0
   

Personal Responsibility

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 09:57 pm
I think I am going to guess this is cyclops attempt to differentiate public morality from private morality. This is not a new angle for Democrats. They have been suggesting in comments for quite a while that public morality is what matters, and this issue became clear to me during Clinton's administration.

The theory goes like this. It is okay to lie, cheat, and steal, as long as you are publicly moral by taxing the people to the bone to give it to the poor. Conversely, Republicans are hypocrits anyway, and even if they are privately moral, it means nothing because they do not want to help their fellow man as a public servant, so they are all morally corrupt. So their conclusion was that Clinton was one of the most moral presidents in the history of the country.

How close am I to your line of reasoning and purpose of your thread, cyclops?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 06:59 am
I read this and thought of this thread.

A Shameless Congress Applauds `Ethics' Law

By Margaret Carlson

Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- To much fanfare and self- congratulation, the U.S. Congress passed ethics legislation last week supposedly making the members subject to the same standards of behavior the rest of us live by.

At almost the same time, a federal court handed down a decision involving a congressman whose office was raided by the FBI last year as part of a bribery case that included the earlier discovery of $90,000 he stashed in his home freezer. The ruling reminds us how much more Washington is like Vegas than Peoria. Under the Constitution, a congressman can protect his legislative files from being searched. In other words, what happens in your Capitol Hill office stays in your Capitol Hill office.

The ruling came in the matter of Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat indicted for bribery in June. Jefferson allegedly got the $90,000 from a telecommunications entrepreneur who enlisted his help in getting approval from a Nigerian official to do business in that country.

The court didn't buy that the Justice Department did everything it could during the search to shield privileged documents, short of letting Jefferson conduct his own raid. A ``filter team'' removed any material that smacked of Jefferson's legislative duties. The court found the effort insufficient ``to protect the privilege'' of the legislative branch to be free from intrusions by the executive branch.

Shielding Lawbreakers

This means that under the principle of shielding lawmakers, lawbreakers may be shielded from legitimate law enforcement. Jefferson's lawyer Robert Trout was thrilled, saying the decision shows that every member of Congress has an ``absolute right to review his records first and shield legislative material from review.'' Federal agents get to see what's left.

Jefferson must be kicking himself. Why didn't he think to take the loot out of the freezer in his home and disperse it among the files labeled ``congressional bills'' at his office?

Consider the possibilities. Yes, it would have been hard for former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, now in prison, to keep his Louis XIV commode hidden in his office. But he could have easily stuffed any records about goodies provided by his defense contractor pals, such as the lease for his yacht ``Duke-Stir,'' into a file drawer labeled ``Hearings.''

Like the Jefferson affair, the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska could give a whole new meaning to the phrase Capitol Hideaway. Stevens's house in Alaska was raided last week by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service as part of a broad corruption probe. Stevens has multiple ties to businessman Bill Allen, who, since pleading guilty to bribery in May, is said to be singing like an Arctic loon.

If Only He'd Known

With the court's ruling, Stevens could have shipped anything he didn't want to be discovered to the Hart Senate Office Building for safekeeping.

Stevens and Jefferson are just two of at least a dozen members of Congress under investigation, which puts increasing pressure on the lawmakers to do something about corruption. That something, unfortunately, has loopholes large enough for a Gulfstream V to fly through.

The ethics legislation allows members to do all kinds of things -- as long as they disclose them. Want to have a fat cat contributor? Just make sure he discloses that he's bundling donations from friends, clients and employees.

Don't want to give up earmarks? You can still shoehorn an appropriation for millions of dollars onto an unrelated piece of legislation as long as you put your name on it.

`Bridge to Nowhere'

The law would have done nothing to stop Stevens from getting his ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a quarter-mile span connecting an Alaskan town to an island of 50 people, a couple of years ago.

Gifts and free travel are banned, unless they are part of campaigning. In other words, Congressman A can't have a rare rib-eye, creamed spinach and a bottle of Merlot with Businessman B at the Palm unless it's in conjunction with fundraising. In the case of congressional ethics, two wrongs do make a right.

The reason disclosure no longer works as a deterrent is that shame no longer works. As the ethics legislation was rolling to passage, Stevens, at a private luncheon with Republican colleagues, threatened to hold the whole thing up if the ban on traveling on corporate aircraft wasn't removed. He will still be able to fly Air Lobbyist. He'll just have to pay for it at commercial charter rates.

In wanting to keep his perks, Stevens may be the most outspoken member, but he's, by no means, alone. ``Ethics'' is the one area in Congress where there is heartwarming bipartisanship.

`Culture of Corruption'

Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Thomas Foley filed legal briefs in support of Jefferson. When the court said the search was unlawful, Speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded. Earlier, Pelosi, who once pledged to end the Republican ``culture of corruption,'' took away Jefferson's coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee after the FBI raid on his office only to try to award him a coveted seat on the homeland security panel.

Some legislation is worse than no legislation. Senator John McCain, showing again why he'll never be president, said the ethics bill will delude voters into thinking things have been fixed when they haven't.

``This will continue the earmarking and pork barrel projects,'' the Arizona Republican said. ``Again, the American people will have been deceived.''

Most of the other members are chest-thumping as if they've really done something. The public would be better off if Congress had to live by the laws that apply to everyone else, criminal and civil, and at least a few of the Ten Commandments. I'd start with thou shalt not steal -- and work from there.
0 Replies
 
Dghs48
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 07:29 am
It is often pointed out that earmarks are a very small slice of the federal budget. That is true, but they are also the root of corruption and should be done away with. Congress, however hesitates to do that because they curry favor and votes back home. And we, as voters tend to applaud our legislators for bringing home the bacon.

Anything wrong here?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 09:20 am
Does anyone doubt the Democrat's use of the phrase "culture of corruption" was only a campaign slogan for campaigning purposes. The concerns over corruption seem to have drifted into the sunset, and even Hillary is claiming lobbyists are real people simply wanting to get their agenda furthered. John Edwards has to be one of the most transparent phonies, claiming to do away with special interests, but has he ever heard of trial lawyers, of which he is one, that throw their millions around Washington, some of it to him? It is only somebody else's ox that matters, you know, as I imagine slick, rich lawyers are not special interests to him.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 09:24 am
okie wrote:
I think I am going to guess this is cyclops attempt to differentiate public morality from private morality. This is not a new angle for Democrats. They have been suggesting in comments for quite a while that public morality is what matters, and this issue became clear to me during Clinton's administration.

The theory goes like this. It is okay to lie, cheat, and steal, as long as you are publicly moral by taxing the people to the bone to give it to the poor. Conversely, Republicans are hypocrits anyway, and even if they are privately moral, it means nothing because they do not want to help their fellow man as a public servant, so they are all morally corrupt. So their conclusion was that Clinton was one of the most moral presidents in the history of the country.

How close am I to your line of reasoning and purpose of your thread, cyclops?


Insultingly far off. Insultingly.

I disagree with this completely, Okie:

Quote:


Yes and no.
A public servant swears to uphold the law and the constitution, does he not? Therefore what he does in that regard in conjunction with his official duties that is a matter of judgement or policy to accomplish the above, is not a personal thing.


My purpose is this: to see if people agree with me that every action taken by a person, whether it is in the course of fufilling their official duties, their personal desires, or whatever, is an action for which he could be held personally responsible.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as an official duty which removes personal responsibility from an action. It strikes me as funny, that many of the Republicans on this thread don't seem to agree with this position - and they are supposedly the party of 'personal responsibility.'

Why, Okie, are people removed of their Responsibility for actions taken in their quest to fulfill their public duties? Are they not required to use their judgment of right and wrong? Are they somehow morally immunized from responsibility for their actions? I don't understand the viewpoint that would remove someone's responsibility just b/c they are pursuing a larger goal.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dghs48
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 09:25 am
The "culture of Corruption" is a neat political gimmick, but not much more....Remember Rostenkowski, Jim Wright, and the check cashing scheme?

My solution? Don't vote for any incumbents and insist on term limits for Congress, just like we have for the President. Also.....a line item veto for the President.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 09:30 am
Cite examples, cyclops. That is the only way we can see what your real motive is here.

Official duties do make things different, and this should be so simply obvious, cyclops. If you shoot a criminal in the line of duty as a policeman, it is different than shooting a man as a citizen. Being a policeman requires you to place yourself in situations and do thingss that you would otherwise not do. You are doing them as an agent of the government to uphold the law, not as an individual.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 09:37 am
okie wrote:
Cite examples, cyclops. That is the only way we can see what your real motive is here.

Official duties do make things different, and this should be so simply obvious, cyclops. If you shoot a criminal in the line of duty as a policeman, it is different than shooting a man as a citizen. Being a policeman requires you to place yourself in situations and do thingss that you would otherwise not do. You are doing them as an agent of the government to uphold the law, not as an individual.


Sure, let's use your example.

Is the Policeman still responsible for shooting someone in the line of duty, or is he not responsible for his actions? The obvious answer is that yes, he is responsible for his actions. I'd like to hear why you don't think he would be responsible for doing this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 09:54 am
Come on cyclops, are you going to argue over the sun coming up? I thought you were a lawyer?

He is responsible, however, his responsibility is slightly different as a policeman than if he did the same thing as a private citizen. His official duties allow him to react differently and to do more than if he is a private citizen. He has more responsibility and more authorization, and he does it not as an individual, but as an agent of the government that authorizes him to do it, per the laws governing such things. The government therefore can protect him from the otherwise legal responsibility of him doing the very same thing as a private citizen. This in fact would have to be the case, or nobody in their right mind would ever serve in government. Also, it is the government that puts a policeman in dangerous and vulnerable situations that they would not otherwise be in, so the policeman is not totally responsible as a private citizen. His responsibility is slightly different.

If on the other hand, this same policeman goes to a bar and drinks off duty and out of uniform, and shoots a man, it may be a totally different story. He may be legally vulnerable and the circumstances of the shooting are treated differently.

This strikes me as being so basic and so logical, that I would think everyone should know this and accept it as ho-humm, yes, that is obvious there is a difference.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 10:10 am
okie wrote:
Come on cyclops, are you going to argue over the sun coming up? I thought you were a lawyer?

He is responsible, however, his responsibility is slightly different as a policeman than if he did the same thing as a private citizen. His official duties allow him to react differently and to do more than if he is a private citizen. He has more responsibility and more authorization, and he does it not as an individual, but as an agent of the government that authorizes him to do it, per the laws governing such things. The government therefore can protect him from the otherwise legal responsibility of him doing the very same thing as a private citizen. This in fact would have to be the case, or nobody in their right mind would ever serve in government. Also, it is the government that puts a policeman in dangerous and vulnerable situations that they would not otherwise be in, so the policeman is not totally responsible as a private citizen. His responsibility is slightly different.

If on the other hand, this same policeman goes to a bar and drinks off duty and out of uniform, and shoots a man, it may be a totally different story. He may be legally vulnerable and the circumstances of the shooting are treated differently.

This strikes me as being so basic and so logical, that I would think everyone should know this and accept it as ho-humm, yes, that is obvious there is a difference.


I'm just trying to square that with this:

Quote:

Yes and no.
A public servant swears to uphold the law and the constitution, does he not? Therefore what he does in that regard in conjunction with his official duties that is a matter of judgement or policy to accomplish the above, is not a personal thing.


It is personal when you use your judgment to carry out official acts. Police officers have a responsibility to use their personal judgment when enforcing the law. They are not removed of personal responsibility for doing so. True, they are shielded to a certain extent by their position, legally, but this doesn't change the fact that they are responsible.

In the realm of politics and business, I say this same responsibility holds. If you make a decision in the course of your duties, you are responsible for the effects of that decision. I'm not calling for laws to be changed, but for people to own up to their mistakes as well as their successes; for people to be responsible for their decisions and the impact of those decisions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 10:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is personal when you use your judgment to carry out official acts. Police officers have a responsibility to use their personal judgment when enforcing the law. They are not removed of personal responsibility for doing so. True, they are shielded to a certain extent by their position, legally, but this doesn't change the fact that they are responsible.

In the realm of politics and business, I say this same responsibility holds. If you make a decision in the course of your duties, you are responsible for the effects of that decision. I'm not calling for laws to be changed, but for people to own up to their mistakes as well as their successes; for people to be responsible for their decisions and the impact of those decisions.

Cycloptichorn

Here again, you sidestep the issue. A police officer uses personal judgement, but he applies it to the professional judgement and training given him. In other words, if a suspect does this, the officer can and should do this, according to his training, not his personal judgement. True, he judges how to apply what the training tells him he should do or should not do, and that training and professional guidelines are alot different than personal judgement. His judgement tells him how to react according to what his official duties tell him to do.

So, the policemen carries out his official duties according to what the government tells him to do, not as an individual. He is not personally responsible for what he does, if he does them according to what the job officially mandates him to do.

If that same policeman commits a crime, not in the official capacity of his duties, whether he is on company time or not, he is personally responsible. In other words, if he robs a liquor store while on duty, he is personally responsible.

This is all pretty simple, cyclops.

That is why I am so flummoxed by congressmen claiming exemption for officers searching William Jefferson's office in regard to evidence of crimes he committed. He is just as responsible as anyone else in regard to the crime of bribery.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 10:44 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is personal when you use your judgment to carry out official acts. Police officers have a responsibility to use their personal judgment when enforcing the law. They are not removed of personal responsibility for doing so. True, they are shielded to a certain extent by their position, legally, but this doesn't change the fact that they are responsible.

In the realm of politics and business, I say this same responsibility holds. If you make a decision in the course of your duties, you are responsible for the effects of that decision. I'm not calling for laws to be changed, but for people to own up to their mistakes as well as their successes; for people to be responsible for their decisions and the impact of those decisions.

Cycloptichorn

Here again, you sidestep the issue. A police officer uses personal judgement, but he applies it to the professional judgement and training given him. In other words, if a suspect does this, the officer can and should do this, according to his training, not his personal judgement. True, he judges how to apply what the training tells him he should do or should not do, and that training and professional guidelines are alot different than personal judgement. His judgement tells him how to react according to what his official duties tell him to do.

So, the policemen carries out his official duties according to what the government tells him to do, not as an individual. He is not personally responsible for what he does, if he does them according to what the job officially mandates him to do.

If that same policeman commits a crime, not in the official capacity of his duties, whether he is on company time or not, he is personally responsible. In other words, if he robs a liquor store while on duty, he is personally responsible.

This is all pretty simple, cyclops.

That is why I am so flummoxed by congressmen claiming exemption for officers searching William Jefferson's office in regard to evidence of crimes he committed. He is just as responsible as anyone else in regard to the crime of bribery.


See, I agree with you when it comes to Jefferson. He has personal responsibility for his actions, and shouldn't be shielded b/c he's in the Congress.

Let's say that a policeman decides to shoot someone who he surprises in an alley, and the guy seems to have something in his hand. If it turns out not to be a gun, is the police officer still morally and ethically responsible for killing the guy - even if he isn't legally responsible for doing so?

I don't think this is as simple as you make it out to be. Let me ask you: do you think Bush is personally responsible for starting the Iraq war?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 10:53 am
I wonder then, are doctors who perform abortions personally responsible for the death of that baby?

By Cyc's thinking, the obvious answer must be yes.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 10:55 am
McGentrix wrote:
I wonder then, are doctors who perform abortions personally responsible for the death of that baby?

By Cyc's thinking, the obvious answer must be yes.


And, you would be correct.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 11:00 am
That is a good example. No, I do not think the policeman should be held to the same standards as if he is a private citizen, for the simple reason that the policeman would not be in the alley looking for a suspect if he was simply a private citizen. Society has placed that policeman there, not the policeman. Society has placed the policeman in dangerous situations and has placed in the policeman the responsibility to carry out the laws enacted by society. He is not there as a private citizen. The policeman can try to exercise his professional judgement, but all cannot be done perfectly in an imperfect world. If it can be shown the policeman did not follow guidelines practiced by policemen, then he may be kicked off the force or worse, but I think it needs to be shown that he was totally out of line and acted very inappropriately and recklessly, and not only that, intentionally. Unintentional goofups in the line of duty is something that cannot be prosecuted in the same way as if it was done by an individual.

Alot depends upon why the policeman was there, who he was looking for, and what transpired before the shooting, but if the policeman was there in the line of duty and trying to enforce the law, that is different than being there as a private citizen or as a policeman being somewhere and doing somehting other than the line of duty.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 11:05 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I wonder then, are doctors who perform abortions personally responsible for the death of that baby?

By Cyc's thinking, the obvious answer must be yes.


And, you would be correct.

Cycloptichorn

If abortions are legal, no, not under the law.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 11:09 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I wonder then, are doctors who perform abortions personally responsible for the death of that baby?

By Cyc's thinking, the obvious answer must be yes.


And, you would be correct.

Cycloptichorn

If abortions are legal, no, not under the law.


But, you are wrong. They are responsible for their actions under the law.

The fact that abortions are legal does not remove responsibility for the actions, it merely defines the consequences of taking those actions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 12:00 pm
Many people would not perform abortions because they believe they are wrong. In that case, I think the law is wrong, so it isn't a good example.

Lets switch to other medical procedures. If a doctor does heart surgery, is he responsible as a doctor or as an individual, vs a private citizen non-doctor that does heart surgery? Please don't tell me you don't see a difference.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 12:02 pm
BTW, a fetus is not a baby.

A person loses his job, which causes him to also lose his health insurance. Should he become ill requiring very expensive testing and treatment, it is his personal responsibility to secure and pay for his healthcare. This, of course, is the system we live under, and it is wrong. Basically, it tells the ordinary person that if he cannot afford insurance, he can just drop dead.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 12:06 pm
okie wrote:
Many people would not perform abortions because they believe they are wrong. In that case, I think the law is wrong, so it isn't a good example.

Lets switch to other medical procedures. If a doctor does heart surgery, is he responsible as a doctor or as an individual, vs a private citizen non-doctor that does heart surgery? Please don't tell me you don't see a difference.


Nope, there's no difference. He still bears responsibility for his actions. He is given license to perform surgery, whereas an individual is not; but not any less responsibility for the outcome.

Let us say that the Doctor accidentally nicks a major vein during your heart surgery, and you die from blood loss. Even though it was an accident, it's fair to say that he was responsible for the death.

An analogous situation would be you or someone like you making a decision while on the job. That decision leads to problems or injury to others. It isn't enough to say 'well, I was just trying to do my job as best I could, so I'm not responsible.' Of course you would be, especially if there was evidence that you made the wrong decision based upon certain factors which come to light. I'm not sure why you think that Politicians should not be held to the same standard.

I happen to believe that public service, such as our elected representatives, brings a higher standard then most people have to face, not a lower one. The public is entrusting you with running the show; you absolutely are responsible for what you do with that trust, whether or not it is in the course of discharging those duties or not.

Do you disagree that politicians should be held to a higher standard then regular folks, when it comes to personal responsibility?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 05:38:51