"I Am Not A Role Model", revisited

Since my screed yesterday, Michael Phelps has not suffered any loss of income from the revelation that he's a pothead; however, as I write this, I just heard that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his name from consideration - this after the White House press secretary yesterday excused Daschle with a "nobody's perfect" explanation for his failure to pay six figures worth of taxes until after he was offered the job of Secretary of Health and Human Services. To his credit, President Obama took the blame for making the nomination, saying, "I screwed up". Regardless of my distaste for the choice of words from a sitting President, his actions in taking responsibility for the Daschle nomination, and that of his original nominee for the new post of "chief performance officer" (who also had tax problems), are commendable.

At the risk of a charge of piling on, I'll go ahead and make the point at which I was originally aiming (before the Daschle announcement): What does it say to our children when people who are role models because they achieved the recognition and fame they sought, suffer no consequences when their intentional bad acts are brought to light? Remember Charles Barkley saying, "I am not a role model"? Well, guess what? If people see you in a particular role, if you're in the public eye, you're a role model. Tough if you don't like it. As a litigator, I've seen what a bad witness can do to a case. That doesn't mean the witness wasn't a witness, it just means his word isn't worth much.

If there's a nugget here, it's this: to paraphrase General George S. Patton: "You're always on parade." People who seek the limelight need to be prepared to face the consequences of their poor decisions. Or as Christ puts it, "What you do in the dark will be seen in the light"

Harkin, no; Hatch, yes: Whaaaa….???

As I write this, Fox News is reporting that Timothy Geithner has been confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury. A man who owed about $34,000.00 to the IRS, some of which, according to Allahpundit in his January 13 blog on www.hotair.com, he didn’t pay until the day he was nominated for the post, has been confirmed to the position which is directly responsible for the assessment and collection of income taxes. The argument is apparently that he was just SOOOO BUSY being in charge of financial stuff that he didn’t read the two manuals the IMF gave him describing both the obligation and the procedure to pay self-employment taxes. Oh, he said he was sorry.

Earlier in the day, Democrat Tom Harkin took a principled stand, voting against Geithner because he (rightly, to my way of thinking) could not in good conscience vote for a man who had repeatedly violated the very laws he will now be in charge of administering. On the other hand, Republican Orrin Hatch made the astonishing statement that Mr. Geithner’s experience in financial matters outweighed his violation of the tax laws of this nation. According to Mr. Hatch, capability outweighs responsibility.

This is an embarrassment more appropriate for European politics than American. My hat is off to Senator Harkins. I can't fathom Mr. Hatch's logic. How are we to teach our children to do the right thing for the right reason when people in positions of authority absolve each other for ethical lapses, without requiring any consequences for their actions?

A Faulty Premise for Foreign Policy

I watched President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton yesterday as they, dare I say smugly, announced a "new direction" in US foreign policy: aggressive engagement. As though the only way we're going to regain the respect of the world is to ask them what they want and give it to them. This, my friends, is appeasement, pure and simple. I believe it arises from the faulty premise that we should care what the rest of the world thinks of the United States.

Does that sound arrogant? Let me tell you why it shouldn't matter to us what any other country or person thinks of us. We, the United States of America, should be doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason, regardless of who will approve or disapprove of our choice. That is a definition of integrity, and that is what we will lose (some, like Bill Gertz in his book, "The Failure Factory", think we've already lost it) when we begin making our decisions based on what we perceive others may think. CS Lewis, in his essay, "The Inner Ring", explains that the only inner circle we should care about being a part of is the one that results from us doing what we should in the way we should - then the respect and accolades we receive will go where they should: upwards. We (read, "State Department bureaucrats and Blame America Firsters") care too much about what others think of us. Right is right - the rest will take care of itself.

I may be rambling a bit - it's early yet. If you have something to contribute to this conversation (agreeing or disagreeing - that's why I putting this stuff out there), please visit my blog at http://josephandhisbrothers.blogspot.com. As the header says, I'm Just A Guy trying to figure this stuff out.

Isn't there ANYBODY clean to nominate?

The most recent revelations about Treasury Secretary nominee Geithner "forgetting" to pay taxes and penalties, and his statement that these were "unintentional mistakes" (is there such a thing as an intentional mistake? Just sayin'...) and that they shouldn't interfere with his qualifications to serve in the post just put the icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned. Added to Eric Holder("I'm really sorry"), Hillary Clinton ("My husband's prostituting his former office to foreign powers, but it won't affect my judgment as SecState") and others, does this not call into question our new President's judgment? Does nominating people clearly not morally or ethically qualified to assume positions of stewardship and trust not cast doubt on President Obama's ability to properly select the future servant leaders of this nation?

But wait a minute: the preceding statements assume that our new President and his followers ("henchmen" sounds so pejorative) see leadership of the greatest nation the world has ever seen as a sacred trust rather than a right. Nominating people such as Holder, Geithner and Clinton (and Janet Napolitano - Homeland Security? Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!) seems to me a squandering, not to say an abrogation, of that sacred trust. Why is it that saying you're sorry, in the minds of some, completely wipes the slate clean? Is this a lack of willingness to forgive? Not at all: as my granddad used to say, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

It is my fervent prayer that these United States will survive the arrogating of power by people who see the average person as incapable and unworthy of the rights guaranteed them under the Constitution. That will take spines of steel and a willingness to stand up for right in the face of power. An ironic twist, isn't it, that the same "speak truth to power" mantra used by the civil rights activists for 40 years is becoming the exhortation against the first black President's administration?