November 2010 Archive

I hesitated before writing this blog, remembering what Adin Steinsaltz once said, “When you touch dirt, even if it is to remove it, your hands get dirty.”

And this is dirty.

Amazon has been selling on its website a “how to” self-published book giving advice to pedophiles on how to molest children.

Amazon defends its online sale of the book by saying that: “Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.”

The publication of the book provoked a public outrage. A Facebook page “Boycott Amazon.com for selling How Guide for Pedophiles” was created by Kim A. and Audrey H. and close to 16,000 people responded to it. In the introduction of the page, it is written: “As much as retailers have the right to free speech, and to protect what they view as the free speech of their authors who self-publish via e-platforms, as Americans we have a right to boycott a retailer who sells something we view as objectionable and as a means to promote the most heinous of crimes against those who are most vulnerable…our children. You don’t have to agree with what we’re doing, but please bear in mind, we have EVERY right to do it. Freedom of Speech goes both ways.”

Because of public outrage (or intolerance) and threats of boycotts, Amazon removed the book from its list of available titles online.

The issue of course is censorship. It is the opinion of many that the Government should not be the one deciding what we watch or what we read. Yet, sometimes government intervention is necessary, such as in child pornography and in issues of public safety. Not too long ago, the Government shut down a website that gave precise indications as to how to build a small dirty nuclear bomb.

We all have limits of what we will or should tolerate and when governments do not intervene, for whatever reasons, a boycott can be a useful tool.

Anyone concerned with ethics should try to create higher standards of behavior in society and decrease the level of tolerance for evil. One may argue that the concept of evil differs from individuals, cultures and time in history. However there are some universal values that supercede any personal, cultural or historical interpretation of what is evil. I believe that protecting children from harm is one of them. We have a moral obligation as individuals and as a society to protect our children.

As Kofi Annan once said:

“There is no trust more sacred than the one the world holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they can grow up in peace.”

The New York Times in its Saturday November 6^th edition writes about the suspension without pay (one step before termination) of Keith Olbermann of MSNBC after Politico revealed that he had made personal campaign contributions to three Democratic candidates in last week’s mid-term elections. He apparently violated a company policy that forbade journalists from making such contributions without pre-approval from management.

Some argue that he did deserve such a punishment. Bob Steele, the director of the Prindle Institute for Ethics at DePaul University said: “When a journalist becomes an activist, the principle of independence is not just eroding, it’s corroding from within.”

Others found the measure of suspension too severe and dangerous. Senator Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont called the suspension “outrageous” and said: “This is a real threat to political discourse in America and will have a chilling impact on every commentator for MSNBC.”

In order for a company to have an ethical culture, company policy has to be enforced consistently and indiscriminately. If a policy is not enforced then that policy should be changed. Fox News, MSNBC’s conservative rival has a totally different policy allowing its journalists to give to whomever they wish.

There is or should be a clear demarcation between news reporting and commentary. Mr. Olbermann’s “transgression” was compounded because he had not only been a commentator but had also anchored election coverage.

It is true that the viewing public has the right to know of the political opinions of news reporters to judge whether they are impartial or not. However in this particular case, Mr. Olbermann’s and MSNBC’s liberal orientation is a secret to no one.

This is why, I applaud this morning’s decision by MSNBC to reinstate Keith Olbermann and disagree with Devonia Smith of Examiner.com who deplores that decision in her an article “Keith Olbermann is In and MSNBC News Ethics is Out.”

The fundamental problem here is that so much money is spent, particularly in this country, to run successful political campaigns. Maybe we need to be courageous and rethink the way we organize our election system.

Our election system not only leads to situations of conflict of interest but to great risks of corruption. It is basically unfair and may even be unjust. It has been estimated according to the Los Angeles Times that a record of 4 billion dollars has been spent in the recent mid-term election. In this period of austerity and in view of the basic needs of millions of people both in the U.S and abroad, I can think of many better ways to spend that money.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Jeffery Seglin asked a very interesting question in yesterday’s blog of how binding is a deathbed promise. He tells of the story of a man whose mother had asked him and his brother not to have a wake for her but to have her cremated. They both agreed. Once she died, other members of the family strongly objected to her wish and did have a wake for her and then buried her. Jeffrey Seglin points out that a promise is a promise and the once made, we should make every effort to honor it. He also recognizes that certain circumstances may prevent someone for honoring a deathbed promise.

We make promises all the time although we may not used the word promise each time. Any commitment is a type of a promise. A mortgage agreement or a contract can be considered as mutual promises. Some of our promises are precise others are vague and intentional. “I will be there” is precise. “You can count on me” is vague.

We unfortunately do not keep all our promises, for many different reasons. We may forget them or circumstances may change and make it impossible for the promise to be kept.

If for some reason we believe we not going to be able to keep a promise we should do our best to obtain relief from the person we made to promise to. In deathbed promises, of course it is no longer possible.

How can we avoid being in a situation that might lead us to breaking a promise?

Let me list a few ideas:

1.     We should be very careful before we make a promise. It is better to refuse to make a promise if we are not sure we will be able to keep it.

2.     We should be very specific in the promises we make. This will avoid misunderstandings and disappointments.

3.     We may also include a caveat in the promises we make such as “I will do my best” or “if circumstances permit.”

4.      We should make sure that the promise we are asked to make is really ours to make. You cannot make a promise on something that you are not in control of.

Keeping promises is very important because it is a basis of trust. Keeping our word is essential if we want to be a person of integrity.

Hannah Arendt once said:

“Promises are the uniquely human way of ordering the future, making it predictable and reliable to the extent that this is humanly possible.”