Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Monday, November 23, 2009

The 28th Amendment

I get a lot of useful, funny, not-so-useful, and not-so-funny emails. I also get some things that are, in their own way, profound and deserve attention. One of those I feel deserving of attention recently came across my screen. It proposed a 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed amendment read as follows:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

In principal, I looked at this and thought “Yup! This needs to be done.” As a practical matter, I thought “I wonder if this will really serve its intended purpose.” I believe it was conceived with regard to the idiotic “Health Care Reform” proposals now floating among the idiots in Washington DC.

Its intention appears to be to get rid of the special health care plan for congress, their ability to vote unconscionable pay raises for themselves, their 100% pay pension for life regardless of time served, and their apparent disregard of tax laws that they ignore or short-circuit, confident that their colleagues will not prosecute – or even investigate – them. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, after all.

I would be interested in the opinions of others on this. Specifically:

-Should the wording be otherwise worded to better eliminate the new class of royalty?

-How do YOU feel about such an effort?

-What are the non-violent alternatives in dealing with an American aristocracy that was never supposed to be able to exist?






Friday, March 23, 2007

Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 3

I told you I wouldn’t run out of numbers for the many parts of this topic that the House of Representatives seems hell-bent on testing me on. I can count to 3 and a lot higher, and it appears I will need to. They don’t think I can because I’m here at the bottom, but as usual, they’re wrong. However, based on the utterly stupid, self-serving, soul-selling, tax-squandering vote in the House today, it would not unreasonable to ask if the Democratic Party leadership can. But that is not my purpose today.

The Democrat leadership today squandered more of my money to pass a piece of legislation that attempts to turn over the middle-east to terrorists, has no chance of becoming law, persuaded previously sensible members of their party to sell their souls for pork, and will fail to appease the most radical wing of the party – which had to be the real goal, since no other goal is realistically achievable, even on the bizarro planet of Pelosi.

As Nancy Pelosi and her “leadership team” bought the souls of those previously sensible congress-people who once voted their conscience, I wonder if she remembered her pre-election pledge to run the most ethical congress ever. Yeah, right! My guess (and I realize it doesn’t count because I am down here at the bottom) is that since the secular-progressive crowd doesn’t deal in souls except to deny their nourishment wherever possible, they are not really capable of recognizing the sale of one. So apparently, buying and selling souls (or if you please consciences) is perfectly ethical in the 110th Congress.

For those of you up there at the top who sold out today, this was soul-selling. Recognize it. You sold them cheap – ultimately for no gain. You don’t even get the pork you sold them for. Ironically most of the people in the middle-east (you remember, the people you are selling out to their radical, militant, totalitarian neighbors) wouldn’t touch pork, lest they lose their souls.

Maybe there is a lesson there that we can take from Islam and Judaism. I meant the rest of us, of course, not House Democrats and others who ultimately cast votes that favor terrorists.

That’s the very sad view of the U.S.Congress again today here at the bottom.