Freebies for the Moral Majority
The New York Times has run a series of articles on Rep. Patrick Kennedy since he crashed his car on Capitol Hill ten days ago. So, if I'm reading correctly, he's been open about his past drug addictions and bipolar disorder. While I feel for his suffering, I don't see how he was deemed fit to make policy decisions for his constituents.
Millions of employees in this country are subject to random drug tests at work, and can be fired on the spot for positive results. Is it too much to ask that our legislators be held to the same standards as the good folk who deliver our packages or assemble our automobiles? Lord knows their work is important enough that we should demand better of them.
Excerpt from the latest NYT article:
"Still, he has traded on the Kennedy mystique, using his celebrity to start his career. His celebrity did not hurt, either, when he got into various scrapes, like the time he shoved a Los Angeles airport security guard or when the Coast Guard retrieved a woman who said the two had argued while drinking on his yacht.
Mr. Kennedy's advisers say he now views these incidents, as well as his addiction and bouts of binge drinking, through the prism of his bipolar disorder, a type of depression marked by extreme highs and lows. But some wonder whether this latest incident must be his last.
'I don't think anybody realized until now how serious his problems were,' said M. Charles Bakst, a longtime political columnist for The Providence Journal. 'Now it all makes sense, and you realize that this kid is on the brink. And I think if it happens again, you are going to see people say, not necessarily angrily or bitterly, but sadly, maybe, that public life isn't for him.'"
Full text here:
For a Kennedy, Fighting the Stigma of Mental Illness Becomes Personal - New York Times
7 Comments:
Sadly another example of how Politicians and cerlebrities get a slap on the wrist while your everyday person has no chance. why am I not surprised?
i'm waiting for someone to create a 3rd political party - the DO THE RIGHT THING party.
I don't get why this blog entry was titled the way it is: "Freebies for the Moral Majority". You can find loosers, wounded, righteous, sincere--what ever you look for--in every "camp". There are all kinds of people who get unfair treatment in every direction and depending on where you live you might or might not have connections or what ever. I once spoke to a woman who was so not racist... She just couldn't tolerate people who aren't educated. (Sorry that not everyone's family has that strength.)
I like the idea of the "do the right thing" party. Thing is, who gets to decide what's "right"? I mean, who's calibrating the moral compass? Does it include tolerance unless you don't think like me? Does it mean tolerating intolerance? Does it mean tolerating people who want to destroy you?
I hope this isn't too much rambling here. And I hope your days are richly blessed.
Hey Anon,
Not rambling, good points and good questions.
When I wrote the title I was thinking about the upcoming elections and the added ammunition this incident will give to conservative campaigners.
It's true there is good and bad in every camp...and i tend to pick on the republicans more partly because i'm unhappy with a lot of decisions that have been made over the last 8 years and partly because it's always easier to pick on whoever is in charge.
You bring up a bigger question - is morality subjective? I would argue that human beings have a pretty consistent compass for what is good and what is bad, what is fair and what is unfair. Taking something that isn't yours - bad. Pulling a child out of the way of a car - good. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we applied the wisdom of crowds to politics. (I know that's the idea behind voting but seems like there are too many ways to circumvent the popular vote)
It's ol' anonymous me again. :-)
So here's the next challenging question: If you'd argue that "human beings have a pretty consistent compass for what is good and what is bad, what is fair and what is unfair" then I have to disagree. Most human beings in China don't seem to have a problem letting go of so many of their baby girls. The ones that get adopted to the US are not the whole picture. Many babies meet an unspeakable end. Most human beings in Bedoin society tolerate over 90% of women being sexually abused. Ever read the books that have come out of Saudi Arabia by Bin Ladin and the Princess? And these are the women who have the resources to get books published. You can read the reviews of these books on Amazon to see that what they write about is backed up by readers who know witnesses to the things that go on in their world. In India, I've heard that it's not uncommon for the wife of a rich man who dies to be thrown on the funeral pire with his body or for poor people to be mutilated and then sent to the streets to beg money that will be handed over to their "owners". And there are the examples right now in modern times. I haven't even stepped into the past. I mean do we dare get into what Europe let happen just a paltry 60 years ago. I've also learned that the first reaction to Hitler was that he was a wacko lunatic, but as it turns out, most people were not really willing to risk their comfort or neck or whatever to stop him. The Crusades... Oh, the torture chambers that are still the highlight of many tours of European castles.
So, I would argue that all human beings are not naturally on the same page or moral and just in the way that Americans take for granted. (Shoplifting in Muslim counries can result in the theif's hand being chopped off--I've seen photos of clusters of hands hanging.) My point with this one is that sometimes Americans take it for granted that their sense of right and wrong is right. But that's really not the way that many other places in the world operate.
Okay, now be nice because I'm going to say something that will be very politically incorrect, but I'm going to say it anyway: US values, for the most part, are based on a biblical foundation. There's not the space or time to get into or argue the nuances here, but we can start with the big 10--no murder, no stealing (kidnapping), respecting parents, no adultery, get over jealousy and coveting. Pretty good guidlines that most Americans would agree with. But how do we know that that's really what's "just"?
The punchline: Intellegence or power without God (who's got a perspective we'll never have) can be deadly and (gulp, dare I use another politically incorrect term) evil.
Well Kat, I didn't mean to get so heavy. I usually avoid posting like this. It takes me a while to put my thoughts together and I don't know that it makes any difference when I do write it down. The theme I try to stick to is "random (and planned) acts of kindness." I really do believe that the kindnesses we do in life fight evil in unimaginable ways. (By the way, I base what's kind also on biblical teachings, visiting the sick, giving charity, kind words, helping disadvantaged people.)
Keep shining your light Kat,
your buddy in cyberspace,
Anon :-)
hmm i think that mixes in learned behavior with what is innate. people can be trained to kill and learn to like it but i believe (and maybe i'm wrong) that most people innately know that killing = not good. you don't think a mother who drowns her baby in China feels guilt?
whereas you are saying right and wrong is relative...i think people do awful things EVEN THOUGH they know they are wrong, because they get something out of it that is more important to them at the time.
i agree with you on this country's biblical roots...IN GOD WE TRUST is still on our money for goodness' sake...but i don't think that negates the argument about a common sense of morality. what about the Code of Hammurabi or the laws of Ancient Greece & Rome?
there was a RadioLab (WNYC) segment on morality not long ago that explored where those thoughts come from and which parts of the brain are responsible for making moral judgements. there is also work out there about how our morality has been shaped by our evolution. as we organized into communities, our morality became tied to the societal good.
it's a subject has been and will continue to be debated by people who know far more than I...thanks for pushing me to think more carefully about it =)
And thanks for receiving my comments in the spirit that I meant them (which doesn't always happen).
There's always more to say and more to think about. And there's always more good to do in the world.
Keep doing good.
Anon (a name I don't usually use)
Post a Comment
<< Home