The Truth in OH-2 CD

The voice of TRUTH for politics in the Second Congressional District of Ohio.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Justice served in Jim Schifrin case – does Dusty Rhodes oppose the US Constitution? – And a guide to doing the right thing (in terms of loyalty etc.)

After running across Kimball Perry’s piece this morning regarding justice being served in a legal victory for Jim Schifrin (link below) I felt motivated to share some of my thoughts on this issue. I am posting the following to my blog: www.natenoy.com/blog and on Blogger.

Props to Jim Schifrin and his team for brining justice to this case. Another great example of the true power wielded by those that have embraced and harnessed the maximum value (some may label it the exploitation) of this great medium of informational exchange aka the Internet. (I guess Al Gore himself would be proud, oh wait a minute…… (1) Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the WWW, the DOD started that back in the 1970’s or before and (2) Gore’s roots trace all the way back to daddy, a family tree that hasn’t exactly been an advocate for justice.)

Back to the point, transparency is a great thing in our society. It’s something we should all have more of and Jim’s website is based on that concept as far as I can tell (no, I’ve never met or even corresponded with Jim as of today.) The other thing that jumps off the page at me in this story is a lesson in loyalty: selling out a friend will generally come back to bite you. Loyalty of course is built on trust and we should all be able to trust our friends 100%. I firmly believe that this trust should only be violated in extreme circumstances and NEVER for pure self-gain. A true friend will “always have your back.” Those of us with a network of such support can lead very fulfilling lives, those that do not eventually are exposed as the frauds they really are.

You may ask: so what if your loyal friend is engaged in something dishonest or immoral? What should you as the friend do about this? In my opinion you need to provide your friend with straight and honest feedback and explain why you believe something is wrong. If you can’t respect your friend’s opinion, even if they don’t agree with you on an issue, then you don’t really have a friend at all, only a “yes man.” (Non-PC verbiage intended here, I went to a small liberal arts college where they tried to brainwash me into thinking the term “freshman” was sexist and it was not “right” to open a door for a woman, back at ya WOO. (I guess a story for another day.)) If you feel like you MUST expose your friend for the public good (e.g. if your friend tells you he’s going to kill someone and you drive with him to buy a gun,) you should always disclose your plans to your friend beforehand (unless of course this would put you in physical danger) thus creating some due process for your friend to make the “right” choice.

An example of the above could be the following: one of your friends who lives near Loveland claims that she ran her 59th marathon in Philadelphia on 11/20/05. A local radio host (let’s just call him Billy C ) conducts an interview with your friend seeking a little truth and asks her where she’s been over the weekend. She tells him “in Philly competing in my 59th marathon [sic] “ and she relies on this fact to head off an intense inquiry into her mysterious absence for the last several days. A few weeks later you are doing some unrelated research and happen upon the official results page for the race. You decide to see how your friend did, but for some reason the only person with her last name listed in the official results is her daughter. You realize the marathon is also cross-references by hometown, but you find the only residents from Loveland that competed were her daughter and sister.

You think back to the radio interview where your friend made it quite clear that she had actually “ran her 59th marathon” and talked about how tired it made her. This appears to be a blatant lie, then it dawns on you that you know of dozens of similar lies, wow, what should you do?

In the above somewhat hypothetical situation (the person is real but I cannot fathom she has any true friends) I would warn my friend to come clean. If her (remember if I were being gender neutral here I’d use “he” as another protest to PC language) lies don’t really break any laws or create harm and she refuses then you should make a stand not to support your friend until she starts telling the truth regarding ALL of her previous transgressions. If she continued to utilize deception as a means of getting ahead in life, say maybe get elected to office, then at some point you would have a moral obligation to society to go ahead and come clean. The Bible in Proverbs 20:17 states that “Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.” So the lie may be fun to live for awhile but eventually the truth will prevail, if you are aware of someone that continues to spew falsehoods from their mouth then you are setting yourself up for a little “gravel” in your mouth as well when the TRUTH sets the rest of us free.

The other thing to remember is that you should never sell-out a friend for personal gain.
The proverbial act of “throwing a friend under the bus” with the express purpose of advancing your own personal interests is something that is likely considered immoral in every school of thought (except maybe the Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton school.)
If you take the steps of giving ample warning to a friend that is not doing the right thing by doing the following: (1) let your friend know exactly what you morally feel obliged to do and why you feel this way and; (2) disclose to them the exact time-frame from which you will do this and be sure to follow through on your commitment to the rest of us.; If your friend was truly wrong, then at some point with the heat of the moment far-removed, he or she will likely come back to YOU someday and actually apologize to, and thank you for being a stand up enough person to do what is right.

Final note on this issue: is Dusty Rhodes a communist or something? In the article he states he supports creating a law that forces the seller of a home to disclose their personal thoughts. Full transparency of “how much a seller thought is was worth.” What the heck is that concept? Folks I am truly a champion for transparency (http://www.natenoy.com/) but I would NEVER promote forcing someone to disclose their personal belief on something. There is no chance this law would survive a Constitutional Challenge if I were on the case! To me this is an obvious violation of the due process clause of Amendment V aka the 5th Amendment to our great Constitution. It also dips into a pretty good argument for violations of the 1st Amendment as well.

I’d love to be writing the copy for the next person running against Rhodes:

“Dusty Rhodes if he is willing to sell out his “friends” imagine what he’d be willing to do to you? In fact, Dusty recently advocated legislation that would force you to disclose your personal thoughts in direct violation of your 1st and 5th Amendment Rights. What’s next Dusty? Do you have a crystal ball in your office or have you conspired with aliens to read our thoughts?” ……..

Then you show your candidate with his friends, talk about how he vows to protect the Constitution and Rights of our legal citizens and how he does not believe in Crystal Balls or Aliens. This may cost you the extreme liberal and Al Gore vote (oops, one-in-the-same I guess) but it should be the marching ticket someone with the record of Dusty Rhodes has earned by kicking a friend to the curb. The more we all know about people like that, the better off we all are.

As always, all feedback is welcomed (even that of the pink-o progressive crowd.)

Peace and God Bless,

Nate Noy

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home