August 25, 2008 by Clair Button.

The concept of ethics is a wonderful thing. Most of us, myself included, assume that we have a reasonable supply of good ethical standards, while the other guy could probably stand to upgrade his own. It almost goes without saying that very few attorneys or politicians are given credit for having any at all.

Ethics are sort of the modern day equivalent of moral values as they apply to law, government, business, and professions. Given the first three applications, it is little wonder that few people put much faith in ethics, and that is likely the reason why ethics have been held apart from morals based on religion, at least as long as I have been aware that either existed.

The wonderful thing about ethics is that if you have some, you can feel good about yourself and look down upon the guy who doesn’t, even if you don’t already subscribe to some sort of religion that conveys an absolute certainty of moral superiority. Also, if you don’t have particularly high ethical standards, you can always point to some other guy who screwed up and got caught before you did, or somebody who should have been caught but wasn’t, or somebody who is going to get caught in the future.

In those four fields of endeavor I mentioned above, it is relatively easy to identify the folks who don’t have sufficient moral character.  They are the ones who literally get caught with their pants down. That is not a sexist comment, since it has been shown to apply equally to some female “Congressmen”.

Unfortunately, ethics is a squishier concept than morality, although there is quite enough contrariety in defining either idea. It is much more difficult to pin down which lawyer, politician, or business person has better ethical standards than another. I have not looked into the origins of ethics much, except that I learned in grade school that a Greek doctor named Hippocrates may have been the first to develop a professional ethical standard. The trades which eventually came to be recognized as “professions” have generally led the way in developing some sort of written ethical standards and mechanisms of enforcing those on the professionals.

The other three trades have mostly been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age of accountability, but they just haven’t been dragged far enough. The problem is that any proposal to develop enforceable ethical standards constantly runs into a wall built of money, self-interest, and gargantuan egos. Rather than being like the medical profession which is concerned with tight enforcement to keep the number of doctors low (and therefore keep salaries high to benefit all doctors), lawyers, politicians, and businessmen seem to be more concerned with preventing rules that might keep the boldest among them from acquiring the greatest reward at the moment for themselves. While doctors seem to think they should police their ranks to prevent the profession from being disgraced, the other three trades seem to spend a lot of money and effort covering each other from the would be regulators. Politicians do, of course, make exceptions for the guy on the other side of the aisle.

An unethical business person is more likely to get caught being unethical than either a politician or a lawyer. In business, you can write off a lack of ethical treatment of your customer to “customary and reasonable” practices, which is an evolving science of excusing poor workmanship. For example, a contractor can tell you it is customary business practice to leave your new house with uneven floors, shingles that blow off because they have only two nails installed in the wrong locations, or a bathtub that won’t drain completely. As a consequence, though, the business person tends to lose business and soon finds it necessary to go into real estate sales.

Lawyers and politicians are less likely to be embarrassed by poor ethics partly because of those gargantuan egos and partly because those who are truly skilled in the art of dialectics can create enough verbal confusion and distraction to make you forget they don’t have any ethics. They are also better than most of us at pointing out the faults of others. Because of those bold egos, they will gleefully try make you believe that riding a bicycle onto the sidewalk is the ethical equivalent of beating your grandmother or child abuse.  If you spend enough time trying to discredit that stupid idea, you might even forget the lawyer just picked your pocket or the politician just squandered a whole lot of your tax money.

Law and politics also have their own version of “customary and reasonable” exculpatory science working for them. How many times have you heard somebody say, “Well, what do you expect, he’s a __, isn’t he?”

Posted in Contributing Authors | 4 Comments »

July 6, 2008 by Clair Button.

The people who worked in the auto factories where I grew up had a saying about buying a new model of car, regardless of which company brought one out. “Give ‘em a couple years to get the bugs worked out.” Despite the engineers’ best efforts, new car owners always found problems with any new design. The workers knew better than to have too much faith in the company efforts to road-test the new products.

Apparently, the same can be said for computer operating system software. You might think it would be a simple matter to find solutions to software security holes as they are discovered, and provide refinements and new features by building on the existing base of program design, but this is not the case for Microsoft’s newest Vista operating system. About two years ago, Microsoft rolled out a huge publicity advertising campaign for what amounted to a software “Edsel.” Those folks who “upgraded” to the new software on their old computers were instantly disappointed and wanted their old operating systems back. Vista ran slower than Windows XP, required more memory, wouldn’t install or run many old software programs, and no longer supported the drivers for old printers, fax machines, or other peripherals, even though they ran just fine with XP.

Judging by the online discussion forums, the only people who have anything good to say about Vista are those who routinely spend large sums of money to upgrade to the newest and best hardware, just to play the latest computer games, and even they have problems with it.

After two years, Microsoft, in the historic tradition of other monopoly giants, has stopped sales of their better previous product on new computers (with exceptions for underpowered computers), and institutionalized planned obsolescence. However, the dissatisfaction with Vista is causing many former customers to convert to the minority product, Linux, long considered to be a difficult, “geeky” operating system to learn and install. My own experience with Vista, even on a new, well-equipped computer, is that it takes a lot of knowledge, experimentation, and constant technical work, just to make certain things work. If you are not a serious computer geek, experienced in software repairs and work-arounds, STAY AWAY from Vista. It is such a pain in the butt, that I am thinking of looking into the Linux operating system myself.

The unofficial word on the street is that even Microsoft knows they have produced a lemon, and they may speed up the release of yet another new operating system “upgrade” originally scheduled for sometime in 2010.

I upgraded my computer because my old one had begun to reach the limits of what its hardware configuration could do with the types of software programs I wanted to run. Serious photo editing and publishing software could sometimes cause it to slow to the point where I could go out and mow the lawn between saving a file and resuming work on a document. Luckily I have enough hobby interest, patience, and technical experience to find ways to make Vista accept my old printer sharing device and network peripherals, but it took me a lot of hours to do that. Most people would have thrown the stuff into the trash and gone out to buy new “Vista-compatible” hardware. But even supposedly compatible equipment and drivers may not operate well, and Vista may block or lose the drivers. Microsoft Vista deserves its own “Lemon Law.”

The bottom line is that if you can still do everything you need to do on the equipment you have, and it ain’t broke, think many times before trading it in on something that may only force you to upgrade a whole lot of other stuff. New isn’t necessarily better or more functional.

Clair Button is the author of the Thomas Kreuger Mystery Series, and occasionally makes attempts at humor.

You can comment or leave a reply to this article by clicking on the main title. When the screen window refreshes, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” box.

Posted in Publishing Business | No Comments »

July 1, 2008 by Clair Button.

Resume a physical exercise like running after a twelve-year hiatus and it will make you feel old like nothing else, but for me, total immersion in modern American consumer culture comes a close second. Our household isn’t stone-age – obviously we have a computer – but by choice, we have only one television channel, PBS, provided by ancient rabbit-ears antenna. We avoid cell phones, satellite or cable television, media hysteria about “celebrities,” and any loud or flashy form of advertising.

At the moment, I am immersing myself in consumer cultural shock treatment as a by-product of visiting Mom. It took me a while to find a pay phone at the airport that would accept my credit card. The first phone I tried stole my only quarters just to tell me I had to dial a “one” in front of the 800 number phone calling card system I had tried to dial into. The phone card system charged me an extra buck for dialing from a pay phone I had already paid with the credit card.  All this to coordinate a ride with my brother-in-law, who is constantly cranky that I haven’t yet bought a cell phone like him, even if I only fly in to visit twice a year.

Mom is 90 years old now. She lives in a world that starts with the Weather Channel in the morning, followed by “News” that sensationalizes everything from gas prices to celebrities with gas. She is hard of hearing, even with thousand-dollar hearing aids, so the volume is turned up. When the phony news announcer takes a break from advertising whatever product or person they pretend is news, the volume jumps up several decibels on a stream of commercials. It’s hard to have a conversation, let alone think and write without distraction. Mom can crochet through anything.

She has discovered Andy Griffith and the Beverly Hillbillies reruns, all new to her now, and I join her to rediscover my childhood, but the commercials drive me away. When she asks me about some cereal they advertise, I remember warnings about advertising aimed at children. In some ways, we are all children, but my definition of maturity is the ability to discern and resist impulsive, self-destructive behavior. Everything out there in the world of media is geared to turn us into immature, irresponsible consumers.

When Mom lost much of her mobility, we had to help her go through her closets and get rid of things she no longer needed, just so she would have room to maneuver her walker without tripping. It was a sad experience, but a learning experience nonetheless. Many things, barely used or even new, still in the packing boxes, went to Salvation Army. They were the excesses of a shut-in bombarded by catalog opportunities. My sister asked me to help with this chore because Mom would listen to me better than her.  When we got home that time, Kata started a campaign to force every catalog purveyor to quit sending them to us.

It is a learning experience my sister and brother-in-law have yet to take to heart. My sister has never completed the chore of helping Mom sort through volumes of clothes she either can’t or will never again wear.

I can’t say that I enjoy all aspects of staying with Mom. It is at my sister’s house, in order to give them a break from taking care of Mom. When something is needed, I search through cluttered cupboards and closets, sometimes finding everything but what we need, and sometimes finding several different bags full of the very thing you only need once in ten years. Sometimes, the simple choice is to go buy a new whatever. It is obviously the choice some of my relatives have made in their lives many times.

Mom and I went to the store this morning to find a few items she needed. At two different stores, among rows of thousands of hair care products, we couldn’t find a simple hair net or hair curlers small enough for her short, thinning hair. Nor could we find the shampoos or hair care lotions she was accustomed to using. She was a victim of obsolescence and an excess of choice.

Boy, can I see that coming in my own life. There is no place to go to live simply anymore.

Posted in Contributing Authors | No Comments »