They Did What !

There are so many things going on right now that bring into question the integrity of institutional groups - governments all over the world and at all levels, the military, and even churches.

Just as all individuals have dark sides so also do all institutional groups. They are, after all, created and run by individuals. Acknowledging this about our nation, our military, and our church is exceedingly difficult for many good people. We are taught from a young age to respect and obey authority. And we understand that without authority and the rule of law we would have anarchy. That is true but it is not the whole truth.

What is left out is that within each of us lives a small voice that tells us when the dark side rises up, in us or in others including these institutional groups. Listening to that small voice allows it to grow louder. Acting on the wisdom imparted by that small voice can be difficult and uncomfortable. Such action often brings ridicule and derision from others. Is that a valid excuse for doing nothing?

Gandhi once said, “You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.”

By that standard, doing nothing makes us as guilty as those who are actively engaged in evil. Each of us is responsible for forming a “true conscience” and all the rationalization in the world will not absolve us from failing at this life long objective. It is not enough to just follow authority, we must question the authenticity of that authority, seek the truth of what we are being told, and speak out if we find it to be false. All individuals are imperfect and therefore prone to error. It does not matter what their position or title may be, no human being is exempt from mistakes – intentional or unintentional.

When we follow authority without question, we deny personal responsibility for our actions but that does not erase our accountability. It may seem easier to let someone or some group decide for us what is right and wrong but in the end, we will each stand alone, with all the rationalizations stripped away as we account for what we did or did not do with our gift of life.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Giving credit where credit is due, our system of laws and government regulations began with the best of intentions as attempts to create rules and regulations that would be just and fair for all. Unfortunately, what developed is a bureaucratic muddle where we rigidly stick to procedures while ignoring the spirit and intent.

It has been put forth by the proponents of this system that if everything is laid out precisely, then all like cases will be treated the same and this will produce fairness. There is at least one obvious flaw in that premise. It is impossible to cover all possibilities. Unless something always occurs in the exact same place at the exact same time, with the exact same circumstances, there will be inherent differences which will affect the outcome. Uniformity without the flexibility to take these differences into consideration will inevitably produce uneven results.

Years ago, as a new manager, I noticed that employees routinely denied customer requests based on one regulation or another that did not make sense in the case at hand. In response, we had a series of staff meetings where we discussed various regulations and what they were intended to accomplish. In light of that information, we talked about some individual situations where a rule was applied with negative results. It was like watching light bulbs go on over one head after another as they began to see that rules sometimes not only did not accomplish the intended purpose, but actually interfered with bringing a business transaction to a reasonable conclusion. And so, in that particular place of business, the rebirth of common sense and good judgment began.

Would that we could begin that rebirth at all levels of our government. There are drawbacks to this of course. As things stand, the people in charge of our government and its agencies manage to avoid making decisions for which they would be accountable. Instead, they spend their time observing the rules and steps of the process with little or no thought about what the end result will be or when it will be achieved. No wonder it takes so long to get anything done in government and that we frequently wind up with a camel while trying to build a horse.

This strict observance of rules without use of common sense results in stories like "Fema and The Ice". Fema spent years and millions of our tax dollars transporting and storing bags of ice which have now been declared unfit for human consumption and will be destroyed.

We shake our heads in disbelief when we hear these outrageous stories. But shaking our heads is not likely to change anything. On the other hand, if we set guidelines rather than strict rules, and give our leaders the flexibility to exercise common sense and good judgment, change is possible.

At the same time it must be made clear that officials are responsible for the consequences of their decisions even though responsibility is the last thing bureaucrats want. Responsibility requires effort, courage and leadership, qualities many of them lack. Our Founding Fathers exhibited these traits as did the pioneers who developed the territories that became these United States. These are the root values that built our country and without them we are no longer flourishing. Requiring accountability from our officials would weed out the bureaucrats and bring us real leaders who are willing to accept the responsibility that is a fundamental part of leadership.

The alternative? We can continue down the path we are on and repeat history by following the once great Roman Empire into extinction.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why have we allowed our government to be put for sale? If you don’t think we have, then what does it mean when they say the insurance (or some other) industry is spending millions lobbying hard to defeat or change some legislation.

If we follow the dots, let’s see where they lead:

• An industry is made up of a particular trade or branch of business.
• The goal of business is profit.
• Lobbyists seek to influence legislators on behalf of a particular interest or industry.
• Therefore, the underlying goal of lobbying is to help the industry make a profit.
• There are often conflicts between the industry "wants" and the common good
• In such a conflict, if the industry gets its way our legislators have sold us out.

It sounds simplistic doesn’t it? But it is just that simple and it happens all the time.

Most of us have heard that corporations are considered persons and as such, fit the profile of a psychopath. These psychopaths are programmed to exploit others for profit. Their only goal is to make profits for their shareholders. They operate without any moral, (and more and more without any legal),responsibility for the interests of workers, the environment, or the good of society as a whole. The truth of their claim that they have the right to operate that way is questionable but we don’t question it.

Our Legislators have become the enablers of these psychopaths. Instead of looking out for the interests of the people they were elected to represent, they allow the lobbyists to influence the laws they pass. Perhaps they are simply misled by the lobbyists in which case we should question their intelligence instead of their integrity. They are fully aware that corporations are all about profit so when lobbyists start talking about how what they want will benefit the people, common sense dictates skepticism not cooperation.

A review of just a few laws and who really benefits from them leaves no doubt that our elected representatives sell us out over and over:

Medicare Plan D prescription coverage gives minimal help to seniors, costs taxpayers big time, and allows insurance and drug companies to make millions.

New bankruptcy laws offer much less financial relief to those who need it but save the banks and credit card companies from losses many of which are caused by their own poor lending practices.

Government subsidies sold to the public as help for the small farmer, the consumer, or various sectors of the economy, actually take taxpayers money and funnel it directly into the coffers of profit rich corporations.

Before dismissing this as anti-capitalist rhetoric, remember who we are talking about. First we have legislators who claim to be working for the common good but keep passing laws that don’t benefit the majority of the public. Then we have psychopathic corporations who spend millions of dollars to convince the public that they are the good guys with the people’s interests at heart but readily admit their only goal is to make a profit.

We need to open our eyes, and then open our mouths, and then use our votes to fix this!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Listening to all the discussions of Libby’s prison sentence commutation, I am struck by the fuzzy logic used by so many as they explain their support of Libby. Regardless of which side you may be on, think about the apples and oranges comparison continually made in these arguments. Does it make sense to say that since a rotten apple (the underlying investigation) managed to slip through, then a rotten orange (Libby’s felonies) should purposely be slipped through?

Using the fact that no one was indicted for the original crime under investigation, namely the outing of a CIA undercover agent, as a reason to excuse Libby is very twisted thinking. It is astounding how many public figures repeat this line without apparently hearing the absurdity in it. Last night on a CNN interview, Duncan Hunter, in a pompously dogmatic statement, did just that. Was he being disingenuous or is he not capable of critical thinking? Either way it is scary to think he wants to be our next President!

It seems very clear if we look just at the facts minus political considerations:
Libby was convicted of lying to Congress and obstructing justice.
These actions are, in and of themselves, felony crimes.
Felonies are indictable offenses.
The jury convicted Libby and the Judge, at sentencing, said the evidence was overwhelming.

If the President wants to commute or pardon Libby, that is his prerogative - although, with what seems a shared flaw in this administration, the President’s choice of explanations is off the mark. The sentence was not “excessive” it was well within the guidelines for such crimes. And do not be fooled, no matter what euphemisms are used, crimes are what we are talking about. Apparently any jail time was considered too much for Libby. Martha Stewart was convicted of similar offenses and she received a prison sentence, which she served. Of course, Martha is just rich and famous; she doesn’t have the political connections that Libby does.

The motives behind what Libby did may be interesting, but they are beside the point when it comes to his guilt or innocence. These offenses, serious enough in themselves under any circumstances, have much deeper ramifications when connected to the actions of the leaders of our country. Without prosecution of those who lie and otherwise attempt to obstruct investigations the entire oversight process is useless. It is impossible to find the truth if those in power are allowed to pervert the system by lying, refusing to testify under oath, and refusing to produce subpoenaed documents.

If you still want to talk about the underlying investigation of Plume’s outing, there are a couple of questions that seem pertinent.

Why would Libby lie if there was nothing to hide?

What might the investigation have uncovered if Libby had not lied and obstructed justice?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)