentality we took with immigration in the past, we wouldn’t be the relative super-power we have become. We cannot hold our heads high while the statue of liberty stands right along with the wall. Either we tear down the wall and look to her meaning and our history on how we handle immigration, or we throw a tarp over the statue of liberty; we aren’t living up to what she represents if we stay the course in relation to citizenship in this country. But now we seem content with where we are and now we want to close the book, keep people out, because there is this sense that they are stealing or ruining our country…Liberty’s inscription “With conquering limbs astride from land to land” represents these wide open arms bridging a gap that she fills; welcoming, safe arms to embrace “the homeless, tempest-tossed” upon her shores as they come. This is an image I no longer see in America. We no longer live up to her call for a land open to all to pursue happiness; we have failed her, and as a result we have failed ourselves. 

It’s my birthday again… Wowo every year…waaaaaaaaaal…What a coincidence…LOL… I feel kind of weird announcing about my birthday which will be on Dec 5^th but whatever. It’s my blog! And it’s my birthday!  ..

Honestly I wasn’t very excited about my birthday this year maybe because I was planning to spend it in USA….Anyway …, usually, I don’t make a big deal about it, but for some reason, this year is different.  I guess I’m more into trying to live my life to the fullest.

Here is what am going to do ,this Thursday I will hang out with my girlfriends in Italy (which is Abdoun  …heheh …LOL) On my birthday I will take day off from everything and treat myself well in Paris ( Which is Swefieh Saloon ..LOL) will make my nails done…mmm… make nice hair style (Best way to spend a birthday EVER at least for girls  …LOL)… At night will go out for a dinner with my family, How this sounds!!!

Okays, honestly the reason behind this blog that I know birthday is more of a “New Year” to anyone it’s a time when we evaluate our lives, our accomplishments …and our failures. And more than that, life-changing moments and painful events that took place on or near our birthday.

So for those whose birthday passed, close, or coming I’m HERE to celebrate & share your birthday.

Happy Birthday to you and me,

Happy Birthday to you and me,

This is Funny birthday for Moh’d Ali …LOOL .. he suddenly became young ..

Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it” [Lewis Carroll].

This past summer, my book club attended an author reading at The Thurber House.  The weather was perfect, the picnic dinner was tasty, and the author was gracious and entertaining.  While there, we all spent a little time pursuing the gifts.  One of Thurber’s books caught my sister’s fancy, Fables for Our Time and Famous Poems Illustrated.

As is her custom, Dawn recently finished the book and passed it on to me. The author, in the little volume, with its amusing chapter titles and line drawings, concludes each chapter with a clever moral like “don’t get it right, just get it written,” and “you can fool too many people too much of the time,” and “there’s no safety in numbers, or in anything else.”

Certainly not the typical morals that appear in children’s books.

All this reading about morals started me wondering about the moral of my story. If you were to sit down and read about my exploits and failures, adventures and detours, what fundamental principles would become evident? What practical lessons would you take away?

I think it should be something clever and fun, amusing and easily recalled. It should be practical, but inspire action.  I like this one:

You can’t win if you don’t play. You must stay in it to win it.

What is the moral of your story? What are you teaching others through your life?

If you don’t like the way things are shaping up, it’s time to change your life. Rewrite the ending. Allow others to learn a  lesson from your missteps. Be authentic. Share the good and the bad.

Whatever you are, be a good one!

Deanna

Este mes de diciembre/2009, Yareah magazine (http://www.yareah.com) dedica su número a la Ética. Diferentes autores y artistas opinan sobre el tema:

Para leer en español, por ejemplo:

Juan Ignacio Guglieri:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/608-etica-a-nicodemo-a-nicomaco-a-amador

Juan Manuel Martínez Valdueza:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/598-etica-apelo-a-riccobono

Martín Cid:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/614-etica-critica-del-juicio-de-immanuel-kant-respuesta-al-senor-valdueza

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/events/615-el-escritor-martin-cid-en-el-rastrillo-nuevo-futuro-de-madrid

Isabel del Río:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/arts-arte/619-eticas-dudosas-fra-filippo-lippi

Sabela Baña:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/603-etica-evolucion-involucion

Alix Otoole:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/myths-mitos/593-mitos-tras-las-huellas-de-lilith

Para leer en inglés, por ejemplo:

Victor Mechán:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/reviews-criticas/597-review-ethics-for-amador-by-fernando-savater-

Ann Timmermans

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/arts-arte/621-the-heart-of-the-matter-spirited-reflections-on-the-art

Charles Kinney Jr.

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/602-ethics-hope-is-here

Ron Schuler:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/599-ethics-aristotle

Alice Linsley:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/myths-mitos/594-myths-lilith

Además de otros artículos como, por ejemplo, este bilingüe de la Piedra de Rosetta:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/607-the-rosetta-stone-la-piedra-de-rosetta

Y relatos y poesía como el de Jack Wear:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/literature-literatura/609-fiction-fallen-angel

Los artistas del mes son Ana Morales Lopez:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/arts-arte/618-artista-del-mes-ana-morales-lopez

Y Matt Hughes:

http://www.yareah.com/magazine/index.php/arts-arte/617-artist-of-the-month-matt-hughes

I recently put up a post about a study that demonstrated that religious types basically put their own beliefs in for Gods.  Most of us have noticed this throughout our lives and when explains why there are so many denominations of the Christian religion along (over 300).  They all define God for themselves and if you have read my post on how Scriptures make it clear that ALL MEN WILL BE SAVED, you will see they will even contradict the word of their God just to believe what they want to believe.

On that post I had a commenter that isn’t a Christian but apparently believes in some form of God.  Obviously, another religious type defining God for him/herself.

Here is the comment:

“Assuming that one actually believes that the Godless can have a moral compass, it’s obvious that they too suffer from this flaw. They just name Society, Natural Law, or something other than the Gods.”

I thought this comment demonstrates what lunatics these people are and why they are a great danger to any society.  It takes a belief in a God to get someone to crash passenger jets into buildings.

1. It demonstrated again that they believe what they want regardless of the evidence.  Clearly they think those with a God have a moral compass and those of us without a God can’t have one.  Maybe their imagined God explained this to them during their meeting of the invisible minds.

2. I wonder how it is possible that I function in a world if I don’t have a moral compass.  I don’t break laws, I don’t cheat on my wife, I pay my bills, I take care of others that are in need, I take care of animals that are in need, I have spent nearly 6 years of my life devoted to helping others in a foreign land…etc.  I seem to be able to do it all just fine without a “moral” compass from God.

3. I know of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Larry Craig, Jim Baker, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, and many more Godly Christians that don’t seem to use their compass.

4. How many Christians do we know of that have been divorced and then remarried and thus, according to Scriptures commit adultery.  Not only that, breaking a direct promise to the Almighty God (until death do us part).  Lying to the creator and then betraying that promise would surly be at the top of the list on the moral compass, wouldn’t it.

5. What about those Christian Crusades and the slaughter of millions to include children, babies and the unborn child in the womb of the mother?  Personally, I am glad I don’t have that kind of moral compass.

6. What about our Christian President George Bush and his Christian Administrations and the Christians that re-elected and thus supported/approved of a war based on lies of WMD and ties to 9/11 and torture?  I guess if that is morals then I too can follow their example and kill others because I don’t like them maybe because they follow a different God.  The good old days of the crusades?  These Christians with their “moral compass” sent American Soldiers/Heros to their death based on lies.  Complete disrespect for human life.

7. What about the Christian witch hunts that killed and tortured, sometimes by burning to death, those that didn’t agree with them and claiming it was good because they had the “moral compass” of God?

8. I guess they learned it from their Father above that apparently flooded the earth and drowned most all life through a slow, torturous death to include children, babies, and the unborn child in the womb of the mother (abortion).

I want nothing to do with their “moral compass” and I am not foolish enough and my ego not so big that I actually think an almighty creator talks to me personally, loves me as a special person and that I am so awesome that I get to go and live with him just for saying I believe.

I believe the study is correct and people that claim to believe in God will put their own beliefs in for their God.  Just as they make an endless number of claims about their God and NEVER support it with evidence.  No wonder we can have over 300 denominations of the Christian religion and a multitude of God’s to worship.  NO ONE  is ever held accountable to explain, provide evidence, prove, demonstrate with facts or reason that their one versions of God is remotely true.

They have a free license to lie and make up any excuse.  Like George Bush, “God sent me on a mission”.  Of course he did George and the fools that believe in your God bought the story.  I believe that “God agreed with your plan” because they too have this hate for anyone that is different and especially if they believe in a competing God.

Look at the hate these Christians have for Obama.  Like the KKK (by the way, Christians following a moral compass) they have a racist hate for Obama and his family.  Fox News (The Christian Opinion News Channel) is the number one outlet for hate against Obama.  Everything they told us we should do in support of Bush, they contradict with respect to Obama.  What do Christians do?  They believe what they want, when they want and how they want as long as it allows them to hate the person they want and condemn others for opposing them.

I and many others spoke out against torture and the war in Iraq.  What did Fox News and the Christians do to us for speaking out against lies, and other immoral acts?  They told us we were Un-American, were terrorist and terrorist supporters, that we betrayed America.  Wow, seems their moral compass isn’t working so well.  I wonder why they didn’t call us un-Godly?  Oh…I guess that would then allow us to come back and make the comparison I just did and they wouldn’t want that exposed, would they?

Two    friends    were    walking through    the    desert.  during    some    point    of    the journey,    they    had     an  argument;    and    one    friend slapped    the    other    one in    the     face.

The    one    who    got    slapped
was    hurt,    but    without
saying    anything,
wrote    in    the    sand:

Today    my     best    friend
slapped   me    in    the    face.

They  kept    on    walking,
until  they    found     an    oasis,
where    they    decided
to  take    a     bath

The    one     who    had    been
slapped     got    stuck    in    the
mire !    and    started    drowning,
but    the    friend  saved    him.

After    he    recovered    from
the    near    drown ing,
he    wrote    on    a    stone:

‘Today    my     best    friend
saved    my    life  ’.

The    friend    who    had    slapped
and    saved    his    best    friend
asked    him,    ’after   i  hurt    you,
you    wrote    in    the    sand    and    now,
you    write    on    a     stone,    why?’

The   friend    replied
‘when    someone   hurts    us
we    should     write    i t    down
in    sand,   where    winds    of
forgiveness    can     erase    it away.
But,    when  someone    does
something    good    for    us,
we    must    engrave    it   in   stone
where    no    wind
can    ever    erase    it.’

Learn    to     write
your    hurts    in
the    sand    and    to
carve    your
benefits    in    stone.

They    say    it    takes    a
minute   to    find    a    special
person, an    hour   to
appreciate  them, a    day
to   love    them,    but then
an    entire    life
to    forget    them.

Take    the    time    to    live!

Do    not     value    the    things
you  have    in    your    life,     but    value
who you  have    in     your    life !

]]> http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/church-not-state-the-christian-approach-to-health-care/ Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:28:49 +0000 foospro86 http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/church-not-state-the-christian-approach-to-health-care/

St. Luke, the physician

Christians cannot and should not try to separate their religious beliefs from their political beliefs. Faith must inform our morals, and morality must inform our politics. So what does the Christian faith have to say about health care? Quite a bit actually.

Christianity is fully embodied in Catholicism, and Catholicism uniquely reveres, embraces, and is founded upon the authoritative traditions of the early Church. So the answer to “What does the Christian faith have to say about health care” is another question: how did the early Church traditionally approach health care? (Scripturally, some important information on early Christian charitable work in general can be found in the Book of Acts and some of St. Paul’s letters but very little specific to health care aside from miraculous healings and the institution of the Sacrament of the Sick through the letter of St. James, 5:14-15.)

The history of institutionalized health care is so intimately intertwined with the history of Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity, that it is no exaggeration to say that the latter gave rise to the former.

But for the purposes of the current American health care debate, two main questions stand out: Did the early Church relinquish all responsibility for care of the sick to the state (the Roman Empire)? Did it demand the state tax the rich heavily to pay for health care for everyone?

On both counts, no, it didn’t. And it is so frustrating that the leadership of Christian churches, but especially that of the Catholic Church, as well as many lay Christians have ignored the history of the Church with regard to this issue.

Even before the persecution of Christianity stopped, the early Church assumed full responsibility for the sick (including their pagan persecutors) and financed their hospitals through private charity.

According to a Christianity Today article, reviewing the book Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity:

As early as A.D. 251, according to letters from the time, the church in Rome cared for 1,500 widows and those who were distressed. A hundred years later, Antioch supported 3,000 widows, virgins, sick, poor, and travelers. This care was organized by the church and delivered through deacons and volunteer societies…. When the plague of Cyprian struck in 250 and lasted for years, this volunteer corps became the only organization in Roman cities that cared for the dying and buried the dead. Ironically, as the church dramatically increased its care, the Roman government began persecuting the church more heavily.

Outside their close family and perhaps friends, most pagans cared nothing for their fellow human beings, whom they did not consider to be brothers made in the image and likeness of God, as Christians did. We should expect nothing less with health care under the neo-pagan political left in America today. Ideas have consequences; indeed they have already occurred in de-Christianized Europe. Just as the pagans before them, leftists are willing and even eager to kill the weakest among us, i.e. the unborn (or even born) child, the elderly, and the mentally or physically disabled.

According to sociologist Alvin J. Schmidt in How Christianity Changed the World:

Charity hospitals for the poor and indigent public did not exist until Christianity introduced them…. [T]he first ecumenical council of the Christian church at Nicaea in 325 directed bishops to establish a hospice in every city that had a cathedral…. The first hospital was built by St. Basil in Caesarea in Cappadocia about A.D. 369…. After St. Basil’s hospital was built in the East and another in Edessa in 375, Fabiola, a wealthy widow and an associate of St. Jerome, built the first hospital in the West, a nosocomium, in the city of Rome in about 390. According to Jerome, Fabiola donated all of her wealth (which was considerable) to construct this hospital, to which she brought the sick from off the streets in Rome….

The building of hospitals continued. St. Chrysostom (d. 407), the patriarch of the Eastern church, had hospitals built in Constantinople in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and St. Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo in northern Africa, was instrumental in adding hospitals in the West. By the sixth century, hospitals also had become a common part of monasteries. Hence, by the middle of the sixth century in most of Christendom, in the East and the West, ‘hospitals were securely established.’ Also in the sixth century, hospitals received an additional boost when the Council of Orleans (France) passed canons assuring their protection, and in the last quarter of the same century, Pope Gregory the Great did much to advance the importance of hospitals….

By 750 the growth of Christian hospitals, either as separate units or attached to monasteries, had spread from Continental Europe to England…. And by the mid-1500s there were 37,000 Benedictine monasteries that cared for the sick….

The Crusaders also founded healthcare orders, providing health care to all, Christian and Muslim alike. The Order of Hospitallers recruited women for nursing the sick. The Hospitallers of St. Lazarus, founded in the East in the twelfth century, devoted themselves primarily to nursing. This order spread to Europe, where it founded many more hospitals and treated people with various diseases. The Knights of the Order of Hospitallers of Saint John of Jerusalem (Knights of Malta) not only operated and maintained hospitals, but also admitted the insane. They founded a Christian insane asylum in 1409 in Valencia, Spain.

According to historian Gary Ferngren in Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity:

The experience gained by the congregation-centered care of the sick over several centuries gave early Christians the ability to create rapidly in the late fourth century a network of efficiently functioning institutions that offered charitable medical care, first in monastic infirmaries and later in the hospital.

The Protestant Revolution, the Endarkenment, the French Revolution, and its intellectual descendants have brought abrupt and sometimes violent disruptions, if not a complete end, to this vast charitable network in many places. Yes, “evil” religion and “papism” had to be smashed and replaced by the “humanitarian” Animal Farm of the Leviathan state. Ha, how “compassionate.” But I digress….

Now, am I suggesting that the U.S. return to the exact health care system of the early Church? Of course not! This straw man entirely misses the point that I’m trying to communicate here. I’m not suggesting a structure and system in itself but rather an approach and a set of principles that need to be incorporated into the American health care system. And the Christian churches, esp. the Catholic Church, need to recommit themselves to their obligation to care for the indigent sick and need to take an active role in articulating and promoting these Christian principles to everyone.

What are those principles?

1. Generally and most importantly, care for the physical needs of human beings do NOT override Christian moral imperatives not to steal and commit violence, even from and against the rich. Spiritual needs override any physical needs.
2. The health of the poor in one’s local community must be a pressing concern of all Christians.
3. Care for the sick is an essential duty of local churches that should not be relinquished to the nation-state.
4. Care for the sick is not to be financed by state-coerced wealth redistribution but by the patients themselves or charity.
5. However, to whom much is given, much is expected. The rich are morally obligated to voluntarily direct their wealth to the health care of the poor, starting in their local communities.
6. If the state is to assist in financing health care in any way (which I doubt is necessary), it should be done as locally as possible, according to the Catholic moral principle of subsidiarity.

Medicine today is vastly more accurate, comprehensive, sophisticated, technological, and effective. That also means that, aside from higher costs caused by government interference in the industry,  health care is naturally more expensive now because it is so much more valuable than it was centuries ago. But none of these facts change or undermine the Christian principles I’ve laid out above. Politics itself has shown that more than enough money can be raised through a well-organized solicitation of voluntary donations.

The fact that modern medicine can treat so many maladies naturally and psychologically creates more pressure to assure every sick person receives treatment. But again, that pressure should not tempt us to stifle charity through state-enforced plunder. That pressure belongs on us as individuals, esp.  the rich, who must care for modern-day Lazarus or face an eternal punishment.

It is an inverse relationship and a zero sum game between government control and Christian charity. The former stifles the latter. Even if socialized medicine did work better (it never does), it would do no good for us to gain all the bodily health in the world yet become mortally and spiritually sick in the process.

I have been blaming Michael for the cruelties that his political party established in the Universes, but what I have been telling has a diverse meaning in the world of the creatures than is has in Eden.

Eden is a free place, but freedom has a wide definition.

Far from me to tell what freedom is, but I can tell that the real freedom, if exists, only exists in the realm of formless, were God (female essence) lives.

Except outside the form, there are limits tied to all fields, resources, economy, society, physical limits, and so on.

So, once an Angel decides to migrate to the realm of form ( to Eden), he must abdicate of part of the freedom that he has beside God. Now for the creatures, given the dependence of Eden and the very nature of their bodies, is something even more restrict.

Then, even assuming that any kind of freedom, once in the form, is not real freedom, there is still two different concepts of freedom that I want to speak about.

One is the freedom from a human point of view. Why human? Because all the species of this Universe know precisely the human concepts, so they can make an easy parallel to what it is for their own species.

The other is the concept of freedom of Eden, which has vague mentions here and there, but not a consistent explanation, like the one that I will do now.

For humans, the freedom ends when one interfere with the freedom of the other, right? Is a short definition, but tells everything.

For Angels this would look like the definition of a prison. In Eden there is no limit for one´s action, not even the limit of interfering with the others, not even the limit of harming others, the only limit is a law suit. In short, in Eden rules the stronger, and one must always watch his own back. It is a turn of the spiral, the most wild concept of civilization, working the the most advanced place that exist.

Few posts ago I told that we trust that in Eden nobody harm the other, but this in Eden has a particular meaning. The concept of “harm” does not exist. Just exist the concept of action. A successful action, or a failed action. But the same action, if seen by human eyes, could be considered horrifying.

The Angels understand that something can be horrifying, but they don´t empathize, they just watch. And, besides, the most horrifying of all fears, perhaps the only real fear in Angelsland, is the one of having to deal with a new limit. This is one of the reasons that we had to balance the limitless society with a state of art legal system.

There are few, very few laws, and millions of protocols for everything, and millions of different ways of dealing with this protocols, what makes the circulation among the different levels and branches of the society very complex, and many times the protocols and traditions are much stronger than laws, but…they are still protocols.

Another characteristic of this concept of freedom that I am speaking of, is that Eden is amoral. Everyone know what is considered right or wrong in Earth, in very basic and general terms, everyone knows what is considered cruelty, exploitation, as well as charity and goodness.

These concepts do not have importance for the Elfic society. Not to say that they do not exist, I would say that they are more an entertainment than anything else. Of course that are Angels that go to all extremes ( we Fallen guys are considered extremists), but there is not a general official consensus about these concepts.

Also, is important to point out that Angels never go through physical pain or privations of any sort, ever. What means that if an Angel such as Michael order a hunter of witches as he did many times, including torture, he does not know at all what is the process that the creature is going through.

Angels do not have the least idea of what feels like physical harm. Of course, for the bravest ones, there are safe simulators, but…I would not count that as a valid experience.

Even in the case of us, Fallen Angels, after having lived so many thousand lives as humans, our experience is still not the same as the one of a human-human ( body and essence), because there are primary differences in the reception of information of the essences, but the “half experience” that we had here probably makes us the only of all Angels who can understand the problems of the creatures, from inside.

Me and Lucifer are “humanized”, in Eden it is considered decayed, but actually we are more experienced than our fellows at home, certainly we are. Our position defending the worlds of creatures is probably seen as an exotic entertainment for many levels of Eden, specially those levels and groups away from the gardens and away from the government.

Because of this, no matter how much I complain, my words will be heard and discussed, with fire and icy arguments, but hardly will be considered as more than superficial and interesting news. I am not sure that I believe that my words can ever enter the hearts.

There was a time long ago when I used to get so angry with most Angels´s lack of experience about the creatures, that I complained to my friends here saying that I would find a way to hurt with a needle the fingers of all Counselors in the low chamber, and I would insert in this needle some sort of genetic hack so they would know what is pain, at least a little bit. Of course I grew up and I don´t want to go out piercing everyone anymore, but Angelsland has still the same annoying ignorance on this subject.

Not that I am complaining about this, it fits pretty well to Eden, but what I mean is that no judge in Eden would consider Michael guilty of torturing millions of female creatures in all times, however, he might be guilty of messing up with someone´s else property ( the creatures of another Angel). But the weight is very different. And there would be an eternity of discussions about.

I do not intend to change the naiveness of Eden, however, as we Fallen Angels did learn after all this time among humans, is that perhaps to impose some few limits to the Angels in what concerns the care of the creatures would not be a bad idea, once to try to explain what is suffering is useless, because the Angels will never ever understand without experience.

What I am proposing to Eden is the worse of all proposals. I am suggesting limits.

The Angels that will receive this message will be horrified with the idea, and probably again I will be throwing away my weak popularity in Eden. The idea of having limits is the biggest taboo in Eden, but as a stubborn Rebel I don´t like at all the way that things are conducted in the Universes.

From my humble personal point of view, and this I did learn with the Elementals of Gaia, most of kinds of violence have deep roots in the hurry. As the Angels are eternal, is my position that the violence toward the creatures does not justify. What I am calling “violence” in Eden is not considered violence but freedom of choice of the Angel responsible for the creatures. But, with a little patience, is possible to reach the same or better results. It is just a matter of conscience. Of care.

This post of mine is pointless, I know that I cannot transfer to the Angels´s minds experience and feelings, however I just have to say it, even knowing that my words may just die in the nothing, without been understood in Eden.

What I am saying is terribly deep, but without the necessary experience to interpret my words, they may look like just a childish claim of an annoying pro-creatures activist from primary school.

What do I do? I can just tell and tell and tell again, that the way that Michael and other Angels of his party conduct their philosophies and religions and hunts and armageddoms, only for their personal amusement and to feed their pride, cannot be done.

Does the Eden´s society think that they are wrong? Of course not. For Eden it is free of choice – of the Angel.

There will ever be any punishment for the Angels who behave like him? No. Never. It is pretty allowed.

This is how things are, but me and Lucifer and all Rebels cannot, we just cannot, look at abuses and just let go. We are lonely voices in Eden, but perhaps one day we will be heard.

Eden´s society think that they create the Universes for the Angels´s sake, because there is no other possible answer for the Universe to exist.

But I know why the Universe exist. I know the reason for everyone´s existence. And I am going to tell it now.

Sorry for taking the fun of the puzzle that is your job to hide, Gideao, but is time to tell everything.

As me and Lucifer get closer, is more and difficult not to tell what has to be told.

I asked to my Mother once, the Mother from the formless realm, the one that is the base of everything ( although the creation itself is done in Eden), the one known as GOD.

I asked HER the reason for the Universe to exist, because it just does not make sense.

HER answer was simple, and deeply significant.

- The Universe exist because I love the form.

That is what SHE said.

The Universes do exist, because they are beautiful, that is all. If one thinks well, this is really, the only reason that worth.

If the Universes do exist because GOD loves the form, because of the beauty of the form, do we Angels have the right to create disturbances?

Yes, unfortunately we do, because of another thing that GOD told me. SHE said that if something is possible, it is permitted. HER laws are to restrict stages of growing, such as gravity that restrict a creature in the ground until the moment that the creatures creates a machine to beat it. GOD´s laws are made to be surpassed, not to be blindly respected.

I know that with the argument above I am just giving room to the opposition, but I am not a lawyer and I don´t want to be partial in this case, not even for myself, because as the Angel bearer of truth, I have to tell all.

But still, still, even though knowing that is possible to harm, even though knowing that it is permitted, even though knowing that no punishment will come, please Eden, do not harm the creatures. Do not create policies that allow it to happens. Please.

If there must be a reason, then I give you a reason. If the purpose of the Universe to exist is because it is beautiful, there is no beauty in a dark heart. So, if we want do our best for our Mother of the formless, who gave us everything, let´s thanks to HER with bright hearts.

Let´s just light all hearts, in all kingdoms that we have, to match and reflect the bright of the stars.

Just to create more beauty.

This is all for today.

I love you Eden, I miss you my Diamond family, Doupache, Akira.

See you in the future.

Princess Veronica Ab Thule

I have just finished reading James Caroll’s article on the recent political moves by the Catholic Church here in America. These are moves designed to frighten and intimidate and to oppress and harm, and they are being done in the name of God.

The list, from the article:

• Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence “respectfully” tells Congressman Patrick Kennedy to refrain from receiving communion, a harbinger of what every pro-choice or pro-gay-marriage Catholic politician faces.

• Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington threatens to cancel Catholic provision of services to the homeless and poor if the D.C. City Council passes a law giving equal rights to gays.

• The Vatican, uneasy with the relative liberalism of American nuns, launches an intimidating investigation of U.S. religious orders of women, which, when criticized by Maureen Dowd, prompts New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan to complain of anti-Catholicism in the New York Times.

• In October, Rome violates a generation-long tradition of inter-denominational respect to invite disgruntled conservative Episcopalians to join a special new wing of the Catholic Church. Hostility to gays and rejection of equality for women trump theology, tradition, and even courtesy.

• Last week, more than a dozen of the most influential U.S. Catholic bishops (including Dolan and Wuerl) join far-right-wing Evangelicals like James Dobson in “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience.” Its co-author Chuck Colson (of Watergate fame) describes “a hierarchy of issues,” but the Catholic Church now has an issues hierarchy.

• On Capitol Hill this month, the Catholic bishops make clear their readiness to scuttle the entire package of health-reform legislation if they do not get their way on abortion restrictions. Health-care reform hangs in the Senate by a thread, which the bishops prepare to cut.

The Church has long since abroggated any moral authority as far as I’m concerned. They have a long legacy of evil that begins with the latter days of the Roman empire and extends all the way up until now. One need only look at the threats made to the DC government on charity work to see behavior that is un-Christ-like in the extreme (the same Christ who, according to myth, tended to everyone, even Romans).

Caroll believes this recent set of moves on the part of the church are primarily about deflecting attention away from things like the various rape and abuse scandals worldwide, particularly in places like Ireland.

The Catholic Church is such a fundamentally evil, immoral and all-around fucked-up organization that I’m seriously curious about something: for those of you who are Catholics, and who are against some of the tactics of your Church or some of the things they preach (like not allowing condom use and the like), how do you justify staying with the Church? Why not shop around and go to a church that’s more in line with what you believe to be right than continuing to support a church that does so much that’s wrong?

The only thing that pleases me about this whole story is that the more the Church does shit like this, the more support they lose worldwide, especially in places like Europe. I sincerely hope I live to see the day the Vatican has to file for financial bankruptcy. Their moral bankruptcy has already happened.

Dr. Martin Luther King and The Black Horse

We spoke earlier about The Four Horsemen representing races of people and I mentioned that if, by chance these horses represented spaces of time as well that we would be currently living in The Black Horses time.  I had chosen Dr. Martin Luther King as the rider of The Black Horse simply because the literal sign of the times is focused on equality of some proportion-civil rights, worker’s rights, veterans rights, equal rights, smokers rights, gay rights, womans rights, unborn rights, etc…

Rev 6:5  And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

The Black Horse carries “the balances”, or scales and scales measure equality.  Used as an icon in the courts, it would seem that the balances also measure justice, as in “the scales of justice” where evidence is weighed.  Appropriately we have also learned that on “Judgement Day” when the book of life is opened, we will be accountable for the deeds of our life whether good or bad.  Could it be that good and bad will be measured by balances?

Back to equality.  Dr. Martin Luther King is an icon of equality.  He not only fits the race required for The Black Horses’ rider, he also fits the cause: Equality.  It is only appropriate that he is The Black Horses’ rider.  The role is too significant that he played in changing the world to ignore and should be illuminated, thus never forgotten.  He was the father which birthed modern day of battles dealing with equality in any manner.  Numerous hours were spent sketching Martin Luther King.

Many sketches will be in the Journal of Sketches.  Roughly the first sketch and final painting are revealed here in this blog.  Martin Luther King is nearly completed here: