Stories like this highlight the vast dividing line between rich and poor.
I've been fortunate to grow up middle class. I've had every opportunity to succeed. My parents were not so lucky. Both came from poor country stock and both carry the attitudes and proclivities of the poor.
Those attitudes impacted me in a significant way--making me sensitive the the plight of the poor and downtrodden. These lessons, more than anything, explain my tendency to support the many over the few--the weak over the strong. Essentially, growing up with middle class resources, but a lower class mindset shaped my political values.
For many decades now, a scary, class-ist, and ultimately aristocratic attitude has governed our society. Hopefully, its final expression in the Bush administration and their mouthpieces in the press (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck to name a few..) will be nothing more than a death shudder of a narrow and mean view of society.
Policies enacted over decades make it easier to exploit those with little social power. Greed--encouraged by an ideology of self-reliance and a laissez-faire agenda reminiscent of pre-Depression era government and country, has resulted in an exploitative society that is nothing less than predatory.
It's time we own up to meanness. It's time we live united as a people. Too long have self-interest and the narcissism of certain self-satisfaction governed our land.
We should begin by treating the poor as people instead of like peasants to be abused for our own gain.
If we fail, then it won't be too long before our aristocratic tendencies lead to our undoing.
Showing posts with label exploitation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exploitation. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Haggard's Church is part of the problem.
When stories like this occur, I scratch my head at the utter hypocrisy of those who preach morality while wearing the cloth of religious faith.
I have no truck with relations between consenting adults.
When one of those adults profits, both financially and in public esteem, by pointing fingers at the failings of others--failings he suffers from himself, then I draw the line.
It's fine to speak of forgiveness. It takes a big person to ask for it. It takes a truly contrite person to deserve it. It takes an even bigger person to give forgiveness. But only a fool forgives when contrition is only a means to an end.
Mr. Haggard's church bought into the whole forgiveness doctrine with him. They crossed the line of integrity when they paid hush money to a young man exploited through Haggard's authority.
This situation speaks volumes about how far off the path of righteousness some travel--in the name of maintaining a religious organization.
I don't go to church because of this sort of garbage. Many people avoid church for similar reasons--they can't get passed to elevation of the organization over the faith itself. Churches historically place institutional survival over individuals; they also subordinate the doctrine they peddle to the immediate needs of the institution.
New Hope is no different. It's the perennial failing of churches.
Now I ask you: Does it serve the faith when, through hypocrisy and condonation of it, a church maintains itself at the expense of driving so many others away from faith?
I have no truck with relations between consenting adults.
When one of those adults profits, both financially and in public esteem, by pointing fingers at the failings of others--failings he suffers from himself, then I draw the line.
It's fine to speak of forgiveness. It takes a big person to ask for it. It takes a truly contrite person to deserve it. It takes an even bigger person to give forgiveness. But only a fool forgives when contrition is only a means to an end.
Mr. Haggard's church bought into the whole forgiveness doctrine with him. They crossed the line of integrity when they paid hush money to a young man exploited through Haggard's authority.
This situation speaks volumes about how far off the path of righteousness some travel--in the name of maintaining a religious organization.
I don't go to church because of this sort of garbage. Many people avoid church for similar reasons--they can't get passed to elevation of the organization over the faith itself. Churches historically place institutional survival over individuals; they also subordinate the doctrine they peddle to the immediate needs of the institution.
New Hope is no different. It's the perennial failing of churches.
Now I ask you: Does it serve the faith when, through hypocrisy and condonation of it, a church maintains itself at the expense of driving so many others away from faith?
Labels:
abuse,
church,
disgrace,
exploitation,
hypocrite
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
AIG screws up again. It's this kind of decision-making that got them into this mess in the first place
Let's see if I get another comment from AIG after posting this one.
AIG, you know the big insurer who begged for taxpayer money because they were on their last leg, has managed to blow a bunch of money at another resort.
Of course AIG has the money to pay someone to cruise the internet looking for bad press and respond, so they have the money to send their executives to a resort.
AIG's response? Well, they said someone else paid the majority of the expense. Fair enough
BUT, here's the issue: AIG should be conscious of what we in the legal profession call the appearance of impropriety.
Even if what they say is true and they are not technically exploiting taxpayers for lavish events, they are still under the microscope and should be cognizant of the effect such extravaganzas would have on those lending them a whole bunch of cash. A technicality is not going to fly in the political world of taxpayer bailouts.
When you live in the rarefied world of corporate compensation, creature comforts like resorts, spas, and golf are just every day things to help a beleaguered executive out.
Back on planet earth with the rest of us, we see this as a con job.
AIG, you know the big insurer who begged for taxpayer money because they were on their last leg, has managed to blow a bunch of money at another resort.
Of course AIG has the money to pay someone to cruise the internet looking for bad press and respond, so they have the money to send their executives to a resort.
AIG's response? Well, they said someone else paid the majority of the expense. Fair enough
BUT, here's the issue: AIG should be conscious of what we in the legal profession call the appearance of impropriety.
Even if what they say is true and they are not technically exploiting taxpayers for lavish events, they are still under the microscope and should be cognizant of the effect such extravaganzas would have on those lending them a whole bunch of cash. A technicality is not going to fly in the political world of taxpayer bailouts.
When you live in the rarefied world of corporate compensation, creature comforts like resorts, spas, and golf are just every day things to help a beleaguered executive out.
Back on planet earth with the rest of us, we see this as a con job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)