The "Not all are bad" excuse given out....

I like the "not all are bad" response that I get from some in a demographic that attracts certain personality types. Populations that have authority over others, priests, cops, attorneys, judges and the military.

Of course not all are bad, I am sure that there were some under Hitler's command that were "not bad". The question is how does "society" address these "bad apples" ? Is the institution proactive and reprimand these "bad apples", press charges, address the damage and become more diligent ? Or does the institution cover up the "indiscretion", through denial, redirection of blame and lies ?

What I/we have experienced and what is becoming a public trend is the policy of denial, avoidance of responsibility and failure to address by those representing authority. This makes it a problem with the collective, whether it be priests, cops, corrupt attorneys or warriors. The avoidance means that when the claim of a "few bad apples" is used, the claim is without foundation, those making the claim do not know whether it is just a few or a whole barrel of "bad apples". What I do know is that I / we personally have experienced "indiscretions" that we can point to that will support our claims of avoidance and corruption. We all can support a claim that there is an initiative by those that govern to rule by force, to dismiss the foundations of America's principles through avoidance, lies and deceit.

It used to be that integrity of the profession had some meaning, today this term means nothing. To take the Virginia State Bar's discarded words of policy "avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety", this was discarded in 2000, when Bush was elected. Observe the actions of this current administration which is bringing trends that we have experienced personally to the national theater. It is about avoidance of responsibility and impropriety.

You can also note the amount of "whining/ranting" I have been doing that has no effect, even when I brought it to the community. There is this claim that "word of mouth", the market will cull the "bad apples" from the barrel, regulating the profession, this is not effective regulation, desperate people fuel the market. Rants are a polite way of stating that a process is messed up, that tomorrow these "rants" will not be so polite. As events and circumstances cascade actions are taken from which there is no recovery, note what is being observed in our society.

So of course not all of a population is "bad", the problem is that the "good" ones avoid addressing the problem because of the consequences of standing up against their peers. They avoid addressing the issue because abuses may be supported, unofficially by those higher in their "chain of command", the avoidance reinforces the behavior, one becomes many, if they can do it so can I. This is a professional failure

American society has this image problem, of course not all of us are bad, if one is trapped in a low income area and the only experiences one has is when the "good apples" show up to make demands, profit or assault them, the negative experience reinforces the image of corruption.

The question becomes, what process is in effect that ensures that questionable activities do not occur ? Given the avoidance by the institutions to acknowledge and address how can anyone make a qualified statement as to the amount of "bad apples" that a profession or society has in its population ?

So of course not all are "bad apples" but there is this thing called "guilt by association", if one runs with a gang, they are a gang member and part of the problem that it represents. Whether it is a gang of street toughs making ends meet, a gang of cops, attorneys or soldiers. If abuses and denial are acceptable and dismissed then they become a reflection of the organization. Regardless of who it is, respect is not given to those that cannot keep their word and honor their creed.