A polluted society

A polluted society

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints.

We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.

We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time;

We have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.

We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.

We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.

We've conquered outer space, but not inner space.

We've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.

We've split the atom, but not our prejudice.

We write more, but learn less.

We plan more, but accomplish less.

We've learned to rush, but not to wait.

We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships.

These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.

These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes.

These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet, to kill.

It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom; a time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just ignore it.

Rebuilding Trust in Our Government

Rebuilding Trust in Our Government

One of Americas statesmen stated “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” His presidency ushered in an era of disdain for government and a widespread cynicism that government could be effective in addressing our challenges.
Today, as we confront a crisis that has shaken confidence in our financial system and economy, we have an opportunity to restore public trust and confidence in the legitimate role of government. Indeed, to effectively tackle our economic challenges and to implement the reforms we need in our healthcare, education, energy, and environmental policies, our government will need to garner strong public support.
However, rebuilding public trust will not happen in the face of a pervasive perception that government is not transparent and accountable, cronyism is rampant, and public officials are more interested in helping themselves than in serving the public good.
Taking strong, swift, and decisive action to address abuses and begin to rebuild public trust should be the first priority for our city, state and federal government in the new legislative session.
Create a Task Force on Public Integrity with a mission to develop a comprehensive proposal for ethics and lobbying reform in our city and state. Which addresses reforms in three areas: (1) strengthening enforcement of ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws; (2) strengthening civil and criminal penalties for abuses; and (3) improving awareness and education for public officials.
Reinforce honesty, integrity and transparency by government officials as the core requirement to be and stay in office, any violations of these core tenets will cause the removal of the public official and the loss of "all benefits" retroactive.
While the many of our elected officials and government employees are honest, dedicated public servants, the actions of a few create a dark cloud over all.
Taking strong, swift, and decisive action to address these abuses and begin to rebuild public trust should be the first priority for our city, state and federal government in the new legislative session.

Compiled by: YJ Draiman

THE FOUNDATION: FAMILY

THE FOUNDATION: FAMILY

“The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person... Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.” —James Wilson

INSIGHT

“The prevailing spirit of the present age seems to be the spirit of skepticism and captiousness, of suspicion and distrust in private judgment; a dislike of all established forms, merely because they are established, and of old paths, because they are old.” —Samuel Johnson

FAMILY

“If the family is the conceptual basis of economics, the premier economic issue we face in our politics today is the push to secure legal recognition for so-called marriages between people of the same sex. Why? Because we can’t preserve and strengthen the family without a clear idea of what it is. At its heart, the debate over ‘same-sex marriage’ involves a profound disagreement about the nature of the family. Indeed, the very idea of the natural family is under assault. In a 2005 ruling later upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of the City of Oakland when it threatened two city employees with immediate removal for posting a bulletin board notice that referred to ‘respect for the Natural Family.’ Because it is camouflaged as a disagreement over sexual behavior, most people fail to appreciate the true implications of this effort to banish the idea that the family is a natural institution that involves fundamental rights that all legitimate government must respect. Of course, this failure in turn arises from the fact that we no longer see the necessary connection between the rights we have by nature and the obligations that define our nature. The latter are the seeds from which the former arise.” —Alan Keyes

POLITICAL FUTURES

“[I]n all likelihood religion will grow as a social force in American culture and politics over the coming decades. The reason: A secular nation needs secular citizens. And nonreligious Americans are outstandingly weak when it comes to the most efficacious way to achieve this: by having kids. If you picked 100 adults out of the population who attended their house of worship nearly every week or more often, they would have 223 children among them, on average, according to the 2006 General Social Survey. Among 100 people who attended less than once per year or never, you would find just 158 kids. This 41% fertility gap between religious and secular people is especially meaningful because people tend to worship more or less like their parents. According to data collected in 1999 by Gallup, 60% of adults who were taken to church at least once per month as children grew up to attend at least this often; only 15% stopped attending as adults. The demographic implications are even more profound for the political left, where a disproportionate number of secularists are located. Religious people who call themselves politically ‘conservative’ or ‘very conservative’ are having, on average, an astounding 78% more kids than secular liberals. Studies show that people are even more likely to vote like their parents than they are to worship like them. The secular left, therefore, has to rely on the tough slog of bringing people from the political and religious middle over to their views. The religious right simply has to keep having lots of babies.” —Arthur Brooks

RE: THE LEFT

“Democrats claim there are ‘two Americas.’ If they have their way, there will be two Latin Americas. Liberals know they’re losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color. They can’t keep up. Population expert Nick Eberstadt recently speculated in The Washington Post that a principal reason for America’s high fertility rate compared to Europe’s is its religiosity. Well, that leaves liberals out. The Democratic Party is in the fight of its life against a conservative demographic trend. Its only hope is to gerrymander America to make the poorest half of Mexico a state. Only a massive influx of criminals, wards of the state and rioters can save them. This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons... To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to be the future of their party, their border guards for the new socialist state. At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they’re fighting for. Their plan is to destroy America.” —Ann Coulter

CULTURE

“Multiculturalism’s goal is not to teach about other cultures, but to promote—by means of distortions and half-truths—the notion that non-Western cultures are as good as, if not better than, Western culture. Far from ‘broadening’ the curriculum, what multiculturalism seeks is to diminish the value of Western culture in the minds of students. But, given all the facts, the objective superiority of Western culture is apparent, so multiculturalists must artificially elevate other cultures and depreciate the West.” —Elan Journo

LIBERTY

“The interesting and complicated phenomenon of climate change is still being figured out, and as much as those determined to turn it into a crusade of good vs. evil may insist otherwise, the issue of global warming isn’t a closed book. Smearing those who buck the ‘scientific consensus’ as traitors, toadies, or enemies of humankind may be emotionally satisfying and even professionally lucrative. It is also indefensible, hyperbolic bullying. That the bullies are sure they are doing the right thing is not a point in their defense. For as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote long ago, ‘The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding’.” —Jeff Jacoby

OPINION IN BRIEF

“John Edwards leads an all-star cast of liberal politicians and intellectuals (Edwards is decidedly not the latter) who worship at the altar of Invidia, praying that she will exact penance from the undeserving half of our ‘two Americas.’ Like the ‘scientific socialism’ that concealed envy behind a slide rule, today’s liberals invoke social science as justification for their covetousness. In one famous study, a majority of people said they would rather make $50,000 if others earned $25,000 than earn $100,000 if others were making $200,000. Such studies are deeply flawed. For starters, as Arthur Brooks notes in the current edition of City Journal, they don’t address the question of whether people would be happier in a world of total equality. Rather, they ask whether people would be happier in a world of inequality so long as they could be richer than everybody else. More damning, however, is that these studies turn a vice into a virtue. With the exception of the self-esteem movement, which glorifies pride, it’s difficult to imagine another area where we so shamelessly tout a sin as the basis of public policy. All men lust in their hearts; shall we dole out concubines for those of us who can’t live like Hugh Hefner?” —Jonah Goldberg

GOVERNMENT

“In every state of the union, medical insurance is regulated. In some, it’s heavily, heavily regulated. Oregon legislators, for instance, just added a few new mandatory benefits to all health insurance policies: contraceptives, prosthetics and orthotics, and treatments for injuries caused by intoxication... Do you really wonder why health insurance costs so much? I don’t. The American health care system is addicted to regulation. Our legislators are the pushers. We need to go cold turkey.” —Paul Jacob

FOR THE RECORD

“Yet another report came out this week critical of the CIA failures that led to the disastrous attack on September 11, 2001. Of course, the CIA did fail, as did a number of U.S. government agencies... Then there is Bill Clinton. Remember in September of 2006 when Fox News host Chris Wallace confronted Clinton on the failure of his administration to get bin Laden? Clinton went ballistic, turned red, pointed his finger in Wallace’s face and shouted, ‘What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody since.’ It was a great performance, just like his Lewinsky denial. But the evidence is building that it was only that—a performance. Michael Isakoff of Newsweek magazine did a detailed analysis of the critical CIA report and found that the Clinton Administration never authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden. In addition, Clinton’s CIA had not put enough ‘assets’ on the ground to conduct serious covert operations against bin Laden. In short, it is likely that the red-faced, finger-pointing former president who shouted his outrage at Chris Wallace and Fox News was merely doing what he has always effectively done when his failures and distortions were discovered—he went on the attack... Whenever the Left doesn’t want you to know the truth, it attacks.” —Gary Bauer

THE GIPPER

“How ironic that even as America returns to its spiritual roots, our courts lag behind. They talk of our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty as if it meant freedom from religion, freedom from—actually a prohibition on—all values rooted in religion. Well, yes, the Constitution does say that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’ But then it adds: ‘or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ The First Amendment protects the rights of Americans to freely exercise their religious beliefs in an atmosphere of toleration and accommodation...[C]ertain court decisions have, in my view, wrongly interpreted the First Amendment so as to restrict, rather than protect, individual rights of conscience. What greater legacy could we leave our children than a new birth of religious freedom in this one nation under God?”

Corporate Environmental Performance and Ressponsibility

Corporate Environmental Performance and Responsibility

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.

The businessmen believe that they are defending free en­terprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing em­ployment, eliminating discrimination, avoid­ing pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of re­formers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preach­ing pure and unadulterated socialism. Busi­nessmen who talk this way are unwitting pup­pets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means in­dividual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations.

In a free-enterprise, private-property sys­tem, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct re­sponsibility to his employers. That responsi­bility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while con­forming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective, like a not-for-profit organization.

In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or the non-profit institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.

Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he rec­ognizes or assumes voluntarily–to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He may feel impelled by these responsibilities to de­vote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corpo­rations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. If we wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as "social responsibilities." But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are "social responsibili­ties," they are the social responsibilities of in­dividuals, not of business.

What does it mean to say that the corpo­rate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expendi­tures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the cor­poration or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" un­employed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.

In each of these cases, the corporate exec­utive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsi­bility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.

The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct "social responsibility," rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.

But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.

This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are gov­ernmental functions. We have established elab­orate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in ac­cordance with the preferences and desires of the public–after all, "taxation without repre­sentation" was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legisla­tive function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expendi­ture programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.

This is the basic reason why the doctrine of "social responsibility" involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce re­sources to alternative uses.

On the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his al­leged "social responsibilities?" On the other hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders' or customers' or employees' money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what ac­tion of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company–in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his hold­ ing down the price of his product reduce infla­tionary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could an­swer these questions, how much cost is he justi­fied in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employees for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropri­ate share of others?

And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders', cus­tomers' or employees' money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have re­duced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers and his employees can desert him for other producers and em­ployers less scrupulous in exercising their so­cial responsibilities.

This facet of "social responsibility" doc­ trine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officials are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general purpose. If the union offi­cials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank­-and-file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders–at least in the U.S.–have objected to Govern­ment interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders.

The difficulty of exercising "social responsibility" illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise–it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good–but only at their own expense.

The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his "social responsibility," he is spending his own money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right, and I cannot see that there is any ob­jection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose costs on employees and cus­tomers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have mo­nopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor.

Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.

To illustrate, it may well be in the long run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to attract desirable employees, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to chari­ties they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it themselves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.

In each of these–and many similar–cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of "social responsibility." In the present climate of opinion, with its wide spread aversion to "capitalism," "profits," the "soulless corporation" and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by-product of expenditures that are entirely justified in its own self-interest.

It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this hyp­ocritical window-dressing because it harms the foundations of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise a "social re­sponsibility"! If our institutions, and the atti­tudes of the public make it in their self-inter­est to cloak their actions in this way, I cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, I can express admiration for those individual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stockholders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.

Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and presti­gious businessmen, does clearly harm the foun­dations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddle­headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of busi­ness in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally con­trolled system than effective governmental con­trol of prices and wages.

The shortsightedness is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social respon­sibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.

The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all coopera­tion is voluntary, all parties to such coopera­tion benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.

The political principle that underlies the political mechanism is conformity. The indi­vidual must serve a more general social inter­est–whether that be determined by a church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not.

Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasi­ble. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political mecha­nism altogether.

But the doctrine of "social responsibility" taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book Capitalism and Freedom, I have called it a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

Compiled by: Jay Draiman

Corporate Code of Conduct

Corporate Code of Conduct

The ongoing globalization of business activities, developments in information technology, and the spread of market-based economies are bringing great changes to the social and economic environment in which corporations currently operate. At the same time the supply of energy, environmental problems, population growth and food shortages are also becoming issues of global concern. Within this context, growing public expectations regarding the role of business have led to increasing demands for socially responsible corporate behavior.

We must constantly keep pace with these changes and manage our organizations in light of these expectations. In addition to working to realize socially responsible business built upon a foundation of legal compliance and disclosure, we must also strive to understand and meet evolving social and economic demands by fully applying our unique capabilities as Business in order to contribute to the achievement of sustainable economic growth.

  We have produced this code of conduct in order to encourage all member firms to live up to their social responsibilities, evaluate their own behavior as responsible corporations, and assist them in pursuing their own initiatives.

Management Philosophy

As Business, we must constantly be aware of our role and responsibilities in society, go beyond the exclusive pursuit of short-term gain, and manage our business activities from a long-term perspective by balancing social, economic and environmental considerations so as to contribute to the realization of sustainable economic growth through business.

1.      We must effectively use our business resources for the benefit of our shareholders, business partners, consumers, employees, local communities and all our other various stakeholders.

2.      Executive management must lead by example in their efforts to create responsible businesses as defined by the evolving demands of the day.

3.      By conducting our businesses with due consideration to the preservation of the global environment and the balanced development of the international community, we must actively engage in the resolution of issues of environmental problems, poverty and violations of human rights.

Functions and Area of Activity

As Business, we must strive to remain constantly aware of the evolving social, economic and environmental demands on our businesses, and respond to these demands in a comprehensive manner.

1.      By collecting and disseminating information on a global scale and meeting the diversifying needs of our clients and markets, we must strive to provide resources, goods, and services that enrich society. In the provision of these resources, goods and services, we must give due consideration to the importance of personal information and intellectual property, and must make every effort to manage these resources in a responsible manner.

2.      By discovering new opportunities for business throughout the world, and by developing these opportunities into sources of social wealth, we must strive to advance industry and contribute to the creation of employment both domestically and internationally.

3.      By maintaining a spirit of cooperation and harmony, we must promote free trade and constructive collaboration between nations in order to contribute to the achievement of balanced regional economic development and global prosperity.

Legal Compliance and Disclosure

As Business, in recognition of our responsibilities to society, we must conduct our business in accordance with all relevant laws and regulations, show due respect for social conventions, and stress information disclosure in our efforts to maintain transparent management practices.

1.      In addition to legal compliance in our respective regional areas of operation, we must abide by both the letter and the spirit of international rules and regulations, and conduct ourselves in a socially conscientious manner. Furthermore, we must manage our business activities upon the understanding that free and fair competition is the fundamental precondition for the functioning of a market economy, and must maintain open and fair relations with political parties and governments.

2.      We must strive to achieve transparency through the appropriate and timely disclosure of corporate information. To further promote communication with our shareholders and other stakeholders, we must strive to expand the venues and means for information disclosure and thereby promote opportunities for the honest and constructive exchange of opinions.

3.      We must build systems to promote effective corporate decision-making, strengthen audit functions, and constantly monitor the legality of decisions made within our organizations.

Social Contributions and the Promotion of Trust

As Business, we must strive to create relationships of mutual trust both domestically and internationally, and to contribute actively to society as good corporate citizens.

1.      We must show respect for the cultures, customs and languages of other countries and regions, and strive to actively participate in activities aimed at regional development through a process of private-sector diplomacy.

2.      By promoting communication with a wide range of stakeholders including shareholders, business partners, consumers, employees, and local communities, we must strive to create mutual trust in our relationships with our stakeholders by promoting regional development and cooperating in activities aimed at the achievement of a secure and enriched standard of living.

3.      We will not deal with any organizations influenced by or comprised of organized crime that may operate in the communities in which we do business.

Creation of Rewarding Work Environments

As Business, we will strive to provide our employees with a rich and rewarding work environment, to respect the diversity, character and individuality of our employees, and to promote corporate cultures in which each individual's talents and creativity may be fully developed.

1.      We must create and maintain safe and fulfilling work environments for our employees.

2.      We must respect the human rights of our employees, promote equal opportunities among them, and oppose any discriminatory employment practices or treatment.

3.      We must respect the diversity and individuality of our employees and actively support their skill and career development.

Communication and Implementation

Executive management of the respective Business must take full responsibility to make every effort to implement this code of conduct within their respective organizations, and to communicate the obligations set out within this code and their commitment to its implementation to their affiliates and trading partners.

Violation and Prevention Recurrence

In the event of a violation of this code of conduct, executive management of the respective Business is expected to publicly announce a plan for resolving the situation, to make a full investigation and account of the causes of the violation, and to make every effort possible to prevent a recurrence of the violation.

Honest government is a must

Honest government is a must

Throughout our history, the American people have demanded that their government reflect our nation’s highest ideals of openness and honesty, transparency and integrity and -- above all else -- a clear commitment to protecting the interest of the American people, not powerful special interests.

When the excesses of a corrupt establishment have gone too far, the American people have risen up and reformed the political process to correct our course -- because ultimately it is the people who must lead.

Today, to achieve and maintain power, the leaders of our country have built a system where money not only buys influence, but the right to govern. Special interests and their lobbyists not only buy access, they buy results -- on any issue, no matter the public interest. This culture of corruption prevails through all levels of government.

Our leaders have made the terms of the deal very clear. Those who make an investment in keeping dishonest leaders in power will see a huge return on their investment in the form of corporate welfare, no-bid contracts and favorable regulation -- at the expense of the public interest.

This corrupt cycle must be broken. When our elected officials bend government to serve their own interests or those of their friends, our democracy is at risk.

Today we should be unveiling an ethics reforms package that will clean up our government so the American people can have the honest leadership they deserve, and so our government can get back to the work of the people for the people.

Honest leadership is not a partisan goal -- it is the key to a stronger Union. It is time to put progress ahead of politics. Together, we can change our government and rebuild trust with the American people. We call on all American’s to join the efforts in restoring honest leadership to all levels of government. The American people deserve nothing less.

YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles