If you are a plaintiff in a law suit against the driver of another vehicle (read insurance company here), having lost a leg as a direct result of the accident, and you discover that the judge is sleeping with the insurance company attorney, would that bother you? Or that the judge had once sued your attorney for malpractice a few years prior in a matter involving a DUI citation and vehicular damage involving a transvestite prostitute?

Or what if you discover that the insurance company lawyer is the daughter of the judge, would that bother you?

What if you are suing a chemical company because there are green rabbits running in your back yard by a rivlet, your dog has a cancerous tumor in his stomach, you have been running a fever for three years, and you find out that the judge owns $250,000 in stock in that company; would that bother you?

What if you are a teacher at a middle school, and new computers are delivered to your classroom and you discover that the principal is a part-time dealer at Best Buy and that the computers came from Best Buy?

What you are experiencing in any of these cases is called 'conflict of interest'. The judge in all the above cases may be a tried and true man of unquestionable character.  He does not drink but nobody really holds that against him. He is a fine parent and a member of the Elks. And he does not play around on his wife even though she is 350 pounds of pure drool.

Would you still have your doubts that you could receive a fair hearing?

And the principal in the above example holds three masters degrees, a PHD, and he mows his lawn regularly. And yet, you discover that he has made $43,000 as a direct result of the sale of computers to your school and three other middle schools in the county. Would you have second thoughts every time a computer crashes and you learn that components to correct the situation will be made available some time in the next seven months?

What if you buy a horse on the sayso of a good vet and you find out that the vet received over $50,000.00 from the horse dealer in the last 16 months.  Would you have second thoughts?

Certain professions call for a standard of conduct that is stated as follows:

The professional must always avoid EVEN THE APPEARANCE of impropriety.

The judge in all the cases cited must recuse himself or herself from the case. 

The principal should have nothing to do with the purchase of computers from Best Buy if he works for Best Buy.

The vet should disclose that he makes a lot of money from the trader and that he really knows very little about vision problems associated with horses and the effects that partial blindness might have on the ability of a horse to compete in steeple jumping contests.

It is only fair. But this standard is somehow sidestepped by politicians all the time.  If a congressional representative advances legislation that would benefit a certain wind turbine company, we should be made aware that the proponent of the legislation has a personal relationship with a partner in the turbine company.  That in fact his no good son-in-law who has never held a job for more than 10 months over the last 15 years owns a stake in the company.

We just waved good by to an old man with a mechanical heart while he was being pushed out the door in a wheelchair who ran a company called Haliburton. He was given a golden parachute after the Supreme Court appointed him the the position of Vice President worth $20,000,000.00.

Within months of his appointment, his old company 'happened' to begin receiving 'no-bid' defense contracts that would ultimately amount to over $80,000,000,000.

Nobody seemed to mind this situation, if you will. Media asked a few questions and the conclusion on all the news shows was kind of bland. Oh Mr. Cheney is a great man of great character, a good parent, a man who has dedicated his life to public service.  Oh and Mr. Cheney has never killed a dog for failing to obey him, and he has never gotten drunk and thrown up on a waitress, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that he ever had sex with an underage girl in Brooklyn in the fifties.

The closest this country ever got to an inquiry concerning this issue was by Senator Leahy who shouted out to Cheney:  "Hows that Haliburton workin out for you." Or some such inquiry.  The only response America ever got from Cheney on this subject was said to Senator Leahy:  FUCK YOU AND FUCK OR MOTHER.  Or some such retort.

Where was there demonstrated even a scintilla of propriety in this governmental/corporate relationship?

On April 20,2008 the NYT published an 11 page article entitled: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand, By DAVID BARSTOW. It began :

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded "the gulag of our times" by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration's communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

The results came quickly. The analysts went on TV and radio, decrying Amnesty International, criticizing calls to close the facility and asserting that all detainees were treated humanely. Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically.

Fine. That coverage all had to do with media not disclosing the conflicts of interest. But I was much more upset about what I considered and consider to be outright graft by our retired military leaders.

 But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.

General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. "I've got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest," he said. General McCaffrey was associated with this business enterprise and another one that involved over 350 million dollars in contracts

On May 13, 2008 MediaMatters began writing a series of articles on this subject:

Greenwald at Salon has extensively covered this story.

I discussed this matter a few weeks ago because I discovered a provision in one of the contracts noting that the amount of money to be paid to McCaffrey WAS CONTINGENT ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THE U.S. STAYED IN IRAQ.

Do we, as Americans care about the appearance of impropriety any longer?

If there is anything I know about the media, as soon as some member of the New Administration proposes a shoe program for high schools and it is discovered that that member wears Nike's, we will hear about it for the next eight years.