physche777, "A" and "B" canidates have a pattern of unethical behavior; so, we vote for "C" canidate, whose probably as unethical as "A" and "B" canidates, just hasn't been in the frontlines where it's public knowledge.
I don't believe there is such a thing as an ethical politician, remember that old saying "as crooked as a politician."
Nonetheless,I do agree with you, if it's KNOWN by the public that said canidate has a pattern of unethical practices; DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!
posted by ajeepthing at 10:12 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
psyche77 I think you are basically sound in your logic. I think though that the "no vote" strategy would be interpreted for either cynicism, apathy, or a combination of the two. True ethical behaviour is that honest responsible action, which when completed would not advance one's position and this ethical behaviour is done when a dishonest or unethical action could advance one's position without fear of being discovered. It is not possible to know who will always behave in an ethical manner. Today what is considered unethical by some is deemed ok by others. Sometimes it depends on who's ox is being gored. Voter's have tough choices. But better they make the choice than none at all.
posted by holland at 10:26 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
Although it is hard to define, we assume that there is a certain level of unethicality to politics that we will tolerate, such as being a bit two-faced or compromising a position with an eye toward a greater common goal.
As Americans we tend to abhor politicians who seek financial profit for themselves, but not all cultures see politics the same way that we do. Some cultures are very tolerant of greedy politicians while condemning those who compromise morals, as holland noted.
I do not think you are being overly idealistic, psyche777. We want politicians to practice what they preach, and to live by setting a good example. When they let us down (Clinton, Taft, Trafficant, Nixon), we feel betrayed and angry.
It is odd how Carter was so villified in the 1970s for having such a muddled presidency, and yet he is held up today as a sort of moral icon for politicians to emulate.
posted by historymike at 10:41 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
Good point holland, however if there are (numbers thrown out as an example) 20,000 voters who vote in total for other candidates and issues and the two A and B candidates who are both unethical that only get 4,000 votes split between the two they will get the message that 16,000 voters didn't chose them.
That is a strong message, while one of them would be elected? It is better to me than playing the which one is the worst evil game that we are sometimes forced into feeling we have to play.
Thank you mike, and jeep? If C was an unknown? Might not be too bad of an option especially if they spoke out about the unethical behavior of A and B.
posted by psyche777 at 10:48 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
Carter was the first president I voted for, however it was for his second term. He is the only presidential candidate I have ever voted for that was one of the two main parties for a final election not primary.
None of the other candidates presented by the two main parties have met my requirements to support. While it is frustrating to vote third party or independent knowing your candidate will probably not win? It gives me the feeling that I did not lower my standards, not much in the big picture but for me? Important.
posted by psyche777 at 10:53 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
physce777, you have a question mark behind my screename(Jeep)? I call myself ajeepthing, started talking on Toledo Talk about Jeep; best to keep it that way, with the union monitoring us on Toledo Talk.
Great topic you posted for discussion.
posted by ajeepthing at 11:02 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
physce777, you stated the two top canidates haven't met your requirements; yet, it's difficult to vote third, knowing he may not win, what's important: vote third or don't vote at all.
I went through the same thing recently with a committee election, I knew Ray wasn't going to win, kind of felt I was throwing a vote away, yet, the two front runners, were both of something I did not believe in, I voted for Ray, he lost, but, I voted for what I believed in.
I like your thinking physce777.
posted by ajeepthing at 11:08 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
The political system is setup now to align the voters like iron filings between the 2 poles of Democrat and Republican. Each iron filing is either on one or another pole, and if not, is perilously or metastably suspended between the two, quivering in uncertainty about which pole it will eventually move towards.
In such an environment of stress, no real moral issues can come into play, since there are only 2 answers to each question. In the larger picture, since each moral polarity is primarily energized by money, even these 2 answers are a faux diversity of opinion.
This system is a masterstroke of political control, advanced beyond any designed and implemented in allegedly authoritarian societies like "Soviet Russia". The only thing that seems able to break such a system is the disenfranchisement of a large "center", which -- if it has enough cohesion -- can form a voting bloc that a rogue politician can take advantage of, a la Jesse Ventura.
*I*F* such a system contributes to a systemic cultural stability, then things should be fine. Admittedly, this was so for America after WWII. However, our systems are progressively crashing as the Two-Party Duopoly (to use Nader's term) has aligned itself with domestic and foreign American Imperialism. The domestic agenda involves transforming America's citizenry into wage slaves, which will require outright Fascism. The foreign agenda is to expand the Hypercapitalist franchise to all world resources, and to reduce capital friction to the least possible so that the "velocity of business" is as high as possible.
The Two-Party Duopoly is actually the sworn enemy of the common man of America at the moment. This is why I often say that -- shots fired in Iraq nonwithstanding -- the real war is being fought at home. And America's worker is losing.
To retreat from this apocalyptic result, and to avoid an actual civil war, we could actually try to incrementally shove the culture in direction it needs to go. If enough people make these small shoves, it's possible to obtain a large movement from the collective impetus.
One small shove that would be useful is the imposition of the "none of the above" (NOTA) option on all ballots. NOTA must be correspondingly linked to a "power of the people" philosophy, to avoid public officials simply appointing people to fill positions left empty from continuous use of NOTA. With NOTA, suddenly everyone -- even those who are the most critical of voting -- will have an option to vote. If you don't like the problem of a "highly limited selection of candidates who are almost wholly managed by monied interests" for a particular position, then vote NOTA for that position with the assurance that bad choices don't have to be tolerated.
When the political system itself becomes too corrupt to even allow a diversity of opinion, much less of action, then NOTA can be the Roto-Rooter{tm} that breaks even that most bulbous congestion of turds in the pipe of politics.
posted by GuestZero at 11:15 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
ajeepthing, I put the question mark after your name because I was ending it as a response to your statement. Sorry my laziness as a typist I didn't include your full user name.
guestzero? NOTA should be a more used option.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 11:22 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
Don't mistake perfection for ethics. We expect our politicians to represent us, meaning be like us - have the same values and goals for our communities and yet we demand perfection. The moment they make an error we yell ethics... You can not ask hard working quality folks to step up to the plate and run for office if you only accept perfection. Hard working quality folks have many options to provide service and volunteerism to their community. They can take a pass at elected positions, which they do because they don't need to subject themselves and their families to what amounts to Monday morning quarterbacking. Hindsights wonderful, I wish I had it everyday - but I don't. We all make decision - some decisions are better than others and sometimes we even change our minds or our positions. That's not necessarily unethical. There are more than one or two things I would do different personally if I knew the outcome ahead of time. Good people make dumb mistakes - it's not always unethically - sometimes it's just a dumb mistake...sometimes it is unethically. Most of us would rather give "reasons" why we make a mistake or a bad choice than to stand up and say "I screwed up" let's fix the problem. I know many politicians "D's" "R's" and "I's" - none of them signed up and ran for election because they wanted to "screw" their neighbor or their community.
posted by Justmesylvania at 11:33 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
Valid point Justmesylvania, let's use my favorite local example to demonstrate how I feel about that.
Karyn McConnell Hancock, the fact of her forgetting to renew her plates and driver's license alone should not have been an ethics issue, it is something that could have happened to all of us.
However, add to that her admission she frequently parked illegally while she had free parking near by then her not caring that a disabled person had to go around her car, her attitude concerning law enforcement trying to do their job which was move her car from a no parking zone and you have an ethics issue.
Then add to that the time frame in which she had Toledo Police officers who have much more important tasks than parking?
It becomes an issue of ethics versus perfection.
posted by psyche777 at 12:02 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
Politic's, is ONE BIG HORNET'S NEST, it would be difficult to survive in such a NEST without having unethical behavior.
Yet, if it's public knowledge a politician's practice's are unethical, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!
justmesylvania, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a "dumb mistake" and being UNETHICAL.
posted by ajeepthing at 12:03 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
Justmesylvania, rafts of politicians wriggle and squirm (like Taft did for months) just to avoid admitting they did anything wrong. This kind of behavior doesn't inspire understanding and forgiveness in me. Shocking, isn't it?
Instead of hem-ing and haw-ing, the moral man would admit his past mistakes and accept public judgment thereby. To date, we've not seen this in Presidential elections. I don't expect to see it in the next Ohio Gov. election either.
If you can't at least behave for the term of your office, then you should not hold that office in the first place. (This is the problem with Taft that we're facing now.)
posted by GuestZero at 12:05 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
Taft's problem was faulty bookkeeping. Had he reported the 52 instances he would not have ended up with the four charges.
Had it not been for the Noe investigation he would have gotten away with it but in the end all 52 charges were only under $6,000 in total from what I understand, not a huge amount in the total scheme of things.
I'm not defending Taft, but the key here is to the overall point of ethics. It goes beyond financial gain. It should be concentrated on more than that. We need to eliminate those from power that have the attitude that they are above the law. It doesn't matter if it is Republican or Democrat or Independent.
All of the current Republican candidates for governor are trying to distance themselves from Taft, yet the real question should be not did you support him but did you do the same thing and if so? Admit it now.
posted by psyche777 at 12:27 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
If all elected and appointed public officials were as ethical as many people believe they should be, the U.S.A. would not be a Republic i.e. representative democracy. Instead, we would have a government of purist Victorians in which anyone and everyone who did not meet the definition and/or standard of "ethical" would be punished severely.
Did I hear someone say "Hey, let's return to the good old days of Salem and have us a witch hunt? Let's burn 'em at the stake. Let's put them in stocks or at the public whipping post"
I certainly do not believe our public officials are squeaky clean. Nor, do I believe that our governmental system is without need of improvement. And, I certainly do not care for the current national administration or its stance on many public policy issues.
But, unlike most countries in the world, we live in a country where we have many freedoms and liberties - the Patriot Act notwithstanding.
I say to the cynics, to the apathetics, to the doomsayers, if you can do better, get off your behind and run for public office yourself. And while I am at it, get out of the cloak of your anonymity.
BTW, I do not profess to be without fault, but I do try to practice what I preach.
posted by RolandHansen at 09:38 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
Many of the "anonymous" posters on this board, Roland, are indeed very active in civic life.
I, for example, am a freelance writer who covers NWO, and I know of numerous other people on this board who are involved in politics and non-profit groups.
Unfortunately, some level of anonymity is necessary on a site like this, lest you write something that comes back to haunt you, or gets taken out of context.
posted by historymike at 12:00 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
Do we vote for a politician that we know has unethical behavior? We need to, as justmesylvania stated, know how to separate "dumb mistake" to unethical practices.
Nixon...UNETHICAL...NO NO ONE WOULD VOTE FOR HIM...
Jack Ford...a day long ago on a BRIDGE, NAKED, "dumb mistake"...
Taft...My problem with this one is...if we're going to bring charges up on a government official... Golfing Outing expenses...to me look minor, if the man is a "CRIMINAL" show the real goods...
My question with Taft: was it a "dumb mistake" or "unethical practices".
For me...to label a Politician UNETHICAL, I will have to say...Nixon...I'll have to wait on the Taft scandal, for me, the charges are petty...possibly more will be known with the Noe Investigation.
We should always VOTE for whom we BELIEVE IN...whether it be a throw-away VOTE with present elections...keep voting for "C" if that is whom you believe in...someday...he just may WIN!
posted by MARIELORA at 12:11 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
I learned a long time ago that voting for C is a wasted vote. Remember Parot in the early 90s? Clinton won anyway and Parot didnt even come a close 2nd. I vote for who I think is going to do the best job but I'm not going to waste anymore on C or D.
Does anyone know of a C or D ever winning? At least if you vote for A or B you might get the best of the two evils in there.
And,, Jack Ford was on a bridge naked? LOL... eewww.. thanks for the visual..
posted by swantucky at 12:16 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
I liked Ross! But, I liked Bill, too...I voted for Bill...he won me over when he played the Saxaphone!
posted by MARIELORA at 12:31 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
And while I am at it, get out of the cloak of your anonymity.
In my perfect world I would. When my children are not a concern I probably will. Until then I remain anonymous because I do not have to worry about a backlash that may affect them.
I appreciate your candor. It's refreshing.
posted by thinkingwoman at 02:27 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
Candor is as candor does. Too bad people feel threatened by speaking their minds and feel the need to remain anonymous. But, I guess that it is the reality of our world. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone could say it as they see it and not have to look over their shoulders??
Ah, the thought of a open society - what a pipedream!
posted by RolandHansen at 07:20 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
Roland, I just upped and moved to Florida. Toledo Politicans are a vinctive bunch, as I am a victim of a personal agenda from a former police chief. Being a victim, my family and friends were also subjected to this harassment because of me, which is why I moved.
Therefore, I can understand the need to be unidentified. I am fortunate to have the pride of Toledo coursing through my veins, which is why I participate in offering insight into the debacles within my community.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 07:45 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
Roland you've obviously never been stalked. It's not a fun thing. I had an experience on another message board where the guy decided he didn't like me and found out way to much personal information, address, phone number and started harrassing me. Letting me know he knew where I lived and even where my children went to school. Law enforcement ended up having to get involved.
I should be more anonymous than I am as it is, however? After that? You learn.
posted by psyche777 at 12:52 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 25, 2005 #
Ah, the thought of a open society - what a pipedream!
posted by RolandHansen at 08:20 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
Mr. Hansen, this is a very admirable goal for humanity, but definitely not practical in a venue such as this.
I have recently spoken with some folks who tried with much energy to gain enough signatures to be placed on the ballot for the primary. Because these folks are virtual unknowns and have not developed that level of 'political speak' necessary to schmooze the public they fell short of the required numbers of signatures.
Since we all cannot run for public office we attempt to maintain faith in a system that should allow us access to the folks that ARE elected by us.
I remember the incident that psyche777 refers to, and I can fully believe Brian's reasons for leaving his home town. Unfortunately, we all are subject to scrutiny, ridicule and repercussions for expressing our opinions - no matter the venue.
As for the 'cloak of anonymity' you refer to - that is another one of those rights we are afforded with our civil liberties.
After reading your resume' I am seeing that you and I are not far apart in age. We have both celebrated many experiences in life, some bad, some good, some better that make us who we are today. I would hope that at least one of those experiences fostered patience, understanding, and hope for our futures.
Carry on.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:04 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 25, 2005 #
Good points, DoknowDocare.
Other people have other reasons for maintaining some level of anonymity. As a writer, I could be criticized for not being objective if someone went back and found a personal opinion on a board like ToledoTalk and compared it with something I wrote for a newspaper of a magazine.
We also live in an age where political beliefs can be used against people; I am thinking of teachers who speak out on political issues, only to have angry parents storm into the offices of the district to complain about bias in the classroom.
Finally, consider the possibilities that could occur if an employee wrote comments that angered corporate officers. I have worked in enough corporations to understand the mindset of dealing with so-called "problem" employees, and there is usually someone in any given organization willing to make it their mission to "handle" them (be it termination, harrassment, or just making that person uncomfortable).
posted by historymike at 07:26 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 25, 2005 #
Thanks to all of you for your comments. I do find Toledo Talk to be a refreshing exchange of thoughts, ideas, perspectives, and opinions.
I do understand your desire, need, and necessity for anonymity. I only wish it wasn't necessary. And as I said before: "But, I guess that it is the reality of our world."
Oh, for those who may be unaware, in the past I have indeed been the object of harassing telephone calls, public humiliation, subjected to an investigation by a local law enforcement agency headed by an elected official, and the wrath and ire from a local elected official, who had me dismissed from my job.
After a 19-month battle through the Ohio governmental administrative process and through the judicial processes, I finally re-secured my position with back pay and an out-of-court financial settlement.
While the local media reported several stories about me, the whole and complete truth was never reported. To this day, there are many people who do not know that I was exonerated of all charges (except one minor charge to which I had already admitted before any action against me was even initiated) by the law enforcement agency (the Lucas County Sheriff), the state government administrative appeal process (Ohio Bureau of Unemployment Compensation and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services), and the court system (both the Court of Common Pleas and the Appellant Court.
During the entire episode, I was open, honest, and forthright. However, not so honest was the local elected official who came after me with a vengeance (I won't say that it was Sandy Isenberg --- oops) who levied with malice many fallacious charges against me, as the transcripts and audio recordings which I possess will verify.
The real reason the local elected official came after me was because I legitimately spoke out at a public meeting in the performance of my duties as I had done before and this last time she told me to "shut up and sit down" to which I replied I would not be doing my job if I did so and then I completed my remarks.
Oh, and in addition to all that, upon my return to my position, I continued to be the object of harassment until I retired several years later.
So, the long and short of it: Yes, I do know what it is like to be stalked, harassed, and fired for publicly speaking up.
posted by RolandHansen at 07:08 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 26, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
