Back and forth on drones

I go back and forth on drones.  But I'm starting to go in favor.  Why?  Because it seems that today's armed Islamist militants (and they do exist, just not in the numbers some think) have a two-pronged strategy:

1) Seek "safe" haven in unstable countries (the irony is the more dangerous the country, the safer al Qaeda and other flag-less militants are there), and further destabilize these countries with their terrorist attacks;

2) Tempt the U.S. to put troops in these unstable countries so that the Islamist militants can take pot shots at them.

There are too many unstable countries these days; and the U.S. already has too few troops to cover two ongoing occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Anyway, putting boots on the ground is a losing strategy.  We know it, they know it.  When we come in, all they have to do is wait us out.  And occupations are damn expensive when austerity is in vogue.  

And so drones are one answer to our dilemma.  Drones aren't the only answer; nor should they be used willy-nilly; but I think it's right to keep on using them.

Look, countries that harbor or can't control the Islamist militants among them who operate with impunity -- like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, etc. -- need to know that if they can't take care of free-ranging terrorist groups then then we will, in our own way.  For example, how many years has the U.S. begged Pakistan to do something about the Taliban, to no avail?  

Yes, I admit, drone strikes are a violation of other countries' sovereignty.  And even if our drones don't rile up the masses there, then they certainly tick off government officials in the country getting droned, because drones reveal they're incapable of stopping the U.S. from doing what it wants.  It's humiliating to them.  On the other hand, drones are a clear indication that we have no intention of occupying and ruling these countries; we just want to destroy the bad guys.  (Unfortunately we often kill a lot of innocent people in the process.)

So in this messy world we live in where the choices range between two poles -- do nothing; or invade and occupy -- drones are some kind of middle ground.  Are they morally and ethically OK?  Um, probably not.  But then most wars aren't.  

Kurt Volker's most disturbing point -- a question, really -- is what happens when countries like China, Iran and Russia start using drones how they see fit?  Will the U.S. have a moral or legal leg to stand on in opposing them?  I don't know.

Kurt Volker: The risks of relying on drones

By Kurt Volker

October 27, 2012 | Washington Post

URL: http://wapo.st/SHcw26

Corporations ain't people (redux)

Yeah, but Boards of Director are people, right?  Right, but what are their incentives?  Conservatives believe in incentives, so what's the company's officers' incentive to be human beings?  Zilch.  More precisely, those incentives exist, but they are not material or intrinsic to the corporation; they exist only in the ethics that corporate employees bring to their jobs.  Because there isn't any explicit reward in the corporate structure for individual responsibility and concern for the greater good, much less self-sacrifice, which in the corporate world entails a threat to one's job security, one's compensation, and perhaps to the company's bottom line.  

Furthermore, Tapscott is right to mention that corporations are psychopathic by the definition of the American Psychological Association (and psychopathic personalities are more common in corporations).  So what holds them back?  Regulators, first and foremost.  Without government regulators, corporations would be truly scary.  Second, what holds them back is whatever morality (or lack thereof) employees bring to their jobs, as mentioned. Third, we have the courts.

And so, the only meaningful checks on the abuses of corporations come from outside the corporation, and everybody agrees on that.  That's worth remembering.  

To wit, even right-wing ideologue Dr. Milton Friedman realized corporate excesses would have to be checked somehow.  Rather than regulations, he preached that society should rely on the courts to alleviate the externalities and suffering that corporations foist on their customers and non-customers alike.  (Never mind that sick people can't be made well, and the dead can't be resurrected, by courts, no matter what penalties or monetary awards they grant in retrospect.)  Even Milton Friedman acknowledged that corporations would do very bad things if left to their own devices.

Why?  Because corporations are not human.  When it comes to human beings in society, we're very particular about assigning responsibility (or blame) and holding individuals accountable.  Yet the genius, the key innovation of the corporation, is the limits it places on each shareholder, founder's or employee's liability for the bad stuff the corporation does, as well as the financial risks it takes.  

No such limits exist, nay, would be not tolerated, by society when it comes to individuals.  Conservatives are most adamant on that point; liberals, at least stereotypically, are the ones making all sorts of excuses for individuals' behavior: nurture, not nature, and societal forces and all that, they plead.  Such liberal "excuses" drive conservatives nuts.  And yet when it comes to corporations, whose main innovation in the history of mankind is to limit individual responsibility, and thereby make individual risk-taking more palatable, conservatives don't see any contradiction with their professed ethical-moral values.

This diffusion, or rather, dissipation, of moral responsibility has recently reached absurd proportions.  For example, how could one employee of Goldman Sachs, Fabrice Tourre, be held responsible (in a civil, not criminal, suit, mind you) for $3.2 billion fraudulent trades, and yet Goldman's management escape unscathed?  OK, Goldman paid a $550 million fine to the U.S Government while admitting no wrongdoing, but that fine was paid by Goldman's shareholders -- while investors in those fraudulent trades received nothing, and company officers kept their jobs.  Where's the accountability?  

And finally, Tapscott is right to mention the influence of the Internet on corporate transparency.  Is it any wonder that the fig leaf of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) coincides with the birth of the Internet?  But yet again, the Internet is external to the corporation; it depends on active citizens to monitor the activities of the corporation.  It is citizen-sponsored regulation, or external regulation by other means, and arguably not the most efficient means.

Tapscott's conclusion is dead on: "The blanket assertion that corporations are people obfuscates the complex issues at play in the changing business world. Corporation are institutions. People are people."

Are Corporations People (Redux)? Why Jack Welch Is Wrong

By Dan Tapscott

September 16, 2012 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huff.to/U1WQKD

Cheater nation: Exhibit F

I live in a place where buying and selling papers, theses, and even purchasing official diplomas is common practice.

Now the U.S. is following suit.  (OK, I realize this site is based in Montreal; but credit cards know no borders).   

It's just one more example how we're becoming a nation of cheaters and scammers.  Our richest people are the biggest cheaters.  And rich people are the best.  That's what we're taught.  So forget about ethics; Americans don't mess with success.  

www.unemployedprofessors.com

We want to make your simple life simpler so here's the deal.

		Get a lame-ass project from your Professor.
		Go to unemployedprofessors.com and type your project into our bidding form while eating ramen/drinking a beer. (Watch as our Unemployed Professors voraciously low bid each other to get your project to buy themselves ugly clothing and books)..
		PARTY!
		Choose your Champion, Pay, and print it once it's uploaded.
		PARTY!

Japanese making us look bad again

There goes those darned Japanese making our Christian nation look bad again.

Japan Earthquake: Ethical Residents Return $78 Million From Rubble

August 18, 2011 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/japan-earthquake-ethical-_n_930808.html