Category: Ethics in Government

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, Media Ethics, Peace and War, Social and Economic Justice, Uncategorized

Here’s a website that shows falsely captioned photos as well as photos cropped in such a way as to completely change their meaning. The topic is the violence in Tibet–but according to this site, many of the pictures are actually from India or Nepal, or show things other than the Chinese anti-Tibet violence that they purport to.

Let me state my biases upfront:

  • I am a supporter of the Free Tibet movement, and have been so since 1978 when I learned about Chinese repression there
  • I have been increasingly aware of what appears to be a disinformation campaign by the Chinese government to discredit the Free Tibet movement–and I recognize the possibility that this website could be part of that disinformation campaign
  • I attended a speech by the Dalai Lama in 1982, and in 1993 my wife and I hosted a young Tibetan woman for over a year, as part of the Tibetan Refugee Resettlement Project

    • Still, even as a supporter of Tibetan freedom, I am appalled to see this apparent media distortion, even though it helps “my side.”

    I’m no photo expert, and it’s possible that this site is offering Photoshopped doctoring of its own, or is mislabeling the pictures. But my gut tells me the captions on this website are accurate, and that the mainstream media in the US, Germany, France, Asia, and UK have run photos that claim to show one thing and actually show something completely different. It’s not the first time this has happened; one prominent example in the relatively recent past is the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad–made to look like a huge an enthusiastic, locally originated event that was actually staged by US Marines in front of a small crowd that may have been comprised primarily of supporters of the discredited Ahmed Chalabi.

    Which does make me wonder whether the CIA or similar organizations have their fingers in this apparent distortion of the Tibet reportage, and wonder who has been feeding the media these islabeled or cropped-to-distortion images.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Politics

    If McCain is an example of “straight talk,” I shudder to think of what the crooked guys look like.

    Here’s another lie and amplification of what it means. According to Cliff Schecter on AlterNet, McCain’s official calendar had him missing a key vote on the neocon agenda because he was in California–BUT he managed to show up for 15 other votes of lesser importance that day.

    Schecter writes,

    According to the Washington Post database tracking Senate “vote missers,” McCain had missed a whopping 261 of 468 votes, or almost 56 percent, by March 2008. McCain is understandably busy running for president — and all the candidates running for that highest of offices in 2008 have shown a poor record in showing up for votes. But number of votes missed is one thing; which votes you miss is another. McCain the maverick has missed votes in a way that betrays a calculated strategy: namely, to avoid going on the record when doing so would be politically risky.

    Not exactly a “profile in courage”–or integrity.

    Meanwhile, in the we-knew-that-already department, for the first time, the mainstream media has clearly delivered the link between torture policies and the highest levels of government. Here’s the AP story directly linking Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice to the torture policies, expressed in a way that made even John Ashcroft (who was present, as was Colin Powell) uncomfortable.

    And just what does it take to get our spineless Congressional leadership to get off the dime and start impeachment procedings?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

    Demcoracy Now reports on a particularly nasty initiative to hack into bloggers. Here’s the full report:

    Military Considers Recruiting & Hiring Bloggers

    In media news, new questions are being raised over the relationship between the Pentagon and bloggers. Wired.com has uncovered a 2006 study written for the U.S. Special Operations Command that suggests the military should clandestinely recruit or hire prominent bloggers. The report stated “Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering.” The report also suggested the Pentagon hack blogs that promote messages that are antithetical to U.S. interests. The report went on to say: “Hacking the site and subtly changing the messages and data—merely a few words or phrases—may be sufficient to begin destroying the blogger’s credibility with the audience. “

    At first I thought it might be an April Fool’s joke, especially when a Google search for pentagon blogging hack didn’t turn up anything useful. But I traced back the quote to its authors, James Kinniburgh and Dorothy Denning, and from there easily located the source document. It’s right there, on page 35.

    Is this what we’re paying our tax dollars to fund? For the government to go into our blogs and twist our words for their own purposes? Is this why the founders of our country incorporated the First Amendment? Does anyone else remember what George Orwell’s protagonist Winston Smith did for a living in the totalitarian 1984? He rewrote published newspapers to parrot the government’s current line, working in the “Ministry of Truth”

    Bloggers–do NOT stand for this! If I find they’ve been int my blog, I’ll be on the phone with the ACLU and the National Writers Union immediately.

    Once again, this administration is using 1984 as a playbook. It’s time to say NO.

    PS–to bloggers thinking about taking the Pentagon’s pay for placing soft stories, all I can say is…DONT. The blogosphere is all about credibility; this would kill yours faster than you can say “Armstrong Williams.”

    Bloggers need to protest en masse, and make it clear that we will not stand for this.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Politics

    David Patterson, New York’s new governor will never need to stand, ashen-faced, and admit that he cheated on his wife–as his predecessor, Elliot Spitzer did.

    Why? Because, knowing that skeleton was in his closet, Patterson pre-empted it with an act of transparency. He openly admitted, at a time, place, and manner of his own choosing–actually on the very day he was sworn in as governor–hat he and his wife had both had affairs during a difficult time in their relationship. He maintained control of the discourse, and the admission can never be used as a weapon to destroy him, as it would very much do if he’d been suddenly, unexpectedly, “outed.” As Spitzer found out very quickly.

    For all we know, the Pattersons may have even had an agreement that theirs was an open relationship–in which case, the word “cheating” wouldn’t even apply. It’s not cheating if you have permission from the cheatee.

    Transparency is a good strategy whenever there’s an ethics issue. It means you can’t be blackmailed. It means you minimize the hurt to other people. And you stay in control of the situation.

    Almost four years ago, I wrote about a utility company that handled a gas explosion with rare good sense. Like Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the Tylenol poisoning scare years earlier, this company was both transparent and extremely customer-centric, and thus enhanced rather than destroyed its reputation.

    Gay and lesbian activists have understood this for almost 40 years, since the 1969 Stonewall riots. The closest thing to a rational reason for keeping gays out of sensitive jobs (say, those that expose the employee to highly sensitive information) is the fear of blackmail. But when the gay employee is already out of the closet, that weapon fizzles away.

    I’d say that transparency, combined with Nelson Mandela-style reconciliation, creates powerful momentum in favor of the person making the confession, whether in business or politics. Plus, as the Catholics with their confession ritual have understood for centuries, there’s tremendous personal release in not bottling up secrets.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

    Well, what’ya know–Nancy Pelosi actually showed some leadership and got the House to pass a somewhat weak measure establishing a special office of ethics, as many states have had for years. And against strenuous opposition (WHO are these people?) from both parties. The New York Times headline says it all:

    Kicking and Screaming Toward Reform

    If you want to thank her, visit MassPIRG’s page set up for the purpose, here. If you have autofill in your browser, it takes under 30 seconds.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Politics

    Wooo-eee! Columnist Greg Palast has a powerful commentary on the difference between the trashing of Elliot Spitzer, crusader for consumers in the mortgage mess, and do-nothing Republican Senator David Vitter.

    Spitzer, says Palast, was pretty much the only one standing in the way of a Federal reserve $200 billion bailout of banks who lost money in subprimes. Does this help the overmortgaged householder in any way? Nope.

    And Spitzer was ready to take on the Bush administration over this, and in fact that’s what he was doing in Washington on that fateful night.

    Fascinating reading. Here’s a little taste:

    Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.

    The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bail-out. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.

    Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.

    And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.

    Funny–one thing I haven’t heard discussed at all, is that Spitzer built his reputation as a consumer advocate, yet he was willing to pay far more than the going rate. Forgetting for a moment about morality, about idiocy, about hypocrisy (this guy was a prosecutor before he became governor, and he even went after some of the high-end “escort” operations), about throwing your entire career away for a few minutes of pleasure–you really do have to wonder how someone who works so hard at stopping consumer ripoffs would pay, on multiple occasions, $5K to spend an evening with a call girl. I’ve owned cars that cost me less than that!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government

    The danger in being an ethics warrior is that if you get caught with your own pants down, you’re in trouble. You’ve lost all the credibility you spent all those years building up.

    It happened to John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods last year. This week it happened to the crusading anti-corruption New York State Governor Elliot Spitzer, who apparently uses a high-end call girl service similar to those he investigated as Attorney General.

    It’s really a shame. There’s been much to admire in the public positions of both men. But if you make your living touting honesty, you should, quite frankly, know better. I’m not trying to sound self-righteous here, really I’m not–but from a marketing point of view, if you stake out your reputation on being the best and then get caught dealing in lousy product, you’re going to fall a lot harder than if no one expected any better from you in the first place.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

    Even after seven years of the long night of the GW Bush administration, I can still be shocked by how low he is wiling to go. His latest and continuing embrace of torture just makes me sick. This mini-item from Democracy Now, “Bush to Veto Bill Outlawing CIA Use of Waterboarding”:

    President Bush is expected to soon veto a bill that would have required the CIA and all intelligence services to abide by the same interrogation standards as outlined in the US Army Field Manual. The Army manual specifically bans waterboarding, mock executions, the use of electric shocks, beatings, forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts and depriving prisoners of necessary food, water or medical care. President Bush says the Army rules are too restrictive.

    This is the same man who claims to be strongly influenced by his Christian faith. Did he maybe skip the sections in the Bible about the golden rule, turning the other cheek, and treating even those at the very bottom of the social ladder with utmost respect. Harumph–endorsement of torture strikes me as within the impeachable category of “high crimes and misdemeanors”!

    Oh, and didn’t occur to him that he is putting American servicemen and servicewomen at severe risk? If we torture those we capture, what happens when our people are captured?

    Meanwhile, a perceptive piece by Marty Kaplan in Huffington Post on this issue:

    When Dana Perino told the White House press corps that the Field Manual is “perfectly appropriate… for young GIs, some so young that they’re not even able to legally get a drink in the states where they’re from,” but not for trained intelligence agency “professionals… with an average age of 40,” it’s a wonder she wasn’t asked a follow-up about how tall you have to be to ride the Constitution.

    The same piece has some speculation on why John McCain, long a champion of treating prisoners right, and himself an ex-POW, is now willing to go along with torture.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Politics

    Whole bunch of links in the Citizens for Legitimate Government e-bulletins this week, all pointing to different aspects of the real, not-in-the-spotlight John McCain. And it’s not a pretty picture, especially since this is the “straight shooter” who claims to be focused on ethics. Mainstream media is not doing a good job of looking at these stories, even when they’re published on big wire services like Reuters.

    A few of the news bites:

  • McCain retracted his statement that he has to convince the public that the Iraq war is going well, in order to win (Reuters)
  • McCain is implicated in an influence-peddling scandal involving a broadcaster in violation of ownership-concentration rules. His formerly unheard plea for assistance suddenly went to the top of the pile after he became a $40,000 client of McCain’s lobbyist friend Vicki Iseman and made a $4000 contribution directly to McCain (WorldNetNews)
  • As I noted earlier this week, McCain has been sued by the Democratic Party over his lack of compliance with a federal campaign finance program. It appears that McCain is using public financing as collateral, yet he wants to withdraw from the program in order to spend money faster than the law allows.
  • McCain’s personal wealth may have a lot to do with his father-in-law’s involvement in organized crime (for which the in-law was convicted in 1948) (WorldNetNews)
    • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Politics

    Straight from the horse’s mouth:

    “The crucial issue here is John McCain’s integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. “He used taxpayer money to guarantee a loan so he could raise money from lobbyists and special interests – it’s the height of hypocrisy. This is just the latest example of his do as I say, not as I do double standard, and it’s unlikely to be the last. McCain financially benefited from this legally binding contract – he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million line of credit to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should follow the law.”

    This is from a Democratic National Committee press release sent today.

    Ironic, isn’t it. “Straight shooter” McCain doesn’t seem to be shooting very straight these days. This is the lead sponsor of the rather mild McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

    Added to the questions the New York Times raised last week (see my previous blog post)…it does make you wonder. This is their ethics guy???

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail