A Human Rights Manifesto

A Human Rights Manifesto

by Ron Jacobs / December 30th, 2013

Julie Wark has written a manifesto for justice. Simply titled The Human Rights Manifesto, her book examines the UN Declaration of Human Rights and compares it to the current situation. In doing so, it is clear that we as a species have failed. While there is certainly plenty of blame to go around, from those activists who have resigned from the battle to those who have convinced themselves that the current political and economic systems are capable of remedying the daily violations of human rights, the bulk of the blame remains with the greatest violators of those rights. That means governments, their militaries and police officials, and their courts. The ultimate violator however, in every measurement Ms. Wark relates, is the current manifestation of the capitalist economy: neoliberalism.

This book destroys the myth that neoliberal capitalism is a positive force for humankind. It does so by merely stating the facts. Example after example of the cruelties and deprivations unleashed in the name of corporate and financial freedom leap from these pages. Thousands of children starving every day; forests, rivers and mountains ravaged, raped and destroyed by the machines ploughing under our planet’s future; wars undertaken and resistance destroyed to ensure the continued expansion until death of the capitalist system emanating from the world’s financial capitals. The perversion of local and national food economies via corporate manipulation of production through the commodification of food and artificial GMOs to the withholding of fertilizers and food via sanctions, humanity’s fundamental right to not starve is denied. Despite the ravages described in The Human Rights Manifesto, the author holds out an optimistic hope flickering in this litany of despair. That flicker emanates from that long-forgotten and ignored declaration.

It’s been clear to many for a while that humanitarian interventions are usually something else entirely. How else could one explain the increase in death that often occurs after the supposedly humanitarian troops arrive with their automatic weapons, their fighter planes and attack helicopters? How else can one explain the fact that when the original military phase of such interventions are over, the foreign troops remain, imposing the will of their political and corporate commanders back home? How else does one explain that in so many of these interventions, the majority of the civilians residing in said countries still find their lives at risk? The nature of these interventions and their non-humanitarian results have led many to scoff whenever the words “human rights” appear as a motivation. This skepticism feeds into the invaders’ dynamic quite helpfully, leaving their military power plays unchallenged in any meaningful way.




Ms. Wark’s book reclaims human rights for those whom they were originally intended. That is, for all humanity, especially those whose existence is considered unnecessary by the Goldman Sachs of the world. Instead of defining these rights in a manner that considers the right to buy and sell to be more important than the right to eat, Wark’s text is inspired by an understanding that human rights can only be human rights when they are applied to all of humanity, not just those of a certain nation, political or religious philosophy, and certainly not only to those with property and wealth.

Essentially anarchist in its analysis, The Human Rights Manifesto gives no government or economic system a free pass. Yet it is primarily a searing indictment of neoliberal capitalism.

Don Winslow is the author of several works of crime fiction. His novels are about people that travel in the smuggling of contraband, drugs and human. The laws of society rarely apply in Winslow’s world. Instead, it is usually the individual who is most brutal and amoral that succeeds. When the force of justice does appear, usually in the form of a renegade cop or private investigator, that justice is without mercy. I mention Winslow because Wark quotes his novels in her book. The quotes she chooses are not laudatory. Instead, they compare the morality of those who run and profit from the neoliberal capitalist economy to those that operate in the murderous economy Mr. Winslow writes of so graphically in his novels. The difference, the use of these quotes seems to claim, is just a matter of scale.
Perhaps the most interesting discussion in this book is the one presented by Wark concerning language and its (mis)use and manipulation. She lambastes the misuse of words like justice and the phrase human rights. Not only has their meaning been manipulated, it has been rendered meaningless. If the words describing a phenomenon no longer have any absolute meaning, then the phenomena become whatever those in power decide. In this world, justice becomes revenge and war becomes humanitarian intervention.

When the original UN Declaration was signed in 1948, it combined economic and political rights. After the major capitalist nations balked at the two elements being linked, the declaration was split and those nations objecting did not sign the part dealing with economic rights, which included statements detailing the right of all humanity to form labor unions, earn a fair wage, have shelter, health care, food and education. Washington and its cohorts knew that including these in any declaration of human rights would make the world they hoped to help build–the world we live in today–pretty much impossible. After all, without the commodification of food, education, shelter and health care, how would the financial-corporate nexus control the world like they do now?

Julie Wark’s book is a revolutionary tract. All it does is demands that the human rights claimed by the wealthiest and most powerful in our world be applied to everyone. It is a shame that such a demand has become a call to revolution. But, if that’s what is demanded, then we would do well to begin.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground and Tripping Through the American Night, and the novels Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator's Tale. His third novel All the Sinners, Saints is a companion to the previous two and was published early in 2013. Read other articles by Ron.

This article was posted on Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 8:26am and is filed under Activism, Anarchism, Anti-slavery, Anti-war, Book Review, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Corporate Globalization, Crime, Crimes against Humanity, Economy/Economics, Environment, Finance, Food/Nutrition, Freedom of Expression/Speech, General, History, Human Rights, Markets, Neoliberalism.

Exposed: American Doctors and Psychologists Engaged in Frightening Torture Programs Since 9/11

Investigations  

AlterNet / By Bill Berkowitz

Exposed: American Doctors and Psychologists Engaged in Frightening Torture Programs Since 9/11

Turning the idea of health professional upside down. 

 

 

November 18, 2013  |  

 

 

If you thought the U.S.’s involvement in the torture of prisoners detained in the “war on terror” was limited only to U.S. military personnel, intelligence officers, wrongheaded prison guards, or, through “extraordinary rendition,” handled by foreign proxies, think again. A new report from The Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centers has found that since 9/11, “Military and intelligence-agency physicians and other health professionals, particularly psychologists, became involved in the design and administration of that harsh treatment and torture — in clear conflict with established international and national professional principles and laws.”

According to the recently issued Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the War on Terror, medical practitioners were involved in such activities as “designing, … and enabling torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment” of detainees. And while the DoD has claimed that it has taken steps to remediate the problems, “including instituting a committee to review medical ethics concerns at Guantanamo Bay Prison,” the report’s authors say that these efforts fall far short of being meaningful.

The report pointed out that in 2010, the institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) and the Open Society Foundations convened the Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centers “to examine what is known about the involvement of health professionals in infliction of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and how such deviation from professional standards and ethically proper conduct occurred, including actions that were taken by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the CIA to direct this conduct.”

“The American public has a right to know that the covenant with its physicians to follow professional ethical expectations is firm regardless of where they serve,” said Task Force member Dr. Gerald Thomson, Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Columbia University. “It’s clear that in the name of national security the military trumped that covenant, and physicians were transformed into agents of the military and performed acts that were contrary to medical ethics and practice. We have a responsibility to make sure this never happens again.”

A broad array of “health professionals” and/or “medical personnel,” including physicians, psychologists, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, corpsmen (U.S. Navy or Marine-trained enlisted medical personnel), medics (U.S. Army-enlisted medical personnel), and technicians, participated in, or enabled, torture of detainees.

The Task Force found that post-9/11, U.S. government actions included “three key elements affecting the role of health professionals in detention centers”:

1.“The declaration that as part of a ‘war on terror,’ individuals captured and detained in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere were ‘unlawful combatants’ who did not qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice approved of interrogation methods recognized domestically and internationally as constituting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

2. “The DoD and CIA’s development of internal mechanisms to direct the participation of military and intelligence-agency physicians and psychologists in abusive interrogation and breaking of hunger strikes. Although … the military and the CIA, … facilitated that involvement in similar ways, including undermining health professionals’ allegiances to established principles of professional ethics and conduct through reinterpretation of those principles.”

3. In 2004-2005, “leaked documents began to reveal those policies” that had previously been secret. “Secrecy allowed the unlawful and unethical interrogation and mistreatment of detainees to proceed unfettered by established ethical principles and standards of conduct as well as societal, professional, and nongovernmental commentary and legal review.”

To set the U.S. government’s torture policy into motion, it disregarded previous established interrogation guidelines, and violated the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, treaties that the U.S. was “bound to follow.”

According to Ethics Abandoned, “officials at the highest levels of the government rejected these guidelines, however, stating that they believed traditional methods of interrogation were too time-consuming to prevent feared imminent attacks. As a result, almost immediately after 9/11, the U.S. government adopted abusive methods of interrogation.”

Torture of prisoners began in earnest in late 2001, when those detained “at detention facilities at Bagram Air Base and in Kandahar, [were subject] to beatings, exposure to extreme cold, physical suspensions by chains, slamming into walls, sleep deprivation, constant light, and forced nakedness and others forms of humiliating and degrading treatment.”

What started as trial by torture – a little of this and a little of that – soon developed into “a theory of interrogation … that was based on inducing fear, anxiety, depression, cognitive dislocation, and personality disintegration in detainees to break their resistance against yielding information.”

While torture methods were being experimented with and developed, Bush Administration officials began laying “the legal groundwork for a policy that would abandon restrictions on torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment imposed by treaty obligations and U.S. criminal law.” By early 2002, in a monumental decision, ”the White House counsel declared that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo.”

A secret memorandum from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, issued in response to a CIA request, “claimed that an initial core set of 10 ‘enhanced’ methods could be used legally as part of the interrogation program designed for Abu Zubaydah, a designated high-value detainee. The memorandum restricted the definition of severe mental or physical pain or suffering in a manner that permitted draconian interrogation methods, including attention-grasping (grasping a detainee with both hands and drawing him toward the interrogator), throwing a detainee repeatedly against a wall, facial holds (forcibly holding the head immobile), facial slaps, cramped confinement, wall-standing (forcing a detainee to support his weight on his fingers against a wall), stress positions, sleep deprivation, use of insects, and waterboarding.”

The limited role for health professionals during CIA-run torture sessions grew. By 2005, the initial set of 10 “enhanced” methods grew to 14. Time for sleep deprivation increased from no more than 48 hours to 180 hours: “Detainees were kept awake by being shackled in a standing position, hands to the ceiling and feet to the floor, fed by detention personnel and diapered so that nothing interfered with the standing position.”

The detainees were nude; cold water-dousing of nude prisoners, not included in the 2002 memo, was now allowed; and waterboarding “described only briefly in 2002, [as aiming] … to induce the feeling and threat of imminent death,” was described in 2005 “as causing the sensation of drowning and carrying risks of aspiration, airway blockage, and death from asphyxiation.”

From the early round up of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq to the establishment of Guantanamo, medical care, particularly mental health care was woefully inadequate: In Iraq and Afghanistan, evidence shows that clinical medical personnel were not isolated from interrogations as at Guantánamo; they engaged in various aspects of interrogation as well as other security functions. Physicians reportedly monitored interrogations and psychiatrists signed off on interrogation plans involving sleep deprivation.”

Prisoner abuse went routinely unreported by medical personnel. The report points out that “Even as the use of torture by the military began to decline in 2005 and 2006 when a new DoD interrogation field manual was issued that prohibited the use of many (but not all) highly coercive methods, physicians and nurses became involved in unethical force-feeding and use of restraint chairs in breaking hunger strikes.”
The Department of Defense instituted three “changes in ethical standards and policies to rationalize and facilitate medical and psychological professionals’ participation in interrogation.” Do no harm descended into avoid or minimize harm. Another DoD change “involved conflating ethical standards for health professionals involved in interrogation with general legal standards.”

As hunger strikes -- defined as total fasting with only water ingested for more than 72 hours by a mentally competent, non-suicidal person for the purpose of obtaining an administrative or political goal rather than self-harm – became a weapon of the detainees, more health professional became involved in force-feeding sessions.

Ethics Abandoned points out that “International ethical standards and guidelines for treatment established by the World Medical Association and U.S. national medical practice standards guide both physicians and detention facilities responses to hunger strikes. Physicians have the ethical responsibility to determine if a prisoner’s action is indeed a hunger strike; ensure the hunger striking individual’s well-being; determine the individual’s competence to make informed decisions; counsel the individual regarding the consequences and risks of extended food refusal and the options he or she has; determine whether the individual’s decisions are made freely and without coercion; and see to the medical care of the individual during the hunger strike.”

Instead of advocating for the hunger strikers, many of the health providers became involved with force-feeding in restraint chairs, an often violent and painful method. According to the report’s authors, “the force-feeding policies undercut necessary, ongoing physician-patient relationships and independent medical judgment,” and as of the writing of the report, they had not been able to ascertain current policy of hunger strikes, which are continuing.

"We now know that medical personnel were co-opted in ways that undermined their professionalism," said Open Society Foundations President Emeritus Aryeh Neier. "By shining a light on misconduct, we hope to remind physicians of their ethical responsibilities."

Bill Berkowitz is a freelance writer covering conservative movements and politics.

The Shamelessness of Bankers

The Shamelessness of Bankers

November 11, 2013

Richard Eskow

 

 

 

It’s not easy to maintain a civil tone while describing the magnitude of the misbehavior among executives at Wall Street’s largest institutions. To criticize bankers is to describe large-scale wrongdoing, mass-produced outrages that lead to widespread misery. It can’t be done without routinely deploying words like “perjury,” “forgery,” “fraud,” “deceit,” “corruption” and “rapaciousness.”

 

Unfortunately, the forms of speech that adequately convey big-banker behavior also make it easy for insiders in politics, government and the media to dismiss that same speech as excessive.

 

William Dudley , chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

 

 

That’s one reason why some recent remarks by William Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, are so important. He’s no outsider and he’s no extremist. And yet, after exploring potential solutions to the “too big to fail” problem in a speech to Global Economic Policy Forum last week, Dudley went on to discuss what he called “the apparent lack of respect for law, regulation and the public trust.”

 

Added Dudley: “There is evidence of deep-seated cultural and ethical failures at many large financial institutions.”

 

Two phrases in particular bear repeating: “the apparent lack of respect for law, regulation and the public trust,” and “deep-seated cultural and ethical failures.”

 

Mr. Dudley is using the language of courtesy and civility, but his language is blunt and even cutting. He’s speaking of individuals he knows well and with whom he interacts daily. That doesn’t prevent him from saying that bank executives have displayed disrespect for both law and regulation, that they are not worthy of the public’s trust, and that they are culturally and ethnically impaired at a profound level.

 

And yet, remarkably enough, House members from both parties are nevertheless supporting a Republican-backed initiative which would unwind some of the already-inadequate provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. There’s very little chance that President Obama will sign their bills, since he considers Dodd-Frank a signature achievement. But his administration retains its cozy relationship with major banks – a relationship that includes revolving-door appointees and a reluctant attitude toward the criminal prosecution of bankers.

That’s no surprise. How can legal safeguards be maintained when the money these institutions spend taints the political process from beginning to end? How can bank executives learn “respect for law, regulation and the public trust” when they are subject to the flattery of journalists, rather than the scrutiny of journalists? (See Roger Lowenstein’s puff piece about bank CEO Jamie Dimon in the New York Times Magazine for a classic example of that genre.)

 

And how can the society of big bank executives heal from its “deep-seated cultural and ethical failures” when those executives are treated as founts of economic wisdom, worthy of demanding sacrifices from others through political lobbying groups like Fix the Debt, and still believe that their names lend credibility to their efforts rather than casting shame on all of them.

 

“When pride cometh,” says the Bible in Proverbs, “then cometh shame.” Maybe that word should form the collective noun for members of that profession. Like “a pride of lions”: a “shame of bankers.”

 

But where is that shame, already? Big-bank executives have been insulated from it by sycophants in the media and politics.

In quoting Proverbs, I’m not suggesting that a religious renewal could clean up Wall Street. Too many crooks have done their stealing in the name of God. But something has to restrain these runaway bankers. Social “shaming” might help. But instead of ostracizing them for their contemptuous attitude toward legality and fair play, too much of society lionizes them instead.

 

Our society worships wealth and consumption, and that slavish devotion has reached massive proportions. Along with that worship, our society seems to have rejected the idea that there is any dignity in the life of ordinary, law-abiding working people. In a survey conducted last year by a whistleblowers’ defense law firm, nearly half of the senior bankers polled acknowledged a willingness to break the law to make money. (Presumably there were a number of others who also would, but weren’t willing to admit it to a stranger.)

 

Proverbs goes on to say that “riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death.” But who believes that anymore? Absent some resurgence of prophetic outrage, our banker problem will continue.

 

However tragic the consequences, it’s easy to understand the subservient behavior that politicians and senior government officials display toward big-bank executives. The politicians want campaign contributions. The senior government officials want to follow the revolving-door route followed by the likes of Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Peter Orszag, also have become wealthy as employees, consultants or speech-givers to the largest Wall Street institutions.

 

 

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, seemed incapable of shame even after the London Whale fiasco provided evidence that he was incapable of curbing criminality in his chronically lawbreaking organization. (See “JPMorgan Chase: Incredibly Guilty.”) It was not until multiple government investigations focused on his institution that Dimon stopped trying to block government regulation of his industry.

 

Nam ego illum periisse duco, cui quidem periit pudor, wrote the ancient Roman playwright Plautus. It means, “I count him lost who is lost to shame.” By that standard, Jamie Dimon and his ilk may sadly be counted as lost among civilized human beings.

 

But the rest of us still need to be protected from them. Some of that protection will come with better law enforcement, so that they are discouraged from acting out their worst impulses. And part of it will come through shaming them publicly, since most of them are human beings with enormous egos.

 

“He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind,” said the same passage in Proverbs. We can’t depend on a higher power to make those words reality. We need to use the tools we have been given – tools that include the law, our social norms, and moral clarity – to protect ourselves from the shamelessness of bankers.

What Is Altruism? Why Practice Altruism?

Greater Good

The Science of a Meaningful Life

Altruism

What Is Altruism?

Altruism is when we act to promote someone else’s welfare, even at a risk or cost to ourselves. Though some believe that humans are fundamentally self-interested, recent research suggests Greater Goodotherwise: Studies have found that people’s first impulse is to cooperate rather than compete; that toddlers spontaneously help people in need out of a genuine concern for their welfare; and that even non-human primates display altruism.

Evolutionary scientists speculate that altruism has such deep roots in human nature because helping and cooperation promote the survival of our species. Indeed, Darwin himself argued that altruism, which he called “sympathy” or “benevolence,” is “an essential part of the social instincts.” Darwin’s claim is supported by recent neuroscience studies, which have shown that when people behave altruistically, their brains activate in regions that signal pleasure and reward, similar to when they eat chocolate (or have sex).

This does not mean that humans are more altruistic than selfish; instead, evidence suggests we have deeply ingrained tendencies to act in either direction. Our challenge lies in finding ways to evoke the better angels of our nature.
For More: Why do some people risk their lives to help others? Read about Kristen Renwick Monroe’s research to understand heroic altruists.

Why Practice Altruism?

Nice guys finish last? Hardly. More and more, research suggests that practicing altruism enhances our personal well-being—emotionally, physically, romantically, and perhaps even financially. It’s also crucial to stable and healthy communities, and to the well-being of our species as a whole. Still need to be convinced to be kind? Read on.

• Altruism makes us happy: Researchers have consistently found that people report a significant happiness boost after doing kind deeds for others. Some studies suggest giving to others makes people feel happier than spending money on themselves; this has even been found among kids. These good feelings are reflected in our biology: Giving to charity activates brain regions associated with pleasure, social connection, and trust. Scientists also believe that altruism may trigger the release of endorphins in the brain, giving us a “helper’s high.”
• Altruism is good for our health: People who volunteer tend to experience fewer aches and pains, better overall physical health, and less depression; older people who volunteer or regularly help friends or relatives have a significantly lower chance of dying. Researcher Stephen Post reports that altruism even improves the health of people with chronic illnesses such as HIV and multiple sclerosis.
• Altruism is good for our bottom line: Studies suggest that altruists may reap unexpected financial benefits from their kindness because others will feel compelled to reward their kindness; other research has found that donating money to charity might make corporations more valuable. Across the animal kingdom, animals that cooperate with each other are more productive and survive longer.
• Altruism is good for our love lives: When researcher David Buss surveyed more than 10,000 people across 37 cultures, he found that kindness was their most important criterion for a mate and the single universal requirement for a mate across all cultures.
• Altruism fights addiction: Studies have shown that addicts who help others, even in small ways, can significantly improve their chances of staying sober and avoiding relapse; this is true among adults and adolescents alike.
• Altruism promotes social connections: When we give to others, they feel closer to us, and we also feel closer to them. “Being kind and generous leads you to perceive others more positively and more charitably,” writes positive psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky in her book The How of Happiness, and this “fosters a heightened sense of interdependence and cooperation in your social community.”
• Altruism is good for education: High-quality service learning programs, where students complement their classroom learning with real-world community service, improve academic performance and make students feel more connected to their school. And when students engage in “cooperative learning,” where they must work together to complete a project, they are more likely to have positive relationships, better psychological health, and are less likely to bully.
• Altruism is contagious: When we give, we don’t only help the immediate recipient of our gift. We also spur a ripple effect of generosity through our community. Research by James Fowler and Nicholas Christakis has shown that altruism can spread by three degrees—from person to person to person to person. “As a result,” they write, “each person in a network can influence dozens or even hundreds of people, some of whom he or she does not know and has not met.”

For more: Read our article on “Five Ways Giving Is Good for You” and Christine Carter’s explanation of “What We Get When We Give.”

How to Cultivate Altruism?

Studies show that kids behave altruistically even before they’ve learned to talk. But too often, we don’t act on our propensities for kindness as we get older. Here are ways research suggests we can nurture our own altruistic instincts—and help motivate altruism in others.

• Get connected: Feeling connected to other people—even by just reading words like “community” and “relationship”—makes us more altruistic. Reminders of connection can be very subtle: In one study, when toddlers simply saw two dolls facing each other in the background of a photo, they were three times more likely to be helpful than when they saw the dolls in other poses.
• Get personal: We’re more altruistic when we see people as individuals, not abstract statistics. So if you want to encourage aid to people in need, give their problem a human face. By the same token, people respond more altruistically when they feel personally responsible for a problem: Bystanders to a crisis are much more likely to respond if singled out individually—“Hey, you in the striped shirt, can you help me?”—than if they hear a general appeal for help.
• See yourself in others: In general, people are much more likely to help members of their own group—but research has shown that who we think belongs to our “in-group” can be very malleable. Finding a thread of similarity with someone else—even something as simple as liking the same sport or sports team—can motivate altruistic action toward that person, in some cases overcoming group rivalries in the midst of war.
• Give thanks: Grateful people are more generous, perhaps because they’re paying forward the gifts they appreciate receiving from others. Receiving gratitude can also encourage altruism—for instance, when a server writes “thank you” on a restaurant bill his or her tip goes up by as much as 11 percent.
• Lead by example: People who consistently display altruism encourage others to follow suit. Simply reading about extraordinary acts of kindness makes people more generous, perhaps because they experience the warm, uplifting feeling psychologists call “elevation,” which we get when we see unexpected acts of goodness. This is an especially important tip if you’re caring for kids: Research suggests altruistic children have parents or other caregivers who deliberately model helpful behavior or stress altruistic values.
• Put people in a good mood: Feeling happy makes people more generous. And because being generous seems to make people happy, researcher Lara Aknin sees a “positive feedback loop” to altruism that might benefit charitable organizations: “Reminding donors of earlier donations could make them happy, and experiencing happiness might lead to making a generous gift.”
• Encourage collaboration and emphasize shared goals: When kids have to work together on a task, they’re much more likely to share the fruits of their efforts evenly. When students participate in “cooperative learning” exercises in small groups, they’re more likely to show kindness toward their classmates in general.
• Acknowledge giving—but not with rewards: People are more likely to be altruistic when others will know of their good deeds, perhaps because they assume their kindness will be reciprocated down the line. But too much acknowledgment can backfire: Young kids who receive material rewards for kindness become less likely to help in the future.
• Get time on your side: In seminal studies by Daniel Batson and John Darley, when people saw someone slumped on a sidewalk, their decision to help depended on a single factor: whether they were late to an appointment They were altruistic only when they felt like they had the time to be—which offers important lessons for our increasingly busy culture: slow down, don’t overschedule, and make time to be mindfully aware of your surroundings.
• Help build a supportive community: One study found that neighborhoods with more support structures for kids, like extracurricular activities and religious institutions, had teens who were more altruistic. The amount of wealth in their neighborhood wasn’t a factor. This suggests volunteering doesn’t just make you feel good—it also helps build a more altruistic community.
• Fight inequality: Studies suggest that when people feel an inflated sense of status, they become less generous. Perhaps that’s why wealthier people in the United States give a lower percentage of their income to charity, especially when they live in neighborhoods with a high proportion of other wealthy people. But when high-status people are made to feel a compassionate connection to others, or feel their status dip, they become more generous.

For more: Read our “Seven Tips for Fostering Generosity,” Stephen Post’s “Six Ways to Boost Your Habits of Helping,” and Christine Carter’s “Five Ways to Raise Kind Children.”

How Altruistic Are You?

Find out by taking some of these research-tested scales and quizzes.

• The Greater Good Altruism Quiz, based on the “Helping Attitude Scale” developed by psychologist Gary S. Nickell.
• The Self-Report Altruism Scale, developed by psychologist J. Philippe Rushton and colleagues.
• Other scientific scales measuring attitudes toward helping others and volunteering.
• Other scientific scales measuring “pro-social” orientation and altruism.

21 Charts That Explain American Values Today

The Atlantic

21 Charts That Explain American Values Today

Bob Cohn Jun 27 2012, 11:04 AM ET

Americans say they are more tolerant and open-minded than their parents. Among the issues that rate more morally acceptable today than a decade ago: homosexuality, human cloning, pre-marital sex, and having a child out of wedlock.  At the same time, half believe the economic system is unfair to middle- and working-class Americans, and only 17 percent believe Wall Street executives share fundamental American values. In all, two-thirds think the country is heading in the wrong direction, 69 percent believe the country's values have deteriorated since the 1970s, and nearly half say values will further weaken over the next 10 years.

Such are the highlights of The Atlantic/Aspen Institute American Values Survey. Elsewhere on the site, pollster Mark Penn provides a full analysis of the survey, which was conducted by his firm, Penn Schoen Berland. Below, a brief summary in charts:

Two-thirds of those surveyed say the country is heading in the wrong direction ...

 












  ... 7 in 10 say people's values have been getting worse in America ...

 

   






... and nearly half expect American values to weaken over the next decade.
 

Americans are split over whether their values are stronger or weaker than the rest of the world's ...

 


... while freedom of speech and freedom of religion are cited as the top examples of America's superior values compared to other places in the world.

The influence of religion on American life is decreasing.

11 percent of Americans don't believe in God ...

... half seldom or never attend church ...

... but religion is still important to half of all Americans.

Most Americans say they are more open and tolerant than their parents.

Two-thirds of Americans think the U.S. economy is on the wrong track ...

... and half think the economic system is unfair to middle- and working-class people.

6 in 10 Americans believe budget deficits undermine American values ...

... and more than half would raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses.

Only 17 percent think Wall Street executives share America's fundamental values ...

... and of those who say Wall Street values are different, 9 in 10 say they are worse.

7 in 10 believe elected officials reflect mainly the values of the wealthy ...

... and Americans are broadly united in their belief that money and lobbyists have too much influence in politics.

More than half do not expect their personal information to be private when they use social media ...

... though Americans are more worried about government knowing their personal lives than about about private companies.

Finally, more than three-quarters of Americans believe people are typically motivated by self-interest -- and just 20 percent believe them to be generally altruistic.

Where Are Your F@#%ing Values?

February 25 2013

Where Are Your F@#%ing Values?

If you would take a moment and imagine me screaming the title of this post while jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch like Tom Cruise before his fourth divorce, please do so now.

This post is about values. And how seemingly nobody has them. And how that ruins everything. But before we get into that, let’s go back to Tom Cruise for a second.

Where are your F@#%ing Values?!?!

One of my favorite movie openings is the beginning of Jerry Maguire. Tom Cruise plays the eponymous main character: a top sports agent who is beginning to question the ethics of his job. In the opening credits, we see Jerry question whether he is really representing the players’ interests or whether he’s just trying to get the biggest paycheck possible.

One night Jerry can’t sleep. His conscience won’t let him. So Jerry gets up and begins writing a mission statement. It’s about how to represent athletes in an ethical way. As he writes, he begins to “rediscover the simple pleasures of the job,” and remember why he took it in the first place. He writes about how agents should be obligated to their clients regardless of their physical condition, how they should put the players’ health and happiness before money. What begins as one page turns into 25 and soon, the sun comes up.

The next morning, Jerry hands out copies of his new mission statement to everyone at his firm. He’s revitalized and for the first time in years, excited for the future. He believes they can set a new standard of how athletes are treated and dominate the industry by offering more ethical, holistic representation.

And he’s immediately fired.

Modern capitalist society sometimes doesn’t reward having strong personal values. In fact, it sometimes punishes you. Everyone gripes about politicians and their lack of values. But an inherent flaw of democracy is that it rewards those who parrot what people want to hear rather than those who stand up for their core values (see: Mitt Romney, John Kerry). What we get are presidents who talk about peace and go to war, and senators who talk about family values but hire male prostitutes or get caught jerking off in an airport bathroom.

Society rewards the valueless with superficial benefits. But developing strong core values are the foundation of lifelong happiness and fulfillment. They’re the prerequisite for any semblance of a healthy relationship, romantic or otherwise. They’re the compass that always points toward your life purpose.

In short, they’re awesome, and you should know what yours are.

Values are the ideals and standards that you live by, regardless of external pressures or incentives.

Your values are what you’re unwilling to give up despite what other people say or do. Values are the ideals and beliefs you’re willing to fight for, or sometimes even die for.

People who suffer from weak boundaries tend to lack strong core values. Men who exhibit Nice Guy Syndrome lack sturdy personal values. When one lacks values, one is liable to get run over by other people. When one lacks values, they’re likely to base their feelings of success and worthiness based on how well they meet the needs of others and not the needs of themselves. This is codependent or needy behavior. It repels people. And it invites all sorts of problems into your life.

How to Screw Yourself Over in One Easy Step

Recently I received an email from a friend. Before I read a word, I knew what I was in for: drama. The lack of punctuation, the horrible formatting, the smattering of four-letter words in all caps bulging out of the wall of text like zits on a teenager’s face. Rows of exclamation points and question marks running all over, screaming and screaming into the internet void.
“This is going to be a mess,” I thought.

And it was. The woman he had been dating didn’t want to see him anymore. In fact, she had gone back to her ex-boyfriend, a guy who was (apparently) a horrible, evil, child-murdering, small-dicked, rapist who drank the blood of puppies and masturbated to episodes of Gilmore Girls — basically a terrible, terrible human being.

I barely get halfway through the email before giving up. I’m unable to summon sympathy for these types of situations. In fact, all that comes up these days is anger. I want to reach through the computer screen, through the email, through the frenzied exclamation marks and question marks, and shake him. Shake him like you’re not supposed to shake a baby. Shake him hard and then scream, “Where are your fucking values!?!?” with a string of exclamations and question marks of my own.

I never like to proclaim ‘cure all’ solutions for people, and I sure as hell hate it when other people do. But this may be the closest thing I ever post to a cure all. It’s like a magical bandage that fixes all wounds: having personal values and sticking to them.

For example…

In the thousands of dating advice questions I’ve gotten through the years, probably a solid 1/3 have been some variant of the following:

“I met this girl. She was great. We dance/kissed/talked all night. She was way into me. I texted her to ask her out. She said sure. I texted her again to plan the date and never heard from her again. What do I do? How do I get her to respond?”

Ladies, this goes for you too. I’ve had plenty of female friends in this situation over the years as well: meet handsome guy, have a great time, never hear from handsome guy ever again. What should she do?

For a long time, my answer was this: Nothing. Do nothing. Forget about them and meet someone else.

Staring at the phone isn’t going to make her call you.

As you can imagine, people really didn’t like hearing this. In their minds, there had to be some way to “get” her/him to respond to them. There was some secret or trick that they were missing. Or there had to be a mistake. Maybe they lost their phone, or they saved their name incorrectly, or they’re mixing them up with the other Dave they know and hate. Maybe if I text them a few more times they’ll remember.

In almost every single case, this is insecure delusion. When you do this you are protecting your ego because the truth hurts. It hurts to know that you liked someone more than they liked you. I get it. It’s happened to me tons of times too. And it’s not fun to admit.

In Models, I point out that honesty begins with yourself. And you must be honest to yourself in these situations: they don’t like you enough.

But recently, I’ve skipped even bothering with this advice. I skip explanation and go straight to indignation:

Why would you ever put effort into seeing someone who has demonstrated they don’t want to see you? Why on earth would you ever make time for someone who is unwilling to make time for you? Why should you make time in your schedule for them if they won’t make time in their schedule for you?
Where is your self-respect?

If you sold guitars and someone said, “I don’t want to buy a guitar,” would you follow them around and keep trying to sell it to them? No! You’d be a dick. And probably out of business too.

I have a simple value in my life: I won’t make time for people who won’t make time for me.

It’s as simple as that. And no, ‘flakes’ like this don’t bother me anymore. And, in fact, I get far fewer of them, because I make this value clear when I meet someone new. I don’t tolerate it, so they don’t do it to begin with.
Here’s another example. This time from business:

Many of the people who get into internet marketing and online business begin to make money and find that, to their chagrin, they’ve merely created another grind for themselves. Instead of chained to a cubicle, they’re chained to a laptop and third-world countries because they can’t afford to live anywhere else.

They have to wake up, work hours upon hours on a project that they don’t care about, merely to sustain their lifestyle of drinking cheap beer on beaches with anonymous backpackers and travelers who they’ll never see again.

Awesome life for a year. Shitty career path.





They suffer and stagnate because they haven’t built the business on their personal values. They built it on expediency and getting themselves enough income to leave as soon as possible. They don’t believe in what they do. Therefore once they hit a plateau or get burnt out, they lose interest or feel stuck.

Many of these entrepreneurs sell their businesses off within a few years and go get a desk job. Others perpetually start new ventures, and even though they may make good money here and there, they’re never totally satisfied and they never feel any job security.

Define Your Values

The values that remedy the situations above are: I don’t make time for people who don’t make time for me. And I invest my time and work on projects that I believe benefit myself and others.

When you decide those things for yourself, not only is it easy to navigate those situations, but you’re far less likely to end up in them in the first place.
For instance, if you value contribution in your business from the get-go, you never find yourself in a position of aimless burnout, because you’re doing something you believe in and that you believe helps the world. If you value people showing respect for your time from the beginning, then you don’t even bother getting phone numbers of women who aren’t that excited to talk to you or who seem unreliable.

But maybe you’re saying, “Gee whiz Mark, that sure sounds swell for you, because you can come up with business ideas while you crap and hundreds of girls are clawing their well-manicured fingernails out to get a date with you, but what about me? I don’t have opportunities like that.”

I know. I know. It’s true.

But, this is another complaint that I’ve lost sympathy for. There will always be more opportunities. Always. There are 7 billion people on this planet, and society is changing faster than ever before. There are more opportunities than people can take advantage of.

If one billion people can maintain their faith that some guy was born from a virgin and will one day come back to life to save them, then you can have faith that you will get another opportunity to go on a date on a Friday night. Stop hating on yourself and open your eyes.

People who do not define their values concretely end up drifting around in life, pulled in the direction of any external validation they get their hands on.
They get a nice job out of college because that’s what their parents always pressured them to do. They commit to a girl because she’s the prettiest one who makes herself available. They start a business project so they can get enough money to match their friends’ purchases. They deal with manipulative and disrespectful behavior from their partner because they’re afraid of being single again.

This is why I think everybody, at some point, should sit down and hammer out some of these values for themselves. I’ve been having most of my consultation clients do this lately and it’s been helping them a lot.

Make them concrete. Then stick to them. It will make your decision-making so much easier, and it will remove so much ambiguity from your life. You’ll also develop more self-esteem and feel like less of an asshole all the time.

1. Relationship Values

Take five minutes and write down the values that define your relationships. These are things you are unwilling of compromising on, no matter how attractive the other person is, no matter how much sex you have with them, these are ideals that are more important to you than any outward experience.
Some examples:

I do not make time for people who do not make time for me.
I do not tolerate being disrespected and will stand up for myself.
I will not spend time with people who I do not enjoy being around.

Etc.

Just keeping the three values above will end any worry you have about people flaking on you. It will end any worry you have about people testing you. . And you will no longer make yourself miserable spending time with someone just because they like you.

2. Professional Values

Take five minutes to write down the values that define your career and how you make money.

Some examples:

I believe in earning money by providing tangible benefits to society, to the best of my knowledge.

I will not tolerate disrespectful business relationships or unethical deals for the sole purpose of more money.

I will not spam people or convince them to buy something that I do not believe is in their best interest.

Etc.

3. Personal Values

And of course, do not forget to take care of yourself. This is possibly the most important set of values. As your ability to set expectations and interact with others begins with how you set expectations and interact with yourself.
Some examples:

I will take care of my personal health and hygiene.

I will not get overly angry or critical of myself — I will meet my own flaws with compassion.

Etc.

Making Your Own Bed

As I said, I didn’t finish my friend’s entire email. For one, it was such a garbled mess that reading was a strain on the eyes. But I stopped reading primarily because I have developed a low tolerance for the kind of thinking it exhibited.
On the podcast with T last week, he made the point that toxic relationships don’t just occur because you engage the negative or manipulative behavior, but toxic relationships can also happen simply by tolerating the manipulative and negative behavior.

As I shot off a quick tough love email to my friend it was clear he got to this position by tolerating such behavior.

When he started dating the woman, he knew she was still involved with her ex. Yet he didn’t do anything. He framed his relationship with her as something casual and on-the-side so he could continue pursuing other women. He regularly blew her off and ignored her in favor of opportunities to meet other people. When she was dramatic and falsely claimed her ex-boyfriend had raped her to get him to become jealous, he engaged and validated her manipulative behavior.

So, no, no sympathy. None. He made his bed. He was lying in it. Not only did his lack of clear values fail to define his relationship with her — allowing him to become far more emotionally attached than he realized — but his tolerance of her manipulative behavior also led to him being hurt by her.

And my quick reply? Sorry, not tolerating it. This situation was entirely of your making. Take responsibility. You’re responsible for handling your own emotions. Not me or anybody else.

That is one of my values. Sympathize? Sure. It sucks to see a friend upset. Advice? Of course.

But I will not validate his self-inflicted pain. I will not be dragged into his drama. He’s my friend, but those boundaries between him and me are non-negotiable.

And the fact that I set them and he doesn’t is exactly why he ends up in these situations, and I don’t.

Cops Shoot Family Dog Just Because

News & Politics  

Courthouse News / By Jack Bouboushian

                         

Cops Shoot Family Dog Just Because

Police officers in a Chicago suburb sat in front of a home for 20 minutes, then without any provocation shot the family dog.

 

 

 

June 28, 2013  |  

 

 

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

 

 

 

 

Police officers in a Chicago suburb sat in front of a home for 20 minutes, then without any provocation shot the family dog, who had been calmly sitting on the front porch, the dog's owner claims in court.

 

Randy Green sued the Village of South Holland, police Officer Chad Barden and other unknown officers, in Federal Court.

 

South Holland, pop. 21,000, is a southern suburb of Chicago.

 

"On Sunday, July 22, 2012, two South Holland Police Officers arrived in separate vehicles at the home of Randy Green between 9-10 am, to investigate a purported dog off-leash (at large)," the complaint states.

 

"Upon information and belief, a caller had identified the dog at large as 'a big old gray dog runnin' around.' The caller made no mention of the dog being dangerous, vicious, or aggressive. ...

 

"The two South Holland officers arrived while plaintiff Randy Green and his family were asleep inside of their home, and where Mr. Green's Cane Corso dog, Grady, was sitting on the front porch.

"Upon information and belief, the chain holding Grady in the Green family backyard had popped, allowing Grady to be off leash on and around Mr. Green's residence.

 

"Both South Holland officers were equipped with dog-catching poles in the trunks of their vehicles, but neither attempted to use the dog-catching poles to capture the purported dog at large.

 

"South Holland officer Chad Barden stood, with his gun drawn, near the Green family home while the dog Grady sat on the front porch.

 

"The accompanying South Holland officer stood, leaning against his own police vehicle,

approximately 100 feet away from Officer Chad Barden.

 

"The dog Grady walked past both officers on more than one occasion without incident, thereafter lazily returning to the front porch of the Green residence.

 

"At no time did the dog Grady make physical contact with either officer.

 

"The South Holland police officers stood outside the Green family home for approximately twenty minutes.

 

"At this time, the dog Grady approached Officer Barden again as he was standing nearest the Green family home.

 

"Shortly thereafter, Officer Barden shot the dog Grady three times for no reason."

 

Grady, wounded, ran into the back yard and Green "rushed outside" to help him and take him to a vet.

Citing an "Expert Report," Green claims that "video surveillance footage from the Green family residence revealed the absence of any charging, lunging or showing of teeth by the dog Grady and instead showed the dog Grady seeking 'greater distance between the officer and himself,' displaying 'calming [body] signals' by 'looking away from the officers and showing his [Grady's] flank,' and moving in a 'trot.'" (Brackets in complaint.)

 

The family immediately "took Grady to an emergency veterinary facility where Grady was treated," the complaint states.

 

Meanwhile, "South Holland police officers walked onto the residential property of Randy Green, including his backyard and other private areas near his home," Green claims.

 

A month later, South Holland police delivered a letter accusing Green of having a dangerous dog.

Green seeks damages for unreasonable seizure, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act, and malicious prosecution.

 

He is represented by Anna Morrison-Ricordati.

Leading scientists urge President Obama's advisers to investigate ethical issues raised by creating highly infectious strain of bird-flu

Virus could easily be transmitted between people

Steve Connor 

 

 

 

 

 

A group of leading scientists has urged President Obama’s advisers to investigate the ethical issues raised by a decision to create a highly infectious strain of bird-flu virus that could be transmitted easily between people.

The scientists, who include a former UK Government chief scientist and a Nobel laureate, said that it is “morally and ethically wrong” to create a new type of influenza virus in the laboratory that is more lethal and transmissible than what actually exists in nature.

Two teams of flu researchers – led by Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam and Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison – announced in 2011 that they had succeeded in mutating the H5N1 avian virus so that it could in theory be transmitted through the air between people.

They stopped the research last year as part of a wider voluntary moratorium following public outrage over the work. But they announced an end to the moratorium earlier this year, and even an expansion into new areas involving other viruses and diseases.

In a strongly-worded letter sent to the US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, opponents of the research warned that there has not been enough debate over the threats posed by lifting the moratorium on increasing the transmissibility of highly lethal viruses such as the H5N1 strain of bird-flu.
They said that the 60 per cent mortality rate of the H5N1 virus – on the relatively rare occasions that it has infected humans – puts it in a “class of its own” and that attempting to make it more transmissible through laboratory experiments is tantamount to risking a devastatingly deadly flu pandemic.
“The accidental release of an artificial, laboratory-generated, human-transmissible H5N1 virus into the community has the potential to cause a global pandemic of epic proportions that would dwarf the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed over 50 million people,” the scientists said.

“A majority [of life scientists] considers the creation in the laboratory of a pathogen more lethal than exists in nature is morally and ethically wrong. Indeed, a majority are of the opinion that there is no scientific justification that outweighs the moral and ethical problems,” they said.

The letter, sent at the end of last week, was organised by the Foundation for Vaccine Research, a private organisation based in Washington campaigning for better vaccines. It was sent to the Presidential Commission in order to bypass the powerful US National Institutes of Health, which has funded both research projects into H5N1 transmissibility and has controlled much of the debate over the issue.

Among the 17 signatories of the letter are Professor Lord May, a former chief scientist to the Prime Minister and an expert on disease transmission, Professor Marc Lipsitch, a communicable disease expert at Harvard University, and Sir Richard Roberts, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his pioneering work in genetics.

Other signatories include Professor Robin Weiss, a distinguished British virologist working on HIV, Professor Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and Joshua Plotkin of the University of Pennsylvania.

The scientists are particularly concerned that attempts of create more lethal forms of H5N1 in an attempt to study the threat posed to humans are just the start of further work on other potentially lethal viruses in what they term “gain of function” studies – where more lethal viral mutations are actively encouraged.
“The H5N1 studies represent the first of no doubt many such studies involving other potential pandemic pathogens. Gain-of-function studies with H5N1 virus are being conducted in China, and a team in The Netherlands is expanding their H5N1 studies to include studies with the H7N7 virus, and has announced plans to conduct similar gain-of-function studies with the SARS coronavirus,” the scientists said.

“Just ten days ago we learned that a team in Germany has conducted experiments to see what it would take for canine distemper virus to be transmitted from dogs to humans,” they said.

Professor Simon Wain-Hobson, an eminent virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris who was first to sign the letter, said that the WHO has essentially failed to take the lead by widening the ethical debate over an area of contentious research that has been controlled by vested interests.
“The recent calling off of the moratorium by 40 flu researchers alone – not funders, governments or international bodies – says it all. The flu community simply hasn’t understood that this is a hot-button issue that will not go away,” Professor Wain-Hobson said.

Flu researchers have argued that the laboratory work is necessary in order to study the kind of lethal mutations that could arise in nature, but Professor Wain-Hobson said that the artificial selection of dangerous viruses could result in mutants that would be very unlikely to ever exist in nature. He cites the example of the artificial selection of canine genes by dog breeders over the centuries. “Would nature have come up with the dachshund,” he asks?