The MayorofRockNRoll wrote:

gmilner wrote:

Josef K wrote:It's kind of funny that some of you guys see it as unethical working for the police. That sort of turns the common concept of ethics on its head.

How so?

I think the roots of law enforcement come from the idea of jurisprudence, which is a branch of ethics.

I would have tried to put it like this but would have failed. Thank you, Mayor.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:Some top drug trafficking organizations are given immunity, and often aided and abetted by the CIA.

Which is what I said, in much less space.

Now, since you're so hopped up to talk about the CIA conspiring with bad guys to import drugs, why don't you tell us what that behavior indicates about the CIA's ability to manipulate stooge terrorists and engage in state-sponsored terrorism? Or does aiding and abetting the importation of drugs that ruin lives not strike you as just a different type of terrorism?

Totally different.

But I'm willing to accept that the CIA probably does manipulate "stooge terrorists", since that kind of thing is known to have been a part of their activities since at least the '50s.

Anyway, you were alleging that the DEA channels drug profits to your 'elite bankers' and that they employ the US banking system as a laundry for their illegal drug profits. Where did you get this information?

I was also trying to point out the ideological underpinnings of the CIA's support of the drug trade, and the causes of other government agencies' difficulties in dealing with it. I wasn't saying that the DEA "protects the interests" of the drug trade that the CIA encourages, I was saying that it's a point of conflict between CIA and DEA. The DEA would stop it if they could, but the "War on Drugs" is really a smoke and mirrors game to give Americans something to get riled up about and to justify the use of small-scale military actions in certain areas of the world.

Rick Reuben wrote:...the DEA helps make sure that all income from drug smuggling is funneled through the proper banks, which reap huge profits from blending the lucrative drug economy into the 'clean' pool of capital.

So the banking industry is complicit in the laundering of drug money? I ask you yet again, where is your evidence for these allegations?

There are very strict laws within the banking industry prohibiting money laundering and many regulations designed to identify incidents of laundering and report them to the FBI. I don't doubt that money laundering goes on despite all those laws, but I want to see evidence of these planes that allegedly take crates of $100 bills from the Treasury Department directly to foreign drug lords.

You really lose me when you start talking about these "elites". You cannot identify them, but you claim to know everything about their tactics and you make a lot of really wild accusations about their activities. You repeatedly allege that they have some connection with the Jews, you've hinted that they might be some kind of aliens or angels or demons... Just admit it. You have no evidence of a huge overarching conspiracy, so you just hype the idea of this invisible, omnipotent class of bogeymen to represent everything you find corrupt and abominable in the world.

I don't deny that there are many underhanded dealings going on in the government that are designed to funnel money into the pockets of a few corrupt criminals. These dealings come to light from time to time and get reported in the news or in books. I agree that our government is very fucked-up. You can get a job in Law and fight it if you want to, and you can feel satisfied that you're helping bring some of these creeps to justice. But as for smart and amoral people getting away with very lucrative crimes, at some point you have to realize that this is a fact of life. It has always happened and it always will happen, no matter who you vote for or how many laws get passed.

Getting yourself all worked up over these unfounded accusations based entirely on speculation, against people you can't even identify... that's crazy, in my opinion.

Justin from Queens wrote:You will be dead probably 50 years from now. Maybe 60.

Between now and then the one thing that you will probably spend more time than any other is the work that you do. If not the top, then close to it.

Ethics shouldn't represent the minimum standard to be met in deciding what to do with your life's work. Ethics should be the fundamental drive behind that decision. If not, what the hell are you really doing with your life? I'm not asking this from a judgment perspective - it's a question of the purpose of your life. When your life is over and you look back on it, what do you want to say you've done with your drive, gifts and talents?

As for the strict subsistence argument being the reason to work for Nike - that's bullshit.

= Justin

Absolutely! If I had a buck for every bang-on-perfect post Justin made, I'd have a shiny new bicycle for me, and a little circus tricycle for my screwy Taiwanese cat.

Although I might complicate Justin's post in 2 ways. First, this ethical approach to work is in some sense a privilege of a middle-class upbringing. A lot of working stiffs are born into circumstances that preclude this attitude from attaining. I'm thinking of people who never have the opportunity to develop their gifts and talents in a work-related context at all. Like the 55 year-old guy I worked with on a construction site last summer (Mark), who worked in a lumber mill for 30 years before getting laid off. Ethics probably factored no more than his personal gifts in his "life's work." Which is to say, not much.*

David Graeber had a fantastic article in Harper's last year addressing the relationship between altruism, work, and class in America. Can't recommend it enough. It's also a compelling account of why working-class Americans gravitate to Republicans and resent liberal intellectuals. It's online here: "Army of Altruists: On the Alienated Right to Do Good."

The second thing I'd add is that I know a lot of creative people who look at working this way: either you can find a line of work that allows you to pursue your passion and/or ethics directly, or you find a line of work that allows you to pursue your passion and/or ethics on the side.

My beef is with the idea that the second option absolves people of complicity in the shady operations of their employer and their daily work. Sometimes I wonder if this is an overlooked element in the gentrification and de-politicization of underground rock. People work for shady employers but think it's all cool because they run an indie label on the side. The label or the music becomes an ethical/artistic supplement to the ethically/artistically bankrupt day-job. It's the hipster version of corporate executives who put on chaps and roar around on their Fat Boys on weekends--unless your music/art/writing is *fucking awesome*. In which case you get to continue spying on family farmers for Monsanto, with a secret smile. You really do.

Most people work for assholes though. That's not an ethical failing: it's just being employed. That said, I hate working for capitalists of any stripe, and I wouldn't take a *long-term* position in the private sector unless my goal was to agitate and organize. Would never work for a nefarious State agency either. Once you know better, you should do better.

*Mark's father and grandfather were both miners, so working in a mill was a step up. Here, workplace organizing and workplace ethics override any appeal to ethical work in-itself. The most inspiring, committed people I've met have been progressive/grassroots workplace organizers and agitators.

Justin from Queens wrote:You will be dead probably 50 years from now. Maybe 60.

Not to detract from your good post, but this is some cushy complacent thinking. You very well may be be dead a little later today. So what is happening with you right now?

The fact that I would have to take a class called "Data Mining and Warehousing" was enough to keep me from choosing the Networking track in my major. The term "data mining" alone gives me the creeps.

Andrew. wrote:First, this ethical approach to work is in some sense a privilege of a middle-class upbringing. A lot of working stiffs are born into circumstances that preclude this attitude from attaining. I'm thinking of people who never have the opportunity to develop their gifts and talents in a work-related context at all. Like the 55 year-old guy I worked with on a construction site last summer (Mark), who worked in a lumber mill for 30 years before getting laid off. Ethics probably factored no more than his personal gifts in his "life's work." Which is to say, not much.*

Absolutely. Include the 80% of the world's population who don't live anything like a middle-class life style, with leisure and choices afforded to them through halfway decent compulsory education. I can't speak too much to their experience because it isn't mine.

Again - I'm not posting to condemn (except for maybe that Nike-employee fiction). I'd challenge folks to look for the best in themselves and use their work life as their main agent for making the world a better place to be.

Andrew. wrote:David Graeber had a fantastic article in Harper's last year addressing the relationship between altruism, work, and class in America. Can't recommend it enough. It's also a compelling account of why working-class Americans gravitate to Republicans and resent liberal intellectuals. It's online here: "Army of Altruists: On the Alienated Right to Do Good."

Printed and I'll read it.

Allan Sims wrote:Not to detract from your good post, but this is some cushy complacent thinking. You very well may be be dead a little later today. So what is happening with you right now?

Good point. But I'd happily counter that making a life change to realign your 'career' choice from an unethical one to something you can really be proud of may take a number of years in education, training and aggressively seeking out opportunities. I will easily concede, however, that there may be a bus out there getting ready to run any of us down as we cross the street tonight. So hop to it.

There are no heroes. Just people who have made a difficult and deliberate decision to live their values. Anyone can be one of them.

= Justin

Pimps,whores,drug dealers have more ethics than 99 percent of corporations. That's my two cents on fucking ethics and working.

Colonel Panic wrote:So the banking industry is complicit in the laundering of drug money? I ask you yet again, where is your evidence for these allegations?

That's really not a very controversial statement. Richard Grasso, when he was head of the New York Stock Exchange, actually went to Colombia to meet with leaders of FARC--whose revenue is largely tied to narcotics--and encouraged them to invest in the stock exchange. This wasn't clandestine. Here's a picture:



Grasso reportedly said: "I invite members of the FARC to visit the New York Stock Exchange so that they can get to know the market personally."

As Rick Reuben says, it's common sense. The illicit drug trade is one of the biggest industries in the world (maybe the biggest?). All that money has to go somewhere. In FARC's case, the "concern" was that they were mostly recirculating it locally. Why wouldn't the high finance world want a piece of that?