"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Such is the problem with corrupt, good ole boy systems in government!
Showing posts with label integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label integrity. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Leaders of a Wrong Order
No budget, at least that is accountable to public scrunity.
"Good ole boy" systems that cover for one another. Whistle blowers are shunned, and black-balled. One must tow the "party line".
Ethics are self-referential, they are not for the "common man". Leaders are above the law, because they make, and interpret the law.
Control of public information becomes necessary because the public can't be trusted to know what in their best interest. All the while, leaders are acting as self-interested parties.
Public office is not viewed as a public trust, but as public "control". Social control is affirmed where "self-governance" was the founding frame.
Public welfare is invested in public officials, because the public doesn't care anymore.
Public monies can be manipulated to promote personal promotion, through earmarks.
No longer can the public trust representative government when their representatives are self-invested in government's interests.
"Good ole boy" systems that cover for one another. Whistle blowers are shunned, and black-balled. One must tow the "party line".
Ethics are self-referential, they are not for the "common man". Leaders are above the law, because they make, and interpret the law.
Control of public information becomes necessary because the public can't be trusted to know what in their best interest. All the while, leaders are acting as self-interested parties.
Public office is not viewed as a public trust, but as public "control". Social control is affirmed where "self-governance" was the founding frame.
Public welfare is invested in public officials, because the public doesn't care anymore.
Public monies can be manipulated to promote personal promotion, through earmarks.
No longer can the public trust representative government when their representatives are self-invested in government's interests.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Fort Hood's Execution
"An eye for an eye" was the Old Testament balance for "justice". An "eye for an eye" limited revenge to fairness. One could not kill another because of the loss of an eye. Maybe this is the measure we should meet out with such crimes as happened at Fort Hood.
Everyone knows by now, that this will be a military trial, which is fair, as it was on military soil and the military suffered the loss.
I do applaud many news organizations for prefacing their "news" with qualifications of "innocence", because we are a people that believe that one is innocent until proven guilty under a trial by jury. I am glad for this.
But, I am not satisfied with everyone tiptoeing around the connection of Islam to this man. He was a Muslim. But, to protect our nation from an uprising that would hinder the climate of tolerance, news sources cover over the details that might suggest a religious motive.
The athiests are crying for a banning of religious freedom, because of their fear of radicalism, while the conservative religious believer is adamantly holding to their right to "free speech" and free belief. The climate in America is at a boiling point over issues concerning religion, race, and "rights".
I grieve for the loss of these soldiers, but I also grieve over the loss of integrity for this psychiatrist. He needs help. I am hoping that an "eye for an eye" will turn out to be a measure of justice as the trial commences.
Let us hope that this will never happen again within military quarters and that military personel are all aware of the consequences of being "politically correct", when there are valid concerns and ultimate costs of lives.
Everyone knows by now, that this will be a military trial, which is fair, as it was on military soil and the military suffered the loss.
I do applaud many news organizations for prefacing their "news" with qualifications of "innocence", because we are a people that believe that one is innocent until proven guilty under a trial by jury. I am glad for this.
But, I am not satisfied with everyone tiptoeing around the connection of Islam to this man. He was a Muslim. But, to protect our nation from an uprising that would hinder the climate of tolerance, news sources cover over the details that might suggest a religious motive.
The athiests are crying for a banning of religious freedom, because of their fear of radicalism, while the conservative religious believer is adamantly holding to their right to "free speech" and free belief. The climate in America is at a boiling point over issues concerning religion, race, and "rights".
I grieve for the loss of these soldiers, but I also grieve over the loss of integrity for this psychiatrist. He needs help. I am hoping that an "eye for an eye" will turn out to be a measure of justice as the trial commences.
Let us hope that this will never happen again within military quarters and that military personel are all aware of the consequences of being "politically correct", when there are valid concerns and ultimate costs of lives.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Healthcare's Debate
Just tonight on the news, it was reported that an insurance company saw a letter that went out to their members on Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is a program for the poor elderly. In the communication, it was reported that there would be 50% cuts to their healthcare benefits!
Congress discussed their obligation to review and inform their constinuiecies. I applaud those that want to be accountable to "the people" instead of doing what they want and giving us evasive answers to our questions. Or, giving us what we "want to hear" and then going ahead and doing what they want anyway.
We have hope that the judiciary and some in Congress will have enough integrity to uphold our Constitution, in spite of "visions of grandeur".
Congress discussed their obligation to review and inform their constinuiecies. I applaud those that want to be accountable to "the people" instead of doing what they want and giving us evasive answers to our questions. Or, giving us what we "want to hear" and then going ahead and doing what they want anyway.
We have hope that the judiciary and some in Congress will have enough integrity to uphold our Constitution, in spite of "visions of grandeur".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)