There is a well accepted economic fiction among the elites who make up the MMIC (media military industrial complex) that the United States represents the paragon of free market capitalism, meaning that markets are unhindered by regulations/inhibitions from any source; instead the so-called law of supply and demand are said to determine the cost of goods and services vis a vis market forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is not one legally recognized industry in the US which operates exclusively by free market principles. Virtually every one is regulated in some fashion and or is the recipient of federal/state funded corporate welfare or special treatment. Protestations by those who vociferously champion free market capitalism not withstanding, the United States currently has no legal free markets and in fact guarantees many monopolies which accrue primarily to the benefit of the elite financial class.
Equally fictitious is the notion that our nation practices or is enhanced by “free-trade.” The free trade agreements which this country has entered into over the past 15 years have been extremely costly to American industry, middle class and poor American’s (in terms of lost jobs) and to foreign workers who have become the equivalent of indentured servants/slave laborers while corporate internationalists become richer at their expense. Not only is this type of arrangement costly, it is demonstrably immoral. Free-trade so constituted amounts to legalized theft. Workers are being subjected to having their wages and livelihoods stolen and or destroyed.
Too many “free-trader’s” argue that the Wal Mart effect [of losing American jobs to foreign (sweat shop) labor] is responsible for keeping consumer prices low thus benefiting the poor and middle class. Apparently the reasoning is that even though millions of American’s have lost the jobs which once provided an adequate standard of living, they should be satisfied since they can now pay less for needed purchases. It should be unnecessary to state that if one has a minimum wage job or none at all, the Wal Mart effect is of little consolation. The only group(s) which has clearly benefited at no risk from the current “free-trade” agreements is the corporate internationalists.
Totally free market capitalism while not even a good idea in theory (at least from a moral perspective due to its inherent lack of concern for the financially challenged who still require the goods necessary for human flourishing) has never been successfully applied in practice. So-called constitutional democratic republics which attempt to construct free markets; always (due to the nature of majority rule [either by absolute number or monetarily]) end up creating oligopolies in which only a select few truly benefit financially and to an unjust degree. It is way past time for poor and middle class Americans to register their displeasure with the status quo. A good start could be made by addressing relevant concerns to the 2008 presidential candidates.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Human Organ “Farms” Abuse World’s Poor
A particularly detestable practice is apparently on the rise in the so-called third world in which human organs are removed from otherwise healthy (poor donor) individuals (for profit) and sold to wealthy recipients. After being subjected to risky surgery and potential life threatening complications the donors’ receive what is a nominal reimbursement for their organ(s).
“…organ farms (really ‘hospitals’ that removed organs from paid donors) arose in Pakistan, the Philippines and various other states to supply first-world demand for transplants…” See here
On so many levels this is patently immoral! The United States and most of the “developed” world have strict laws prohibiting the sale of human organs, eg.
Section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act (“NOTA” or “Act”), entitled “Prohibition of organ purchases,” imposes criminal penalties of up to $50,000 and five years in prison on any person who “knowingly acquire[s], receive[s], or otherwise transfer[s] any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” 42 U.S.C. § 274e (2000).
Unfortunately, this scurrilous practice occurs in an environment in which the basic necessities of life are too frequently considered a privilege rather than a “right” associated with basic human dignity/flourishing.
Nations in which paid “donors” are most frequently found include: China, Pakistan, Colombia, and the Philippines according to William Saletan of Slate magazine April, 2007 More...
It behooves all persons of good will to oppose this detestable practice by appeal to the appropriate international venue(s), e.g. UN Commission on Human Rights. For Example See here.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
“…organ farms (really ‘hospitals’ that removed organs from paid donors) arose in Pakistan, the Philippines and various other states to supply first-world demand for transplants…” See here
On so many levels this is patently immoral! The United States and most of the “developed” world have strict laws prohibiting the sale of human organs, eg.
Section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act (“NOTA” or “Act”), entitled “Prohibition of organ purchases,” imposes criminal penalties of up to $50,000 and five years in prison on any person who “knowingly acquire[s], receive[s], or otherwise transfer[s] any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” 42 U.S.C. § 274e (2000).
Unfortunately, this scurrilous practice occurs in an environment in which the basic necessities of life are too frequently considered a privilege rather than a “right” associated with basic human dignity/flourishing.
Nations in which paid “donors” are most frequently found include: China, Pakistan, Colombia, and the Philippines according to William Saletan of Slate magazine April, 2007 More...
It behooves all persons of good will to oppose this detestable practice by appeal to the appropriate international venue(s), e.g. UN Commission on Human Rights. For Example See here.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Friday, November 9, 2007
The Lack of Intellectual Honesty in Public Discourse
In yesterday's post in which I linked to the article by James Petras the point was made that US foreign policy is now held hostage to right wing Israeli (what too often is radical Zionist or what Petras terms Zion-Fascist) propaganda. The fact that not one candidate for President from either political party has dared to raise the issue indicates that it has become "radio-active." None have the moral courage or intellectual honesty to even question whether there is an unhealthy Israeli Hawk/Zioncon [lock] on American led international relations.
Mearsheimer and Walt, Tony Judt, James Petras, other academics, brave pundits and journalists have all commented extensively on the degree to which right-wing Israeli demands are enacted virtually carte-blanche by the elite American political class. Petras' assertions regarding the ZPC are difficult to refute given that a principled position can be outlined and defended demonstrating that Israeli/Zioncon influence over US foreign policy is supreme. The fact that this contrarian and politically unacceptable view is virtually never given voice in the elite media is more than suspicious. Any mention of same results in an avalanche/adhominem screed by the Zioncon's in which the "perpetrator" is labeled an antisemite. This is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. Until a frank and candid national discussion can be had in which the differences between US and Israeli policy aims can be aired, this country will continue to be mired down in the Middle East and the target of Jihadi-based terrorism.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Mearsheimer and Walt, Tony Judt, James Petras, other academics, brave pundits and journalists have all commented extensively on the degree to which right-wing Israeli demands are enacted virtually carte-blanche by the elite American political class. Petras' assertions regarding the ZPC are difficult to refute given that a principled position can be outlined and defended demonstrating that Israeli/Zioncon influence over US foreign policy is supreme. The fact that this contrarian and politically unacceptable view is virtually never given voice in the elite media is more than suspicious. Any mention of same results in an avalanche/adhominem screed by the Zioncon's in which the "perpetrator" is labeled an antisemite. This is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. Until a frank and candid national discussion can be had in which the differences between US and Israeli policy aims can be aired, this country will continue to be mired down in the Middle East and the target of Jihadi-based terrorism.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Scourge of Poverty: Many Countries Left Behind in Economic Development
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, NOV. 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The poorest countries need help, and the more developed countries need to come to their aid, the Vatican has been insisting of late. Almost 10 million children below 5 years of age die each year from preventable illnesses, denounced Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations.
The archbishop's Oct. 9 speech to the U.N. General Assembly examined progress toward meeting a series of targets for development, known as the Millennium Development Goals.
"The global community seems to have been losing focus on the need to ensure the right to basic health care for all," he added.
Archbishop Migliore recognized that some countries have made gains, but a number of states are trailing the rest of the developing world. He called for greater attention to these states, and the encouragement of more investment and the creation of a favorable economic and social climate, along with the establishment of peace and security and the rule of law...
The fight against poverty is a moral duty, stated Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, permanent observer of the Holy See to the Office of the United Nations and Specialized Institutions in Geneva, to a July 4 session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council.
In several regions of Africa and Asia, life expectancy is almost half of that in rich countries and illiteracy reaches high levels, he pointed out.
The improvements sought through aid and debt cancellation have not yielded all the results expected, he observed. The archbishop suggested that greater concentration on projects that will create jobs could be one way to reduce poverty. "Work is the only possibility for a community to generate its own value added that pays the way out of poverty," he said.
The Holy See, Archbishop Tomasi emphasized, has repeatedly insisted on the responsibility of poorer countries to strive for good governance and do all they can to eliminate poverty. No less vital is help by other countries that are better off. Such assistance he urged, is a grave moral responsibility.
More here.
It seems trite to state the obvious: children have no control over where and to whom they are born. A life of poverty and squalor is inherently unjust and incompatible with basic human dignity. The ancient Greek pagan philosopher's Socrates and Aristotle [and St. Thomas much later of course in harmonizing the best of Greek philosophy with Christianity] understood the need to ensure that every human being is afforded the basic goods necessary for human flourishing. This is the case of course because no one is truly self-sufficient. Human beings are fundamentally social creatures who are dependent upon one another, a reality which is too often forgotten by radical libertarians and other fiscal conservatives.
It would be impossible for anyone to amass a fortune without availing themselves of certain "goods" which they had no part in providing. One has no right to demand just treatment while meeting out injustice to others. The second principle of the Natural Law (Right Reason) requires that we treat our neighbor fairly that is, treat each individual we meet as we would wish to be treated, better; actually desire and work for what is truly best for them as St. Thomas taught on "loving our neighbor."
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
ROME, NOV. 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The poorest countries need help, and the more developed countries need to come to their aid, the Vatican has been insisting of late. Almost 10 million children below 5 years of age die each year from preventable illnesses, denounced Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations.
The archbishop's Oct. 9 speech to the U.N. General Assembly examined progress toward meeting a series of targets for development, known as the Millennium Development Goals.
"The global community seems to have been losing focus on the need to ensure the right to basic health care for all," he added.
Archbishop Migliore recognized that some countries have made gains, but a number of states are trailing the rest of the developing world. He called for greater attention to these states, and the encouragement of more investment and the creation of a favorable economic and social climate, along with the establishment of peace and security and the rule of law...
The fight against poverty is a moral duty, stated Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, permanent observer of the Holy See to the Office of the United Nations and Specialized Institutions in Geneva, to a July 4 session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council.
In several regions of Africa and Asia, life expectancy is almost half of that in rich countries and illiteracy reaches high levels, he pointed out.
The improvements sought through aid and debt cancellation have not yielded all the results expected, he observed. The archbishop suggested that greater concentration on projects that will create jobs could be one way to reduce poverty. "Work is the only possibility for a community to generate its own value added that pays the way out of poverty," he said.
The Holy See, Archbishop Tomasi emphasized, has repeatedly insisted on the responsibility of poorer countries to strive for good governance and do all they can to eliminate poverty. No less vital is help by other countries that are better off. Such assistance he urged, is a grave moral responsibility.
More here.
It seems trite to state the obvious: children have no control over where and to whom they are born. A life of poverty and squalor is inherently unjust and incompatible with basic human dignity. The ancient Greek pagan philosopher's Socrates and Aristotle [and St. Thomas much later of course in harmonizing the best of Greek philosophy with Christianity] understood the need to ensure that every human being is afforded the basic goods necessary for human flourishing. This is the case of course because no one is truly self-sufficient. Human beings are fundamentally social creatures who are dependent upon one another, a reality which is too often forgotten by radical libertarians and other fiscal conservatives.
It would be impossible for anyone to amass a fortune without availing themselves of certain "goods" which they had no part in providing. One has no right to demand just treatment while meeting out injustice to others. The second principle of the Natural Law (Right Reason) requires that we treat our neighbor fairly that is, treat each individual we meet as we would wish to be treated, better; actually desire and work for what is truly best for them as St. Thomas taught on "loving our neighbor."
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Monday, November 5, 2007
Save the planet? It's now or never, warns landmark UN report
Almost daily, growing scientific evidence is being presented which establishes --beyond reasonable doubt--that the earth is undergoing progressive global warming at least in part due to human activity. This process can legitimately be termed radical climate change which has already begun to affect many of the earth's most impoverished inhabitants in a most deliterious fashion. These include the destruction of entire economies and the forced geographic displacement of certain island and arctic peoples.
The UN Enviroment Program (UNEP) has recently published a 570 page report [GEO-4] entitled the Fourth Global Environment Outlook which outlines the extent of the problem we currently face. It is required reading for all people of good will. While many persons have yet to experience the negative consequences of radical climate change, millions at the lower rungs of the economic ladder have already done so in the form of excessive food, housing and transportation costs. If the growing problem of radical climate change is left unaddressed, more and more of the least fortunate among us will be placed in harm's way. For more on this critical issue see my 21st Century Global Challenges here.
The following is taken from a piece summarizing the UNEP detailed report.
25/10/2007 NAIROBI (AFP) - Humanity is changing Earth's climate so fast and devouring resources so voraciously that it is poised to bequeath a ravaged planet to future generations, the UN warned Thursday in its most comprehensive survey of the environment.
The fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4), published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is compiled by 390 experts from observations, studies and data garnered over two decades.
The 570-page report -- which caps a year that saw climate change dominate the news --says world leaders must propel the environment "to the core of decision-making" to tackle a daily worsening crisis
"The need couldn't be more urgent and the time couldn't be more opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face, to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future generations," GEO-4 said...
"The systematic destruction of the Earth's natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged -- and where the bill we hand on to our children may prove impossible to pay," he added.
Earth has experienced five mass extinctions in 450 million years, the latest of which occurred 65 million years ago, says GEO-4.
"A sixth major extinction is under way, this time caused by human behaviour," it says...
Climate is changing faster than at any time in the past 500,000 years.
Global average temperatures rose by 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33 Fahrenheit) over the past century and are forecast to rise by 1.8 to four C (3.24-7.2 F) by 2100, it said, citing estimates issued this year by the 2007 Nobel Peace co-laureates, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...
Stressing it was not seeking to present a "dark and gloomy scenario", UNEP took heart in the successes from efforts to combat ozone loss and chemical air pollution.
But it also stressed that failure to address persistent problems could undo years of hard grind.
And it noted: "Some of the progress achieved in reducing pollution in developed countries has been at the expense of the developing world, where industrial production and its impacts are now being exported."
..."For some of the persistent problems, the damage may already be irreversible," they warned.
"The only way to address these harder problems requires moving the environment from the periphery to the core of decision-making: environment for development, not development to the detriment of environment."
See complete piece here.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
The UN Enviroment Program (UNEP) has recently published a 570 page report [GEO-4] entitled the Fourth Global Environment Outlook which outlines the extent of the problem we currently face. It is required reading for all people of good will. While many persons have yet to experience the negative consequences of radical climate change, millions at the lower rungs of the economic ladder have already done so in the form of excessive food, housing and transportation costs. If the growing problem of radical climate change is left unaddressed, more and more of the least fortunate among us will be placed in harm's way. For more on this critical issue see my 21st Century Global Challenges here.
The following is taken from a piece summarizing the UNEP detailed report.
25/10/2007 NAIROBI (AFP) - Humanity is changing Earth's climate so fast and devouring resources so voraciously that it is poised to bequeath a ravaged planet to future generations, the UN warned Thursday in its most comprehensive survey of the environment.
The fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4), published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is compiled by 390 experts from observations, studies and data garnered over two decades.
The 570-page report -- which caps a year that saw climate change dominate the news --says world leaders must propel the environment "to the core of decision-making" to tackle a daily worsening crisis
"The need couldn't be more urgent and the time couldn't be more opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face, to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future generations," GEO-4 said...
"The systematic destruction of the Earth's natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged -- and where the bill we hand on to our children may prove impossible to pay," he added.
Earth has experienced five mass extinctions in 450 million years, the latest of which occurred 65 million years ago, says GEO-4.
"A sixth major extinction is under way, this time caused by human behaviour," it says...
Climate is changing faster than at any time in the past 500,000 years.
Global average temperatures rose by 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33 Fahrenheit) over the past century and are forecast to rise by 1.8 to four C (3.24-7.2 F) by 2100, it said, citing estimates issued this year by the 2007 Nobel Peace co-laureates, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...
Stressing it was not seeking to present a "dark and gloomy scenario", UNEP took heart in the successes from efforts to combat ozone loss and chemical air pollution.
But it also stressed that failure to address persistent problems could undo years of hard grind.
And it noted: "Some of the progress achieved in reducing pollution in developed countries has been at the expense of the developing world, where industrial production and its impacts are now being exported."
..."For some of the persistent problems, the damage may already be irreversible," they warned.
"The only way to address these harder problems requires moving the environment from the periphery to the core of decision-making: environment for development, not development to the detriment of environment."
See complete piece here.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Rank Utilitarianism now Reigning US (Immoral) Philosophy
This blog is dedicated to applying the principles of scholastic moral philosophy as articulated in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis to the consideration of current events. Unfortunately, in much of the developed West, rank Utilitarianism (read perverted self-interest) has become the reigning/controlling philosophy where moral considerations are concerned. Were the "3" elements of every moral act [object, intent, circumstances] to be properly considered and expeditiously applied most of the world's pressing problems would either not have arisen or could be easily solved. Instead, individuals and nation states have embraced a disastrous post-Enlightenment philosophy which denies the existence of moral absolutes (exceptionless moral norms) in order to pursue their selfish aims.
The looming war with Iran is beyond all reasonable doubt immoral from the perspective of traditional moral norms as found in the "golden rule" ethic which for almost 2000 years has been embraced in the West. Over the past several decades however, Utilitarianism has all but extinguished it--resulting in a plethora of immoral public policies and personal practices. It is past time for persons of good will to recommit themselves to the golden rule ethic and to scholastic moral reasoning before life as we know it is irrevocably changed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
The looming war with Iran is beyond all reasonable doubt immoral from the perspective of traditional moral norms as found in the "golden rule" ethic which for almost 2000 years has been embraced in the West. Over the past several decades however, Utilitarianism has all but extinguished it--resulting in a plethora of immoral public policies and personal practices. It is past time for persons of good will to recommit themselves to the golden rule ethic and to scholastic moral reasoning before life as we know it is irrevocably changed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Attacking Iran is Immoral, Ilegal and Foolhardy
The MMIC (media, military industrial complex) with the Bush administration in the lead continues to "ratchet-up" its rhetoric against Iran. The powerful neo-conservatives of both political parties have cooperated by passing the so-called Lieberman/Kyle amendment which effectively places a target on Tehran. At the moment, both the executive and legislative branches are primed for an offensive war of aggression despite hoeing to the standard line that while "diplomacy is preferred all options are still on the table." As I wrote previously, all options include the nuclear option such as "tactical nuclear bunker buster bombs."
Any use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner is completely immoral and contrary to the tenets of international law to which the United States is bound (NPT). Any kind of conventional offensive military attack is also immoral and illegal under international law (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, Nuremberg Tribunals), including the preventive (incorrectly termed pre-emptive) war concept called for by the "Bush Doctrine."
The idea that the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons--by any nation on earth or even the knowledge necessary for constructing one--could cause our leaders to seriously contemplate another war of aggression is ludicrous. There is no evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. All the relevant data establishes the opposite and this reality was recently attested to by the IAEA the UN body charged with determining whether Iran is diverting nuclear material. The same IAEA predicted that Iraq had no WMD prior to the US invasion of Iraq--which was proven correct. The track record of the IAEA is extremely good while that of the US is poor relative to determining which nations have WMD of any kind especially nuclear weapons.
Provided that Iran continues to cooperate fully with the IAEA there is no reason to interfere with the Iranian nuclear program. The process of on-going IAEA monitoring--to insure that Iran is complying with its obligations to restrict its nuclear program to peaceful (energy related) purposes--is well established. The latter is Iran's guaranteed right as a signatory to the NPT meaning that the US has no right to restrict Iran's ability to develop nuclear power.
The truth is that the United States can and should live with a nuclear powered but not nuclear weaponized Iran. This is legal under international law (the US is an NPT signatory) and continued non-proliferation is achievable utilizing well-recognized technical means. Only when Non-nuclear weapons state (NNWS) nations have failed to sign the NPT and nuclear-armed countries (NWS's) have assisted certain NNWS's (despite their NPT related pledges to the contrary) has nuclear proliferation occured re: Pakistan, India, Israel etc.
War is seldom salutary and almost never necessary if all other options are adequately exhausted. War should be resorted to as a last resort and from a defensive not offensive posture. Only then can it be considered potentially just. Attacking Iran is truly a fool's errand one which would have incalculably negative consequences for the US and the world.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Any use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner is completely immoral and contrary to the tenets of international law to which the United States is bound (NPT). Any kind of conventional offensive military attack is also immoral and illegal under international law (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, Nuremberg Tribunals), including the preventive (incorrectly termed pre-emptive) war concept called for by the "Bush Doctrine."
The idea that the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons--by any nation on earth or even the knowledge necessary for constructing one--could cause our leaders to seriously contemplate another war of aggression is ludicrous. There is no evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. All the relevant data establishes the opposite and this reality was recently attested to by the IAEA the UN body charged with determining whether Iran is diverting nuclear material. The same IAEA predicted that Iraq had no WMD prior to the US invasion of Iraq--which was proven correct. The track record of the IAEA is extremely good while that of the US is poor relative to determining which nations have WMD of any kind especially nuclear weapons.
Provided that Iran continues to cooperate fully with the IAEA there is no reason to interfere with the Iranian nuclear program. The process of on-going IAEA monitoring--to insure that Iran is complying with its obligations to restrict its nuclear program to peaceful (energy related) purposes--is well established. The latter is Iran's guaranteed right as a signatory to the NPT meaning that the US has no right to restrict Iran's ability to develop nuclear power.
The truth is that the United States can and should live with a nuclear powered but not nuclear weaponized Iran. This is legal under international law (the US is an NPT signatory) and continued non-proliferation is achievable utilizing well-recognized technical means. Only when Non-nuclear weapons state (NNWS) nations have failed to sign the NPT and nuclear-armed countries (NWS's) have assisted certain NNWS's (despite their NPT related pledges to the contrary) has nuclear proliferation occured re: Pakistan, India, Israel etc.
War is seldom salutary and almost never necessary if all other options are adequately exhausted. War should be resorted to as a last resort and from a defensive not offensive posture. Only then can it be considered potentially just. Attacking Iran is truly a fool's errand one which would have incalculably negative consequences for the US and the world.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)