Two high school boys in RI stole a car this morning in order to… impress their friends? no. have a ride to the prom? no. get to school on time? YES.
It is pretty easy to poke fun at a story like this, but how often do we do something wrong in the name of something right? As business owners we have many opportunities to “pass judgment.” If you are anything like me this is probably one of the main reasons you went into business for yourself – you like to call the shots. Some times calling the shots means you make up the rules.
Making up rules – AWESOME! However, there are many rules which have already been written and will never need to be re-written.
Here is a list of just a few:
1. Be honest. Avoid the “harmless white lies” used to avoid responsibility or embarrassment. (Advertisements for the new Fox show “Lie To Me” have me wondering if the average person really does lie 3 times in a 10 minute conversation! What do you think? Can that be right?)
2. Be reliable. Try not to miss a meeting or some other commitment just because something else “more important” comes up.
3. Honor promises (both oral and written). If you advertise a 30 day guarantee – accept a return for the full 30 days.
4. Be polite. Sometimes as “shot callers” we can have a hard time distinguishing between being assertive and being a butt hole. Treat employees, customers, and family members like you would a socialite whom you see semi-regularly. (Isn’t it funny that we treat the people that we see only occasionally the best?)
So, next time you come close to justifying a wrong decision because it is for all the right reasons remember the “two Woonsocket High School boys from RI who did the right thing by trying to get to school on time, but, it was the way they got there that police had a problem with.” (Fox News)
One thought on “Rhode Island boys remind us that the ends do not always justify the means”
The ends justify the means?
[ Footnote 4 ] The intelligence community believed that it was necessary “to conceal these activities from the American public in general,” because public knowledge of the “unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission.” Id., at 394 (quoting CIA Inspector General’s Survey of the Technical Services Division, p. 217 (1957)). See [Footnote 4 of IV] U.S. 709 U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY military experiment case.  The “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. In accordance with the ongoing greater good necessity to conceal these activities… a veteran’s right to get the U.S. Senates designed to harm needed for treatment, and experiment identifying, evidence never became law.
To-date rejected is the U.S. Senate 1994 Reports, The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given. Despite the 16 of 66 year efforts of some, the U.S. Congress has failed to protect service personnel from to harm experiments. Therefore, do not the U.S. Senates reported Department of Defense (DOD) EXPERIMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO HARM  continue?
Please have your members in the U.S. Congress give back to service personnel and veterans those rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep, e.g., Written policy and practice prohibit the use of [prison] inmates for medical…..experiments.! See page 13 of 14, REF:  The U.S. Supreme Courts 1987 STANLEY  to harm DOD experiment is approved by the U.S. Supreme Courts 1950 FERES  can do no wrong, ends justify the means Doctrine. The STANLEY case is one of the U.S. Senates 1994 During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel were subjected to experiments that were designed to harm, e.g., the reported biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects. It is a dereliction of duty in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments. During the U.S. Senates reported past 50 years, most of the “to harm” service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire. Congresss 1974 Privacy Act censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving records!
After the 1987 STANLEY, Congress passed the 1988 Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA). Established was the Legislative, Article I severely restricted, U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. In 1994 its Chief Judge stated, “The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy — policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, “I haven’t been told by my boss to change. If you don’t like it — appeal it.” Congress dictated that, “The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.” Given to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is the Judicial Branchs final authority on “the policies underlying the schedule” questions of law!
Each “to harm” experiment completes a Research and Development (R&D) process. Prior R&D is reviewed. The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is “designed” to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. The conducted RESEARCHED cause and effects are closely followed and recorded. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, use, victim treatment and protection. Accordingly, at the time known are the recorded and withheld designed to harm resultant schedule disabilities with their identifying symptoms and treatment. Ignored by the U.S. Congress is the service personnel rights lost vs. prison inmate kept!
Overlooked by many in Congress is our Pledge of Allegiance with liberty and justice for all” and the U.S. Supreme Courts ignored own, carved in stone over its entrance, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW!
 1950 – Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html
 1953 – DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
 1987 – U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.html
 1988 – Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, Div. A, 102 Stat. 4105 (8 December 1988) DVA-Chapter 4 and http://law.jrank.org/pages/6784/Federal-Courts-Court-Appeals-Veterans-Claims.html#ixzz0MIKbF8ND
 “United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.” US CODE: Title 38511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.
 1994 – U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Electronic Research Collections (ERC)
 1994 – Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. Chief Judge Frank Nebeker’s Statement STATE OF COURT – – – URL: http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm
 1994 – December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session.
 2005 & 2006 – “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. H. R. 4259.