Depending on your pole position, rules are made to be broken
The old adage “rules are made to be broken” seems to be the running theme as of late. You simply can not pick up a newspaper or turn on the television without hearing about another ’side-stepping’ of a rule or otherwise generally accepted practice.
Naked short selling; financial institutions accused of breaking ethical, if not judicial laws; governments overstepping previously-accepted boundaries - bailing out said institutions; NASDAQ “relaxing” a de-listing rule, even if temporarily…To those who think these are insignificant or isolated incidents, I say look at the bigger picture. These things together are disconcerting.
Put together, these incidents have helped to create a lot of the strife and stress we (most of us anyway) are feeling. Were the rules broken to make things easier? If so, that ease was temporary for most. Was it more sinister - a power play to override the less-than-desirable outcome that the rules would have allowed? Or are folks simply trying to cover for past mistakes? At what point did it become acceptable to cover repercussions of rules broken with additional rule breaking? What rung on the totem pole do you have to pass in order for the rules to no longer apply? And where does it stop?
My final thought is - when can I start bending rules and have it deemed an acceptable practice? The recession-bound economy certainly affects me as well. Even if my moral and ethical fortitude wasn’t a factor, rule-breaking wouldn’t be an acceptable practice for me. I’m too far down the totem pole.
Naked short selling; financial institutions accused of breaking ethical, if not judicial laws; governments overstepping previously-accepted boundaries - bailing out said institutions; NASDAQ “relaxing” a de-listing rule, even if temporarily…To those who think these are insignificant or isolated incidents, I say look at the bigger picture. These things together are disconcerting.
Put together, these incidents have helped to create a lot of the strife and stress we (most of us anyway) are feeling. Were the rules broken to make things easier? If so, that ease was temporary for most. Was it more sinister - a power play to override the less-than-desirable outcome that the rules would have allowed? Or are folks simply trying to cover for past mistakes? At what point did it become acceptable to cover repercussions of rules broken with additional rule breaking? What rung on the totem pole do you have to pass in order for the rules to no longer apply? And where does it stop?
My final thought is - when can I start bending rules and have it deemed an acceptable practice? The recession-bound economy certainly affects me as well. Even if my moral and ethical fortitude wasn’t a factor, rule-breaking wouldn’t be an acceptable practice for me. I’m too far down the totem pole.