What did he do wrong?

[Vicki 11]

As a person on the conservative to moderate spectrum politically, it all makes me sigh and shake my head. Hubris. Vick, Craig, Skilling, the Tycho CEO, Bill Clinton, the page pervert, the list is becoming endless. And sordid.

 

Moral and ethical compasses gone awry.

 

Vicki

[packsaddle 753]

Heh, heh, Vicki, If there's someone out there named Hubris, I'd like to shake their hand. But regarding Bill Clinton, yeah he had an affair of sorts. It was heterosexual. They were both consenting adults. Until he lied about it, I don't think any laws were broken. Aside from that and the infidelity, what was the source of perversion?

 

John-in-KC, there were other options as well, I can think of at least two: Run - try to escape by leaving the country was one option. Another would be for him to 'eat his gun' so-to-speak. There are probably more options as well.

 

Regarding the scenario by Calico, I'm sure our imaginations are all in high gear over that one. I used to enjoy listening to George Schultz handle questions that contained hypothetical scenarios. He'd just turn them away rather coldly.

We don't know what we'd do in this situation because it hasn't actually happened. We might imagine what we'd do but until we confront it, there is no way to know our reaction.

I suspect that a few sentences in this forum will never be able to capture the level of detail and emotion of the real thing if it happens to one of us. Therefore, while we can have some fun comparing our illusions in this forum, until we taste that reality, none of us will know for sure how we will respond.

[GernBlansten 10]

Well, it seems the distinguished gentleman from Idaho is gonna take one for the team and resign. Shame really. Based on the evidence, I think he would have gotten off scott free in a trial. But he chose to stall and tap dance around.

 

With this wave of moral house cleaning, I wonder if there are others who might be flushed out? Paging Senator Vitter...

[John-in-KC 311]

Gern,

 

Yep, googlenews says Sept 30, he goes away.

 

Had he decided to go for "Not Guilty, Your Honor" at the Bar of Justice, yes, this might have ended up as you described. That was my objection: He chose to plea out, apparently without thinking of the 2d/3d order consequences. One of the things we're supposed to be training our Scouts under the Citizenship Aim: Make good choices!

 

I wonder if there's a Scoutmaster Minute in all this...

[Trevorum 24]

 

I wouldn't think to use this incident as a SM minute. Too tawdry. But, if I did, the point would be something along the lines of "Know thyself".

[tjhammer 10]

Larry Craig is another example of the end of what BrentAllen and tjhammer both hate about the old gay culture.

 

I do feel sadness for any man of his age who has lived a lie for so long. Like every gay man, I can understand a bit of what he's going through. But I'm far younger, far more affirmed by those around me, and far less committed to concealing a big secret. And I managed to leave the self-loathing behind long ago.

 

Larry Craig has only compounded his own misfortune by hurting others. He has a perfectly anti-gay voting record. If he was closeted but didn't use his powers to harm gay people, then there would be more cause to sympathize.

 

Larry Craig has spent a lifetime aligning with "straight people" who abhor "gay people". Much like Ted Haggard and others, no matter how hard he "wished" away his sexuality, it didn't change. A bubbling repression that manifested in abhorrent ways. But Larry Craig is quickly becoming an aberration, something foreign to younger generations of gay men.

 

His behavior (not just in that bathroom) is a relic of the old gay culture, driven by secrecy and bogus shame.

 

The current political wars are a re-alignment. It used to be gay vs straight. But now it's the old gay culture against the new gay culture. Larry Craig cruises for sex in bathrooms, he's part of the old gay culture. His lifestyle is threated by gay marriage: more guys sitting at the boarding gate with their husbands means fewer in the airport washroom. His lifestyle is threated by gays in the military: more sailors with boyfriends on shore means fewer available underneath the dock. Craig, West, and Haggard are the death throes of the old gay culture, desperately longing for the good old days.

 

It's not just the "old" gay culture of anonymous sexual encounters vs. the "new" gay culture of monogamy; it's self-loathing vs. self-affirmation.

[Lisabob 13]

I don't think I'd want to use it for a SM minute either, for the simple facts that a) most kids won't have a clue who Craig is (or care, either) and b) most middle-school-aged boys are more likely to get hung up on the titillation factor ("eewww, he was trying to do what???") than on the moral behind the story, whatever one believes that moral to be.

 

And then there's: c) Talking about sexual behavior or politics (or both together!) with youth at a scout function is to invite some pretty serious "feedback" from parents, and in this case that's a "gift" I think I'd rather not receive.

[BrentAllen 10]

"Aside from that and the infidelity, what was the source of perversion?"

 

packsaddle,

Maybe it doesn't bother you, but seeing Clinton walk out of Church on Easter Sunday with his family and his Bible in his hands, and knowing he then headed over to the Oval Office for a session with Monika is perverted, to me. Did you read the Starr Report? Familiar with the cigar acts? Do you not consider that perverted?

 

Does lying and infidelity really rank so low on your moral scale? Pretty major, to me.

[Trevorum 24]

Brent, It may be hard for you to understand, but sexual "perversion" is always in the eye of the beholder (voyeur?). That is to say, it is always relative to a cultural context. What is a perversion in one culture may be the norm in another. There was a time and a place when all non-missionary positions were perversions, even between married couples. There are even cultures where sex between men and women of the same generation is considered perverted. In our culture there is a diversity of sexual behaviors which are widely accepted as healthy and fun by many people while being considered perversions by others. As long as it's consensual (and between adults), I say to each his own.

[BrentAllen 10]

packsaddle actually brought in the word perversion. I'll jump back to Vicki's original wording - "Moral and ethical compasses gone awry." And sorry, but a married man playing hide the cigar with an intern young enough to be his daughter is perverted.

 

So, does Bill Clinton in a photo op on Easter Sunday, coming out of church with his family, appear to be hypocritical considering his actions that followed that day, with Miss Lewinski? And isn't that part of the charge against Craig - espousing family values while living a much different lifestyle? Was not Clinton guilty of the same?

[GernBlansten 10]

Brent,

What's your take on Vitter? Should he get a pass?

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, As delighted as I am to learn that you are a fellow moral relativist, I am disappointed in your reading and comprehension skills. Especially after reading in your last post, "packsaddle actually brought in the word perversion."

Now I admit that the specific word 'perversion' was what I used but if you will please re-read Vicki's post, you will note that she used its root term 'pervert' in describing Bill Clinton. Specifically she wrote of him as, "...Bill Clinton, the page pervert,..."

That is why I responded in the manner I did. Not that I mind nor that it matters much in our discussions, I just thought you might want to put on your reading glasses.

 

With regard to your specific question about moral scales (of which the Clinton scandal seems to have captivated your mind) I have to admit I'm not certain what you mean by "...low on your moral scale." That would, of course, depend on how I arranged the order, wouldn't it? Consider that it is possible that really terrible, immoral acts might well be placed at the bottom, you know, closer to that 'warmer clime' I'm supposed to experience some day.

 

But I confess I don't actually keep an inventory of immoral acts that I arrange on some kind of scale. I will say that the act you seem to obsess about is neither particularly immoral nor perverted in my mind, not that I would choose to engage in it. Perversion, as Trevorum noted, is largely in the eye of the beholder.

However, I think Bill Clinton did do something immoral that goes way beyond his infidelity or whatever act he actually did with Monica in the Oval Office. And I am again disappointed that no-one jumped on my case about it (one of those opportunities I give everyone fairly frequently).

Regardless of whatever level of consent was given in their relationship, Bill Clinton took advantage of a situation where he was in a position of ultimate power and influence and he entered into a completely unprofessional relationship with a subordinate. In this situation the consent of the subordinate can never truly achieve the level of parity needed for the relationship to be considered non-exploitive. Bill Clinton exploited Monica for his own desires. If there was anything perverted about the situation, THAT was IT in my mind. But as I mentioned, while I do consider it immoral, 'perversion' is probably not the right term, at least not for me.

The fact that no charge was brought by her against him does not excuse this terrible breach of trust and honor at so many levels. To me, this wrong far exceeds anything they actually did with each other. And it far exceeds his deception when he tried to deny the truth.

 

Back to moral scales, Brent, as you seem to think you have a good bead on these things, how about listing some things that you rank as slightly more major and slightly less major compared to Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica. I'm curious to see what you think.

 

Edited part: Sorry Trev, mispelled your name...also some other tweaks.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[BrentAllen 10]

packsaddle,

Moral relativism? You'll need to explain that one to me. How in the world do you come up with that about me from my posts?

 

Actually, packsaddle, I'm very disappointed in YOUR reading and comprehension skills, as well as your knowledge of Current Events. Vicki's word "pervert" was related to one person - Foley, I believe. You then applied it Clinton.

I'm not obsessed with Clinton or his actions. You just seem to jump to his defense any time his past actions are brought up, but never anyone else.

 

Trev,

What do you mean by a pass? Would I vote for him? No.

[packsaddle 753]

Quite right! I apologize for my out-of-focus glasses. Monica was an intern, not a page. So I guess 'perversion' WAS misplaced on Clinton after all.

 

Anyway, I get moral relativism from your request to place a specific act on some scale of morality. And, for that matter, you seem to acknowledge the existence of different scales for different people. That seems to indicate different 'levels' of morality 'relative' to other acts and relative to scales of other people.

 

So, about those slightly more or less major things?

[Vicki 11]

OK, whoa guys - when I wrote "page pervert" I meant Foley - I just couldn't remember his name at the moment. And I wasn't calling Clinton a pervert, per se. He did use his position of dominance to seduce a person who was not in a position of dominance - gee, that's never happened before. Then lied about it and used cute semantic games. I used the word "hubris" meaning pride, meaning thinking yourself to be above the law, ethics, morality, etc. Of course, then I get a response about "somebody named Hubris" and that point got lost in the namecalling.

 

The point being that our society is losing its way across the board. The belief that breaches of trust and honor (using Pack's words, they fit) are irrelevant somehow seems to be gaining hold. The loss of an understanding that without trust and honor, no matter what our core beliefs, we are nothing. In our efforts to promote our own ideologies and defend those who espouse them we are losing sight of the fact that ideology isn't everything.

 

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)