In January 1985, Michael Savage submitted a personal service advertisement to SOF. After several conversations between Savage and SOF’s advertising manager, Joan Steel, the following advertisement ran in the June 1985 through May 1986 issue of SOF:

GUN FOR HIRE: 37 year old professional mercenary desires jobs. Vietnam veteran. Discrete and very private. Body guard, courier, and other special skills. All jobs considered.

Savage testified that, when he placed the ad, he had no intention of obtaining anything but legitimate jobs. Nonetheless, Savage stated that the overwhelming majority of the 30 to 40 phone calls a week he received in response to his ad sought his participation in criminal activity such as murder, assault, and kidnapping. The ad also generated at least one legitimate job as bodyguard, which Savage accepted.

In late 1984 or early 1985, Bruce Gastwirth began seeking to murder his business partner, Richard Braun. Gastwirth enlisted the aid of another business associate, John Horton Moore, and together they arranged for at least three attempts on Braun’ s life, all of which were unsuccessful. Responding to Savage’s SOF ad, Gastwirth and Moore contacted him in August 1985 to discuss plans to murder Braun. On August 26, 1985, Savage, Moore, and another individual, Sean Trevor Doutre, went to Braun’s suburban Atalanta home. As Braun and his sixteen year-old son Michael were driving down the driveway, Doutre stepped in front of Braun’s car and fired several shots into the car with a MAC 11 automatic pistol. The shots hit Michael in the thigh and wounded Braun as well. Braun managed to roll out of the car, but Doutre walked over to Braun and killed him to firing two more shots into the back of his head as Braun lay on the ground.

Was the advertisement the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury?

Well before deciding on that we need to consider several things. First exactly what did SOF fail to do? The claim is that they failed to realize that the advertisement on the face of it suggested very obviously that the defendant was offering illegal services. To verify whether this claim is correct or not we have to analyze the language of the advertisement. The only phrases that could be misconstrued are “ gun for hire” , “ professional mercenary “ and “ all jobs considered “ . However there is an equal likelihood of these phrases being understood in a manner which wouldn’t imply any illegal activity at all. For example, one might gather that “professional mercenary” was a reference to his previous work experience. More importantly, the dictionary meaning of a mercenary is a soldier who fights for any country or group that pays them. It in no way suggests any illegal activity. There are several such mercenaries helping the American armed forces in Iraq currently. Hence the language of the advertisement is ambiguous at best. The publisher is not expected to inquire into the actual intent of the advertiser in the event that the language of the advertisement is ambiguous. It would also be a violation of the publisher’s first amendment rights to force him to do so. If the language had been clearly indicative of illegal activities then holding the publisher liable would be justified. So suggesting that the publisher was negligent in this case would be incorrect as there aren’t enough facts indicating if the publisher knew or should have known that the advertisement posed danger as the language of the advertisement is ambiguous. The words used, if analyzed for their dictionary meaning pose no public threat. Neither can the case against the publishing firm be proven looking at their motives, as their motives were generating revenue. Since they didn’t do anything illegal in the process, they can’t be held liable.

As a judge looking at both the facts and the constitution I would not hold the publisher liable. The language was too ambiguous to lead to the immediate conclusion that the person was advertising services as a contract killer.

An individual is ethically responsible to ensure that while his/her unalienable rights aren’t violated at any time, they don’t violate another individual’s rights in the process as well. As far as the publishing firm is responsible had they published an advertisement which clearly indicated that a contract killer was offering his/her services, then they would be both ethically and legally responsible, not otherwise. The most important point here is that one of the motives for the judicial system to want to hold the publishing firm accountable is that it has deeper pockets and so the surviving members of the victim’s family can be compensated financially.

ANALYSIS:

As per the law an employer is legally liable for discrimination against people with disabilities if as an employer he falls under these criteria’s:

• private employers,
• state and local governments,
• employment agencies,
• labor organizations,
• and labor-management committees.

The part of the ADA enforced by the EEOC outlaws job discrimination by:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>· <!–[endif]–>all employers, including State and local government employers, with 25 or more employees after July 26, 1992, and

<!–[if !supportLists]–>· <!–[endif]–>All employers, including State and local government employers, with 15 or more employees after July 26, 1994.

Another part of the ADA, enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, prohibits discrimination in State and local government programs and activities, including discrimination by all State and local governments, regardless of the number of employees, after January 26, 1992.

To be protected under the ADA, you must have a record of, or be regarded as having a substantial, as opposed to a minor, impairment. A substantial impairment is one that significantly limits or restricts a major life activity such as hearing, seeing, speaking, walking, breathing, and performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, learning or working.

If you have a disability, you must also be qualified to perform the essential functions or duties of a job, with or without reasonable accommodation, in order to be protected from job discrimination by the ADA. This means two things. First, you must satisfy the employer’s requirements for the job, such as education, employment experience, skills or licenses. Second, you must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Essential functions are the fundamental job duties that you must be able to perform on your own or with the help of a reasonable accommodation. An employer cannot refuse to hire you because your disability prevents you from performing duties that are not essential to the job.

The crux of the matter is whether there is such a thing as a right to a job. Obviously there isn’t. The only right here, which is violated by the federal agencies, is the one of the owner of the establishment. The right to one’s property, a right protected by the constitution, which implies that one is free to hire whomever one wishes to and for whatever reason suits one’s fancy. While refusing admission or a job because of someone’s race, gender, nationality or any reason other than lacking the required qualification and experience for the job may be foolish but one has the right to run one’s own business foolishly if one wishes to. There is no right such as the right to a job, right to health care, right to education, etc. A right implies something one has by the virtue of being a human being, not a service to be provided or exchanges with another human being. If one has the right to demand an exchange of services, not via mutual agreement but by force then that’s slavery for the other person. One has the right to one’s property and dispose of it as one wishes to. As long as no one forces the parties involved to deal with each other, no one’s rights are violated. Not real ones at least. One can imagine several non existing rights and cry foul play, however that won’t hold ground constitutionally and reasonably. Hotels, clubs and several other organizations exercise this right; however some businesses are DISCRIMINATED against by the federal authorities and held liable for what is their right. At best Wal-Mart can be accused of foolish business practices, nothing more. It is shocking that the courts completely disregard the basic tenets of the constitution. If something requires a service to be provided to me by someone else then it can not be a right. An exchange of services requires mutual agreement. The only thing required as far as the rights are concerned is that people don’t violate yours. Again this is the case of the government preaching morality, which isn’t the business of a government.

Interestingly why has the federal government limited the application of discrimination statutes to firms with a specified number of employees, such as fifteen or twenty? Shouldn’t these laws apply to all employers, regardless of size?

The federal government limits the application of discrimination to firms with 15 or 20 employees because an organization under the law is responsible for providing reasonable accommodation. The ADA does not, however, require an employer to lower its product or performance standards to accommodate a disabled employee. If a particular accommodation would impose an undue hardship — such as a major financial strain on a company — a business owner must first try to find another way to comply. If a small business cannot afford to install a wheelchair ramp, for example, it might offer to split the cost with the employee. In extreme cases, however, undue hardship can exempt you from ADA regulations on a case-by-case basis.

If rights were indeed violated then the size of the company shouldn’t matter at all. Whether an individual steals a single dollar or millions, its thievery, it is a violation of someone’s right to their property. Just because a poor person steals doesn’t make it alright. The punishment ought to befit the crime; however that is a separate issue. The federal agencies can not discriminate and create rights that do not exist and then cherry pick the people it will hold liable for the violation of these supposed rights. The fact that this is unconstitutional and not enough people are outraged is a reflection of the extent to which the left has infested the mind of most people. Only in soviet Russia the need of a person is justification enough for the violation of someone’s rights.

Ernest Price suffered from sickle-cell anemia. In 1997, Price asked Dr. Ann Houston, his physician, to prescribe Oxycontin, a strong narcotic, for the pain. Over the next several years, Price saw at least ten different physicians at ten different clinics in two cities, and used seven physicians at then different clinics in two cities, and used seven physicians in three cities, to obtain and fill simultaneous prescriptions for Oxycontin. In March 2001, when Houston learned of these activities, she refused to write more prescriptions for Price. As other physicians became aware of Price’s actions, they also stopped writing his prescriptions. Price filed a suit in New Jersey state court against Purdue Pharma Co. and other producers and distributors of Oxycontin, as well as his physicians and the pharmacies that had filled the prescriptions. Price alleged negligence, among other things, claiming that Oxycontin’s addictive nature caused him injury and that this was the defendants’ fault. The defendants argued that Price’s claim should be dismissed because it arose from his own wrongdoing.

ANALYSIS:

Under negligence law the doctor/distributor/pharmacist does have a duty of care because of advanced knowledge and the information from the manufacturer ,he is in the best position to determine whether a particular drug is appropriate for a patient or not. However the law also states that it is the responsibility of the company seeking to market a drug to test a drug and submit evidence that it is safe and effective. In the US the FDA approves/disapproves the drug after statistical analysis of these tests, submitted to them by the company.

Keeping this in mind a doctor, distributor or a pharmacist can not be held responsible for the ill effects of the drug if they indeed followed and explained the manufacturer’s instruction to the patients. So in this case the defendants would have to prove that they indeed followed and explained the manufacturer’s instruction and hence the plaintiff would only have a case if the defendants failed to follow and explain these instructions. Again if the manufacturer failed to mention on the drug and to the doctor and FDA the exact effects of the drug then he is the one responsible and not the doctor, pharmacist and the distributor. The pharmacist is again liable only if he sold the medicine without prescription and without warning the user of their ill effects, again keeping in mind that the manufacturer has to inform the pharmacist of these ill effects and the dosage instructions. The same goes for the distributor.

The patient in this case went to seven physicians in three cities, to obtain and fill simultaneous prescriptions for Oxycontin, means he knew he wouldn’t get the amount he wanted from one physician. Whether he knew the exact ill effects of the drug or not, he at least knew that he was exceeding the prescribed limit. So maybe if he had followed the directions given to him by his physician, things might not have turned out to be as bad as they did. He ignored the suggested dose given to him by his doctor and continually upped his dosage, then doesn’t he own some of the responsibility? Also when the doctors found out about the patients drug abuse they all acted responsibly and stopped writing his prescription.

As a judge, I would hold the manufacturer liable if he falsified the test data and/or failed to inform the doctors/pharmacists/distributors of the exact effects of the drug. However if that isn’t the case then I would hold the doctors, distributors and the pharmacists liable If the defendants, acted on good faith, within their legal boundaries and in accordance with their respective profession’s guidelines then they can’t be held legally responsible. The defendants will have to prove that since there wasn’t an omission of duty on their part and they didn’t commit an act which increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff, they hence shouldn’t be held responsible.

Another aspect of the case to be considered is that even if the doctor wasn’t told the exact effect of the drug, after administering the drug for a considerable period of time on a reasonable number of patients, in his position as a doctor, he ought to have realized the effect of the drug on his patients. However this has to be proven in the court before the doctor can be held liable for negligence. In the event that it is, the liability ought not to be more than the manufacturer’s, as he is the party which has the highest degree of duty of care.

Interestingly since FDA uses federal tax to operate and sustain itself, it should also be held responsible for not checking whether the test data submitted to it by the manufacturer is falsified or not. However I’m not sure if they are held responsible under current laws. Any reasonable person would hope that they are, considering they have the highest degree of duty of care as they are in a position where they know or can demand/extract highest knowledge from the manufacturer. It is in fact their primary goal as an organization. The negligence law considers that if there is reasonable foreseeable harm and a relationship of proximity between parties involved, then liability can be imposed in a reasonable manner.

Both ethically and legally I would hold primarily the manufacturer, the FDA, the doctor and then the rest of the defendants (in that order), liable. Of course this will occur only under the conditions mentioned above. They are liable because both ethically and legally they have an understanding to provide a mutual service. When the manufacturer falsifies or hides the actual test results, he breaches that mutual agreement. The same goes for the doctor if he knew the ill effects and failed to let his patient know, in layman’s terms or observe an ill effect of the drug on his patients over a considerable period of time. Also irrespective of all the other parties and their motives, the patient is partially liable as well, as he knowingly abused a drug.

During the 1960s, Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa) designed, patented, manufacture, and marketed a closure system for applying aluminum caps to carbonated soft drink bottles. In 1969, Alcoa sold a capping machine to Houston 7-Up Bottling Co. On June 3, 1976, James Alm suffered a severe eye injury when an aluminum bottle cap exploded off a thirty-two-ounce bottle of 7-Up that had come form the Houston 7-Up Bottling Co. Alm sued Alcoa, alleging that, as the manufacturer, Alcoa had a duty to warn consumers of the dangers of a possible bottle-cap explosion. Alcoa argued that it had not had a duty to warn Alm because it had not manufactured or sold any component part or the final product that injured Alm. Alcoa had mentioned possible cap explosions in the machine users’ manual, wall charts, and technical information that it had provided to the Houston 7-Up Bottling Co.

ANALYSIS:

The allegation that Alcoa had a duty to warn consumers of the dangers of a possible bottle-cap explosion is correct. However Alcoa’s consumer is 7-Up and although they had mentioned it in the user’s manual, charts and technical guide, it seems that they hadn’t mentioned this at the time the sale took place. If it had been mentioned and 7-up still chose to buy the product, then having made an informed decision, 7-Up would have been entirely liable. The manuals, charts and technical information would only have been read after (if at all) the purchase had been made and ought to contain warnings about careless usage of a product. A design defect however can cause damage which isn’t due to careless usage and is more dangerous a warning, such a warning needs to be conveyed to the customer before they make their final decision to buy or not. Especially if the intention of the seller (Alcoa) was not to cheat or exploit their customers, then it makes sense for them to mention the defect as a warning and let the customer know right at the time of the sale. Hence considering that the warning about the dangers of the design defect was not given to the customer at the time that the product was bought, one can hold Alcoa responsible both ethically and legally. Therefore Mr.Alm’s case holding Alcoa liable is only reasonable as it was Alcoa’s irresponsibility which led to the unfortunate incident.

Alcoa had a duty to be honest to their customers and not cheat them into buying a product which they may not have otherwise. The injury was reasonably foreseeable and this should have been made known to 7-Up. Thus the only party in the position to have foreseen the injury was Alcoa and not 7-Up. Alcoa knew the possibly damaging nature of their product, chose to not disclose it at the crucial time and this is a clear indication of knowing the implications i.e. having foreseen the injury and choosing to take the corrective measures.

Also the warning of the danger of the cap explosion was not given adequately to 7-Up by Alcoa. It isn’t enough to just mention it in the manuals, charts and technical guides. Literature of this sort tends to be in fine print and ought only to contain information about the correct usage and the implications of irresponsible usage. This is not a case of irresponsible usage. This is a case of the product malfunctioning which is a dangerous thing and ought to have been mentioned before the sale took place and not after, as the literature would only be read afterwards.

It would have been reasonable for Alcoa to expect Houston 7-Up to be liable, had they warned them before 7-Up purchased the product. In that case it would have been only 7-up’s responsibility to warn their customer’s of the possible dangerous effects. However since this wasn’t done by Alcoa, claiming that 7-Up ought to have realized the damaging effect after reading the literature is not reasonable. Information that critical ought to have been made clearer not more obscure by hiding it in fine print and in a place where one’s not suppose to be looking for it anyways.

In the 1970s, South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc., (SCRDI) ran a hazardous waste disposal and recycling operation. A number of chemical companies (so-called generators) brought their wastes to the SCRDI facility. Handling of wastes at the site was itself hazardous; 7,200 fifty-five-gallon drums of hazardous substances – including materials that were toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, explosive, and highly flammable – accumulated. Stacked without regard to the source or the compatibility of the substances within, many drums deteriorated to the point that their contents spilled onto other drums, mixed with other leaking substances, and oozed into the ground. This caused noxious and toxic fumes and a number of fires and explosions. The EPA began clean-up operations and sued some of the generators (plus others) for the costs. The generators argued that they should not have to pay because there was no evidence linking their specific wastes to the problems. The court granted summary judgment for the EPA, ruling that the EPA needed to show only that the generators sent waste to the site at some time.

The liability imposed on business firms under CERCLA has led to controversy because sometimes it seems unfair that certain businesses should be held liable. In this case, the generators argued that it would be unfair to hold them liable for clean-up costs in the absence of any evidence that their wastes caused any of the problems. In response, the court held that to require specific proof of causation “would…effectively ‘eviscerate the statute’ because of the technological unfeasibility of ‘fingerprinting’ a given generator’s substances at a site.”

The court also held that the generators were jointly and severally liable for clean-up costs. Joint and several liability under CERCLA means that a company that is responsible for only a fraction of the waste may nonetheless be liable for all of the clean-up costs.

ANALYSIS:

The contractual agreement between SCRDI and the generators would mean that any responsibility for disposing and cleaning up in case of a spillage should be SCRDI’s. The spillage was caused by SCRDI’s irresponsible treatment of the hazardous waste sent to them by various companies. The companies sending the waste couldn’t have foreseen that SCRDI would be irresponsible unless they had been in the past as well. The cost of cleaning up the contaminated sites is high and EPA was seeking to be reimbursed for those costs. Hence the attempt to get as many companies held liable in order to meet those costs. The question of determining the existence of hazardous substance by a particular generator seems irrelevant when the party liable for negligence is SCRDI. Again since current technology doesn’t provide methods to determine what waste belonged to which company, and since the statue states that responsible parties should be held liable, the courts conveniently decide that all parties involved should be held liable. There are two ethical policies in conflict here (a) The courts are supposed to make sure that the law is implemented and the law states that parties responsible for the spillage should be held responsible. So in accordance with the law they should hold only SCRDI responsible. Also even if the generators of the waste were found negligent, each generators contribution to the damage is not known, rather the technology to determine that isn’t available. (b) The courts however have deemed it their job to do whatever is reasonably necessary for the “good of society”. Accordingly good for society here is that the contaminated site be cleaned up and that the taxpayer’s money is not used for it. It would also set an example for other companies to follow or beware of rather.

The conflict arises when the courts in order to implement the second ethical policy (more popular among the masses of course) end up violating the first ethical policy. It is important to note that the business of government and the legal system is to implement the first ethical policy which is what the constitution requires of them and not the second. The conflict wouldn’t arise if they were to only do their jobs as specified by the constitution. Another interesting point is that even if the extent of each generators contribution to the damage was known, holding them accountable for it would be very difficult if not impossible. This would be so because if for instance the generator with the highest contribution to the damage was the one with the weakest pocket, then the financial liability would shift to the other generators making the treatment meted out to them by the law unfair at best. However if they are treated fairly then the plaintiffs are left in the lurch by the law as they will not get the compensation they deserve.

The argument against joint and several liability for costs of cleanup is that it allows plaintiffs to attack defendants with the deepest pockets rather than the ones with the highest contribution to the damage. This is unfair treatment of the defendant. Another thing to keep in mind is that this may not always be the most efficient solution to the problem. In the sense that, the more liable defendant gets away with paying a miniscule amount in comparison to their contribution to the harm. This is hardly likely to be a deterrent factor for companies involved in such activities. Yet another point to consider is that if the extent to which each party was held liable was the extent to which they contributed to the harm then this would encourage them to put remedial actions and policies in place. Along with the point mentioned before this only means that the party most responsible if held liable to that extent would ensure that such events do not occur again as there is too much at stake, it would also be a stern warning for others as well. However by providing a legal cop-out mechanism for these companies, the courts haven’t provided any incentive to any parties involved to take pre-emptive actions. The only thing accomplished is that parties with deeper pockets become overly cautious and keep away from innovative ways of tackling any issue.

The argument for joint and several liability for costs of cleanup is that in its’ absence the plaintiff would have to pursue each party separately making it difficult if not impossible for the plaintiff to seek legal action against them and it would also mean that the plaintiff would most likely be under compensated at best. Also it ensures that even if most parties file for bankruptcy the plaintiff still gets compensated as long as a single party even remotely related to the issue can be found.

Steven is the Academy-Award-winning director of Erin Brockovich, Traffic, and many other films. CleanFlicks, LLC, filed a suit in a federal district court against Steven, fifteen other directors, and the Directors Guild of America. The plaintiff asked the court to rule that it had the right to sell DVDs of the defendants’ films altered without the defendants’ consent to delete scenes of “sex, nudity, profanity and gory violence.” CleanFlicks sold or rented the edited DVDs under the slogan “It’s About Choice” to consumers, sometimes indirectly through retailers. It would not sell to retailers that made unauthorized copies of the edited films. The defendants, with DreamWorks, LLC and seven other movie studios that own the copyrights to the films, filed a counterclaim against CleanFlicks and others engaged in the same business, alleging copyright infringement. Those filing the counterclaim asked the court to enjoin (prevent) CleanFlicks and the others from making and marketing altered versions of the films.

Movie studios often edit their films to conform to content and other standards and sell the edited versions to network television and other commercial buyers. In this case, however, the studios objected when CleanFlicks edited the films and sold the altered versions directly to consumers. Similarly, CleanFlicks made unauthorized copies of the studios’ DVDs to edit the films, but objected to others’ making unauthorized copies of the altered versions.

CleanFlicks and its competitors asserted in part that they were making “fair use” of the studios’ copyrighted works. They argued that by their actions “they are criticizing the objectionable content commonly found in current movies and that they are providing more socially acceptable alternatives to enable families to view the films together, without exposing children to the presumed harmful effects emanating from the objectionable content.”

Human rights groups, environmental activist, and other interest groups concerned with unethical business practices have often conducted publicity campaigns against various corporations that those groups feel have engaged in unethical practices.

ANALYSIS:

The entire idea of freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is that one is free to express what they wish , however they wish to as long as they don’t violate some one else’s rights. No one has the right to dictate that their sensibilities be protected and thus dictate to a creator how he/she creates his/her product. If one doesn’t like the product one is free to not buy/watch or use it. What one is not free to do is take some one else’s creative work and change it without their consent and use it for profit. It’s important to note that under U.S. law, no person or company has the right to profit from creating a new version of a creative work unless they own the rights to that work. It is also important to note that the edited versions are sold with the director and the entire team who created the product’s name intact, giving the impression that the edited version is as how the creative team intended it to be. This again is a violation of the copyright laws.

As far as the issue of the studios editing the films to conform to a moral certain standard is concerned, they along with the directors are the owners of the creative work and thus have the right to edit the product as they mutually agree upon. However any other individual or organization who is not the owner of the work has no right ethically or legally to modify the work without the owner’s consent and profit from it. Hence there is no contradiction in the position that the studios and directors have taken. However in the case of companies such as CleanFlick and the likes of them, there really is a contradiction in their position as they want to have their cake and eat it too. Not only are they guilty of violating the copyright laws, but they also seem to believe that they can dictate to other companies or individuals, who like them do not own the creative work, as to how they are to sell the product. Since they haven’t the legal or the ethical right to do so is a reflection of hypocrisy on their part.

As a judge having established that companies like ClickFlick have violated the copyright laws, the idea of them “fairly using” the material seems contradictory in terms. These companies have the right to their idea of family values and the right to not appreciate the morality of certain art work. What they do not have the right to is modify work they do not appreciate without the owner’s consent. Should they happen to produce work that is fitting with their morality, they of course have the right to sell and profit from it. They and others like them have the right to not watch/buy content they deem objectionable and use their remote to change the channel or switch the TV off if they wish to. What they do not have the right to is to dictate to the artists how they should create. No artist is a slave to his/her audience.

As far as the question of morality and lifestyle is concerned it is neither the court nor the government’s business to dictate or regulate these, as these are for an individual to decide and practice freely as long as no one else’s unalienable rights are violated. The constitution of this country does not allow the government or the courts to regulate private activities that do not initiate force upon others. The Declaration of Independence imbues the citizens of the United States with equality and the unalienable rights of “Life, Property, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Government and the courts must therefore work “to secure these rights” and act as protectors, not as repressors.

Special interest groups and the campaigns that they run are constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. However since members of Congress and constituents often do not know anything about a certain issue, interest groups have the advantage and are free to give them only the information they want them to have. This creates informational asymmetry and gives interest groups the advantage over other actors. Interest groups generally provide biased information, but members of Congress listen to interest groups because they have no one else to inform them of the issue. Also, if a member of Congress listens to an interest group, the interest group will provide information to their constituency that will help get them re-elected. When these campaigns are against organizations for their actual or believed unethical business practices, the organization is equally protected by their constitutional right to fight against the propaganda. They can choose to take the legal recourse available to them or use the media for clarifying their stand. The constitution of this country gives all the parties involved equal opportunity to make their opinion heard. Any attempt to defame can be taken up via the legal option. The consumer in this situation has to decide and would stand to benefit from these very public campaigns as long as he/she doesn’t rely on only these sources for information and also analyses them for their factual validity. These groups shouldn’t be allowed to dictate terms to an organization and vice versa. However both indulging in a campaign against each other is not a violation of anyone’s rights and is indeed constitutional. The only reason congress is able to get away with giving false/incomplete information is when the constituents rely on others, be it the media , special interest groups , their representatives to give them information as opposed to seeking information from unbiased sources. The internet, for one, is such a source and so is other independent groups made of individuals interested in research and facts, and aren’t biased. Both the special interest groups and the organizations have hidden agendas more often than not. Since it is the consumer who is most effected by this, they should seek information from parties which aren’t likely to have a hidden agenda and insist that their representative and the media take these views into consideration. It is in the consumers’ best interest to not rely on the false sense of security that most regulatory bodies provide in that they give the impression of knowing the facts and protecting individual interests.

Most people who are confused about justice, integrity, ethics, right or wrong, philosophy choose to believe that it’s all relative. They fail to perceive reality objectively and claim it’s ok to perceive reality subjectively. What this entails is an absolute inability to comprehend that it’s possible to term a person’s actions as right or wrong. To such people everything seems right when viewed from the doer’s point of view. What Hitler did was right and what Einstein did was right too. They ask who is to decide the right and wrong for all the individuals on this planet? They fail to realize that the right is that which is required for sustenance of an individual’s life by his own ability and not by looting(which is wrong). This is only possible if one perceives reality objectively. This is also why such people refuse to judge and claim that they are never judgmental, which is true, because they lack the ability to judge, they are inept at perception. To judge one must always be focused on reality. One must also realize that one is free to ignore/distort reality but not free to avoid the consequences of such a lethal choice. Nature won’t allow that. It takes courage to perceive reality objectively and is a continuous process which ends only when one dies. It requires one to think openly, actively and objectively.

Greed: An eager desire or longing
Selfish: 1 Caring supremely or unduly for one’s self, 2 Believing or teaching that the chief motives of human action are derived from love of self

Do those terms still sound so bad? Well the meanings have been changed by the way people have used it over time and greed is now taken to mean ‘reprehensible acquisitiveness’ (mirriam-webster) whilst the second meaning of selfish, given above, has been dropped from most dictionairies.

So I am going to explain how we can think of these terms, under the general heading “self interest”, by illustrating it with a story (paraphrased from its source).

A successful business woman gave up her career to care for her seriously ill husband. An aquaintance commented ‘oh how unselfish you are to make such a sacrifice’. Naturally and quite rightly the woman was furious with such an insult and answered “I love my husband, this is the most selfish thing I have ever done!”.

Do you understand the meaning of that? She valued her husband higher than her career and therefore *she* chose the higher value. For her, being selfless and making sacrifices would have meant giving up her husband for the career. Its the same whenever anyone chooses one value over another – regardless of whats being chosen the person is chosing for and by themselves – essentially being ‘selfish’. Look over the choices you make. Perhaps you volunteer some charity work? Because *you* choose to do it over the alternatives, you want to, you value it – you, you, you, self, self, self. Do you see what I am getting at? Most people just blank this out because they refuse to see it – but all people are selfish in this context and to call it evil is horribly wrong. A selfless or unselfish person would let their child die in order to mow the lawn, even though *they* value the child higher, or they would marry a person they hated rather than one they loved, or they would waste money on something they didn’t like rather than trade it for something they wanted. Unselfish people are, in this sense, mad.

Renaming ‘selfishness’ as ‘self interest’ is playing with semantics and while that’s important in itself the really important thing is to recognise that people to act from, and in accordance with, their own personal values and perceptions. The decisions they make reflect these values and perceptions.

When you understand this you are able to gain a clearer insight into people’s behaviour including your own. Ironically, understanding that people act with regard to their own values, toward that which they consider to be good for themselves enables you have far more empathy with others than if you approached them with the assumption that they were being altruistic and selfless. It also allows you to spot confidence tricksters that much more readily! “beware Greeks bearing gifts” is an old phrase which warns that people don’t act out of altruism, and to beware those who wish you to believe that they do.

Next time a politician, friend, colleague or associate tries to make out that he is doing something only for your benefit, or only has your good in his mind, then ask yourself what he has to gain by doing so. Remember that the key words in the sentence “I want to help you” is “I want“. This is not to say that you should be paranoid about everyone. When someone says ‘I want to take you to the cinema’ they may want your company and friendship. It is the motivation that is important, make that your focus.

Religious fanatics/fools have taken the media of most countries hostage since last month. This is evident in our country also, where Islamic fanatics(a politician at that……though that shouldn’t be surprising in our country!!) have issued death threats, damaged public and private property, Hindu fanatics threatening and beating up the youth, have also damaged public and private property, for celebrating valentines day. Any country offering an apology or restraining from printing these caricatures or in any way exercising restraint in dealing with such fanatics is pandering to them. Its shocking that freedom of speech isn’t recognized in most country. No one’s outraged at the breach/violation of an individual’s right to free speech. Terrorism unpunished is terrorism emboldened. Which is what the people of this country are guilty of when they keep silent. Those few who do speak are targeted and terrorized , and more importantly not protected by the government. These people have to protect themselves. But the politicians always get their security. 

The clear and present danger is that writers and publishers will begin, as a desperate measure of self-defense, to practice self-censorship–to speak, write, and publish with the implicit thought in mind: “What group will this offend and to what acts of aggression will I then be vulnerable?” 

Much of what people do is done in the name of God or is termed as RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs, Hindu pundits, Jewish rabbi’s, Priests oppress women in his name. There are temples in Inida where women are kept form a very early age as sex slaves for the pundits. Celibate popes and priests mess up people’s sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets, Muslims, and Hindus cut live animals’ , humans’ throats in his name. The achievements of religion in past history – bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment – are even more impressive.  

But then I began analyzing my desire to want to believe in god or practice religions in spite of my doubts , and I discovered the reason why most people want to believe in god , why they feel better believing in god? How it helps them? ………..the period during which I was a “believer” was the period which was the darkest of my life. I was an incompetent fool , a confused mess , and when I thought of god it provided me with an escape route……….in the sense that all my faults were overlooked , my incompetence didn’t matter because I chose to  believe that even though I didn’t do the job well , god would rescue me…….when I knew that the amount of hard work required to accomplish a job successfully was not what I had put in then praying to god would always take my anxiety away……..but what such a concept does, is that it says , its okay to be weak , its okay to be wrong , its okay to be less than what you could or ought to be , because there is this supernatural thing called god which will forgive you, grant you your wishes , not punish you for your incompetence , as long as you are his fawning follower………..
So the answer to these questions is that god is a concept developed for the weak , for those who lack the courage to be honest to themselves , for those bums in life who aim only to destroy , for the leeches of this world , for the ones who are afraid to think , afraid to act on the convictions of their own beliefs because they’ve never had any beliefs which were their own.
I never had a burning desire for something / anything, for most of my life……that combined with my wanting to escape hard work  was the reason why I didn’t do my engineering the way it should have been done……..
God and religion allows all such people a respite from themselves , which is the one thing they long for the most……..
The most ridiculous statement I’ve heard about religion was when a friend said that faith in something which we can perceive with all our senses or something science can prove isn’t faith , that’s common sense , faith is believing in something neither our senses nor science can prove……….well that is stupidity to be precise and not faith…….or maybe they are synonym for each other.
Religion is used by evil people who know they are evil and choose to be that…they use religion to control people who are ignorant…..aren’t discerning enough to realize their true self……or perhaps want to avoid looking at that aspect of their own self……..religion by itself or through a religious leader tells you , its ok to be weak in this life, its ok to not live up to yourself as a human being, if you sacrificed for someone/something else . it teaches you that all humans are weak , that they must submit to an imaginary concept of god or to nature………it’s a tool used by evil people to control you……the irony is that you’ll kill yourself and deliver yourself body and soul to these leeches……….