Why Does One Want To Be Ethical?

Asking someone whys/he would want to be ethical is really a backdoor way of asking why one would want to be a Saint.

Of course we all know the answer to that question, particularly if phrased with the word ‘ethical’ replaced with the word ‘saint’. How many times in your life have you heard someone admit, “Well, I’m certainly no saint” or drawing in others for support, “We aren’t saints”, or “S/he’s no saint”. I think you get the point.

Why is it, I have often wondered, that when people actually admit this they are also saying “I’m not ethical” or “I don’t have to be ethical” or “everybody is doing it so why not me too?” This is called the ‘every body is doing it, it must be ethical’ scenario. It must be OK even if we feel it’s wrong. The irony is just too much.

Let’s look at it from another perspective. Assume, or if you prefer, hypothesize, that all people, everywhere, are born ethical i.e. saints. Bear with me, for this will be a short excruciatingly painful exercise. Taking the next logical step, one can conclude the only thing that changes whether one is a saint or not is in the environment they live, breath and work. For example, parents have a great deal to do with how individuals are formed ethically in their early years, teachers too, then our siblings, older and younger if any, then blood relatives, friends, co workers, and so forth. In other words, everything people are about in their lives influences how ethical or “saintly” they will become and how true each and every one will stay to their original self.

Some of us fight hard to take the ethical high ground. In effect, these sterling examples swim upstream, beat to a different drummer and, it would seem, care what everybody else is doing while the rest seem to care less. These mavericks often feel sorry that the rest of us “just don’t get it” knowing in their hearts and minds that we are all our brother’s and sister’s ‘keepers’. Most of the time we think they are ‘nut cases’, or in the nicer sense, ‘goody-to-shoes’ until and unless one of them really rises above us all. When that time arrives, it is no longer possible to ignore the incredible good that comes after them and that they stayed true to their birthright.

Oops! There I’ve said it. Birthright. The founding fathers of the United States of America put it more succinctly and perhaps their words may ground us in a reality we often choose to not accept. They said, “All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights…” Following the hypothesis above, we can pretty much take it to the bank that if we indeed believe these guys and we really are born equal, a belief that most Americans seem to accept quite readily, then we are all born completely ethical and therefore we are, in fact, living, breathing, saints too - at least in the beginning!

The next time it is brought to our attention that a corporation or an organization is charged with being corrupt or unethical, consider that the whole represents the many. The many includes every worker no matter how much they insist they are not a part of it when the organization is proven corrupt. Laying it off on the other guys that make the most money is just plain escapism and exactly what happens most often, if not every time. The view is summed up by a line from a comedy routine, one milked for everything it was worth, by the late and great comedian Freddy Prinz. He would pepper his standup routines with his famous tag line “it’s not my yob (job)”. We can add the mantra to workers, employees, associates, partners, owners, board members, et al, caught up in an organization’s ethical scandal, “it’s not my job to be ethical!”

Does anyone want to be ethical? Seems people talk a good game. They even act like it on occasion and, once in awhile, there are those among us who actually remember their birthright. But, for the rest, the ‘aura of ethics’ is used it seems, most often, to derive whatever benefit they can from it but with the backup excuse “we’re no saints and we’re not perfect.”
 You draw your own conclusions.

What I see is crystal clear. You and I have a choice but we can never say again, we didn’t know.

Asking someone whys/he would want to be ethical is really a backdoor way of asking why one would want to be a Saint.

Of course we all know the answer to that question, particularly if phrased with the word ‘ethical’ replaced with the word ‘saint’. How many times in your life have you heard someone admit, “Well, I’m certainly no saint” or drawing in others for support, “We aren’t saints”, or “S/he’s no saint”. I think you get the point.

Why is it, I have often wondered, that when people actually admit this they are also saying “I’m not ethical” or “I don’t have to be ethical” or “everybody is doing it so why not me too?” This is called the ‘every body is doing it, it must be ethical’ scenario. It must be OK even if we feel it’s wrong. The irony is just too much.

Let’s look at it from another perspective. Assume, or if you prefer, hypothesize, that all people, everywhere, are born ethical i.e. saints. Bear with me, for this will be a short excruciatingly painful exercise. Taking the next logical step, one can conclude the only thing that changes whether one is a saint or not is in the environment they live, breath and work. For example, parents have a great deal to do with how individuals are formed ethically in their early years, teachers too, then our siblings, older and younger if any, then blood relatives, friends, co workers, and so forth. In other words, everything people are about in their lives influences how ethical or “saintly” they will become and how true each and every one will stay to their original self.

Some of us fight hard to take the ethical high ground. In effect, these sterling examples swim upstream, beat to a different drummer and, it would seem, care what everybody else is doing while the rest seem to care less. These mavericks often feel sorry that the rest of us “just don’t get it” knowing in their hearts and minds that we are all our brother’s and sister’s ‘keepers’. Most of the time we think they are ‘nut cases’, or in the nicer sense, ‘goody-to-shoes’ until and unless one of them really rises above us all. When that time arrives, it is no longer possible to ignore the incredible good that comes after them and that they stayed true to their birthright.

Oops! There I’ve said it. Birthright. The founding fathers of the United States of America put it more succinctly and perhaps their words may ground us in a reality we often choose to not accept. They said, “All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights…” Following the hypothesis above, we can pretty much take it to the bank that if we indeed believe these guys and we really are born equal, a belief that most Americans seem to accept quite readily, then we are all born completely ethical and therefore we are, in fact, living, breathing, saints too - at least in the beginning!

The next timeit is brought to our attention that a corporation or an organization is charged with being corrupt or unethical, consider that the whole represents the many. The many includes every worker no matter how much they insist they are not a part of it when the organization is proven corrupt. Laying it off on the other guys that make the most money is just plain escapism and exactly what happens most often, if not every time. The view is summed up by a line from a comedy routine, one milked for everything it was worth, by the late and great comedian Freddy Prinz. He would pepper his standup routines with his famous tag line “it’s not my yob (job)”. We can add the mantra to workers, employees, associates, partners, owners, board members, et al, caught up in an organization’s ethical scandal, “it’s not my job to be ethical!”

Does anyone want to be ethical? Seems people talk a good game. They even act like it on occasion and, once in awhile, there are those among us who actually remember their birthright. But, for the rest, the ‘aura of ethics’ is used it seems, most often, to derive whatever benefit they can from it but with the backup excuse “we’re no saints and we’re not perfect.”
 You draw your own conclusions.

What I see is crystal clear. You and I have a choice but we can never say again, we didn’t know.

Author: Dr. Fred DiUlus, Founder and Executive Director, Center for Ethics in Free Enterprise

A Right to Life

Are we all entitled to it? Somewhere along the line of the debate between the right to lifers and the right to choosers we lost sight of what the debate was really about. It isn't about competing values or competing rights. Its about one thing and one thing alone -- LIFE itself and the very essence of when one is entitled to it.

Life, at least to many in the world, means life from the time it starts to the time it terminates.

We all, allegedly, agree that from birth, we have this right. But does this right not spring to the front somewhere during a pregnancy? And, if so, how about at conception?

Where in fact does this so-called right begin? This is the rub. When are human beings really created? Is it when the sperm conjoins with the egg, is it some time during development in the womb, or is it when the laddie/lassie finally springs out on their own in what we all call "birth".

The law of the land, judging by the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision suggests it is when the law says it is and it isn't. According to the legal interpretation it is not at 'conception'. Accordingly, the little life bubbling around in a womb isn't human. It's kind of like that old pre-civil civil war spin that black people were not human beings, but less than, and therefore property to be bought and sold into slavery. We find the whole concept of this proposition so absurd that we wonder to this day how thinking people could have been so stupid.

Are we again stupid? Is the fragile life inside a woman's womb less than human and therefore her personal property. It seems some ideas are hard to die. The generally held opinion of those who are the 'property' believers are surrounded with the concept that asks "how could it be a human being, it is no larger than the end of a pinkie finger and looks just like a fish, gorilla, or any other animal at that stage? It can hardly be considered human."

Those who have an unwanted pregnancy to deal with and that could easily include rape victims, under aged children, women who aren't ready to have a family or don't want another addition to it, parents who think their kids are too young to be parents and so on and so forth. The list goes on. It even goes to the self styled true believers that suggest "it's got to be born before its human."

Human life for the mass majority of the world's population including citizens of the poorest of the poor countries believe life 'really' begins at conception. Not just life, but a human life. For them it is a miracle. When you think about the odds of it occurring, one can begin to grasp the logic to the "miracle" idea. It is overwhelming and when women do become pregnant it is like hitting the lottery.

Have doubts? Ask a childless couple. There are millions upon millions of them. To terminate a pregnancy before birth is therefore, in their eyes, nothing short of murder. This is, they believe, the moral high ground.

Apart from this overriding world peoples belief that human life begins at conception, an indisputable secularist fact remains. It takes two contributing resources that comes from a male and female of our species, who contribute human sperm and a human egg to combine to form the miracle of life, whether in a conjugal bond, or through some medical form of artificial means. However contrived, the combination initiates new human life. We know what the outcome will be so how is it we choose to believe it is otherwise at conception? The fact remains the product of this union is the creation of a human being, right there at that very moment of fertilization. We know with irrefutable evidence that new life as a human being in every instance emerges from the safety of its mothers womb, the result of that human contribution of sperm and egg combining at conception.

It was human at its start, it is human when it emerges from the safety of the womb. It didn't get there by itself. It did not suddenly emerge. It was.

So, how is it in an age of attempted perfection, the intellectual elite have found exceptions that permit abortion even if Roe vs. Wade did not exist. The law and the medical profession included consider the saving of the life of the mother from a troubling and life threatening pregnancy trumping an unborn infants. Also, if this new life doesn't look just right, act just right, or appear to have all its parts just right, the minimalist amount of grounds also exist to terminate an unborn infants life. These unborn humans can't seem to garner any respect.

Along the way a major consideration has been set by the wayside in the case of the threatened life of the mother. The mother, as callous, as this may seem, has already lived a life. The potential birthed child is about to begin theirs. What contribution would that child make to society and would that mother kill her own child to save her own life? Apart from the bereaved family, who would 90/10 choose the mother, the chances are 90/10 that mother would not have her own child killed to save her own life. But, that decision today is rarely left to the mother.

Today, the fetus is the modern day human property of old and the individual who possesses it, and the mother who wants to abort it, can do what she wants, when she wants, anyway she wants, with that property. Is this our modern day legal absurdity?

Our medical professionals have opted out considering the argument political and thus have permitted their authority to be usurped by the hedonists of our society who seek only to self-satisfy their own excesses. They go along to get along. Our courts are equally as spineless having upheld time and again this ability to let those with questionable and vested interests to determine when you and I and every other living human being actually become human. Stop for a moment and think how many of us would never have been born.

Thus, today, a human being does not exist until the state says so and those who desire to terminate the emerging life force, whether the medical profession or a teenage mother with an unwanted baby growing inside her can, on a whim, and for whatever reason they choose, including a bad hair day, terminate a singular human life so long as it is inside them. This unborn human being is afforded absolutely no right to appeal and no second chance by the very state created to protect human life and the right to it at all cost.

Our right to life is a basic value of our earth bound civilization. It is very sad indeed how human beings, who should know better, decide they can take a life anytime, for any reason, so long as they can convince those around them it is not yet quite human. The evidence and basic human beliefs worldwide suggest otherwise. From conception to death, a human being is a human being and endowed at least in America with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As a free society, it is up to us to protect that right. Up to now we haven't been doing a very good job. Perhaps its time to get political and push hard for the "right thing to do".

Dateline: December 5, 2006

Ethical Politicians

In survey after survey, students, adults, and who knows who, have consistently pointed out that politicians are among the most distrusted of any class, group, or profession. Some would say the latter reference is a stretch because it is the lack of professionalism and petty squabbling that does them in every time.

So why do we put up with it?

Think about it. Someone wants to run for office and with a bit of luck they get elected. Normally they promise the moon, but the moon is hardly what they deliver. The reason they can't deliver is because they never meant to or never really had the ability to gather the support. Most often it is something they can not even influence, let alone change. Sad, but true.

On the other hand, if they can effect some change with their new power, they soon find they have been thrown into the pit with other rookie politicians and they have to earn their way out. Otherwise, they will be there for awhile. Somebody, perhaps an adversary or a member of the 'powers to be' , gets something on them and whatever idealism they may have innocently portrayed is now history. They soon learn they can't deliver unless they compromise their own values. Anyone who has seen the movie The Devil's Advocate will get exactly what I mean.

As a personal compromise and a rationalization, many politicians quickly learn how to play the polls and each other, and flip-flop with the wind from one position to another because it is the will of the people and politically expedient. Whatever the polls say is what they say, even to the point of personal compromise and shredding of their own values. If the local poll is saying one thing and the national poll is saying another, they will opt to cozy up to the one that affects them the most. Need examples? Watch those declaring and running for president.

Political life is not pleasant. It's been rightly called a jealous mistress. It breaks up families, finds offspring abandoned to adulthood and drives many to drugs and alcohol. A misplaced word, a misplaced look, a wrongfully worded email; you name it and the career is gone - history. The first thing politicians learn is how to intimidate others for survival. Many, if not all, have their staffers looking up dirt on their adversaries from before they took office, and, if they have not ordered it, someone on their staff certainly has picked up the ball. How do they go about this? Easy, they use good old Yankee dollars, massage their press contacts, and spread half truth and false rumors to slay an opponent without mercy. Rumors are spread right at the grass roots including infiltrating the local babershops and beauty salons to spread the dirt.

Campaign contributions reform is a farce. Want to get elected? Spend the most money. Want to get the most money? Make sure you are in the right pocket of the wealthiest supporter. Want to be a rising star? Find out who pulls the strings of your wealthiest supporters and saddle up to them and make them your new best friends. If you are getting the point that it is not what you know but who you know, you quickly come away with the realization that we are definitely not getting the best and the brightest to lead us.

What we are getting in ever increasing numbers are those who are connected. They went to the right schools, (ever seen the hall of presidents in the Boston Harvard Club), flourished up the ladder because someone spotted a 'comer' they could manipulate (lots of money does this), or the erstwhile candidate is born into or are related to the right family (Gore, Bush, Kennedy, Taft, Lodge, Roosevelt, etc., etc., etc.)

Public service has long been the domain of the richest in the world. It is their way of not staying idle, giving there kids purpose in life, and avoiding having the masses take their fortunes away from them. And, at the other end, where else can you go into public office without two nickels to rub together and come out a millionaire 20 years later -- never ever holding a job other than one on the public dole?

Does all this sound a bit cynical? It should. There are many of us who feel our so-called democratic system of government is just as corrupt as any you can imagine. Do you doubt this? Start with the lobbyists, the army of former politicians with connections working for big bucks from those agencies that want something. Is it any wonder that the insider publication for this group is called INFLUENCE? To get rid of the corruption, one might easily suggest you get rid of the lobbyists. They are like the drug dealers that circle our public schools waiting for the innocents to come out and play.

When Congress talks about ethics in business they really need to look at their own house. When a pompous sub committee investigates Enron or any organization of their unethical ilk, they also ought to be looking at themselves. The biggest bank fraud in America took place right in the Capital in and among the legislators and their sweetheart deals with their own credit union. Apart from the window dressing and, I'm sorry's, not a single one of them was indicted, convicted, or sent to jail. And, does anyone remember the savings and loan scandals and in particular one Lincoln Savings and Loan bilking of widows and retirees? The in-depth involvement of a current leading candidate to be our next president and several other prominent senators cost them nothing except a bit of embarrassment. On reflection, this may never have happened had lobbyists been kept outside the Capital building.

What can be done about bringing REAL ethics into the halls of Congress, state legislatures, Governors' offices, The White House, our local county and state offices? Well, we start with the basics - To tell the truth!

Then, we can move on from there.

Dateline: July 26, 2006

Cheating in America, A National Pastime

Look around. Today, more than ever before, it has become fashionable to cheat. One could say, and come away without too much criticism, that everyone expects it. The funny thing is the person who expects it, or observes it, or knows someone who does it, never does it themselves. Ironically, they actually believe they are not infected. As noted, this is a national pastime.

Why is this? Why do husbands cheat on their wives and wives cheat on their husbands? Does not the vow to love, honor, cherish, and "obey", (some leave out the "obey" part now), mean anything. Well, it appears the times indeed are changing.

In America at least, spousal cheating, encouraged by theater, movies, partytime, and yes, peer pressure, is at epidemic proportions. Does anyone feel guilty? Absolutely, just before it is time to maybe do it again. Kids today, as a result, have groups of parents i.e. first there is the real father and mother, then there is 1st father and 1st mother, and 2nd father and 2nd mother, and so on and so forth, not to mention step brothers and step sisters galore. When we talk about extended families today, we are certainly not talking of the family of 50 years ago that included aunts, uncles, and cousins right down to twice removed. Now, there is no way to keep up.

Then there is the work environment. Parents who cheat at home, cheat on the job. They lie and steal to get ahead. Oh, it is not the feloneous type of stealing, although that is always possible, it is the subtle kind -- stealing someones ideas, words, concepts, suggestions, as well as time from the company on the phone, at lunch, leaving early on weekends, calling in sick when one is not sick, and taking paper, pens, pencils, paperclips and anything not to heavy to carry. If one is in construction, they take bricks, boards, mortar and tools. Cheating on the job has taken on national epidemic proportions. Walmart with their 360 degree cameras strung from the ceilings from every store watch the employees as much as they watch the shoppers.

And in the churches and among clerics, what do we find? All of the above.

And in the courts and legal profession, what do we find? All of the above.

And in education and among the educators, what do we find? All of the above.

And in health and among medical professionals what do we find? All of the above.

And in government and among our legislators what do we find? All of the above.

And so on and so forth...for it permeates every level of our society.

And what about the kids? Where do they fit into this?

Over 70% of them admit to cheating before they graduate from high school. By the time they finish college, 80% are willing to admit they have done it in some way.

When college business students are asked what is the most corrupt field to go into, over 90% suggest it is business. Yet, they willingly choose it as their field of specialization because that is "where the money is."

What about the tiny tots? At what age does a child learn to cheat? Studies now show that 3 out of 4 know how to do it by the time they are 5. And where do they learn it from? The parents, of course.

So the old adage, "do as I say, not as I do", really does have a beginning and a significance because it seems most have done it and really do fear their offspring or their charges will do it too. Why? Simply because it is wrong. We all know it. We all feel it, and we all do not want our youngsters or our charges to do it. We really do want them to be better than us. The internal gut wrenching feelings get us every time. And if we don't feel anything? Well then we are psychopaths, socially detached from society and any responsibility for good.

In today's world the word "ethical" has taken on a new meaning of "squeaky clean" and "please look at me or my organization for we are ethical practitioners." Do the new awareness responses mean much when you really know the facts? Lawrence Kholberg's theory of ethical development may be hard pressed to determine why as human beings we seem to be stuck in moving forward. It seems the further we go in greater prosperity and technology development the behinder we get in moral development. Is it an illusion?

Actions speak louder than words. To be ethical, one must act ethically. One has to lead and show by doing and not accept society's drifters who proclaim when observing ethical breeches that "they're just kids" or "everybody does it" or "it was only a fling", or "I had no choice". Unless somebody is holding a gun to one's head, everybody, no matter how small or how old, has a choice. They may not like what the potential outcome may be but they had a choice to do the right thing.

Is it tough? What do you think?

Next Up: Why Does One Want to be Ethical?

Dateline: June 13, 1006

The War on Diploma Mills
Whether They Are or Not

In May, an online blog that fancies itself as a higher education news source, using a national press release from Global Academy Online, Inc., (the world's premier provider of private label online curriculum and instruction, and who had just announced the opening of its unique incubator university), sought to dismiss it as unwanted. Using innuendo and questionable experts, the university was libeled, demeaned and besmirched without mercy.

Not a very nice thing to do to a brand new organization that spent over three years in qualitative research and development. The object of the wrath is a university designed only to be an incubator that both improves the quality and rigor of online course delivery and instruction, and serves as a model for Academy clients and institutions --Not seemingly much wrong with those objectives.

Considering the university had not enrolled one student, does not charge tuition, severely limits the number of students qualified to attend, is a declared non-profit, and was created and established to improve the methodology, technology, and pedagogy of online higher education delivery, it shows all the earmarks of one being no less pure than the driven snow.

Out of nowhere came an alleged reporter who refers to himself as "Big Head" running as lead dog in front of a pack of wolves posing as "diploma mill experts". After the fact, it now seems a larger agenda was at work other than to announce the innovative development of this new organization. The conspiratorial agenda seemed from the getgo to want to destroy this noble effort before it ever managed to get off the ground. It also now seems quite obvious this was clearly the agenda, particularly when viewed in the light of followup comments posted at the end of the article, one incredulously offered by one of those quoted in the article. He added more inaccurate garbage, as if to say, "I didn't pound on it enough, here let me try and punch at it one more time". It is clear that the 'pack' wanted this fledgling, innovative, research endeavor gone. Is it possible that this new university is a genuine threat to their well hidden lack of credibility and to their rehearsed views of the established order of things and the way things are done according to them?

Designed from the beginning to be 'outside the box' of traditional higher education, the last thing an established order wants is some organization with an incredible knowledge base and an army of professionals and doctoral qualified faculty revolutionizing higher education. This groundswell of fresh air is about to force them to take their foot off the necks of small colleges and universities around the world who would be given a LIFE breath to survive, compete, and prosper.

The new university brings to the small colleges and universities the blueprints for survival among the big guys. In other words, it is dangerous. It isn't dangerous to the 'pack' because it has deep pockets, a battery of international lawyers, or even the establishments good housekeeping seal of approval. It is dangerous to them because of what it represents, who it serves, and what it can do to change online higher education.

It has recently come to light, in viewing other blogs who comment freely on the so-called experts whose views were cited about the new university, that either the publication is essentially naive', a traditionalists pawn, or it has been duped. Have they been duped by a bevy of these so-called, self-promoted "experts", a handful of men, whose credentials and agenda, have been severely criticized over and over again?

Ethics as practiced by these critics is essentially non existent. It is obligatory upon any investigator to at least speak with and attempt to secure the reasons for an organizations existence from its principals. Apparently retained by the publication to facilitate its spin and attempted effort to mortally wound the new organization, each alleged expert seemed most willing, but totally uninformed to comment. Not one of them was, or is, an expert in online higher education curriculum or instruction. Yet, each shot from the hip as though they were.

Not the slightest bit of investigative effort went into the imitation "experts" preparation to massage a string of public perceptions they wanted to leave and thereby overlooking entirely what the institution was about, what it would provide, and the qualifications of its administration and faculty. Not one of the pack dared to contact the sponsoring organization, and not one sought to engage in dialogue with an organization whose own history shows a bedrock of a solid ten years of research, education, and information development for the public.

And, as for reporting? Wow. It was indeed a poor excuse of journalism. It was an opinion piece imitating an investigative story. In the study of Communications Ethics one learns very early on what is ethical journalism and what is not. This story clearly was not. The so-called reporter spent four days discussing higher education with the author of this blog, who has, unlike the other so-called experts in the "story", online higher education curriculum and instruction expertise. Choosing to ignore critical and important facts for the sake of editorial spin and perhaps to look bright and informed, the writer took quotes out of context from the greater meaning and shaped a piece that was totally untrustworthy. Unethical? Absolutely.

The late Peter Drucker long warned American higher education that unless it changed education in America, as we know it, it would indeed crumble. Judging by the unethical behavior of this bevy of higher ed's alleged spokespersons, Drucker's prognostication can't be far behind.

Postscript:For a detailed breakdown on what individuals should look for in determining if a college or university might be a diploma mill, click here now.

Next Up: Cheating in America, A National Pastime

Dateline: St. Patrick's Day, 2006

Good and Evil
The Water Test

Can you tell the difference between good and evil?

The standard bill of fare for most of us is that we live life in a quandry deciding what is good and what is evil. Often, we rationalize the choices and somehow we muddle through it.

What drives human beings to do evil things? For that matter what drives us to do good things?

Here is a word that you probably never thought of that would relate to it -- Addiction. People are addicted to either good or evil. Some would like to think that they pick and choose and even ride the fence. In reality, they are addicted to one more so than the other.

Consider this little revelation. In quantum physics, they are playing around with the notion that if we are negative, we have a tendency to become addicted to that negativity or that EVIL. It could be in how we relate to other human beings, ourselves, or to the things we say and do to others. We literally wrap ourselves in what we want to be like.

To prove the point, scientists have studied effects on water and when it is influenced by outside positive or negative forces. Specifically, the human body is made up of 90% water. To see if there was a correlation, they observed the characteristics of free standing water molecules under conditions of tranquility and stress and wrapped the water in various containers illustrating positive or negative moods. These microscopic critters being observed are essentially formless and, under the microscope, shapeless. They remain in this state until affected by outside influences. For example, when a container of the water is wrapped with the words love or peace, the water tranforms and the observed water molecules turn into beautiful and unique mosaic designs. When negativity is introduced and wrapped around the containers with words, including hate, ill will, or other negative feelings, the molecules turned into ugly, formless, and grotesque images.

How we are as humans beings may well evolve, as these observations of water demonstrate, an identical reaction in us --What we wrap ourelves in determines who we are as human beings.

Immanuel Kant, an 18th century deontological philosopher noted in his landmark book on ethics, Critique of Pure Reason, that all human beings come to know the differences between right and wrong and good and evil at an early age. We refer to it as the age of reason and it occurs at the ripe old age of seven. Simply, according to Kant, all of us know the differences from our early youth. We understand these opposing forces instinctively and we are able to discern when our actions and self are either good or evil at a young age.

Thus, if we are determined to be good and loving, chances are we will. If we care not to be good or desire to be less than that, we will. The most interesting thing of all is that we have a conscious choice to either change from one to the other, at will. We decide if our life addictions are to be good or evil. The more we follow one chosen path over another, the more addictive it becomes in us. In effect, the mosaic designs inside of us change from beauty to ugly and vice versa depending on how addicted to good or evil we eventually become. The packaging of ourselves is everything. The longer we are in one state or the other, the more addictive it becomes and the more difficult it is to reverse it.

Kant noted that free will gives us a choice. Modern science suggests we choose according to addictions and our body molecules react accordingly. Negativity begets more negativity until nothing positive remains. Ironically this modern explanation of what goes on with water parallels the Middle Ages thought and practice of a Saint named Benedict. He is best known the world over for founding of the Benedictine Order and for his method of staying good called today the Rule of St. Benedict.

Benedict could not possibly know quatum physics or what occurs in water influenced by positive and negative events. However, he did write that absolute evil destroys absolutely. He also said that if there was but a sliver of light remaining (goodness) in a human being, there was hope. He opinioned, we can change and create for ourselves a new life in the light.

Any addiction can be broken and replaced with others by shear force of will. The human choice to be good or evil can go one way or the other. Along the way many of us flip-flop, back and forth. It seems, one thing is definitely certain though; the final choice to be good or evil is ours alone. It's in the water.

Dateline: February 7, 2006

Media
Ethical or Unethical: That is the question

Are media presenters of the news and the mainstream press ethical?

The public says no. Bill O'Reilly says no, Sean Hannity says no, Rush Limbaugh says no and virtually all of the conservatives in America say no. So are they or aren't they?

The conservative broadcast critics have good reason to be skeptical. I like most Americans would like to read the news, not editorials on the front page every time I pick up a newspaper. I would like to see something other than a liberal spin put on every major news story. With the exception of Fox News and a miniscule number of American daily newspapers and isolated broadcasters, that is how it seems every day of the week.

The trend in recent years has been for editors to permit editorial bias to enter into what seems to be the majority of every national interest story. They pass off the news as unbiased, fair, and impartial. Unfortunately, the resident bias seemingly inherent in every major national news story, particularly when it comes to the war on terror or domestic issues, in no way represents the middle of the road values of most Americans.

A case in point: Dan Rather of CBS News abortive attempt during the election run up in 2004 to blatantly frame President George W. Bush for falsifying documents during his Air National Guard duty days blew up in his face. When it turned out that the story was a complete fabrication based on one questionable source, CBS circled the wagons. Rather than admit their rush to judgment, they stonewalled. When it turned out that there was no place to hide, Dan Rather went mute.

In the end, it turned out for Rather to be a non-recoverable mess, one that could not be explained away or glossed over. He retired under pressure in order to avoid the embarrassment of being fired. His producer was not so lucky. She was fired. This was nasty business, lost in the excesses of trying to make a political point other than dig out a real story.

In this case, the real story, as it finally was exposed in the nontraditional middle of the road press and among the conservative broadcasters, was that a handful of 'not so nice' folks were trying to fabricate untruths wrapped in half-truths and foist them on what they perceived was a gullible public banner. To this day Dan Rather sticks tenaciously to some metaphysical allusion that what he did was the right thing to do, as though anybody in the world believes him or even cares.

Two things occurred however in the aftermath. The highly visible case finally revealed that media can have an agenda. It smacked us in the face with the notion that the major news media does not just report the news but attempts to shape it when it suits them. Millions, for the first time recognized they make of the news what they want and how they want in order to achieve whatever outcomes they desire.

Perhaps this has gone on for years, unnoticed. Finally someone got caught at it. The story so backfired on CBS News that their ratings plummeted, and their credibility went in the toilet.

What CBS found and the nation discovered is that the public is not the same as it was, not even as little as five years ago. The public is no longer willing to accept carte blanche whatever the networks say or the mainstream press prints without question. We can thank Bill Gates and the Internet for this breakthrough.

Follow this up with the ongoing scandals at the New York Times, the so-called holy grail of news and truth of our time, and one begins to wonder if any of these guys can be trusted again, either on the right or the left. Currently the Times may be dangerously close to being charged with espionage for leaking top secret government information and revealing wire taps that were highly classified.

In what now appears an obvious effort to embarrass the President, they managed to tip off enemies of the state to exactly what our government was doing to catch them. One can only wonder if the Times real motive was one of sinister intent considering they knew of the information for at least a year and kept it under wraps or an innocent miscalculation. Why did they need so desperately to publish it now and for what purpose?

One would think the press has lost its collective marbles in its efforts to beat the president, his administration and the war effort senseless.

But that is not the case. What is the truth, it readily seems, is that sale of newspapers and television market share of major broadcasters has been steadily declining while the costs of running them is steadily increasing. Therefore if no controversy exists, create one.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out these guys are in a world of hurt economically. The best way to overcome that is to create drama where none exists; the 30-second sound bite or the blazing headline, exploiting stories that are borderline, and then playing deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes time to own up to the excesses seems a sure path to financial success.

The New York Times is not the only BIG guy teetering on the ethical envelope here. Let's throw in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and a battery of the lesser known like the Atlanta Constitution. The popular TV iconoclast Bill O'Reilly thinks the Atlanta Constitution ought to fold up its tent and go away.

What is the obligation of the 4th Estate?

First we have to realize these guys get a free ride. Nobody checks his or her ethics badge at the door. Nobody elected them to speak the ethical truth or be the ethical watchdog. Yet, they have assumed this role. In the end it is not about who they are but what they are. We accord them the ethical consciousness of America because we have protected a free press and the right to free speech and expect them to uphold that mantle. But, what do we do when they don't measure up anymore?

That's pretty weighty stuff for a public not accustomed to questioning everything the broadcast media and the press may say, print, or represent. Americans have found themselves getting REAL uncensored, untwisted news from alternatives like the Internet news blogs and the Fox News guys. CNN, it appears, has long capitulated their dominance of balance and ratings to FOX who is closing fast on the network giants of ABC, NBC and CBS for bigger chunks of marekt share.

What does it take to be ethical in the press today?

Truth telling.

The formula has not changed, just the people who interpret what truth is. Someday we may get back to telling it.