|
Home
Sunday Platforms
Upcoming Events
Ethical Action
Member Forum
School for Ethics
Weddings & Ceremonies
Links
Ethical Travelers
Contact Us Directions
|
| |
|
Member
Forum
Editorials -
Special Essays
Editorials
from The
Ethical Humanist - the monthly newsletter of the Ethical Society
of Boston.
The Way It Is
by Marvin
Miller
Net Neutrality
What
is
it?
Why
is
it
important?
Why
am I
writing
about
it?
Net
neutrality
means
that
everyone
who
uses
the
Internet
has
equal
access
to
it.
What
the
big
corporations
that
provide
Internet
service
want
is
to
be
able
to
establish
classes
of
service,
with
the
preferred
classes
getting
faster
transmission
of
information
than
the
non-preferred
classes.
This
would
make
the
preferred
classes
financially
valuable.
The
providers
could
charge
high
fees,
perhaps
millions
or
even
billions
of
dollars,
for
the
best
service.
Those
who
couldn't
afford
such
fees
would
get
inferior
service.
People
who
want
to
get
information
over
the
Internet
would
be
attracted
to
the
sites
with
better
service
and
diverted
away
from
those
with
inferior
service.
Everyone
but
the
Internet
providers
would
lose
without
Net
neutrality.
Big
corporations
that
send
information
out
on
the
Internet
would
be
able
to
pay
the
fees,
passing
the
cost
on
to
their
customers.
Of
course,
vertically
integrated
companies,
those
that
provide
Inrernet
service
and
also
send
out
information
on
it,
would
be
paying
themselves,
gving
them
a
big
advantage
over
other
information
senders.
Currently
Comcast,
the
big
Internet
provider,
is
trying
to
buy
NBC.
Comcast
already
has
some
information
senders.
Small
senders,
like
individuals
or
the
Ethical
Society,
couldn't
afford
high
fees,
so
we
would
be
stuck
with
inferior
service.
Even
though
I
don't
have
a
working
computer
at
home,
I
still
use
the
Internet.
I
get
information
on
it
at
the
library.
I
send
these
articles
to
our
newsletter
editor
by
e-mail,
using
the
library's
computers.
Lack
of
Net
neutrality
could
be
an
obstacle
to
ordinary
users
of
the
Internet.
More
and
more,
people
are
sending
and
receiving
information
on
the
Internet
rather
than
in
other
ways,
like
face
to
face
conversation,
newspapers,
magazines,
letters,
and
phone
calls.
The
ability
to
create
preferred
classes
of
Internet
service
would
give
those
who
had
that
ability
increased
control
over
which
information
gets
transmitted.
Currently
some
governments
try
to
exercise
such
control.
Without
Net
neutrality,
a
few
corporations
could
do
so.
Needless
to
say,
information
unfavorable
to
the
interests
of
those
corporations
would
be
unlikely
to
get
preference.
Gauguin's
biggest
painting,
which
is
at
Boston's
Museum
of
Fine
Arts,
is
captioned
"Where
do
we
come
from?
What
are
we?
Where
are
we
going?'
The
answer
to
the
second
of
these
questions
is
"information."
What
makes
each
of
us
unique
and
different
from
everyone
else
is
the
information
in
our
genes
and
the
information
we
get
throughout
our
lives
from
external
sources.
Control
of
the
information
we
receive
is
nothing
less
than
control
over
what
people
will
be.
Most
people
don't
know
what
Net
neutrality
is.
When
I
called
my
congressman's
office
and
said
I
was
calling
about
Net
Neutrality,
the
staffer's
reply
was
a
tentative
"yes?",
an
indication
that
the
phrase
was
new
to
her.
A
few
more
calls
might
get
Cogress's
attention
to
this,
alongside
other
issues,
like
two
(or
more)
wars,
climate
change,
unemployment,
housing,
health
care.
. .
TOP
Board Members Column
The "IM" World
by Andrea Perrault
After the
events of
January --
the election
of Scott
Brown to
U.S. Senate
and the
declaration
of
"personhood"
to
corporations
by the U.S.
Supreme
Court, it
seems that
we’re on
another
rocky,
rollercoaster,
Red vs. Blue
ride into
this year’s
midterm
elections.
Was Barak
Obama right
to declare
in his State
of the Union
address that
a philosophy
of "you
lose, I win"
is now all
too dominant
in our
culture, and
that every
day is
Election
Day? What
can ethical
people do to
preserve
genuine
democracy?
As political
parties seem
to fade from
the
mainstream
and
independents
carry more
clout, does
any
consistent
political
philosophy
have value?
What role do
political
values have
in an
ethical
approach to
life? Are
small "d"
democratic
ideals out
of fashion?
Technology
plays a
significant
role in the
unfolding of
today’s
events,
whether they
be political
or cultural.
The term
"IM" --
instant
messaging --
carries
significant
weight in
our
twenty-first
century
culture.
This instant
response
approach
allows
little time
for
reflection,
or learning,
or for a
politician
to grow into
the job. His
or her
immediate
carrying out
of campaign
promises
will be the
test of our
willingness
to support
that leader.
President
Barak Obama
is a perfect
case in
point. He
vowed to end
the wars;
even though
he set a
timetable to
exit from
Iraq, we’re
more mired
in
Afghanistan
than ever,
and Yemen
looks like a
new frontier
of war.
Since his
election,
the economy
tanked due
to the
policies of
the Bush
administration,
yet Obama
kept the
same Wall
Street
cronies to
steer his
fiscal
strategies.
Main Street
and regular
folks got no
bail-outs,
but bankers
and auto
industry
tycoons
benefited
nicely. The
voters who
swarmed to
the polls to
elect him in
2008 may
likely stay
away in
2010. The
implied
instant
message to
Obama was to
get back on
track with
your
promises and
move faster.
Conversely,
the health
care issue
dominated
the Obama
agenda in
his first
year, but
his having
given so
much
authority to
Congress to
work out the
details
surely
backfired.
The voters
who found
fault with
this
strategy,
and hated
its likely
result, went
to the polls
en masse to
provide
Scott Brown
with an
unpredicted
victory in
Massachusetts.
The instant
message to
Obama in
this case
was SLOW
DOWN -- we
don’t want a
multi-thousand
page tome
rife with
protectionism.
Did the
election of
Scott Brown
prove that,
as Governor
Patrick
asserted in
his State of
the State
address, the
electorate
showed that
"it has all
the power it
needs to
make the
change it
wants." If
so,
politicians
and thinking
public
beware --
here’s your
Instant
Message: the
public will
vote for
change
regardless
of what that
change may
bode.
The
electorate
is more
polarized
than ever --
Democrats
and
Republicans
are
stretched so
far apart
that each
can’t even
conceive of
being civil
to the
other, much
less
actually
have mutual
friendships.
Independents
have
newfound
clout,
although
there’s no
consistent
platform
there.
Politicians
of Ted
Kennedy’s
day
understood
that
political
views are
important in
political
debates in
political
venues, but
they do not
define or
encompass
"humaneness."
Humanity may
be doomed in
today’s
political
and civic
world. The
Instant
Message here
is that we
need to
bring ethics
back. But
will anyone
listen? If
so, for how
long will
that Instant
Message find
an audience?
TOP
Raed Jarrar Meets with Current Affairs
Group
by Margo Woods
On January
24, 2010 the
Early
Morning
Current
Affairs
Group was
joined by
Mr. Raed
Jarrar, an
Iraqi born
architect,
blogger and
political
analyst who
is working
with Mass
Peace
Action. Mr.
Jarrar
presented an
illuminating
overview of
the current
Iraqi
situation
and focused
on a few
very
critical
points
pertaining
to a US
withdrawal.
The most
important
aspect he
stressed was
that in late
2008 there
was a
dramatic
shift in the
ground rules
of the
conflict.
Initially
the Bush
administration
position was
that a
withdrawal
of troops
would be
dependent on
the
situation on
the ground.
This could
be
interpreted
in many ways
(this was
the type of
solution we
used in
South
Korea), was
very open
ended and
could easily
result in a
long term
presence of
US troops
and
contractors.
In 2008, the
negotiations
changed and
the
agreement of
withdrawal
was a
time
based
action. 100%
of US
troops,
contractors
and bases
were to be
withdrawn by
December
2011. This
Mr. Jarrar
thought was
a good plan
since it was
what Iraqis
wanted -- an
end to the
occupation.
It would
also signal
that the US
was not a
colonizing
power or
interested
in nation
building.
Even if Iraq
fell into
chaos, and
it could, it
was their
chaos. Al
Queda wants
the US to
stay because
it helps
them recruit
in Iraq. If
the
withdrawal
happens as
scheduled,
it also
signals that
the US has
kept its
word which
will help us
in the
international
arena and in
peace
keeping in
the Middle
East. Obama
has also
supported an
even shorter
time
schedule for
significant
troop
withdrawal
which would
start by
August 2010.
This
withdrawal
agreement,
however, did
not seek or
obtain
congressional
approval in
the US which
is a
shortcoming.
There is
concern that
the US CIA
and military
will
pressure
Obama to
return to
the Bush
plan which
would have
negative
effects on
our status
in Iraqi and
in the
Middle East
as not
keeping our
word. Since
it is an
executive
agreement
the
president
could use
his power to
change it.
Mr. Jarrar
encouraged
all of us to
support
Obama in the
timed
complete
withdrawal
of US troops
as currently
in place,
regardless
of the
outcome of
the Iraqi
elections.
It is true
that the
government
is
weak/unstable,
corrupt, and
has provided
little
result in
the
reforming of
services,
health care
and
education.
However,
prior to the
war the
country had
excellent
health care,
services and
education
and would
have to
figure out
how to
develop
these again.
The history
of the US
policy in
Iraq is very
different
from the
current
direction
recently
agreed upon
in 2008.
Initially
the Bush
Administration
was
supporting a
three state
solution in
which the
three
sections
would
essentially
return to
the older
war-lord
control
rather than
a national
unity of all
of Iraq.
This was
favored in
the
pre-invasion
during
meetings in
London of
the three
fractions
and the Bush
representatives.
This
arrangement
was seen as
being more
friendly to
international
oil and gas
companies
that would
then
contract
favorable
arrangements
with each of
the three
separate
"countries."
Currently in
Iraq, the
parliament
is seen as
the duly
elected body
that is more
representative
of the Iraqi
people, but
the
executive
branch is
seen as a
puppet
government
of the US
(the Vichy
government
of Iraq). It
seems that
the US had
more
influence in
determining
the
executive
branch and
it does not
have the
support of
the people.
It is
curious that
currently
there are no
plans to
have a US
team to
oversee the
elections in
March.
Without such
a team the
outcome may
be
contested.
We should
encourage
and support
a US or
international
agency to
oversee the
election.
Would a
“poor"
election be
an excuse
for changing
our
timetable?
Iraq has the
2nd or 3rd
largest oil
reserve in
the world.
In 2006, the
Iraqi
congress
passed a new
benchmark
law which
supported
national
control of
Iraqi oil.
This new law
was in
conflict
with the
earlier
three state
solution.
The Iraqi
congress has
set strict
criteria for
agreements
with
multinational
oil
companies
which are
more
favorable to
Iraq. These
actions,
which were
motivated by
the
nationalistic
sentiments
of the Iraqi
representatives
and which
have been
accepted by
our
government,
help to
rectify the
impression
that the US
entered Iraq
to control
their oil.
These
actions/treaties
were not
readily
released by
the US
government,
but access
to them was
obtained via
the Freedom
of
Information
Act and were
commented on
by Mr.
Jarrar.
There are
agreements
to set up 37
year leases
with
individual
companies
with a set
level of
return that
is
considered
acceptable
by the
Iraqis and
with Iraqi
control over
the
production
rates.
A loss in
the
production
rates would
negate any
influence of
the OPEC
nations and
drive down
the price of
oil paid to
Iraq. We may
want cheap
oil but this
would result
in Iraq not
having any
control of
its most
valuable
resource
which
accounts for
93% of its
GDP. Why
this
information
is not more
known in the
US is an
important
question.
The last
topic
discussed
was the
dropping of
the
prosecution
of the
"Blackwater
Crimes" by
US
contractors
and a recent
apology by
Biden
concerning
this. We
will see if
this
prosecution
moves
forward. Mr.
Jarrar again
stressed
that the
most
important
thing to the
Iraqi people
is that they
not be an
occupied
nation. It
is estimated
that 1
million
Iraqis died
and 5
million were
displaced in
this war.
Many of the
displaced
were to help
put in place
the case
that there
was a
natural
division
geographically
in the three
ethnic
groups in
Iraq. This
Mr. Jarrar
firmly
denied. He
again asked
that we
support
President
Obama in
keeping with
the timed
withdrawal
of troops
from Iraq.
Public
opinion
could be
swayed
depending on
events and
special
interests.
We should
all keep
this in mind
if you have
faith in the
Mass Peace
Action Group
and the
American
Friends
Service
Committee
and their
work for
peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP
Demand, Need, Supply
by Peter Denison
|
According to classical economics, production is governed
by the "law" of supply and demand. A factory making pins
(Adam Smith's favorite example) sells them at a certain
price. If there is more demand than there are pins, the
manufacturer simply raises the price. If he can't sell
all that he has, he will drop the price and also cut
production. It sounds quite plausible and logical.
Actually the law does work at least to the extent that
the production of wealth has increased under this
philosophy. Of course when we are producing something
larger than pins, perhaps cars for instance, it is not
quite as easy to vary production up or down as the
market changes. Then as Adam Smith notes in his book (in
a passage ignored by conservatives and underlined by
liberals), businessmen like to get together and
manipulate supply and demand in order to keep prices and
profits high. Apparently supply and demand works best
when buyer and seller are equal in bargaining power. If
a manufacturer has many potential customers, he has the
power. If you won't buy his product, someone else will.
However, if he finds that most of his sales go to a
chain like Walmart, they can tell him to cut the price
or else. All these exceptions are considered
"distortions" of the economic system. According to
classical theory, nothing could be worse. Nothing? Well,
government intervention to try to correct the
distortions is probably even worse.
In the early nineteenth century economics was often
referred to as "the dismal science," largely due to the
findings of David Ricardo who propounded the iron law of
wages. His reasoning was based on the population
theories of Malthus. Malthus thought that wealth
increases arithmetically while population increases
geometrically meaning in human terms that food
production could not keep up with the increase in
population. This doctrine led to the so-called iron law
of wages. Wages are the cost of a commodity which in
this case is labor. Wages have to be high enough so that
the supply of labor can be maintained. This means that
before a laboring man dies he must produce enough
children so that those surviving to adulthood will be
able to replace him. Malthus and Ricardo seemed to have
been refuted by events, but it is likely that the
problem was only deferred. Now that globalization has
begun and almost any type of work can be outsourced to a
low wage country, the wages of Americans have already
started to decline. It may be that the iron law of wages
is beginning to take effect with a vengeance.
Marvin Miller recently wrote about supply, demand, and
ethics. Of course ethical concerns would also be a
"distortion" of the market. For the ideologically pure
we should rely completely on Smith's "invisible hand."
Indeed, it has often been claimed that free market
capitalism has not
failed; it simply has never been tried (well, people who
like Jesus and dislike Paul have often said the same
thing about Christianity). Free market capitalism is a
religion, indeed a fundamentalist one. Rather than
burning heretics it is more likely to treat with disdain
any move which will "distort" the economy. It is really
a vicious religion because there is no room for ethics,
unlike in Christianity, Judaism or Islam. But if ethics
has to be a "distortion" of the system, maybe the system
needs some distortions.
There is a distortion built into the system. The concept
of supply and demand completely leaves out the concept
of need. People need food whether they can pay for it or
not. Yes, they can pass up Rolex watches or even ipods
(if they can withstand their children's temper
tantrums), but there are certain basic necessities that
must be met. At the moment millions of people are
working in jobs which are not really necessary,
producing goods which can only be sold by strenuous
advertising. Then millions of truly necessary jobs go
unfilled. We need far more teachers and other school
professionals to create truly good schools. Nursing
homes and hospitals need far more workers, and we need
many more for home health services. Then of course we
need more work on public parks and repairing
infrastructure. But those jobs can't get done unless
there is a way to pay for them. Demand means what you
want or need, and can pay for. If you only need it,
there's no demand. That's the moral weakness of
capitalism.
Of course Marvin is right. We must have ethics in our
economy. One major problem is how to do that without
hurting the good aspects of capitalism. Even more of a
problem would be keeping it ethical. Many European
societies with social democratic governments have done
better though not good enough. However, the business
class is wearing away the safety nets even there. The
need is ethics; the problem is power.
TOP
I Wonder? (2008)
by Etta Wolpert
I wonder if life
Really is tragic
And man a hero,
Or if the emphasis
Should be on
Experiencing all the
Beauty and happiness
One can dig up?
Maybe that is what
It means to be a hero,
For oneself and others.
Rilke (2008)
by Etta Wolpert |
He is so sensitive
To beauty and
Not ashamed
Of being introverted.
He seeks and enjoys
Solitude, to empty
Everything in him;
To turn it into poetry.
Then give it
To his friends.
He sought
Solitude and friends
Both.
TOP
Special Essays
Poverty and
Wealth by Russell Doane
Social Reason: Resolving "Irreconcilable" Differences
- Milton W. Raymond
TOP
|
| |
|