Why do members of various professions not police themselves? Do they really enjoy it when their profession's reputations go in free-fall when there are enough of their fellow professionals doing terrible things? Are bankers proud to be the butt of so many other's jokes? Weren't there at one time a group of bankers who were proud of the service their profession provided their countrymen and would do quite a lot to protect the reputation of their profession? If yes, what could they have done in an organized fashion to prevent the current debacle?

Today's LA Times has a disturbing piece on how health insurance providers are overcharging their patients and thereby breaking the law. Doesn't their reputation for serving their customer and caring for that customer/patient's well-being suffer when this news comes out? Is the price they pay for this malfeasance high enough to discourage a repeat of this law-breaking and insensitivity to patients pocketbooks, much less the law of the communities they work in? If not, how do we discourage them from repeating this sorry episode?

Insurers exceed state-issued rates for last-resort health coverage

Just because someone doesn't speak up doesn't mean they agree with what you are doing. A culture that discourages open dissent will face surprises and unexpected actions from its participants. Its not enough to wait for someone to speak out, one needs to encourage others to speak up without any fear of retribution. The culture of the Bush Administration, for better or worse does not encourage dissent. Which is why generals may not say they need more troops when they do (and why when administration officials express bewilderment to a general's criticism and say if they had been asked for more troops they would have provided them is not entirely believable).

Former press secretary Scott McCellan's apparant disillusion with this administration is a good example of this.

"Pro-business"

Why are national politicians who protect the perks of ceos, the tax evasions of companies, and so many other elements of our business culture that adds not a whit to productivity to be "pro-business"? Is Barney Frank who is trying to both protect the trust so necessary for the proper functioning of our financial markets while limiting the options of those who operate in those markets to reduce the benefits they gain from detracting from that trust "anti-business"? Is someone who insisted that to regulate is "anti-business" or someone who suggested that hiding CEO's salaries and option in assorted footnotes thus making it unusually difficult for the owners and potential owners (otherwise known as "shareholders") to evaluate such things is good for productivity, for the free and best flow of the allocation of capital, and for bolstering the long-terms interests of American business "anti-business." If yes, no wonder so much of our politics has little relation to the realities of the issues needed to be considered.

See Robert Caro comment on current Senate.

It so often happens that people evaluate situations after they happen based on who was involved rather than on what principles should be applied.

Why do we not hold those in our professions responsible for their actions?

Revealing and disturbing piece on the Time magazine blog regarding the dictating of interrogation techniques (including torture techniques however this administration spins it) of
"high value" al Quaeda operatives.

The "Principals" (including Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, and other senior Administration figures dictated and signed off on the minutest details of torture techniques acceptable to the U.S. Government. As the blog notes, just as with the now famous legal standoff by Ashcroft's bed, the former attorney general and probably least popular administration figure amongst liberals appears to be the one person with some perspective, suggesting that that "history will not judge us kindly." Principals sign off on interrogation techniques.