I always have an ear to the wall when it comes to the question of ethics as I am in the process of writing a thesis on morals. 

The question of ethics here on this forum is a rhetorical question and while it is one thing to speak of ethics, in a metaethical sort of way because they are not defined specifically, it is a mere continuation of hypothetical musings.  For instance, what exactly was unethical about Pelosi’s tactics, “lambasting?”  Surely the others have voices and can bark back.  I am not defending Pelosi per se, but rather, metaethically what was ethical or not about her actions, since the topic of ethics has been raised.  The question of Bush’s oath of presidency is also put in metaethical terms, in a hypothetical framework, rather it would do to speak to specifics is it is his ethics that is in question, for it is really, really difficult to win a shadow boxing match. 

Yes, it is for the Jimmy Stewart movies to deal with ethics, as those movies were about particular ethical questions.  If we are going to criticize anyone for their unethical behavior, i.e., Bill Clinton’s skewed-brick analogy ethics, or Nixon, or Johnson’s lies, then it would do us, the audience here, benefit only if those breaches of ethics were spelled out so that we can remember them not some vague notion of a broken ethics.  Yes, it is right that it does not have to be that way.  Only with clear insight and speech can it be changed.

An ethics panel would be a fine thing if in fact we could ensure IT’S ethics.  Which I’m sure will start out all well and fine, but how will such an enity maintain it’s own ethical standing.  If we could ensure that, it would still be meaningless without enforcement and penalties.

We have many agencies (FDA, FCC..etc) staffed at the highest levels with corporate lackeys, rendering them almost meaningless.  I do believe that we need some type of legislation to keep private interests out of at least the highest levels of our monitoring agencies.

The crookedest of Republicans were against legislation of this type, they wanted to keep ethics reform, “in house”.  Rule of thumb says, at least currently, that maybe this legislation is a good thing.

You’re right Gomerspile, and it didn’t happen in one presidency, and I don’t believe we can afix a particular time to it, nor do I believe that it HAS to be this way forever after.

You’re right that Billyboy wasn’t the most ethical brick in the batch, but Nixon was way before him, and Johnson lied us into a war as well.

I don’t believe that there is a perfect specimen, but I also don’t believe that there has ever been a Congress or an Administration more corrupt than the one we’ve seen in the past 7 years.

Doesn’t mean that it HAS to be that way, but it certainly has been.

Maria what ever it is you are drinking or smoking please in your next column let us all in on it so we can also tie ethics and House politicians into the same sentence.There is never going to be true ethics reform in any of the two legislative bodies in our lifetime.The only ethics these people understand is when one of their own goes to jail.Joe Kennedy once said"I knew that Senators were for sale I did not now how cheap it was”.Nothing has changed and nothing will as long as we keep electing con men in suits.

You got that right Dr. Knowitall,

My ass as well.

And, in what we’ve come to expect from the cheerleader to all female politicians, we carefully note the praise to Ms. Pelosi’s efforts in supposedly doing the right or ‘ethical’ thing, whether anybody ‘wants to or not’.

Marie writes:

•  “But vociferous demands from the new members who won their seats on ethics platforms—and must defend them in November—were coupled with Pelosi’s sheer will: “You’re going to do this, whether you like it or not,” she told members behind closed doors, according to a staffer.”

Pelosi has used similar tactics of her sheer will, to lambast other members such as John Murtha, when they’ve attempted to create or pass any legislation that might be less than politically expedient, based on Ms. Pelosi’s idea of what that is. According to Rep. Murtha, she pretty much whipped him up like he had 4 legs and a tail (behind closed doors of course) when he attempted to attack conditions to funding of the ‘surge’. Then of course we know her defacto title is “Less-than-Honorable Impeachment-off-the-table Pelosi”.

So it would appear that ‘ethics’ are now important in reference to at least ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the major money thieves in the congress, but the ‘ethics’ involved in just DOING ONES JOB, as they are described in the Constitution, must not fall within the parameters of ‘ethics’.

For Mrs. Pelosi, ethics are only part of political expediency, and Boehner is a joke as well. What a continuing disaster this Congress is, as evidenced by the fact that Ms. Pelosi is unable to influence any one, (even on her OWN side of the aisle) no matter how much she beats up on them. Seems like she’d at least try to do something about all of those blue dog dems that continue to undermine the efforts of the tiny majority.

Ethics my ass.

Ethics, though not totally on subject:  Bush made a promise in his oath to uphold the constitution (his out being, of course, “to the best of his ability” which should be forthwith stricken from the oath—this is not a golf match).  Where the hell is the highest court in the land?  If ethics is so important, how can they sit by and watch this criminal continually assualt the constitution, which he promised Rhenquist and everyone else in the world he’d uphold (with his hand on the holy effing bible, facing and looking Rhenquist squarely in the eye?)  Do you wonder what Rhenquist’d be doing if he were among the quick?

Ethics, my ass.

Ethics is for the movies and Jimmy Stewart.