Morals and Morality
Angelo Esposito
following:
High political office doesn't automatically confer morality on the
person who holds it. Being appointed a priest doesn't automatically confer
spirituality on the anointed. Morality comes from within. It a state of
mind, and is reflected in one's actions. You are either moral, or you are
not. You either act ethically, or you do not.
Everything else is bullshit.
Angelo (my opinion only, I could be wrong) Esposito
RDeschene
<ang...@xensei.com> wrote:
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to humbly offer the
>following:
>
> High political office doesn't automatically confer morality on the
>person who holds it. Being appointed a priest doesn't automatically confer
>spirituality on the anointed. Morality comes from within. It a state of
>mind, and is reflected in one's actions. You are either moral, or you are
>not. You either act ethically, or you do not.
>
> Everything else is bullshit.
>
Excellent post, Angelo. Thank you. :-)
Sue
Deck Deckert
You are either moral, or you are
not. You either act ethically, or you do not.
You either live in a black & white world, or you do not.
Deck
RDeschene
wrote:
I thought that the original poster's point -- that a particular
position does automatically imbue a person in that position with
certain moral traits that that person didn't already have -- was
well-taken.
Sue
(KimBoo)
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to humbly offer the
>following:
> High political office doesn't automatically confer morality on the
>person who holds it. Being appointed a priest doesn't automatically confer
>spirituality on the anointed. Morality comes from within. It a state of
>mind, and is reflected in one's actions. You are either moral, or you are
>not. You either act ethically, or you do not.
> Everything else is bullshit.
>Angelo (my opinion only, I could be wrong) Esposito
Whose morals, Angelo? Whose ethics? That's the grist to the mill, eh?
When does a little white lie to preserve a friend's sense of
well-being turn into a disasterous cover-up of the truth?
Your ethics are not my ethics are not his ethics are not her ethics.
Or morals. In fact, I kind of resent the idea that 'you are moral or
you are not....and everything else is bullshit.' Many things my father
did are considered immoral by many, many people (served in the
military, killed people, had affairs while stationed overseas, drank
heavily, etc.) but in the final analysis, he was probably the most
moral and ethical man I have ever known. Are you going to cross that
line and tell me that he wasn't?
To many people I am a slut and a sexual pervert, to others I am just
bisexual. Many of my friends are polyamorous, or into 'deviant' sexual
fetishes. Doesn't mean we are all going to run out and rob a bank or
kill house pets, or even lie on our tax returns. Whose morals are
being broken here, yours or mine? How many 'good and ethical' business
people in your community and mine cheat just a bit on their tax
returns, lie about an affair they had, or do drugs? Do those acts
negate all the good they have done through their business, their
philanthropic endeavors, their hours spent at the homeless youth
shelter? For that matter, are the one or two lives my father was
responsible for taking negate the literally *hundreds* of lives he
saved as a rescue helicopter pilot in South East Asia? How about the
hours he spent helping to clean up the evil of Dachau?
"You are...or you aren't." It's a beautiful theory, but life is more
complicated than absolutes. Are you so shallow as to really believe
in such a stark, bipolar, unforgiving set of principles?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is KimBoo reporting from work -- don't tell the boss!!
**********************************************
* NEVER tell me the odds! -- Han Solo *
**********************************************
William R. Penrose
. Morality comes from within.
Actually, I order mine from McMaster-Carr. It comes in gallon bottles or
ten-gallon carboys.
Bill (I'd probably need about half a drop to resist The Monica)
(and none at all to resist Linda Tripp)
************************************************************
Information on gas sensors and related instruments:
Check us out at http://www.customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618,
email wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and product development to this
and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Donald Harstad
(KimBoo) wrote in message <6t6kjf$l2e$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
>
>"You are...or you aren't." It's a beautiful theory, but life is more
>complicated than absolutes. Are you so shallow as to really believe
>in such a stark, bipolar, unforgiving set of principles?
>
>
Well, it's a bit of a stretch to think that the President, having sophomoric
sexual encounters in the Oval Office with someone just about his daughter's
age is anywhere near a "gray area", don't you think? Especially when any
thought at all from a former Rhodes Scholar should have suggested that such
a scandal would have a good chance of negating any good he'd ever done.
Unless you assume that Bill's life is so incredibly complex that any
responsibility for decision making is absent, there seems very little in
this particular case that is stark, bipolar, or shallow. Well, I must
correct myself. Shallow is spread all over this matter.
Don H.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<dhar...@netins.net> wrote:
>Well, it's a bit of a stretch to think that the President, having sophomoric
>sexual encounters in the Oval Office with someone just about his daughter's
>age is anywhere near a "gray area", don't you think?
For moral relativists, everything is a gray area.
- Wayne ( Gary Heidnick(sp?) thought he was doing the babes a service.
Who am I to judge?)
Bill Oliver
Angelo Esposito <ang...@xensei.com> wrote:
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to humbly offer the
>following:
>
> High political office doesn't automatically confer morality on the
>person who holds it. Being appointed a priest doesn't automatically confer
>spirituality on the anointed. Morality comes from within. It a state of
>mind, and is reflected in one's actions. You are either moral, or you are
>not. You either act ethically, or you do not.
>
> Everything else is bullshit.
>
I strongly disagree. The ability to think and act in moral and ethical
terms is a learned skill, and like all skills, is one at which folk get
better when they work at it and worse when they don't.
Morality and ethics are, to me, much like playing a musical
instrument. For most folk who are not professionals, the important
thing is that we make the effort to play well and that we continue to
progress. The fact, however, is that even the best of musicians hit
the occasional sour note. Hitting that sour note does not suddenly
disqualify someone from being a "musician." The very act of trying to
be a good musician not only makes our own skills better, but gives us
critical judgement when listening to the music of others.
And, just like folk who listen to music need to take the effort and the
honesty of the player into consideration, one should take the effort
and the honesty of a person's efforts in terms of ethics. Some people
play under tough conditions, and some folk don't have the talent or
training or opportunities of others. Some folk have different styles
and traditions -- but even through different styles, traditions, and
even basic ability, an honest musician will eventually make good
music.
That's why I have no trouble, for instance, seeing the difference
between Burton and Clinton. As far asone can tell, Burton hit a sour
note a decade ago and has moved to improve his playing. Clinton is
just the opposite. He fakes it and rather than trying to improve
his playing, he blames the audience for noticing. And worse than
all, he, or at least his supporters, really don't believe
there's a difference.
billo
Daeron
>
> (KimBoo) wrote in message <6t6kjf$l2e$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
> >
>
> >"You are...or you aren't." It's a beautiful theory, but life is more
> >complicated than absolutes. Are you so shallow as to really believe
> >in such a stark, bipolar, unforgiving set of principles?
> >
> >
> sexual encounters in the Oval Office with someone just about his daughter's
> age is anywhere near a "gray area", don't you think?
In terms of affairs of state, it sure as hell is. What does anything
like this - including bjs or whatnot, have to do with the quality of the
HMO service I'm getting, or the likelihood my social security might be
'privatized' into some Wall Street crapper ....er....excuse me,
crapshot, as in glorified casino. I'll tell you NONE. It has squat to do
with the major issues confronting this country - which is allowing
itself to be blinkered and hijacked by *irrelevant* personality morality
issues. I could give a rat's ass what the prez does - in or out of the
Oval office, so long as he insures (thourgh law of Executive Order - as
he has done) that HMOs respect my rights (as a patient), that my tax
dollars are not wasted on cocklemamey Repub missile schemes, and that my
social security is not 'privatized.'
> Especially when any
> thought at all from a former Rhodes Scholar should have suggested that such
> a scandal would have a good chance of negating any good he'd ever done.
Why the hell should it, pray tell me? It has squat to do with the
conduct of affairs of state. The problem with all preachy moralists and
their zealot ilk is they conflate these issues - or try to - for the
rest of us. They lose both focus, and perspective in the process. JFK
and FDR as well as LBJ engaged in shenanigans comparable to Clinton's
(JFK had a gangster's moll, Judith Exner, regularly in the White House)
- didn't stop him from being one of the best presidents (Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty, federal troops to desegregate AL schools, 'Alliance for
Progress' , busting the chops of U.S. Steel etc.)
The core of the issue is how to distinguish between substantive issues
of state and gnat shit.
While we're at it, howcum Ronnie Reagan got let off the hook for his
involvement in the Iran-Contra arms- for hostages conspiracy - which
violated an actual law? That - to me, is a real and substantive moral
and ethical violation, since it attacked the integrity of the nation.
The scale was one million times that of an airhead, groupie bimbo
conferring a random blowjob or two, or three.
> Unless you assume that Bill's life is so incredibly complex that any
> responsibility for decision making is absent, there seems very little in
> this particular case that is stark, bipolar, or shallow.
Decision making for what? You mean deciding to lie to spare his family
shame? So what? Gimme a break! Any of us (males) in his position would
do the same thing. It's a natural response. But because of a bunch of
prickly little puritan nabobs and their cohorts, we will now end up
(likely) with a gutted, diminished office of President - where only
cardboard, dickless, no -count (and no balls) wonders need apply. As the
Barbados NATION noted in one of its editorials: "What exactly is it that
Americans *really* want: a President or a Pope?"
>Well, I must
> correct myself. Shallow is spread all over this matter.
Sure is. From Linda Tripp - who *illegally* taped a conversation, to
that witless, feckless Monica Lewinsky, to the slavering, salivating
press-media that gets a boner with each piece it runs. And the shallow
imps that think bjs by bimbos are in any way, shape or form comparable
to Nixon's undermining of the Constitution (in Watergate), or Reagan's
violation of law in the Iran-Contra perfidy.
Those who cannot distinguish the gravity of acts on the 'Morality
Richter scale', have no ethical proportion, and hence morality,
themselves.
--
*DAERON*
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
Deck Deckert
Well, it's a bit of a stretch to think that the President,
having sophomoric sexual encounters in the Oval Office with
someone just about his daughter's age is anywhere near a "gray
area", don't you think?
Wayne Lutz wrote:
For moral relativists, everything is a gray area.
Meaning what? Everyone who has sex with a partner considerably younger is
a sinner? Destined for hell? A pervert? Should be imprisoned?
How absolute do you want to get?
And who is the absolute ruler setting the rules? If you say God, you'll
have to produce him in court to testify.
Actually, I claim the right to decree the moral absolutes. For example:
It is absolutely immoral for a bunch of right wing kooks to fund
an operation to take down a president they don't like by probing into his
sex life.
You, of course, have to agree with me. It's absolutely immoral to
disagree. There is no room for gray here.
Deck
Glynne Gilmore
I have to agree with Chris.tine.
Deck is a must-read in the misc.writing clique.
Glynne
[Sorry, Heather. :-)]
Donald Harstad
Daeron wrote in message <35F83E...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>In terms of affairs of state, it sure as hell is. What does anything
>like this - including bjs or whatnot, have to do with the quality of the
>HMO service I'm getting, or the likelihood my social security might be
>'privatized' into some Wall Street crapper ....er....excuse me,
>crapshot, as in glorified casino. I'll tell you NONE. It has squat to do
>with the major issues confronting this country - which is allowing
>itself to be blinkered and hijacked by *irrelevant* personality morality
>issues. I could give a rat's ass what the prez does - in or out of the
>Oval office, so long as he insures (thourgh law of Executive Order - as
>he has done) that HMOs respect my rights (as a patient), that my tax
>dollars are not wasted on cocklemamey Repub missile schemes, and that my
>social security is not 'privatized.'
>
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of his last cabinet meeting in
February, when he solemnly assured each and every cabinet member that there
had been no sexual contact between him and Ms. Lewinsky. The cabinet
believed him implicitly, and emerged, smiling and telling the public so. He
lied. Blatantly, outright lied, to his cabinet. Knowing they would spread
the word about the meeting.
Now, in matters of policy, would you, as a cabinet minister, believe him
when he said "...and I can assure you, I shall support your decision...."
Don't mistake me. I am a Democrat, and have been one since before I voted
for RFK. This president needs the support of the public, the congress, and
his cabinet officials, to further the policies he espoused which caused me
to vote for him in the first place... behaving like a sophomore caught in
the back seat of his dads car will cost him that support. It has already
effected congress, on both sides of the aisle. Some candidates of his own
party are letting it be known that they do not want him to appear to support
them in their districts.
The programs that both you and I are likely to need may very well fail,
through lack of congressional support for the programs of a president who
shot himself in the foot. Deliberately. Frequently. Happily. Stupidly.
That's what I don't like. It's not gray. It's a horrible lack of judgment
and self control. Period.
Don H.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
>How absolute do you want to get?
How gray do you want to get, Deck? The world is not all shades of
gray, the exact shade being according to one's point of view. There
are utter blacks, brilliant whites, and vibrant colors. There is
right and there is wrong.
There are absolutes. Wishing that it were not so will not change
that.
- Wayne
Daeron
> Now, in matters of policy, would you, as a cabinet minister, believe him
> when he said "...and I can assure you, I shall support your decision...."
I would, because there is no *threat* there that could rebound against
family- wife, children. With the exception of a few environmental
issues, Clinton has shown himself to be foursquare behind issues that
affect the majority welfare, as opposed to elite (read: corporate)
interests.
> Don't mistake me. I am a Democrat, and have been one since before I voted
> for RFK. This president needs the support of the public, the congress, and
> his cabinet officials, to further the policies he espoused which caused me
> to vote for him in the first place... behaving like a sophomore caught in
> the back seat of his dads car will cost him that support.
I just don't see why it should. It merely discloses (to me) two things:
1- the political immaturity rampant in the populace (i.e. that they have
so little committment that they must be played like 'harps' when a sex
scandal breaks out. 'Massaged' by feckless pols who don't have an ant's
balls for committment or loyalty.
2- The fear by these same pols as appearing to even remotely side with
Clinton, or give support - lest they lose votes to these immature
voters.
One needs to examine context here. And all this is being played out on a
hyper-inflamed media stage, where the populace' perceptions are being
distorted to make them believe a half dozen bjs have the same import as
getting new HMO legislation passed, or dealing with Social Security. It
reflects, in other words, the abysmal political retardation and immature
susceptibilities of the populace as much as anything else.
> It has already
> effected congress, on both sides of the aisle. Some candidates of his own
> party are letting it be known that they do not want him to appear to support
> them in their districts.
I know - and I personally think it stinks. Shows how utterly
manipulative and cowardly these creeps are. As one wit once said, yoyu
really see who your friends and allies are when everyone starts to turn
against you. Clinton has seen this in no uncertain terms, and it
comports with the points I made above.
> The programs that both you and I are likely to need may very well fail,
> through lack of congressional support for the programs of a president who
> shot himself in the foot. Deliberately. Frequently. Happily. Stupidly.
Yes - he shot himself in the foot, the ass, and everywhere else. Big
f*cking deal. So did FDR, JFK, and LBJ. If this rabid hyena press had
been around back then - for any of those guys - we'd arguably never have
seen social security passed (under FDR), or the Nuclear Test Ban treaty
- banning all atmospheric testing (under JFK), or Civil Rights
legislation and Voting Act (under LBJ). That, in other words, is NOT the
fault of the flawed President per se but rather a blinkered, nitwit pack
of hyenas (known as the press) which insinuates itself into personal,
sexual issues that don't concern it. I am just glad none of the current
crop of assholes (I'm talking about the shit-digging press) was alive at
the time of JFK or LBJ.
And - if it hadn't been for the press and its noisome meddling, Clinton
wojuld never have been forced to lie to try to save face for himself,
the family and the nation. And - besides, how could he have known smoe
pie-eyed loser bimbette would save a freaking dress? How many political
groupies are that brain-challenged and such losers, to resort to that.
> That's what I don't like. It's not gray. It's a horrible lack of judgment
> and self control. Period.
Save your 'period'. JFK had the same lack of judgment and self-control
when he had a revolving door of bimboes coming in and out of the White
house - like Judith Exner. That didn't stop him from being a great
president. It didn't - because the goddam press knew its place and
respected personal space back then, not like the raving pack of
corporate bought and paid for hyenas that now are only interested in
trying to generate profits - no matter how low they must stoop to do
it.
left...@my-dejanews.com
Deck Deckert <de...@dakota.gate.net> wrote:
> Donald Harstad wrote:
> Well, it's a bit of a stretch to think that the President,
> having sophomoric sexual encounters in the Oval Office with
> someone just about his daughter's age is anywhere near a "gray
> area", don't you think?
>
> Wayne Lutz wrote:
> For moral relativists, everything is a gray area.
>
> Meaning what? Everyone who has sex with a partner considerably younger is
> a sinner? Destined for hell? A pervert? Should be imprisoned?
>
Absolutely absolutely? I absolutely DON'T want to know anything about
Helen Chenowyth's dalliances. Does she cite the second amendment just prior to
orgasm?? Are the props she uses *registered*??
This beats CigarGate all to hell.
Ewwwwww.
--
Worked for him!!
"You are not my judge, senator. God is my judge."
-- C. Thomas
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
left...@my-dejanews.com
"Donald Harstad" <dhar...@netins.net> wrote:
>
> Daeron wrote in message <35F83E...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Well, I was thinking more along the lines of his last cabinet meeting in
> February, when he solemnly assured each and every cabinet member that there
> had been no sexual contact between him and Ms. Lewinsky. The cabinet
> believed him implicitly, and emerged, smiling and telling the public so. He
> lied. Blatantly, outright lied, to his cabinet. Knowing they would spread
> the word about the meeting.
>
Again, (sigh), how does this translate into official duty? If he lied about
material matters of state, okay. But the pile-on effect you Clintagonists are
coming up with is irrelevant to us: why should we get more angry with
additional evidence of his trying to cover up an embarrassing act? That's a
vertical issue; we're talking horizontal here. Show me a relevant
dereliction-of-duties finding WITHIN STARR'S REPORT -- and I'll reconsider.
left...@my-dejanews.com
>
> gray, the exact shade being according to one's point of view. There
> are utter blacks, brilliant whites, and vibrant colors. There is
> right and there is wrong.
>
> There are absolutes. Wishing that it were not so will not change
> that.
And the fact that the masses totally disagree on Clinton's "shade of gray"
tells you, *what*, about moral absolutes??
> - Wayne
The Last Real Marlboro Man
> And the fact that the masses totally disagree on Clinton's "shade of gray"
>tells you, *what*, about moral absolutes??
As usual I have no idea what you are talking about.
However, I do find it amusing that everyone here is automatically
applying this discussion to Clinton, when Clinton wasn't mentioned at
all in the original post.
Gee, I wonder why.
- Wayne
Donald Harstad
those things...sure. Understand perfectly. The ambiance, as it were.
Right?
Who should know more about the ambiance than the president? Who should know
more about the inquisitive, flaming press? Was he somehow not aware of the
risk? Didn't he realize that getting himself in the same position over and
over again, and denying it on TV over and over again, with different women,
at different times...would establish a pattern of behavior. It did. It
established a pattern of bad judgment, coupled with denial, coupled with
subsequent admission. Wasn't there a storm over Flowers? Sure. Didn't he
drag Hillary through the public forgiveness dog and pony show. Sure. Was
she just a bit humiliated? Probably. Did he do it to her again? Yes.
Protecting his family?
I do not want the words "President" and "Televangelist" to be synonymous,
thank you. The presidential position here is one that deserves the
attention is gets.
Protecting his family? I don't think so. If that were anywhere near the
forefront of his consciousness, he would not have done it in the first
place. If he is so hopelessly compulsive, he should be treated, after he
resigns. If he is so hopelessly compulsive, he should resign before he does
it again. Oops. He said he wouldn't do it again, didn't he. Promised.
Again. You see, that's the largest part of the difficulty here. He
promises not to do it again. Then he does it. Destroying all the arguments
by his friends, supporters, and staff. Fully aware of the consequences in
the current political and media climate.
Leader? Anyone?
Don
Mary Lincoln
<gly...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Deck wrote:
>> You, of course, have to agree with me. It's absolutely immoral to
>> disagree. There is no room for gray here.
>
>I have to agree with Chris.tine.
>
>Deck is a must-read in the misc.writing clique.
I have to say, I'm delighted to have dropped into misc.writing today
to find people doing their predictable thing, only Deck is doing his
in the most moral way possible, naturally, with what seems to be
Glynne's support, while others...well, you can't teach old dogs....
Mary
chris mclaughlin
I can't help feeling uneasy about the
new call to higher morality -- not
because I'm against high morals.
But because there is an uneasy thing in
me that wonders at the call for us to
attend to everyone else's business.
It's easy enough to see the purges
and inquisitions coming.
In paying so much attention to who
is in everyone else's bed, in blaming
personal character flaws for the
downfall of the nation, aren't we
turning our attention away from
some sinister problems? Deteriorating
health as a population, and not just
because we are aging. Corporate
takeover of everything.
The brittleness of this alleged boom
we are in (and let me ask you, who
among is is doing so great? Emperor,
yoo hoo!). The environment, the
environment, the environment.
Deconstruction of the infrastructure that
supports a democratic way of life, schools
and public health care,all that kind of thing.
You know, it's not me. I'll not have it.
I'm not the cause of our nation's ills.
Bill Clinton might be a contributor, but
not because he's a shallow, weak
adulterer.
In taking the high road, you might
want to keep an eye on the twin-
trailer semi heading down the road
behind you.
Chris
RDeschene
>
> Tangent: (but of course!)
>
And an excellent one, Chris! I hate to snip, but for brevity's sake ....
> In taking the high road, you might
> want to keep an eye on the twin-
> trailer semi heading down the road
> behind you.
>
And, of course, if we want to go biblical (King James Version; Jesus at
the mount of Olives):
John.8
1.[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
at her.
*****
Sue
Glynne Gilmore
> I have to say, I'm delighted to have dropped into misc.writing today
> to find people doing their predictable thing, only Deck is doing his
> in the most moral way possible, naturally, with what seems to be
> Glynne's support, while others...well, you can't teach old dogs....
Why thank you, Mary. Thanks for noticing me.
And yes. I *do* support Deck.
He kinda reminds me of my father, ya know?
Just the other day, Dad sent me a newspaper clipping (snail mail) and on
his return address stick-on label were the words:
Teach tolerance.
Glynne
Kathie Meyer
> Absolutely absolutely? I absolutely DON'T want to know anythin
>g about
>Helen Chenowyth's dalliances.
Oh, but I absolutely do. I live 8 mi. from the Idaho border and yesterday's
Helen story was the best laugh I've been given from reading the newspaper in
a very long time.
For those who don't know. Helen Chenoweth is running for reelection to the
Senate. She's been running ads decrying Clinton's behavior and asking her
opponent in her oh so sanctimonius voice with her 60 yr. old woman's dye job
"Where do you stand, Dan?"
Only problem with that is Helen had an affair with a married man, her business
partner, for six years prior to being an elected official. When she was first running for
office, she denied it. Now she's saying she "doesn't remember" denying the affair.
And she's saying that she asked for God's forgiveness and he's given it to
her so no big deal. She says it doesn't count because she wasn't an elected
official when she boinked another woman's husband.
Don't you just wish the Republican's would write out the rules for these things
and get it over with?
Kathie
...but the woman is the Republican's Dan Quayle female twin for saying stupid
stuff
William R. Penrose
>I can't help feeling uneasy about the
>new call to higher morality -- not
>because I'm against high morals.
Yes, indeed. Calls to higher morality are generally followed by repressive
laws, midnight arrests, silencing of dissent, show trials, public executions
or pillories, and absolute and total corruption on the part of the priests of
the new morality.
Bill
Bill Oliver
... and, as you well know, neither Jesus nor his apostles had *any* trouble
making or stating moral judgements. And, as you know, the writers of
the epistles had *no* trouble making moral judgements. This is the same Jesus,
for instance, who drove the moneychangers out of the temple and who had no
hesitation about saying that some things are right and some things are wrong.
This is the same Jesus who said:
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?"
and it is the same tradition which teaches us, in Romans
"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to
that which is good."
It doesn't say "Pretend there is no distinction between good and
evil."
It is the same tradition which, in Phillipians, tells us to
"beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
It doesn't say "Don't recognize or acknowledge evil that people do because it
doesn't matter."
Jesus was a big fan of repentance, as we should all be. He was a big fan
of forgiveness and grace, as we should all be. However, he always linked
one to the other. People who are fond of the verse you quote always seem
to ignore what follows: "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go,
and sin no more."
Jesus did *not* say "Go and find somebody else to screw because, after all,
it doesn't really matter."
Jesus was merciful, as we should be. But neither application of grace or
does no mean that one does not make moral judgement. Mercy means that
a penalty is waived, it does not mean that the crime is not acknowledged.
As Bonhoeffer said, "grace" without repentance is empty. Repentance does not
mean saying you're sorry. It means turning from one path to another. And
forgiveness does not mean that one does not make moral judgements. Nor does
is mean that actions no longer have consequences. The very death of the
Christ is a demonstration that even in forgiveness, sin has consequences.
To try to deny that is to deny the sacrifice that Christ Himself made.
billo
Alma Hromic
wrote:
>Donald Harstad wrote:
> Well, it's a bit of a stretch to think that the President,
> having sophomoric sexual encounters in the Oval Office with
> someone just about his daughter's age is anywhere near a "gray
> area", don't you think?
>Wayne Lutz wrote:
> For moral relativists, everything is a gray area.
>
>Meaning what? Everyone who has sex with a partner considerably younger is
>a sinner? Destined for hell? A pervert? Should be imprisoned?
it's no longer about that at all, though, is it? if clinton took up
with dear sweet monica in some love nest off the threshold of what
happens to be both his own family's home and the Office of the
President, now that would be exactly what people are saying that this
should be treated as - the president's own, if you like, affair.
the fact that he chose the oval office for his "inapporpriate
relationsip" with someone who technically worked (if you'll forgive
the pun) under him at the time does make it a shade DARKER gray, deck.
the fact that she was that much younger than him is an extra factor
but the affair is not wrong because of the difference in their ages.
it's wrong because of the way clinton is conducting/has conducted it.
and what really sticks in my craw is that his lawyers are
sanctimoniously INSISTING that he did not lie. he damn well lied. he
said on TV - twice - that he did not have a sexual relationship with
"that woman". that's not just being awful, that's being deliberately
awful.
>How absolute do you want to get?
not very. but i have my own standards. i may not resort to witchhunts
or inquisitions to make other people conform to them, but i reserve
the right to consider something to be wrong, and to say so.
>It is absolutely immoral for a bunch of right wing kooks to fund
>an operation to take down a president they don't like by probing into his
>sex life.
the sex life is a symptom of a disease, deck. <g>
>You, of course, have to agree with me. It's absolutely immoral to
>disagree. There is no room for gray here.
>>
there is nothing moral or immoral in agreeing or disagreeing.
(so THERE, deck <g>)
A.
RDeschene
wrote:
>... and, as you well know, neither Jesus nor his apostles had *any* trouble
>making or stating moral judgements. And, as you know, the writers of
>the epistles had *no* trouble making moral judgements. This is the same Jesus,
>for instance, who drove the moneychangers out of the temple and who had no
>hesitation about saying that some things are right and some things are wrong.
>This is the same Jesus who said:
>
We can play "Name That Bible Verse!" ad nauseam. Jesus and whatever
"judgmental" capabilities he might've had, and how they are portrayed,
differ according to the various books of the New Testament dealing
with Jesus' teachings. For example:
Matt.7
1.[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luke.6
1.[37] Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye
shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
John.7
1.[24] Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment.
*****
Whether Jesus truly intended for us to be judgmental, and whether that
was his example, seems open to interpretation, as is obvious in how
three different authors of different books in the Bible have
interpreted this one statement.
We're all capable of choosing (and, thankfully, we have that right). I
tend to favor the less judgmental Jesus, and my personal beliefs are
framed accordingly.
Sue
Jean Lamb
>The programs that both you and I are likely to need may very well fail,
>through lack of congressional support for the programs of a president who
>shot himself in the foot. Deliberately. Frequently. Happily. Stupidly.
>That's what I don't like. It's not gray. It's a horrible lack of judgment
>and self control. Period.
>Don H.
Hon, they were dead the moment the class of '94 stepped in with their
little Contract on America! Yes, I'd love to see a president who used
his balls against that lot rather than just playing around with them
in the Oval Office, but if he had he'd be dead by now, not just
media-whacked. (I wish I were joking--some rightwingers I know in the
SF arena were 'joking' about Clinton being assassinated about two
months after he was elected).
Jean Lamb, tla...@wizzards.net, trying to figure out how to pay the insurance now that my daughter has a driver's license.
Mary Lincoln
Penrose) wrote:
>In article <6tbqo7$d...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> chris mclaughlin <ch...@macbeth.computerbits.com> writes:
>
>>I can't help feeling uneasy about the
>>new call to higher morality -- not
>>because I'm against high morals.
>
>Yes, indeed. Calls to higher morality are generally followed by repressive
>laws, midnight arrests, silencing of dissent, show trials, public executions
>or pillories, and absolute and total corruption on the part of the priests of
>the new morality.
>
Hey, guys! Do you ever feel like voices in the wilderness? It's
getting scary out here, if you know what I mean.
Mary
Mary Lincoln
<gly...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Mary Lincoln wrote:
>
>> I have to say, I'm delighted to have dropped into misc.writing today
>> to find people doing their predictable thing, only Deck is doing his
>> in the most moral way possible, naturally, with what seems to be
>> Glynne's support, while others...well, you can't teach old dogs....
>
>Why thank you, Mary. Thanks for noticing me.
>
Glynne, I always notice you. You are one of the people I consider
worth noticing.
>And yes. I *do* support Deck.
Me too.
>
>He kinda reminds me of my father, ya know?
Lucky you. I wish I could say the same.
>
>Just the other day, Dad sent me a newspaper clipping (snail mail) and on
>his return address stick-on label were the words:
>
>Teach tolerance.
One of my favorite groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, is behind
that campaign. I contribute money to them on a monthly basis. I have a
copy of their *Teaching Tolerance* magazine beside me.
I *knew* there was some reason I liked you, Glynne.
Mare
TB
=Film/Video=
=Production=
=Storyboarding=
=450 term glossary=
=FAQ=
=Journal Log of script-in-progress=
=Industry Links=
=Graffiti Art=
=Movie Trivia=
=News from 'down under'=
=cybernetworking (coming soon)=
something for everyone.... THIRD
MILLENNIUM
entertainment
I invite you to take a moment and stop by the TMe website.
Best,
Terrence
--
THIRD MILLENNIUM entertainment
Screenwriting, Film, Video, and more!
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/2561
left...@my-dejanews.com
bi...@saltmine.radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>
> ... and, as you well know, neither Jesus nor his apostles had *any* trouble
> making or stating moral judgements.
Nor have pastoral and clerical figures, who have proven to be themselves
amoral. Let's face it: what's happening here is the playout of a
longstanding code of behavior. We're taught to excoriate those who misbehave;
we're petrified that anything but the highest possible punishment will lead
to a decline in code adherence.
Pardon the sociologist in me. :)
left...@my-dejanews.com
ang...@ihug.co.nz (Alma Hromic) wrote:
> On 10 Sep 1998 17:50:03 -0400, Deck Deckert <de...@dakota.gate.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> it's no longer about that at all, though, is it? if clinton took up
> with dear sweet monica in some love nest off the threshold of what
> happens to be both his own family's home and the Office of the
> President, now that would be exactly what people are saying that this
> should be treated as - the president's own, if you like, affair.
And how, pray tell, would the President of the United States find himself
in a suitable position outside the White House to engage in secret sexual
activity? And why, pray tell, are you so freaked out over the symbolism of
the Oval Office? Would you be equally disturbed if *married* first couples
did it there?
The Last Real Marlboro Man
>Wayne wrote:
>>
>> it's no longer about that at all, though, is it? if clinton took up
>> with dear sweet monica in some love nest off the threshold of what
>> happens to be both his own family's home and the Office of the
>> President, now that would be exactly what people are saying that this
>> should be treated as - the president's own, if you like, affair.
>
>> And how, pray tell, would the President of the United States find himself
>in a suitable position outside the White House to engage in secret sexual
>activity? And why, pray tell, are you so freaked out over the symbolism of
>the Oval Office? Would you be equally disturbed if *married* first couples
>did it there?
You have developed a nasty habit of attributing to me things that I
did not write. I am going to have to insist that you no longer do
this.
- Wayne
Alma Hromic
>In article <35faaa15...@203.29.160.2>,
> ang...@ihug.co.nz (Alma Hromic) wrote:
>Wayne wrote:
>>
>> it's no longer about that at all, though, is it? if clinton took up
>> with dear sweet monica in some love nest off the threshold of what
>> happens to be both his own family's home and the Office of the
>> President, now that would be exactly what people are saying that this
>> should be treated as - the president's own, if you like, affair.
actually, wayne didn't. *i* did.
however...
>
> And how, pray tell, would the President of the United States find himself
>in a suitable position outside the White House to engage in secret sexual
>activity?
is it just me or is this sentence bizarre?
(perhaps it is a pointer to the fact that the president of the united
states could consider himself outside the possibility of engaging in
"secret sexual activity" (implying something that is less than
honourable...<g>) while he bears the office of the president of the
united states? or would a person who would not engage in such an
activity be too much to ask for in that position...?<g>)
>And why, pray tell, are you so freaked out over the symbolism of
>the Oval Office? Would you be equally disturbed if *married* first couples
>did it there?
not disturbed, but certainly - well - offended is too strong a term i
think but i can't think of a better one right now.
a married first couple has a perfectly good presidential bedroom not
too far away...
(look, i am not an american. i have no axe to grind. i don't give a
damn whether the president is democrat or republican or whether or not
he is a "good" president or not. from where i stand, though, the
current incumbent looks to be a woefully less-than-honourable leader.
if he can't resisit the urge to scratch his itches for the four - or
maybe eight if he is a really REALLY good president and gets reelected
- years that he is in the white house then how can i trust his
capacity to make far more earth shattering decisions? and if a man
doesn't understand the solemnity and force of a vow - any vow, be it
to his wife or to the country he has been elected to serve - then why
should i regard him as a suitable hand to trust at the tiller of MY
future...? of course, y'all who live over there and have a real stake
in the situation may well believe differently, given that you have a
vested interest in the way things turn out. but from where i stand
clinton has sold his honour down river. NOT because he had the affair
with that poor kid, but because he is not remotely sorry he did it,
just sorry, like that proverbial thief, that he got caught.)
and that is all that i really have to say on the matter.
A.
A.
Kurt Ullman
> And how, pray tell, would the President of the United States find himself
>in a suitable position outside the White House to engage in secret sexual
>activity? And why, pray tell, are you so freaked out over the symbolism of
>the Oval Office? Would you be equally disturbed if *married* first couples
>did it there?
Heck, I'd be disappointed if married first couples DIDN"T....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talking to politicians about the economy is like talking with eight- year- olds about sex. They have heard all the words, but they haven't a clue.
--Michael Aronstein
ingrid
>
> (look, i am not an american. i have no axe to grind. i don't give a
> damn whether the president is democrat or republican or whether or not
> he is a "good" president or not. from where i stand, though, the
> current incumbent looks to be a woefully less-than-honourable leader.
> if he can't resisit the urge to scratch his itches for the four - or
> maybe eight if he is a really REALLY good president and gets reelected
> - years that he is in the white house then how can i trust his
> capacity to make far more earth shattering decisions? and if a man
> doesn't understand the solemnity and force of a vow - any vow, be it
> to his wife or to the country he has been elected to serve - then why
> should i regard him as a suitable hand to trust at the tiller of MY
> future...? of course, y'all who live over there and have a real stake
> in the situation may well believe differently, given that you have a
> vested interest in the way things turn out. but from where i stand
> clinton has sold his honour down river.
> NOT because he had the affair
> with that poor kid, but because he is not remotely sorry he did it,
> just sorry, like that proverbial thief, that he got caught.)
>
Also non-American and I agree with Alma on all her points but one....
I wish people would stop referring to Monica as "that poor kid". From
what I just read in two four-pound newspapers this morning, she sounds
(by her own testimony) like a determined little sexual predator, out to
bag a big one in Washington. Not that this excuses Clinton's dumb
behaviour, it doesn't. Even if he continues on to finish his term, he's
weakened beyond belief....no one will ever look at him again, shake
hands with him, listen to him talk - anything -- without clearly
picturing those sad and furtive trysts in the hallways and the offices.
It'll be like that for the rest of his life. Meantime, the "poor kid"
will write a book for a couple of million advance and disappear to live
well, the rest of her life. "Poor kid"? I don't think so.
Clinton hasn't demeaned the Office permanently, but he's sure demeaned
himself and since, right now, he IS the Office...he *has* demeaned it
for the next couple of years - and himself, forever. Shakespeare would
do wonders with this...morals, morality and human flaws - it's tragic
beyond belief.
Ingrid
Jonathan W Hendry
> In terms of public behavior throughout this whole opera, if anybody has
> been a class act in this whole scenario, it has been Monica.
You mean like when she told all her friends that the Pres had used
a cigar?
Real class act.
--
Note: email to this address goes to /dev/null
To email a reply, write to jon at exnext dot com
Jerry Kindall
> I've listened ad nauseum to I'm with the band-type
> anecdotes from one of her Bev Hills HS teachers, who, after telling the
> internet how "dim" she is, proceeded to discuss how sad he felt for his
> good friend, Jeff I think it was, another of Monica's ex-teachers,
> remember that mousy little guy and his mousy little wife, standing on
> their mousy little lawn, his arm around her shoulders, talking sadly of
> what a lousy person Monica is? JESUS. How many blow jobs do you allow
> yourself to receive, hating (apparently) each and every one?
You're _obviously_ not a guy. <g>
It's physiologically impossible to hate a blow job. If it's poorly done,
the worst that happens is you get bored toward the end and it just kinda
trails off. But they're welcome to try anyway...
Whether or not a man will accept a blow job from a randomly-selected
person follows an unconscious program something like this:
0) Is the person your spouse or S.O.? If so, say yes. Otherwise
continue with the decision-making program.
1) Is the person female? If not, proceed to step 1a. If yes, go
directly to step 2.
1a) Are you gay or bisexual? If yes, proceed to step 2. If not,
go on to step 1b.
1b) Are you feeling adventurous or just plain horny? If no, say
no, or else wait five minutes and try again. If yes, continue.
1c) Do you think your buddies will find out you let a guy blow you?
If not, go to step 2. Otherwise continue.
1d) Will they care? If yes, say no. Otherwise, onward...
1e) Will the guy want you to return the favor? If so, say no.
Otherwise, you're clear to proceed.
2) Have you received a blow job from this person before? If not, skip
to step 5. If you have, proceed to step 3.
3) Did you come? If you did, skip ahead to step 5. If you didn't,
proceed to step 4.
4) Do you feel like letting her try again? If so, continue. If not,
say no, or wait a bit and begin the program again.
5) Do you think your spouse or S.O. will ever find out?
6) Will she care?
7) Can you talk your way out of it if she does?
8) What the hell.
Note that nowhere in the program does a question of whether you _like_ the
potential fellator even enter into the equation. ;)
Someone should make up coffee mugs with flowcharts on them...
--
Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
Manual Labor http://www.manual.com Web Design, etc.
A makeover for your Mac every week. http://www.manual.com/tss/
Alex Jay Berman
Jerry, consider me your first backer. I can see it now--we fire the
mugs in special molds--the handle would be sculpted with care, an
upwardly curving phallus which, at the top of the mug, would meet a
small pair of lips.
You supply the sculptors and the flowcharts, I'll supply the graphics,
and we'll market these babies worldwide!
Alex Jay Berman
-- shareholder, Get a Job!(tm) Mugs ...
Jerry Kindall
Berman) wrote:
> Jerry, consider me your first backer. I can see it now--we fire the
> mugs in special molds--the handle would be sculpted with care, an
> upwardly curving phallus which, at the top of the mug, would meet a
> small pair of lips.
I had in mind a full, voluptuous pair of lips, myself.
> You supply the sculptors and the flowcharts, I'll supply the graphics,
> and we'll market these babies worldwide!
The scary part is, I think this might actually be marketable.
Alex Jay Berman
Most marketable they would be indeed--in fact, I've already received
an order!
I had a better idea on how to market them: Make the mugs big,
large-mouthed (.. don't say it ...) ones, and then we cross-market it
with the t-shirt (they're'packaged together: The t-shirt stuffed in
the mug and folded out like a blossom).
What T-shirt, you ask: Well, as I know a very good clothes
mass-marketer, we buy some good cotton tees (I can get the best brands
for a case price per piece of about $3-4), then send them off to our
Korean sweatshop and have a slit cut about 2-2 1/2 feet below the neck
in the front, then hemstich that into a circlular hole (perhaps with a
small bullseye silkscreened over it).
The legend on the shirt would read something like, "I used the Kennedy
Door/Clinton Door in the White House, and all I got was this stinking
t-shirt."
On the back, it would read, "Unofficial Proerty of the White House,"
and we might even spoof up the seal of office.
Whaddaya think? Are we in business?
Alex Jay Berman
-- could also market it without the mug and printing as "The 'Tail'
Shirt Shirttail" ... I hear Spenser's and Spain's calling me now ...
B.L. Nadri
>In article <35fae5c0...@news.erols.com>, smeg...@erols.com (Alex Jay
>Berman) wrote:
>
>> Jerry, consider me your first backer. I can see it now--we fire the
>> mugs in special molds--the handle would be sculpted with care, an
>> upwardly curving phallus which, at the top of the mug, would meet a
>> small pair of lips.
>
>I had in mind a full, voluptuous pair of lips, myself.
>
>> You supply the sculptors and the flowcharts, I'll supply the graphics,
>> and we'll market these babies worldwide!
>
>The scary part is, I think this might actually be marketable.
Of course its marketable. No one ever lost money underestimating the
tastes of the American Public.
Make your mugs with Clinton's face on one side and Monica's on the
other. Bundle each one with a cigar. Call it the 'memorabilia' and
before you can say, "I didn't inhale!" you'll be a millionaire.
(Of course, someone else is reading this right now and preparing to
steal your idea.... so move quickly!)
--
myfiltercanbeatupyourfilteryourserveraddressesyoufunny
yourenotasfunnyasiamnotyousaytomatoisayshutthehellup
ifisabigworditshouldhavemorelettersandthissigfileis
underfourlineslongandstillisntworthreadingsothere
left...@my-dejanews.com
> You have developed a nasty habit of attributing to me things that I
> did not write. I am going to have to insist that you no longer do
> this.
>
Don't blame me if other posters' layouts misrepresent the identity of an
author.
And it happens to me *all the time*. I just laugh, and charge a clipping
foul of about 15 yards, if it was intentional.
left...@my-dejanews.com
ingrid <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Also non-American and I agree with Alma on all her points but one....
> I wish people would stop referring to Monica as "that poor kid".
>>I<< just wish the press would stop referring to her as "Monica." It's a
style-breaker for them, and can you even *imagine* their calling a 25-year-old
man by his first name in news reports?? Sheesh.
Paul Harwood
<snip: It doesn't matter?
Sorry to come late to this discussion, but, as the proud possessor of
a dozen or so of the items mentioned in the subject line, I have to
tell you:
It's
S'mug
<a nice bit of wordplay, if you don't mind my indulging in a little
self-congratulation>
not
SSMug
which sounds like an Army designation for something you'd toss in your
backpack along with your MREs.
Yrs in clarity,
Paul Harwood
Paul Harwood
<snip idea for mugs with white house flowchart>
You guys are pikers.
You know where the *real* money will be made?
Flavored cigars.
Paul Harwood
Jonathan W Hendry
> You guys are pikers.
> You know where the *real* money will be made?
> Flavored cigars.
What flavor, "strawberry tart"?
Paul Harwood
>Paul Harwood <Pa...@computerbits.com> wrote:
>
>> You guys are pikers.
>
>> You know where the *real* money will be made?
>
>
>
>> Flavored cigars.
>
>
>What flavor, "strawberry tart"?
Why, whatever the market demands, of course.
Think of the intensive market research. The focus groups. The blind
taste tests. The "celebrity" labels. The status associated with
whipping out a genuine Lewinsky. Or Crawford. Or whatever.
I'm telling you: The sky is the limit here.
Paul Harwood
Towse
>
> So Alex Jay Berman stands up in misc.writing and sez:
>
> <snip idea for mugs with white house flowchart>
>
>
> You know where the *real* money will be made?
>
> Flavored cigars.
Dear you.
Been reading your latest science rags, have you?
<http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/9_5_98/bob2.htm>
Might I suggest (if I may quote such learned research):
The bacteria that cause the condition produce organic byproducts
with such telling, if unsavory, names as putrescine and cadaverine.
The first also emanates from rotting fish, the second from corpses.
Rip off that sponsored research, Harwood. Suck <ick> it up for your own
profits. Sell the cigars with perhaps some clever punny sort of name
<Mingo!>.
Despicable Republican, you.
10%, Harwood.
Sal
The Judge
wrote:
>SSMug
>
>which sounds like an Army designation for something you'd toss in your
>backpack along with your MREs.
>
>Yrs in clarity,
>
>Paul Harwood
A German army.
Yrs. in charity,
The Judge
(Sig heil sig....)
ingrid
>
> ingrid wrote:
> > ....
> > I wish people would stop referring to Monica as "that poor kid". From
> > what I just read in two four-pound newspapers this morning, she sounds
>
> This dumping on Monica Lewinsky makes me NUTS. ..... (snipped)
> anecdotes from one of her Bev Hills HS teachers, who, after telling the
> internet how "dim" she is, proceeded to discuss how sad he felt for his
> good friend, Jeff I think it was, another of Monica's ex-teachers,
> remember that mousy little guy and his mousy little wife, standing on
> their mousy little lawn, his arm around her shoulders, talking sadly of
> what a lousy person Monica is? JESUS. How many blow jobs do you allow
> was his student. And don't start with me about how she wasn't his
> student when she was servicing him up in Oregon. She was the
> baby-sitter then, I know. Looking for love doncha know. Assuming, (you
> SURE she's not a baby?) that just because a man wanted physical
> attention from her over and over that he not only didn't despise her,
> but -- even -- maybe -- LIKED her? Blow jobs aside, I think any
> girl/woman who has ever mistaken lust for liking can relate.
More girls/women than most would guess, actually. Like the song says,
she was "lookin' for love in all the wrong places". Had been for a long
time. Those school teachers of hers, etc. are hypocritical bastards,
beneath contempt - I agree with you.
> Ingrid, let the guys dump on her. They're doing enough of a job so that
> that don't need our help.
Sorry, but I can't form an opinion of Lewinsky along gender lines - no
matter how hard I try. A well educated young woman, with connections
and education enough to get herself hired on as an intern at the White
House where once these jobs were only given to males - she's got to play
on an even field. That means if you get the perks, you also get the
responsibility. To excuse her admitted "intense flirtations" with her
boss does a disservice to all the other young women who also worked as
interns and who followed the rules. There's no way I see Lewinsky as a
'victim'. Brazen and determined is more like it. I don't understand this
willingness on the part of a lot of Americans to dismiss Lewinsky's
behaviour as "a young girl being taken advantage of". Especially when
there's a huge outcry by other Americans to try 12 year old gunslingers
who kill students, in 'adult court' (but that's another story). As a
female, I'm mightily insulted that this 22-23 year old (then) is seen as
a naive bimbo type. Dammit, ordinary women all over the world have
worked hard to prove themselves as equals, to get offered equal
opportunity to produce equal work and hence, earn an equal pay packet.
To haul out the 'poor-little-misguided-girl-confusing-lust-with-love'
card at this point is repulsive to me.
And frankly, I wonder, if it had been a female President and a young
male intern - what would the reaction be then?
> In terms of public behavior throughout this whole opera, if anybody has
> been a class act in this whole scenario, it has been Monica.
>
Where I come from, we have a name for people who perform sexual acts and
then ask for or receive payment - whether it be money, gifts or jobs.
Lewinsky was aware enough of what she was doing to draw up a list of
places she wanted to work - and, as a result, interviews were arranged.
Sounds like a business arrangement to me. Class act? Don't think so.
And if she writes that book -- definitely not.
Ingrid
ingrid
>
> In article <35FAB1...@sympatico.ca>,
> ingrid <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>I<< just wish the press would stop referring to her as "Monica." It's a
> style-breaker for them, and can you even *imagine* their calling a 25-year-old
> man by his first name in news reports?? Sheesh.
>
You're right. Lewinsky it is....thanks for a making a good point.
Ingrid
Deborah G. Buckner
ingrid wrote in message <35FC17...@sympatico.ca>...
>Leslie wrote:
>>
>> ingrid wrote:
>> > ....
>> > I wish people would stop referring to Monica as "that poor kid". From
>> > what I just read in two four-pound newspapers this morning, she sounds
>> > (by her own testimony) like a determined little sexual predator....the
>> > "poor kid" will write a book for a couple of million advance and
>> > disappear to livewell, the rest of her life.
What could she possibly write that Starr hasn't already told us?
Deb
ingrid
Cod only knows but she's being deluged with offers. Go figure.
ingrid
Mary Lincoln
wrote:
>I don't understand this
>willingness on the part of a lot of Americans to dismiss Lewinsky's
>behaviour as "a young girl being taken advantage of".
It works better to see Lewinsky as a victim when one is attempting to
demonize Clinton.
Mary
left...@my-dejanews.com
"Deborah G. Buckner" <sb...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> ingrid wrote in message <35FC17...@sympatico.ca>...
> >Leslie wrote:
> >>
> >> ingrid wrote:
> >> > I wish people would stop referring to Monica as "that poor kid". From
> >> > what I just read in two four-pound newspapers this morning, she sounds
> >> > (by her own testimony) like a determined little sexual predator....the
> >> > disappear to livewell, the rest of her life.
>
> What could she possibly write that Starr hasn't already told us?
>
Oh, I think we can look for more on her innermost feelings.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Bill Oliver
RDeschene <RDes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
>Whether Jesus truly intended for us to be judgmental, and whether that
>was his example, seems open to interpretation, as is obvious in how
>three different authors of different books in the Bible have
>interpreted this one statement.
>
>We're all capable of choosing (and, thankfully, we have that right). I
>tend to favor the less judgmental Jesus, and my personal beliefs are
>framed accordingly.
>
>Sue
Heh. Well, you are certainly within your rights to claim
that Jesus did not want us to make moral judgements, but,
proof texting aside, I don't think you have more than spin
to base it on. He specifically addressed adultery, but
you can ignore it if you like.
So, in order to absolve Clinton we shall throw away the very
concept of moral judgement. Fine.
How silly of Bonhoeffer to have died in the concentration
camps for opposing Hitler on moral grounds -- how "unchristian"
of him to be so judgemental. How unchristian for Martin Luther
King to have opposed racism. After all, we don't want to
pretend that there exist any kind of moral or ethical standards.
The call for a Christianity that does not involve real
moral judgement is a call for a Christianity which is nothing
more than cynical rationalization. The bottom line is
that there *are* things that are right, and there *are*
things that are wrong. Avoiding recognition of that fact
in order to make nicey nicey is simple moral cowardice.
Avoiding recognition of that fact in order to spin a
politician that one likes is pure deceit.
But then, deceit is OK, right? Like rape, murder, and
predation, we don't dare actually say that anything is
*wrong.* That would mean taking moral stand, and
we just can't have any of that.
Meg Greenfield put it nicely in a Washington Post editorial
today:
"This is no Watergate. But it's not a harmless dirty joke, or merely an
anthropologically interesting sign that times and standards have
changed, or just some stuffy, retrograde assault on free living. To
leave it unattended makes a statement about our standards and our
expectations for our leaders. It is to accept a characterization of
ourselves that we really cannot and should not live with. Yes, of
course, we fail to live up to our standards and expectations much of
the time, but that should not be a pretext for trashing them. And it is
surely not a president's role."
(Meg Greenfield, No Harmless Dirty Joke, Washington Post 14 SEP 1998).
billo
RDeschene
wrote:
>In article <35f9efc4...@news.recorder.ca>,
>RDeschene <RDes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Whether Jesus truly intended for us to be judgmental, and whether that
>>was his example, seems open to interpretation, as is obvious in how
>>three different authors of different books in the Bible have
>>interpreted this one statement.
>>
>>We're all capable of choosing (and, thankfully, we have that right). I
>>tend to favor the less judgmental Jesus, and my personal beliefs are
>>framed accordingly.
>>
>>Sue
>
>
>Heh. Well, you are certainly within your rights to claim
>that Jesus did not want us to make moral judgements, ...
Yes, I am. And I do.
Sue
Daeron
>
> So, in order to absolve Clinton we shall throw away the very
> concept of moral judgement. Fine.
No one said anything about 'absolving' Clinton. Most of us, certainly
me, are merely saying that a censure is the appropriate sanction here.
However, he is guilty of NO impeachable offenses, as even Father Robert
Drinan observed on last night's '60 Minutes' episode. (Drinan served on
the original Watergate Committee when Nixon was impeached).
>After all, we don't want to
> pretend that there exist any kind of moral or ethical standard
Most of us, even atheists such as myself, accept the concept of ethical
standards (not theistically based). However, we take care to distinguish
the most serious from the less serious. Adultery, while serious at the
personal level, even for a president, does not constitute an impeachable
offense. It's that simple.
> The call for a Christianity that does not involve real
> moral judgement is a call for a Christianity which is nothing
> more than cynical rationalization.
Not all of us are Xian, nor do we adhere to its Manichean-based
anti-sexual tilt, amply demonstrated through the years.
> The bottom line is
> that there *are* things that are right, and there *are*
> things that are wrong.
No argument, but there are things that are 'wrong' and which differ in
their gravity. A bj from a bimbo, or even a baker's dozen, is simply not
in the same moral league as recruiting the FBI, CIA etc. to undermine
the rights of citizen's as Tricky Dicky did in Watergate.
>Avoiding recognition of that fact
> in order to make nicey nicey is simple moral cowardice.
No - but failure to distinguish moral harm on a scale, separating one
type of action from another, is naive at best, and promoting of moral
blindness - at least one type - at worst. As one commentator noted in a
morning show this a.m. 'While we are focused exlusively on this - the
real burglars are making off with the silverware."
She was referring of course, to the scurvy corporations and their ilk -
and the multiplicity of shenanigans they are getting away with now that
the heat is off them.
> Avoiding recognition of that fact in order to spin a
> politician that one likes is pure deceit.
Let's hear a vote here for realism, and a sense of moral/ethical
proportion - which they rabid hyenas that call themselves 'the press'
have just about destroyed.
>
> "This is no Watergate. But it's not a harmless dirty joke, or merely an
> anthropologically interesting sign that times and standards have
> changed, or just some stuffy, retrograde assault on free living. To
> leave it unattended makes a statement about our standards and our
> expectations for our leaders.
I agree - which is why censure is the appropriate response.
--
*DAERON*
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
RDeschene
wrote:
<snip>
>But then, deceit is OK, right? Like rape, murder, and
>predation, we don't dare actually say that anything is
>*wrong.* That would mean taking moral stand, and
>we just can't have any of that.
>
BTW, it seems that you're presuming, for some reason, that I don't
believe Clinton's behavior is wrong. I *do* believe it is wrong, as I
have stated repeatedly in this newsgroup. However, I also believe that
the punishment should fit the crime, and impeachment and/or
resignation are, IMO, overreactions to the situation. Yes, I do
believe some sort of censure of Clinton is necessary. However, I don't
believe that impeachment is an appropriate response to this particular
situation.
Sue
RDeschene
wrote:
>No argument, but there are things that are 'wrong' and which differ in
>their gravity. A bj from a bimbo, or even a baker's dozen, is simply not
>in the same moral league as recruiting the FBI, CIA etc. to undermine
>the rights of citizen's as Tricky Dicky did in Watergate.
>
Amen. Thank you for this entire post, which basically sums up what I
believe, and does it beautifully. :-)
Sue
P.S. I know, I know. It's another, "Yeah, what he/she said!" post.
It's just that I agree with the sentiments expressed by this poster,
and felt a need to say so. So impeach me. Heh. ;-)
Judith L. Pullins-Ruiz
Leslie wrote:
> ingrid wrote:
> > ....
> > I wish people would stop referring to Monica as "that poor kid". From
> > what I just read in two four-pound newspapers this morning, she sounds
> > (by her own testimony) like a determined little sexual predator, out to
> > bag a big one in Washington...the "poor kid" will write a book for a couple of million advance and disappear to livewell, the rest of her life. "Poor kid"? I don't think so.
>
> This dumping on Monica Lewinsky makes me NUTS. And yes, I meant to
> yell. (not at you, Ingrid, as I'm sure you understand.) I'm working on
> a piece about this. I've listened ad nauseum to I'm with the band-type
> anecdotes from one of her Bev Hills HS teachers, who, after telling the
> internet how "dim" she is, proceeded to discuss how sad he felt for his
> good friend, Jeff I think it was, another of Monica's ex-teachers,
> remember that mousy little guy and his mousy little wife, standing on
> their mousy little lawn, his arm around her shoulders, talking sadly of
> what a lousy person Monica is? JESUS. How many blow jobs do you allow
> yourself to receive, hating (apparently) each and every one? And this
> was his student. And don't start with me about how she wasn't his
> student when she was servicing him up in Oregon. She was the
> baby-sitter then, I know. Looking for love doncha know. Assuming, (you
> SURE she's not a baby?) that just because a man wanted physical
> attention from her over and over that he not only didn't despise her,
> but -- even -- maybe -- LIKED her? Blow jobs aside, I think any
> girl/woman who has ever mistaken lust for liking can relate.
>
> Ingrid, let the guys dump on her. They're doing enough of a job so that
> that don't need our help.
>
> In terms of public behavior throughout this whole opera, if anybody has
> been a class act in this whole scenario, it has been Monica.
>
> Sorry. Pent-up rage.
Bill Oliver
>Bill Oliver wrote:
>>
>> So, in order to absolve Clinton we shall throw away the very
>> concept of moral judgement. Fine.
>
>No one said anything about 'absolving' Clinton. Most of us, certainly
>me, are merely saying that a censure is the appropriate sanction here.
>However, he is guilty of NO impeachable offenses, as even Father Robert
>Drinan observed on last night's '60 Minutes' episode. (Drinan served on
>the original Watergate Committee when Nixon was impeached).
Pish posh. Folk have been saying all sorts of things about
absolving Clinton. That's where this "judge not lest ye be
judged" comes in. That is not a call for tempered penalties.
That is a call not to judge. That is a statement that there
are no moral or ethical values against which any person, much
less a President, should be judged.
It is one thing to argue that perjury and abuse of subordinates
by the highest official in the land is no big deal. It is another
to argue that one dare not condemn perjury and abuse of subordinates
at all.
>
>
>>After all, we don't want to
>> pretend that there exist any kind of moral or ethical standard
>
>Most of us, even atheists such as myself, accept the concept of ethical
>standards (not theistically based). However, we take care to distinguish
>the most serious from the less serious. Adultery, while serious at the
>personal level, even for a president, does not constitute an impeachable
>offense. It's that simple.
Then "judge not lest ye be judged" is not applicable. There are two
different arguments going on there. The first is that one should
not criticize the President for his actions because "everybody does
it," or "its no big deal," etc., and treat this as a social faux pas
rather than something wrong. That is very different than claiming that
he should be censured rather than impeached. Censure *is* a judgement.
>
>> The call for a Christianity that does not involve real
>> moral judgement is a call for a Christianity which is nothing
>> more than cynical rationalization.
>
>Not all of us are Xian, nor do we adhere to its Manichean-based
>anti-sexual tilt, amply demonstrated through the years.
However, as you may have noticed, the post to which I replied was
specifically a Christianity-based argument. It is not inappropriate
to reply in kind. Surely you are not so cynical as to base
an argument on a call to Christian principles and then claim that
a reply based on Christian principles is irrelevant.
>
>> The bottom line is
>> that there *are* things that are right, and there *are*
>> things that are wrong.
>
>No argument, but there are things that are 'wrong' and which differ in
>their gravity. A bj from a bimbo, or even a baker's dozen, is simply not
>in the same moral league as recruiting the FBI, CIA etc. to undermine
>the rights of citizen's as Tricky Dicky did in Watergate.
Tell me, should a judge who committed perjury be criticized? How many
lies does it take to warrant criticism? How many lies does it take
before one can notice that it is a lifelong pattern without being
called "judgemental?" How many people does one have to abuse before
one can notice that it is an established pattern of behavior and
judgement?
>
>>Avoiding recognition of that fact
>> in order to make nicey nicey is simple moral cowardice.
>
>No - but failure to distinguish moral harm on a scale, separating one
>type of action from another, is naive at best, and promoting of moral
>blindness - at least one type - at worst. As one commentator noted in a
>morning show this a.m. 'While we are focused exlusively on this - the
>real burglars are making off with the silverware."
Indeed. And that's why folk who are upset at Clinton really are not
concerned about the sex. They are concerned about the pattern of lies
and abuse of power. And that's why the folk who are trying so hard
to justify Clinton are trying so hard to make it all about sex.
The bottom line is that its not about sex. It never was. And no
matter how much Clinton supporters want it to be about sex, it simply
will not be so.
billo
Bryna Stevens
> To many people I am a slut and a sexual pervert, to others I am just
> bisexual.
I was wondering about things like that. We have this standard, some
sort of ideal that everyone must cotton to, and if they don't, it's
not OK. What about gays? Would we ever elect a gay as President? It
seems obvious to me that the Clintons had some sort of an open
marriage, that his affair with Monica was not a one and only type
thing and Hillary seems to accept that. What sickens me is Clinton's
turning to ministers and religion for guidance. That seems
unbelieveable to me, at least as far as he is concerned. It feels too
much like he's trying to please the public. It feels too much like a
Confession story that I used to write, sin, suffer, and repentance. I
never sold any I guess because I didn't take the whole thing
seriously. That's what happens to you if you have a good sense of
humor. You end up laughing at everyone.
>
Bryna
rob sanders
>
> In article <6tc6e8$jgm$1...@saltmine.radix.net>,
> bi...@saltmine.radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>
> >
> > ... and, as you well know, neither Jesus nor his apostles had *any* trouble
> > making or stating moral judgements.
Jesus had Monica Mageline rub him over with massage oil before
moralizing. Incidently, in the King James version, "feet" was
substituted for "genitals" to keep from offending the moral
sensibilities of the masses.
-rob
RDeschene
pulling our leg ... or ... oh, no, I won't go there. Heh. ;-)
Sue
Bill Oliver
... there are those, however, who dispute the validity of
the Clinton Authorized Version, in spite of the clearly
demonstrated charisma of evangelists such as the Rev. Sanders.
billo