May 2010 Archive

In the front page of last Tuesday’s New York Times was an article that revealed that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal repeatedly for years, misrepresented his military career by claiming that he had served in Vietnam while he had not.

Why did he do that? Did he really think that no one would find out?

Mr. Blumenthal has an exemplary career as a special assistant to Katherine Graham the publisher of the Washington Post. He later worked at the Nixon White House and was a member of the U.S. House of Representative. He is now running for the U.S. Senate.

That revelation has damaged his reputation and might jeopardize his chances of becoming a U.S. Senator.

We are all tempted to exaggerate our accomplishments and diminish our failures in our resumes, and in the way we present ourselves to others. This is unfortunate because it is to the detriment of character and integrity.

Being honest about ourselves and modest about our accomplishments as well as acknowledging our mistakes and failures builds trust and respect. It also gives us psychological strength that comes from being truthful with ourselves and others.

It is better to be underestimated and then to surprise than to be overestimated and to disappoint!

The ideal of course is to be as truthful as possible.

Modesty and humility has lost much of its appeal in our society yet they are of solid values. They are a good antidote to arrogance. Arrogance has led a number of individuals and corporations to disaster.

Moises Naim in an article published by the Financial Times entitled “The Roost of Corporate Scandals” lists arrogance as one of the reasons that led American executives to “think that they could get away with hiding billions of dollars in corporate losses or invent staggering amounts of non-existent revenues.”

Dr. Adalat Khan, professor of Business Administration at the American University in Hawaii lists arrogance as one of the “Top Leadership Mistakes Worth Avoiding”. He says, “perhaps the most fatal of all mistakes for a leader is arrogance … blind overconfidence in one´s capabilities, dismissing good ideas from others, and too much pride in oneself are some of the hallmarks of an arrogant leader.”

Cicero once said:

“Modesty is that feeling by which honorable shame acquires a valuable and lasting authority.”

The New York Times reported on last Friday’s front page the story of William Melchert-Dinkel, a 47 year-old nurse, a married man and a father of two who was arrested on the charge of two counts of aiding suicide via the Internet. One of the deceased lived in England and the other one in Canada. Mr. Melchert-Dinkel admitted that he had encouraged a dozens of people to kill themselves. In some cases he provided specific information on how to succeed. If convicted he faces a possible sentence of 15 years behind bars. His lawyer told investigators that his interest in “death and suicide could be considered an obsession. ”

Many States have laws forbidding assisted suicide. In Minnesota it is a felony for anyone to intentionally advise encourage or assists another in taking his or her own life.

Some will argue that Mr. Melchert-Dinkel was exercising his right to free speech.

Suicide itself presents some critical ethical issues for the ones contemplating it for themselves and for those that may be in circumstances to prevent it for others.

Over one million people commit suicide every year and it is the 10^th largest cause of death worldwide. More than ten million people try to commit suicide every year but do not succeed.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all condemn it. However martyrdom, which can be considered as a form of suicide, is allowed by all three monotheistic religions.

Can suicide ever be morally justified?

I think that if the intent is solely to ends one life, the answer is no, except maybe, in some extreme medical situations. However certain actions, such as jumping on hand grenade to spare the lives of others would be justified because the intent was to save a life or lives and the death that resulted was a consequence.

Even though we all have the right to exercise our freedom even to commit the ultimate act of self-destruction, it does not mean that it is the right thing to do.  Suicide is the ultimate individual decision and the exercise of freedom that deprives of all freedom.

Should we try to prevent others from killing themselves? Absolutely!

Why?

There are a plethora of reasons, but let me list just four:

1.       Reference of Life which is sacred.

2.       The moral obligation to help those in need. Someone that is considering self-destruction needs help, medical, psychological or spiritual.

3.       Preventing evil and trauma, not only for the person contemplating suicide but for those loved ones that would be left behind.

4.       Giving Hope to others.

As Edith Wharton once said:

“There are two ways of spreading light - to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”

The recent new immigration law in Arizona has turned the country in turmoil.

The Arizona law makes it a crime to be in the State illegally (I thought that’s what illegal meant!) The law also requires that non-documented individuals have an identity card and allow the police to ask for ID whenever there is “reasonable suspicion” that an individual may be in the U.S. illegally.  Arizona’s illegal immigration is particularly acute. More than 7% of the total population of Arizona is illegal.

Supporters of the new law claim that it allows border authorities to do their job. Furthermore they believe that the law will help in reducing drug related crimes that include kidnapping and murder. These are solid arguments.  Criminals, particularly violent ones should be arrested, prosecuted and deported.

Opponents of the law claim that it violates human rights, encourages profiling and is unconstitutional.

There is no doubt the U.S. has a major illegal immigration problem and that an overall immigration reform is urgent. According the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 10.8 million illegal immigrants living in the United States on January 1, 2009. Approximately 60% of illegal immigrants come from Mexico.

Most of illegal immigrant have been in the U.S for a number of years, are employed, pay income and social security taxes and provide a valuable contribution to the economy. We should find a way to allow them to stay in the country legally.

An interesting question in this debate is what should an individual do when he or she believes a law is immoral or unjust?

The answer of course depends whether we are dealing with a democracy or a totalitarian regime.

In a dictatorship the options are not many: Exile when possible or resistance (for the courageous.) My maternal grandfather Charles Gabriel Petter was courageous and entered the Resistance during the German WWII occupation of France.

In a democracy the options are many from public demonstrations, as we have witnessed these recent days, to the ballot box and civil disobedience. We should utilize all the possible legal ways to oppose a law we believe is immoral.

A more pertinent question is how to you determine if a law is morally acceptable or not and what are the criteria for making that determination?

We should examine a law in view of our core values such as justice, fairness, the sanctity of life, respect, and honor.

The 19^th. Century French economist and statesman, Frederick Bastiat once said:

“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”