"Hey, you! Do you know what's right and what's wrong?"

"You talking to me? Of course, I know."

"Well, do you always do what's right, Bunky, or do you fudge a tad when no one is looking, or when you think it's no big deal?"

Hmmmmm?

I was talking to a friend whose son was given a whopping ticket for driving 90 miles an hour and running a red light around midnight.

"Do you know what he said when I asked him why?"

He said that nobody was around, so what was the big deal?

His idea and explanation were pretty simple. No cars, no people, no danger. If that cop hadn't seen him, he wasn't breaking the law but "just having fun."

That thinking seems to be alive and well in the political arena. Write a bill and put so many articles in it that no one reads the hundreds of pages and just pass it. When the public finally finds what awful laws or legislation were voted on and become active, it's too late to complain. Representatives reply to their constituents, "I'm outraged! I'll get to the bottom of this. We'll have a hearing and clean this up."

I remember when I was in school and someone broke a rule or violated a long-standing policy. The teacher would slap the desk with a book to get our attention and then ask, "Who did that? The guilty party is to raise his/her hand and go to the principal's office, or see me after class or tell me who did it"

Are you kidding? A squealer, rat, tattletale or worse, a snitch, would be ostracized forever. Being invited to a dance, sharing a snack or having friends ... no way. In the business world, we call the snitch a "whistleblower."

Think about it! The press — in many forms — will very often treat the "whistleblower" — regardless of how good or proper the intention is — in a very negative way. Being loyal to the company, protective or silent about wrong-doing is more honorable than exposing lies and evil actions.

What confuses us is that the public will allow some leaders to lead less than moral private lives as long as those same leaders provide the public with feelings of well-being, security and future stability. Perhaps we have no right to question private actions and yet, if an individual cannot control his or her private life, can we be certain that he or she can control his or her public responsibilities?

History teaches us that we do want and we do expect those in positions of authority and leadership to be above reproach because we must depend upon them and we simply cannot accept behavior that is beneath our standards.

Here's the rub. 

I can't remember how many historical and remarkable people have been found to have been less than model individuals. Some held in the highest regard have led very questionable private lives. Does that take away what they gave to make our existence better? I do not think so. I am not condoning what I disapprove, but I do not dismiss such actions either.

Most of us try to live by very high standards of morality, ethics and appropriate conduct. We also — as best we try to be good men and women — fail miserably when the pressure is applied and our job is on the line. This is why we have laws and societal restrictions to help us work and live in harmony and not in conflict.

Finally, we are not capable of perfection and certainly not to choose isolation to keep us safe from being flawed human beings. God expects us to live in community and not in caves.

Let us all pray a very familiar prayer, "Let me do all the good that I can, every time that I can, to everyone that I can, for as long as I can."

That, very simply, is doing what is right.

Thanks, God!