Multi-tiered Ethical Standards


Also know as Double standards…

When we venture out into the world, there are certain standards of conduct that we expect from people, there are certain standards that we expect them to live by, and we judge them by our idea of ethics.  For Military people it is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Federal Law that lays out the acceptable conduct of military personnel.  This tells them what is expected of them, and what can happen to them of they violate these standards.

Most of use are bound by City, County, State and Federal Law, and the violation of these laws might result in fines and/or imprisonment.

Christians have the 10 Commandments, which tell them how they are supposed to act, though there are other sections of the bible that lay out other requirements, it is still the 10 Commandments that get the most attention.

Evan social organisations have standards of conduct, the violation of which might result in expulsion.

One of my favorite quotes by a fictional character is by Gen. Freeman, in a book written by Ian Slater.  The General is talking about prostitutes and makes the statement “prostitutes, their little better than politicians”.  I have always thought that statement said a lot… So what does this have to do with the conversation?

The question is : why do we set such low standards for politicians?  If my friends lied to me as much as the average politician I would stay away from him but, in the case of the people we put into some government office, to represent us, we set the ethical bar so low that the only way they seem to run afoul of it is to land in jail.

Teddy Kennedy‘s drunk driving killed a young woman on his staff.  If I had gotten drunk, run off the road into the water, and had left the young woman to drown I would have probably been in jail for murder.  Teddy just kept getting reelected, which just goes to show the type of standards the voters in his state had.  Newt Gingrich tried to appeal to the conservative Christians in Florida, in spite of his having not only cheated on 2 out of 3 wives but had broken his oath to Jehovah twice, that we know of.  Fortunately the Christian population did NOT fall for it.  When Marco Rubio was running for office he told the people, who would vote for him, that his parents fled the tyranny of Fidel Castro, in spite of the fact that they had left Cuba several years BEFORE Castro got into power, they still voted for him.

If you are really interested in the standards of your favorite politician then write down his statements about his opponent, and then check them with one of the fact check websites, and see how much truth you can get out of them…..  MOSTLY TRUE is NOT the TRUTH…  and as Fox Mulder used to say “the truth is out there”.

Lets start to hold Politicians to the same standards we would anybody else, which doesn’t include lawyers, banker, used car salesmen, military recruiters..  oh, I think you get the idea.

Lets hear if for Sheriff Joe from Arizona.


I don’t know the circumstances about this photo but, some photos speak for themselves and this is one of them.

The poster says “You Owe Us America” and they seem to indicate they will kill law enforcement officers until we give them what they want. So, my question is this : If I were to break into your house, how much would you OWE ME.  You wouldn’t just kick me out of the house, you’d call those law enforcement officers and they would put me in jail.

What kind of Government do we deserve?


I keep thinking that what we really should have is an honest groups of representative who are in there as a public service, not a career.

In 2010 I watched a primary debate, for Governor, between Rick Scott and Bill McCollum.  I was not impressed with either of these gentlemen, and would later vote for Alex Sink, who did impress me…  In the debate McCollum hit Scoot on two things.  The first was his running of Columbia/HCA how the company incurred the largest fines ever against a healthcare company – ever.- for Medicaid fraud, double billing, and whatever.  Scott admitted that he was in charge but said the problem was that he did not have enough auditors to oversee the way the billing was done.  In an article by the Gulf coast Business Review(?) the writer make the statement that these billing practices were common practice, so their excuse was “everyone else was doing it”.  Yeah, that make it O.K. right?  The second item that he hammered him on had to do with the lawsuits that were brought against Solantic, the second healthcare company that Scott helped found.

My point here is not about whether, or not, Rick Scott was a crook but, this : if Rick Scott was really as dishonest as Bill McCollum said he was, they why did Bill McCollum subsequently back him for Governor?  If Scott was an honest businessman then McCollum LIED about his record.  If McCollum told the truth then shouldn’t he have refused to endorse Scott?  The answer to both of these should have been a yes.

Then again, Scott was a fellow Republican running against a Democrat and, honesty, in politics, is often the first casualty.

There is a “truth in advertising” law but, not a “truth in politics”..

Let’s look at who we put in the Senate, in the same year, Marco Rubio.  It has been reported that the first thing he did on getting into office was to spend $150,000 to refurbish his office.  He had stated that he is probably the only Senator who has not paid off his student loans from 1996…  Even though his income, for several years, was in the $300,000 – $400,000 range.

This is one of the people we send to Washington to vote on our budget?  He can’t even live with in his own means.

We send the dishonest and big spenders to represent us, and then we wonder why we don’t get the kind of government we want.  Instead we get the kind of government we deserve.

So let us spend less time listening to the politicians, and more time watching what they DO.

Thank you,

That Joe Guy.

 

Social Security…


English: Official portrait of US Senator Marco...
English: Official portrait of US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once upon a time there were people who made a deal with their government.  The people would give a portion of what they made, in income, to the government in exchange for a paycheck when they reached a certain age.

This was called social security.  This was really a continuation of the old idea that a civilization should take care of its seniors.  In this case it would be by extending them an paycheck, to compensate for their year of loyalty.  To do this the government set aside a TRUST fund, which would hold the money that the workers had invested.  It was something like a 401K, only it was with the government, who would hold it in TRUST for the time when they should be able to relax, after years of work.   There was a lot of money invested in this trust fund, and a government that could rarely live within its means soon saw all this money just sitting there.  They started to put BONDs (IOUs) into this fund, so they could use it to fund their overspending.  This was really an IOU.  Over the year the people who thought it was their right to take this money started to call it an entitlement.  They started to tell the people, who had been forced to put money into this fund, that they would not be able to get their agreed upon payment until later, that even thought they had been told they would get these payments at a certain age the age had been moved back, and so they had to work longer.

One of the most common reasons for this was because the people in charge of the funds, the U.S. Congress, could not seem to understand that they should not spend more than they brought in.

Just to give you an example..  Marco Rubio, the now senator from Florida, spent $150,000 to redo his office when he was elected.  A number of year after he was elected, even after several years when te earned $400,000 a year and had not paid off a $150,000 student loan, he talked about fiscal responsibility as if the really understood the concept.  These are the people who decide our fate.

On an aside.  My brother got drafted as soon as college was no longer an exemption from the draft, and decided to go into the Navy.  He signed a 6 year contract, which stated that after 4 years he would have been given an enlistment bonus.  Then, just before you would have gotten his bonus, the congress decide to do away with it.  The court of appeals, 3 out of 4, decided that since military pay was decided NOT by contract, but by congress, that the U.S. Congress could actually do away with military pay and they would still have to serve.  This from the people who pass laws, such as the equal opportunity act and exempt themselves from the same laws that they apply to others.  They did tell the Navy people they could get out of the contract, if they wished, after the 4 years.  My Brother got out.  So what is the lesson here?  If two people make a contract they have to live up to their side of the bargain, or go to court, unless one side if the Federal Government, in which case they just pass a law that says they don’t have to live up to their contract.

The main point here is that these people, Republican or Democrat, will spend your money in order to keep themselves in power, while YOU are the one who has to live within your means.

I am not a Dittohead but I used to enjoy watching Rush Limbaugh when he was on TV.  One night, while I was watching his show he played a clip of the Clinton Secretary of the Treasury, I think it was Ruben, telling the unions they could not borrow against union pension funds as it was “not your money”.  Rush then pointed out that the U.S. Government was doing the same thing to Social Security, and played a clip of Rubin saying, “it’s NOT YOUR MONEY”.  They never understood the point.

Here is a final thought.  If a lawyer were to borrow from a clients trust account (escrow) he could be disbarred, if congress does it, its business as usual.

We can blame the President for spending the money that the congress give him to spend, and it is we who put them all in office.

So every year, when they tell us we have to work longer, who should WE blame?

The Great American Game Show…..


Wack-a-mole. Gayla's highscore = 140
The Contestants deal with old scandals. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States is a country that seems to love it’s TV game shows.  We call it “Real TV“, not because it REALLY portrays REAL LIFE but because, for whatever reason, it happens in front of a camera.  This allows us to say, with some confidence, that it REALLY did happen.

We already have a number of contest, at the City, County, State, and Federal level, that could be adapted, in some way, to fit these formats.

I think that I will just consider the main national game, “The Great Race for the Presidency”, and wonder about what kind of format to put it in….  Don’t tell me about the Dignity of the Office, these are just contestants and bear no resemblance to what they might be like once they are in office….

Besides, chances are they gave up whatever dignity they ever had long before they got to a level to run for President.

I have watched some of these show, though not really enough to be an expert on any of them, then again this is my opinion and so I don’t have to be an expert.  Much like the people you see as analist on the various Talk News shows.

So, lets get to it…

There is the “Great Race”…  yeah that could be a good format..  The various teams run around the country, much as they do now, competing in various contest.  We could get rid of those pesky debates where they tell lies about each other and all we get for it is to find out which one is the most inventive liar.  Instead we could have events like Whack a Scandal, similar to Whack a Mole, where they try to beat down past scandals.

We could have one, “The Power Seeker” based on the “Survivor” show, where we place the contestants in a location fitting a politician, such as a toxic waste dump, where they could engage in varied activities that they would enjoy in the wild, such as lying and stabbing each other in the back.  The winner would be taken to Washington and be confined to the White House, which could be modeled after Big Brother.

Then we could have “The Next Big Brother” which might be similar to the “Survivor” above, except we just put a big house on the Toxic Waste Dump.

How about “Americas Got Putzes”, which of course is similar to “Americas Got Talent“, where each of the candidates tries to convince us that they have done something worthwhile. The Judges, not the Supreme Court, would point out their lies, and like the movie said, though I paraphrase, “and there will be lies”.

Then there is “The Spin” which would be done like “The Voice” where we don’t see the candidate, only the back of their chairs, where they tell us, with out mentioning their names, what their beliefs are and what they plan to do once they are in office.  This way we could, maybe, weed out the ones who sound like nuts.

Or, maybe, we could have one called “The Power Behind the Throne” which might be a combination of the “The Power Seeker”,or “The Next Big Brother”, and maybe “The Bachelor”.  This one would be in two tiers.  In one the candidates would be trying to get be the main contender, while to other tier would not be about picking a wife but would be about him picking his special interest.  Then we would know, for sure, who the real “Power Behind the Throne” is, and would not have to guess or even pretend to believe he represents US.

Then again there might be the “Real Putzes of Washington” that would be similar to “The Real Housewives of ” fill in the blank.  This might even be centered on the people who marry them.

I might have missed a couple of ideas being I don’t watch the shows much, at all.

We could even raise money by opening the voting via a 1-900 number just like the votes cast on TV..  This would help out the Democrats as there would be no pesky voter list to circumvent.