Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Quality of Character

Apparently there is a high level of financial retribution that is necessary to entice a certain "quality" of person to public life. At least that is what we are told whenever a person in public life needs to justify their pay and perks. There is something about the term "quality" though that I find uncomfortable. If a person has a quality above and beyond another there is an implication that there are people of lesser quality. Similarly the word "intelligence" doesn't sit well in my arse pocket of terms. If quality and intelligence are indeed qualities of a person that can be quantified we become something in the way of cattle, don't we? Pressing through a job interview with a B.Sc. or B.Ed branded on our hip or wearing our income level on a badge that reads "Hello MY NAME IS __ I MAKE __ A YEAR". Of course there are many who would welcome it, but they'll have to be content with having an initial after their name or by wearing their peacock display of bling. Not to devalue anyone's pursuits, acedemic and career goals are noble quests indeed; but success, experience, and education are contexts of your character; not your quality.

We do pay for quality in a person's work though; we choose our dentist, our restaurants, our contractor based on a price and an expected quality based on that price. If we accept the idea that there is a price paid for quality, can we expect that $100 000 - $150 000 for an MHA's salary (along with all the magnets and pins one can load into their Escalades) would produce for us some nice prime government officials? What we get instead are a selection of thieves and rogues who cry out of the left side of their mouth when hospital beds close in their riding but puff Cuban cigars out of the right.

These, hopefully rare few, do so with the kahunas to say they represent us. Paid by each of us. Paid well with incentives and perks because that is what this quality of person deserves. What sort of guarantee I wonder comes with a Grade-A rogue? So What do we do about it? A public inquiry? What do we get for our cash from a public inquiry? What did we get from Gomery? Some well paid lawyers, perhaps an extra Jag or two in Ottawa. Some months of repetitive news distracting from the more important issues of the day. Who really gives a rat's ass where the finger points at the end of the day! The finger should be pointing to the cash! The hands should be holding someone by the feet shaking the change from their pockets.

I want my money back... and at least a fridge magnet for my troubles.

5 comments:

BNB said...

Apologies to all who have given themselves to public life that this post does not apply to.

WJM said...

You have your "kahunas" confused with "cajones".

Very different things.

BNB said...

hahaha I never know what to expect from you :)

Nads, Kahunas, cajones, stones, pills, prairie oysters, family jewels... whatever - you think you would allow me my own colloquial.

NL-ExPatriate said...

As disgusted as I am over this Ring gate I fail to see what a Public enquirery would accomplish at this time. I am not ruling out the possibility that we may need a public enquirery down the road if the loop holes and system flaws aren't identified by the ongoing investigations and public scrutiny.

Actually we have unknowingly already made giant leaps towards more transparence with the allowing of the Auditor General into the House to audit the books. As cooked as they were.

But I don't think changing the system of monies and checks and balances would have prevented this scandal because as the AG stated in his PR's there had to be collusion. Collusion by it's very nature is a premeditated plan to circumvent the system by more than one party and hence no change in the system would have prevented it.

It's kinda like locking your doors if a thief wants in hes going to find a way even if he has to breakl a window to do it.

Lets just say I'll be watching and waiting to see what comes out of all of this. In alot of respects the implicated parties are already being punished by the public outrage and stain on their personallity and character.

Take for example that MP out in BC who stole the ring he will be forever second guessed and treated with an air of distrust.

I would like to see some of the money returned. Voluntarily more so than legally.

What I do find disgusting is the partisans out there trying to capitalize from this far reaching scandal involving all parties to their own benefit.

If it wasn't for Mr Williams allowing the AG into the house to review the books non of this would have ever become public so he should be commended for reversing the previous decision to not allow the AG into review the books.

Hopefully by having the AG review the books in the future no further incidents like this will happen again.

But collusion is the key word IMHO in the AG report.

BNB said...

NL-expatriate, I have to say I'm in total agreement with you. Simon Lono/Ed Hollet has created a discussion for this issue on publicinquiry.blogspot.com. I have reflected your sentiments on that blog.

The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. Give the investigation some time. Why throw good money after bad for a public inquiry - not just yet.