A member of the House of Representatives, and a United States Senator each receives a salary of One Hundred Seventy-four Thousand ($174,000) Dollars a year. Each gets allowances for staffing their offices, Office space and travel allowances. And, of course, each gets status as well as the power to influence the actions of our Federal Government, including impacting our taxes as well as our individual freedoms. Their performance is important to every citizen.
Some members of both houses have retired in the past couple of years,and more will retire at the end of this year. A review of how long they served in public orffice, and their net worth on retirement seemed in order.
Senator "A" 18 years service, net worth: $2,794,024
Senator "B" 23 years service, net worth: $1,695,514
Senator "C" 12 years service, net worth: $2,668,017
Representative "1" 22 years service, net worth: $2,781,015
Representative "2" 30 years service, net worth: $24,290,511
Representative "3" 8 years service, net worth: $5,727,032
Representative "4" 35 years service, net worth: $1,348,011
Representative "5" 25 years service, net worth: $2,464,049
Whether these accumulations of wealth are legal or not is not my point. Does anyone believe that these increases in net worth can happen of the Congressmen and women involved were spending their time looking after ever constituent equally?
Does anyone wonder why over the years none of these "accumulations" have come under Media scrutiny?
Is there any question about whether or not any of the accumulations (and expenditures) have not seen detailed audits and investigation by ANY legal entity or Inspector General(s)?
I cannot be the first to wonder about the ethics and legality of this sort of activity on the part of those who we euphemistically call "Public Servants.
Any ideas?
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Sunday, March 15, 2020
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Perhaps now is the time for "THE TEN SUGGESTIONS"!
During the course of the last century the United States has slowly, but most certainly, ceased to be a Christian country. Oh, our roots are in a Judeo-Christian heritage. But a majority of our citizens and residents no longer hold that heritage as central in their personal, business or spiritual lives.
Moreover, the Government, including the courts, of the United States no longer hold in any reverence the symbols of Judeo-Christian beliefs. They have decided that freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion, and the majority of Americans seem quite content with that.
I think that is a mistake. But in order to correct a mistake, it is first necessary to admit that there has been a mistake. Currently there are folks who do not think that the battle has been lost. They ignore the constant attitude of the courts, the politically correct vision of life that is contrary to Judeo-Christian tenets that permeates the entertainment industry, the failure on all sides to see the Ten Commandments as being tantamount to Law.
It is time to admit the loss of the battle, and in so doing bring to the forefront of every American's mind and soul the reality of what has been allowed to take place.
In every public square, every courthouse, every school...everywhere it appears...it is time to relabel the Ten Commandments as "The Ten Suggestions!"
This would have a number of benefits: First, it would acknowledge that the ten rules for living life are no longer law or revered as a matter of civilized behavior; Second, that it would eliminate the legitimacy of efforts to remove them from public life as being religious in nature; and Third, it would save communities huge sums of money that they might otherwise need to appropriate to defend the presence of the "commandments" in their communities public areas.
The most important benefit would be that it would made America once again an honest nation. No longer would anyone feel bad about the failure to rush to the aid of prosecuted Christians around the globe, or to feel that defending other religions but not Christianity was some failure on our part to honor our heritage; that antisemitism could be now viewed as simply a choice made by the majority rather that a failure to abide by the precepts of civilized behavior. It would make our claimed positions on what life should be consistent with our actions, and that would make it possible to consciously consider if we want to continue this slide...or stop and even reverse it.
And THAT would be a good conversation to have in every public square.
Moreover, the Government, including the courts, of the United States no longer hold in any reverence the symbols of Judeo-Christian beliefs. They have decided that freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion, and the majority of Americans seem quite content with that.
I think that is a mistake. But in order to correct a mistake, it is first necessary to admit that there has been a mistake. Currently there are folks who do not think that the battle has been lost. They ignore the constant attitude of the courts, the politically correct vision of life that is contrary to Judeo-Christian tenets that permeates the entertainment industry, the failure on all sides to see the Ten Commandments as being tantamount to Law.
It is time to admit the loss of the battle, and in so doing bring to the forefront of every American's mind and soul the reality of what has been allowed to take place.
In every public square, every courthouse, every school...everywhere it appears...it is time to relabel the Ten Commandments as "The Ten Suggestions!"
This would have a number of benefits: First, it would acknowledge that the ten rules for living life are no longer law or revered as a matter of civilized behavior; Second, that it would eliminate the legitimacy of efforts to remove them from public life as being religious in nature; and Third, it would save communities huge sums of money that they might otherwise need to appropriate to defend the presence of the "commandments" in their communities public areas.
The most important benefit would be that it would made America once again an honest nation. No longer would anyone feel bad about the failure to rush to the aid of prosecuted Christians around the globe, or to feel that defending other religions but not Christianity was some failure on our part to honor our heritage; that antisemitism could be now viewed as simply a choice made by the majority rather that a failure to abide by the precepts of civilized behavior. It would make our claimed positions on what life should be consistent with our actions, and that would make it possible to consciously consider if we want to continue this slide...or stop and even reverse it.
And THAT would be a good conversation to have in every public square.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Reverse Evolution surrounds us
I recently had occasion to read some microfiche of newspaper articles from before and after the Civil War. All but forgotten was the personal nature of attacks on politicians running for office and their families. My High School classes (when High School actually taught you something instead of confining its activity to that of a badly run Day Care Center) had covered the lack of civility and the crass accusations that took over the newspapers of the day during the election season...and they were an embarrassment even to a bunch of cynical highschoolers. More than 60 years ago we commented to ourselves and our teachers that such no longer happened and we were far more civilized now. How presumptive were our assertions.
Today's electioneering and candidates actions and statements make those ugly days of the past seem both civilized and moral by comparison. Today's fellow citizens leave me embarrassed. Why?
Somewhere in our inner selves...in our minds, our souls and our very being...we know that attacks on family are just wrong. At some basic level, we know that liars are not good leaders; we know that policy is fair game for comment and attack, but that personal attributes (other than truthfulness and moral behavior) mean nothing. A handsome face does not guarantee anything but a good picture. A less than handsome visage, with or without hair, or with a wig (good or bad), doesn't make a person a bad leader.
There was a time when bad language, baseless attacks, personal attacks, derogatory comments about family members, a reputation for falsehoods would render any person unqualified for public office. There was a time when a person's policies would be demanded and then evaluated for effectiveness and sound financial base. There was a time when the citizens of the United States of America wanted to vote for a person and policies, not against them; we wanted to be for something, not chose the lesser of two bad choices.
Apparently a majority of our citizens have replaced judgement with greed and narcissism; the impossible promise of "free" stuff is now sufficient to cause voters to forego an examination of whether a promise is possible to fulfill, whether a candidate is a liar, whether a candidate is the kind of person that we will be proud to say stands in our stead to the rest of the world. How disgustingly and offensively cretin-like. Our collective acceptance of , and dependence on, such behavior should leave us all ashamed. But we clearly are not ashamed.
We make excuses for ourselves and for our candidates. We say things like: "All politicians lie, so you have to put up with it." You hear, "I wouldn't say it that way but what can you do?" We nod when we hear, "Its about time someone running for office stopped 'pussyfooting' around and called it like it is!" And yes, we do get angry with the failure of our leaders to keep their promises, and to solve problems. Yet we also know that solving those problems will cost us money and now a majority of us don't want to hear that truth or contribute to the cost. The result: we not only allow the lies...we condone them by electing those who lie to us. And then complain about it...such hypocrisy!
So now we look to have three possible candidates, one of whom will be elected President of the United States: a liar, a vulgarian and a Socialist Septuagenarian with policies proven over the centuries not to work after the money of the rich has been spent. Boy, do we know how to pick 'em!
I would not give any one of these people my power of attorney, yet our political system is about to give one of them far more power over each of us that would be granted by such a power-of-attorney. We seem intent on proving to the world our collective stupidity and lack of caring for our country's and our own well-being.
Today's electioneering and candidates actions and statements make those ugly days of the past seem both civilized and moral by comparison. Today's fellow citizens leave me embarrassed. Why?
Somewhere in our inner selves...in our minds, our souls and our very being...we know that attacks on family are just wrong. At some basic level, we know that liars are not good leaders; we know that policy is fair game for comment and attack, but that personal attributes (other than truthfulness and moral behavior) mean nothing. A handsome face does not guarantee anything but a good picture. A less than handsome visage, with or without hair, or with a wig (good or bad), doesn't make a person a bad leader.
There was a time when bad language, baseless attacks, personal attacks, derogatory comments about family members, a reputation for falsehoods would render any person unqualified for public office. There was a time when a person's policies would be demanded and then evaluated for effectiveness and sound financial base. There was a time when the citizens of the United States of America wanted to vote for a person and policies, not against them; we wanted to be for something, not chose the lesser of two bad choices.
Apparently a majority of our citizens have replaced judgement with greed and narcissism; the impossible promise of "free" stuff is now sufficient to cause voters to forego an examination of whether a promise is possible to fulfill, whether a candidate is a liar, whether a candidate is the kind of person that we will be proud to say stands in our stead to the rest of the world. How disgustingly and offensively cretin-like. Our collective acceptance of , and dependence on, such behavior should leave us all ashamed. But we clearly are not ashamed.
We make excuses for ourselves and for our candidates. We say things like: "All politicians lie, so you have to put up with it." You hear, "I wouldn't say it that way but what can you do?" We nod when we hear, "Its about time someone running for office stopped 'pussyfooting' around and called it like it is!" And yes, we do get angry with the failure of our leaders to keep their promises, and to solve problems. Yet we also know that solving those problems will cost us money and now a majority of us don't want to hear that truth or contribute to the cost. The result: we not only allow the lies...we condone them by electing those who lie to us. And then complain about it...such hypocrisy!
So now we look to have three possible candidates, one of whom will be elected President of the United States: a liar, a vulgarian and a Socialist Septuagenarian with policies proven over the centuries not to work after the money of the rich has been spent. Boy, do we know how to pick 'em!
I would not give any one of these people my power of attorney, yet our political system is about to give one of them far more power over each of us that would be granted by such a power-of-attorney. We seem intent on proving to the world our collective stupidity and lack of caring for our country's and our own well-being.
Friday, October 29, 2010
No Morals
This administration continues to show that they have no moral compass. Well, that may be slightly inaccurate...they have no compass at all. But todays bit of evidence really is both moral and legal.
The 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act specifically mandates that our government penalizes countries that use child soldiers. And this is the first year that it has gone into effect. Sound like a plan, doesn't it? A good thing? Shows our moral repugnance for any entity that would put children in the field to act as military personnel, right? Yep. The United States will show the world our true values and stand up for them, right?
Well, not so much, apparently.
In a Presidential memo, released today by the White House, to Secretary of State Clinton, Mr. Obama indicated he had determined that "it is in the national interests of the United States" to waive application of the law to the countries of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen.
There are provisions in the law that would have allowed the US to target military funds while still allowing funding for professionalization of army capability, but Mr. Obama chose to grant a blanket exemption.
It is interesting how consistently Mr. Obama ignores, makes excuses for, or supports egregious behavior on the part of other countries in the world, while attempts by member states of the union are attacked in court, penalized monetarily and roundly chastised publicly by this President for something as seemingly appropriate as enforcing our borders.
There is no logical, ideological or moral consistency to his actions...ever. Perhaps he should go to church more often...even Reverend Wright's church. Even a misguided consistency is better than swinging in the wind with no compass at all.
The 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act specifically mandates that our government penalizes countries that use child soldiers. And this is the first year that it has gone into effect. Sound like a plan, doesn't it? A good thing? Shows our moral repugnance for any entity that would put children in the field to act as military personnel, right? Yep. The United States will show the world our true values and stand up for them, right?
Well, not so much, apparently.
In a Presidential memo, released today by the White House, to Secretary of State Clinton, Mr. Obama indicated he had determined that "it is in the national interests of the United States" to waive application of the law to the countries of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen.
There are provisions in the law that would have allowed the US to target military funds while still allowing funding for professionalization of army capability, but Mr. Obama chose to grant a blanket exemption.
It is interesting how consistently Mr. Obama ignores, makes excuses for, or supports egregious behavior on the part of other countries in the world, while attempts by member states of the union are attacked in court, penalized monetarily and roundly chastised publicly by this President for something as seemingly appropriate as enforcing our borders.
There is no logical, ideological or moral consistency to his actions...ever. Perhaps he should go to church more often...even Reverend Wright's church. Even a misguided consistency is better than swinging in the wind with no compass at all.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
I read an interesting thought earlier today by Ronald R. Cherry :
"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."
As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring. But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.
I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.
First, there is no such thing as equal law. By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society. It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.
Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed. For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules." As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today? What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?
And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness. Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution. But consider: If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?
More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right." Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise. But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.
The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.
The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement in any attempt to apply it to real life. It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.
"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."
As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring. But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.
I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.
First, there is no such thing as equal law. By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society. It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.
Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed. For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules." As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today? What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?
And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness. Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution. But consider: If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?
More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right." Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise. But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.
The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.
The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement in any attempt to apply it to real life. It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)