When "Good Apples" go "Bad"....
Posted 05-29-2008 at 05:26 PM by jowey
I cant help but wonder whether White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan would be considered a "good apple" before his book or after ?
Scott McClellan's silence through his tenure which demonstrated loyalty to the group of which he was a member, did this make him a "good apple" ? Could it be that he went bad when he "told" on those outside the group ? Good Press Secretaries, Good cops, Good attorneys, Good anyone part of a collective do not tell tales on the collective. The Good ones will cover up indiscretions of their brothers, adhere to the code of silence. This avoidance and cover up by the collective makes it nigh to impossible for someone on the outside to catch and make one accountable for their indiscretions. Observe the indiscretions of the Bush administration, consider that this is the highest office in the land. Here we have a situation where the press and other branches of government gave an authority free reign. As everyone worked to make a living these "good apples" were dismantling a society.
Consider the individuals fighting these "authorities" who dismiss the individual as insignificant. Getting a cop to go against another is nigh impossible, when I was assaulted I tried to ask another cop to find out what was going on, they ignored me. An attorney had a chat with the cops and then convinced me to accept a guilty plea and take a deal, based upon video as irrelevant, cops lie all the time and I would not be believed. In 1999 the Virginia State Bar changed its policy from addressing grievances to avoiding them, officially covering up indiscretions through policy. Our experiences were a microcosm of the current national experience.
Does Scott McClellan speaking out make him a "Good Apple" or a "Bad Apple" ? His speaking out would make him a "Good Apple" to society by exposing indiscretions to society, but a "Bad Apple" to the collective of which he was part. So when I talk to a member of a collective, an attorney or a cop about my experiences and they say that there are some "Bad Apples" out there, who are they talking about ? From what perspective ? From personal experience I know that approaching the "authorities" of these groups results in avoidance and derision. If the "Good Apple" was defined as a collective that enacted policies that ensured the service that was provided by its members benefited society, then the "authority" should diligently research issues and attempt to resolve them. Since the "authority" chooses to avoid and dismiss "incidents" then the "Good Apple" is the member that is loyal to the collective and stays silent - Scott McClellan is a "Bad Apple".
It seems that the collective is not capable of regulating its membership. Consider that Bush is supposedly a part of the Republican collective. If this group had any intention of maintaining the American ideal, the integrity of the office they would have ensured that this country would not be in crisis. The Republican collective's only goal was to rape this country for profit and what we are experiencing are the results of this rape. Whether the collective is the Republican Party, the Virginia State Bar or the Manassas Police, they lack the capability to regulate themselves. This is a pattern, a trend, it works for those that wish to get over.
These are thoughts that pass through my mind when I get the response that "there are some 'Bad Apples' out there". Also noted that after making that statement there is no action taken to address the "Bad Apples".
Code of Professional Responsibility
Replacement of the 'Code of Professional Responsibility' by 'Rules of Professional Conduct'
Prolog to the Diligent Virginia Attorneys
Scott McClellan's silence through his tenure which demonstrated loyalty to the group of which he was a member, did this make him a "good apple" ? Could it be that he went bad when he "told" on those outside the group ? Good Press Secretaries, Good cops, Good attorneys, Good anyone part of a collective do not tell tales on the collective. The Good ones will cover up indiscretions of their brothers, adhere to the code of silence. This avoidance and cover up by the collective makes it nigh to impossible for someone on the outside to catch and make one accountable for their indiscretions. Observe the indiscretions of the Bush administration, consider that this is the highest office in the land. Here we have a situation where the press and other branches of government gave an authority free reign. As everyone worked to make a living these "good apples" were dismantling a society.
Consider the individuals fighting these "authorities" who dismiss the individual as insignificant. Getting a cop to go against another is nigh impossible, when I was assaulted I tried to ask another cop to find out what was going on, they ignored me. An attorney had a chat with the cops and then convinced me to accept a guilty plea and take a deal, based upon video as irrelevant, cops lie all the time and I would not be believed. In 1999 the Virginia State Bar changed its policy from addressing grievances to avoiding them, officially covering up indiscretions through policy. Our experiences were a microcosm of the current national experience.
Does Scott McClellan speaking out make him a "Good Apple" or a "Bad Apple" ? His speaking out would make him a "Good Apple" to society by exposing indiscretions to society, but a "Bad Apple" to the collective of which he was part. So when I talk to a member of a collective, an attorney or a cop about my experiences and they say that there are some "Bad Apples" out there, who are they talking about ? From what perspective ? From personal experience I know that approaching the "authorities" of these groups results in avoidance and derision. If the "Good Apple" was defined as a collective that enacted policies that ensured the service that was provided by its members benefited society, then the "authority" should diligently research issues and attempt to resolve them. Since the "authority" chooses to avoid and dismiss "incidents" then the "Good Apple" is the member that is loyal to the collective and stays silent - Scott McClellan is a "Bad Apple".
It seems that the collective is not capable of regulating its membership. Consider that Bush is supposedly a part of the Republican collective. If this group had any intention of maintaining the American ideal, the integrity of the office they would have ensured that this country would not be in crisis. The Republican collective's only goal was to rape this country for profit and what we are experiencing are the results of this rape. Whether the collective is the Republican Party, the Virginia State Bar or the Manassas Police, they lack the capability to regulate themselves. This is a pattern, a trend, it works for those that wish to get over.
These are thoughts that pass through my mind when I get the response that "there are some 'Bad Apples' out there". Also noted that after making that statement there is no action taken to address the "Bad Apples".
Code of Professional Responsibility
Replacement of the 'Code of Professional Responsibility' by 'Rules of Professional Conduct'
Prolog to the Diligent Virginia Attorneys
Total Comments 0
Comments
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackbacks
Recent Blog Entries by jowey
- Another letter addressing Virginia accountability (10-14-2008)
- Disposable People - "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!".... (07-24-2008)
- Disposable People - the loss of self esteem (07-09-2008)
- Disposable people - the Justice Department and the FBI (07-02-2008)
- Disposable People - It is all in the strategy. (06-23-2008)
