Mikey, do you honestly believe that most people are aware of their flaws? Because, not to sound too circular with this bit of logic, but, the inability to find any flaws or weaknesses in yourself is a flaw in and of itself. No one's perfect. And if you think you are, well, you've probably found your biggest weakness right there.
Politicians and corruption, what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
- Thread starter thomaska
- Start date
Well, substitute something else in there for corruption, if you desire.
Using the state's money for a hooker sure seems like it qualifies as corruption.
Should we call it "an extended open-ended loan" instead of theft?
Hey, I never once said they shouldn't be held accountable (actually, if you go back I point out crime is crime). I've never even said that they should be given a pat on the head and left in office. But, being corrupt and being a f__kupmoron aren't the same thing.
Thomaska
How can we hold our politicians accountable when we don't hold ourselves accountable?
How do you break the conditioning of years of advertising that tell us "what a young woman/man "ought" to look like.... How "what you drive advertises your "status" to the world.....?
Rape murder and carnage are the biggest box-office sellers because they appeal to the barbaric and primitive within us all.....
As I've said elsewhere, you can't "feel" your way through this process, you have to think.
How can we hold our politicians accountable when we don't hold ourselves accountable?
How do you break the conditioning of years of advertising that tell us "what a young woman/man "ought" to look like.... How "what you drive advertises your "status" to the world.....?
Rape murder and carnage are the biggest box-office sellers because they appeal to the barbaric and primitive within us all.....
As I've said elsewhere, you can't "feel" your way through this process, you have to think.
Hey, your OP doesn't say one word about siphoning state funds, it just says prostitution, and in my response, I made sure to say that those crimes don't constitute corruption without context.
Karrie
You didn't come right out and say It's OK"....are you vying for public office...
Dismissing the notion that people have flaws because they can't see them is tacit acceptance of the condition. Governments have ethics boards and auditors and other mechanisms that are "supposed" to provide oversight to people who are flawed (the nature of being human) but have these constructs served their purpose?
You didn't come right out and say It's OK"....are you vying for public office...
Dismissing the notion that people have flaws because they can't see them is tacit acceptance of the condition. Governments have ethics boards and auditors and other mechanisms that are "supposed" to provide oversight to people who are flawed (the nature of being human) but have these constructs served their purpose?
I should amend the original post I suppose. I didn't mean to limit the list of "corruption" to below the belt misdeeds solely.
I'm still not giving them a pass on it though, just because those deeds are "human nature".
I don't think it is wrong to hold people to account for them.
If a politician ran on the "Why don't we get Drunk, and Screw" platform and subsequently got elected, then we would have nothing to complain about. We got what we asked for.
Hell, while I'm amending stuff, might as well include all leadership roles, not just the elected ones.
People that sieze power are probably worse than those who have any sort of reponsibility to their electorate.
Because, someone can 'get-away-with' an action or behavior they know is "wrong" isn't demonstrative of an attitude or value-system that should be given power of life and death over other people. If you aren't prepared to accept that your actions (because they involve the well-being of many) ought to fall to a scrutiny predicated on a higher standard than what passes in the streets...then you shouldn't be involved in running for public office.
I'm not excusing poor behavior Mikey, and most definitely not excusing criminal acts.
Karrie
Then the premise that the character and nature of the common man, what the average person might or might not do....doesn't apply now does it?
If we can excuse or mitigate our disapproval of some behaviors because that behaviour is less disturbing if committed by the average person...than it would be if committed by an elected official..... we aren't applying the same standards at all.
We "accept" that unless there is "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that a person has committed a crime, while enjoying the psychological capacity to differentiate between right and wrong....that person is innocent of the accused crime. Cases are made and prosecuted in our judicial system on the basis of far less (sometimes) than absolute "proof".
And our judicial system differentiates between the crimes of Martha Stewart and the crimes of Timothy McVeigh. We accept on some level that crimes that don't "hurt" other people are less deserving of corporal consequences. When Stephen Harper acting on the "greater interests" of the majority of Canadians sends young people to die is he less guilty than Timothy McVeigh because his position gives him authority not given to the individual? Of course!
That's precisely why the character and skills, the integrity and "values" of politicians must be held to a higher standard than the average.
Then the premise that the character and nature of the common man, what the average person might or might not do....doesn't apply now does it?
If we can excuse or mitigate our disapproval of some behaviors because that behaviour is less disturbing if committed by the average person...than it would be if committed by an elected official..... we aren't applying the same standards at all.
We "accept" that unless there is "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that a person has committed a crime, while enjoying the psychological capacity to differentiate between right and wrong....that person is innocent of the accused crime. Cases are made and prosecuted in our judicial system on the basis of far less (sometimes) than absolute "proof".
And our judicial system differentiates between the crimes of Martha Stewart and the crimes of Timothy McVeigh. We accept on some level that crimes that don't "hurt" other people are less deserving of corporal consequences. When Stephen Harper acting on the "greater interests" of the majority of Canadians sends young people to die is he less guilty than Timothy McVeigh because his position gives him authority not given to the individual? Of course!
That's precisely why the character and skills, the integrity and "values" of politicians must be held to a higher standard than the average.
I guess what's pissing me off the most about it is that the media has brainwashed so many into believing that flawed people can't do a good job. Flawed people have had a great hand in running countries in the past. Being frank and honest, acknowledging your flaws or mistakes (not excusing them or indulging them), doesn't stop someone from getting the job done. But the media has the world convinced that it needs to be watching the vices of their politicians, and only letting the squeaky clean through. So, while everyone's busy focusing on turning up the dirt on 'the morally weak' (which seems to half the time involve peeking in bedroom windows), these seemingly squeaky clean politicians are doing things that actually qualify as corrupt, and have the power to injure their citizens to a degree that makes the Lewinsky scandal look moronic.
They've got the focus on the wrong crimes.
They've got the focus on the wrong crimes.
If you were elected President then you might be inclined to undermine religion in some form, given the power to do so. Or you would sell out to religion for political gain. I don't think you would ignore it completely.
This right here, was my point, almost my entire point. Not that some should be excused, but that there is a differentiation between the TYPES of crimes. Drug use does not qualify as corruption, it just qualifies as crime. Corruption doesn't even always need to come in the form of crime. Sometimes it comes merely in the form of dragging your feet on some paperwork and rushing others through. To lump an affair or drug use, common human crimes, in with political corruption seems ridiculous. That's my only point. If you want to keep running off about 'excusing' behaviors, have fun, because I never said it.
Geez Karrie ...take a valium...
We "excuse" our politicians far more than we "excuse" the average citizen. We subscribe to the notion that politicians have many masters and we'd like to think that their principle "authority" is sound judgment based on solid moral premise. This simply isn't the case because elections are won on the basis of how much money can be piled against the people through advertising and promotion. No one imagines for a moment that there's an enormous difference between a Chevrolet and a Ford...no one believes that one product is so overwhelmingly superior to some other (virtually the same) product and yet affiliations and loyalties to different parties to different brand names to different colors...exist. And does anyone imagine for a moment that pricy (billions of dollars) campaigns and polls, surveys and "tests" aren't conducted to legitimize some particular product over some other ostensibly equivalent product?
Public office has been up for sale for a very long time. If you start out with the fundamental premise that you can shape opinions and the "success" of your effort to achieve public office is based on how many people's opinions and loyalties you can influence and "buy" how trustworthy is that entire system?
We "excuse" our politicians far more than we "excuse" the average citizen. We subscribe to the notion that politicians have many masters and we'd like to think that their principle "authority" is sound judgment based on solid moral premise. This simply isn't the case because elections are won on the basis of how much money can be piled against the people through advertising and promotion. No one imagines for a moment that there's an enormous difference between a Chevrolet and a Ford...no one believes that one product is so overwhelmingly superior to some other (virtually the same) product and yet affiliations and loyalties to different parties to different brand names to different colors...exist. And does anyone imagine for a moment that pricy (billions of dollars) campaigns and polls, surveys and "tests" aren't conducted to legitimize some particular product over some other ostensibly equivalent product?
Public office has been up for sale for a very long time. If you start out with the fundamental premise that you can shape opinions and the "success" of your effort to achieve public office is based on how many people's opinions and loyalties you can influence and "buy" how trustworthy is that entire system?