Tuesday, November 27, 2012
A kind of an afterthought on the Petraeus scandal
It kind of bothers me that the FBI spent so much time on this. Yeah that FBI the one that is supposed to fight crime and domestic terror. It'd be like Batman going after the Mayor's mistress instead of doing battle with the Joker. Some women simply like men in uniform, think Cop Sex. I think the interesting thing with Obama is that his right-wing enemies and they are legion can't even seem to approach the merest whiff of an aroma of a sex scandal and don't think they haven't been trying. I think Obama has deliberately lived his life according to those porn disclaimers re safe sex - "we highly recommend the Surgeon General's accepted guidelines of monogamy and/or abstinence or at a minimum..." Bill Clinton being warm-blooded got caught up in Monicagate but I think Obama being so intellectual is beyond even this and knows well the practical importance of living a chaste life the better to push through liberalism without the usual distractions. Since time immemorial women have destroyed powerful men and all their medals and honors and accolades go out the window. Oh I know I wasn't gonna do a Petraeus blog but I somehow feel less safe with the FBI devoting such massive amounts of manpower to basically a noncrime, I mean was a law broken? but then again it's something J. Edgar Hoover would have done:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're saying the man is monogamous for political reasons... really?
ReplyDeleteLike 'I love my wife and I don't F* around on her' just couldn't be the case?
Really?
That is such an insult.
Sex scandals seem quite frequent among the
ReplyDeletepolitical crowd. ..and those are the ones that are discovered. One
ponders the reasons that some end careers and others seem to get forgiven. Perhaps the phenomenon is
rooted in the selfish gene
conspiracy?
Where do you get that Sat? I'm saying it's both, Obama really loves his wife and from a practical standpoint it also serves him well and he's aware of it. McCain to my knowledge has never...ooops strike that, there was the appearance of something once that didn't amount to much. OK Santorum whom you don't like I'd say the same about him, he also loves his wife but he also realizes from a practical standpoint a sexual scandal would be murder on his career. Didn't mean to sound like monogamy/and or chastity was something out of Rules for Radicals. Kant talks about this, you may not steal that lollipop in the corner grocery because it's the wrong thing to do but ALSO you don't steal it because of the practical inconvenience of possibly being arrested and appearing in court and having it go on your record.
ReplyDeletesheeesh!
Yeah BB and let's not forget that commentator gal who said she'd give Clinton a nice wet slurpee for keeping abortion legal. Took a really long time to get rid of Bob Packwood because he was good on abortion as well. It all depends on whose ass is being chapped of course.
ReplyDeleteOK. And let's not forget the Lousiana congressman who keeps getting reelected for his strong
ReplyDeletefamily and anti-abortion stance:
David Vitter, better known to the
DC prostitutes as John , preferred
customer...
Back to Saty's comment again: so a consequence-based morality is somehow invalid? Kant seemed to think so and the whole point is that Obama is a smart politician, in my view he has a consequence-based morality in addition to being in love with his wife and Clinton wasn't so smart in certain areas so parse that as you please. If you were teaching morality to a young'en would you simply say it's wrong to do such and such a thing because it's wrong or would you also add all the purely practical reasons for not engaging in said behavior? With so many warm-blooded politicians and as BB just pointed out it cuts across the political spectrum Obama just stands out is all.
ReplyDeleteThat's a Southern thing BB and he wouldn't get elected dogcatcher in NYC, certainly couldn't go up against Christine Quinn for Mayor. Romney had the whole South locked up, different geographical regions just think different is all but now that you mention prostitution maybe he just feels a woman has a right to her own body is all:)
ReplyDeleteConsequence based morality is not morality, it's behavior in reaction to fear. It has nothing to do with a sense of right or wrong, it has to do with a fear of punitive repercussions.
ReplyDeleteIt's also what happens when one group tries to give their morality the force of law. Rather than educate others or otherwise empower them to understand, it forces them to obey regardless.
It's the morality of the Inquisition. Believe, otherwise Msgr Torquemada is going to put you on the rack until you do believe.
In an only slightly unrelated vein, my mood has been working towards a shift over the last 10 days or so (contrary to popular media-induced belief not every mood shift is the equivalent of flipping an emotional switch). I cancelled my plans to go to Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana in February and instead I'm going to Gita Nagari for Gaura Purnima which this year falls in the last week of March. Not very many people show up for festivals there; it's generally very peaceful and quiet. I had already made plans to go there for Janmastami in August. I'm getting to a point where I really have to make considerations, concessions and compromises between what I want to do and what whatever it is will do to me.
I'm working a boatload of overtime in December and in January too if I can get it. Of course this virtually guarantees my mood shift, but it's too much money to pass up.
A law that says you can't steal that lollipop at the corner grocery store, let's say most people obey it out of simple fear and the legislators of the original anti-theft law failed to educate and inspire the public as to why it is wrong to steal in the first place is the law then invalid? Torquemadish even? Should we even get rid of that law?
ReplyDeleteNo one ever said laws were invalid. I said that consequence based morality isn't morality.
ReplyDeleteMorality-wise, have you ever, Z-Man, considered a job in an industry with high self-esteem ? Just wonderin...
ReplyDeleteI get your point Saty but I don't fully agree with you. Many of us prefer to drive a tad on the fast side for example but slow down for various reasons. Chalk it up to fear, the practical inconvenience of having to pay a ticket and having points on your license and then having to have to go to some town hall in the sticks maybe to have some arbitrator whittle down your points etc. etc., well if the law works on that level the law is effective and that's all that matters. IF I were explaining morality to a kid as to why it's wrong to steal I'd give the moral reasons first and then rattle off all the practical reasons why it'll throw a loop into your life and I don't feel morally educating a kid this way is somehow wrong. If we're all good citizens what matter our motivations?
ReplyDeleteRe your link BB most say the opposite but I don't quite have the package anyway. This is why most of us men stick in bad jobs we don't have shall we say that leverage to change careers,
ReplyDeleteahem:)
If the only reason you do something is because of the fear of punishment, then the first opportunity you get to do it without getting punished you will.
ReplyDeleteBecause it's not morality, it's fear of punitive repercussions.
Integrity is what you do when no one's looking.
I say most morality is a combination of All Of The Above.
ReplyDelete