Topic: Administrative Law
Is it too arcane a concept, where moral equivalency is accepted at all turns of ethical conduct? As words have become the royalty replacing actual inheritable lineage, so the application of a concept utilized in religious translations encompassing inhumane acts beyond mere repugnance, of an offense against the greater sensibilities of man and expressing an outrage reserved only for the unique of evil designs, is rarely referred to, anymore. It is a word left for days of yesteryear, and as a residue under dusty books no longer ushered from the upper shelves because of its outlived utility. In what context, in modernity, can it still connote an applicable context? Perhaps of the callous treatment we give to one another, as mere objects in a fitful universe of subjects discarded as garbage leftovers we give lip service to about worth, causes to fight and die for, and to lead charges from behind, with clarion calls about justice, liberty, and other empty symbols while draft dodgers ask for multiple deferments and let the poor fight the battles in search of freedom’s rhetoric. The abomination of modernity is not about what happens in private bedrooms, or in the hallowed halls of Courts Supreme, but in the very manner in which we treat one another. For, as abundance has now breached the ceiling of excess, and excess has reached above the stairwells of even the vulgarity of the Romanov’s or the French elite just before the Revolution, so it is difficult to comprehend the disproportionate comparisons between wealth and poverty in this age which lacks true empathy or concern. Lip service is one thing; true actions that support empty words, quite another. It is all well and good to give to charities and to donate to far-off nations, thereby winning accolades for great humanitarian efforts; but the real tragedy is in failing to invest one’s wealth in the backyard of one’s own country, city or neighborhood; for, that would mean that people would actually know you, judge you in the most personal of ways, and hug or slap the very face that smiles or grimaces, depending upon the proportional activity deserving the initiative. For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job, the treatment endured at the hands of the Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service is one indicia of modernity’s proclivity towards hypocrisy. Perhaps the application of the word is a bit excessive, but others would think not. For, in the end, the abomination of a society’s broken promise is merely the harbinger of worse things to come, and how we treat the disabled and those who suffer from debilitating medical conditions is a foreshadowing of a social conscience slowly diminishing. Within that context, it is incumbent upon the Federal or Postal worker to prepare a compelling Federal Disability Retirement application at each stage of the process, in order to test and gauge the status of where we are in this constant struggle against the abomination of societal indifference.
Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire