GatewayRedbirds.com

Another day, another news story of sordid sexual behavior by a politician who claims to champion morals, values, and Christian ethics.

I don't know whether to pity or detest these types, so I do both. I pity them because these aging baby-boomers have been conditioned to fear, loathe, and publicly rail against behaviors that are likely rooted in very human primal recesses, rather than any conscious decision to be homosexual or (insert your favorite devient behavior here). They fear something that they might be or become, and they have painted a very public persona that traps them in an existence that probably feels like a shoe that doesn't quite fit. At the end of the day, we are all monkeys in the trees. Might as well swing from the branches, because that is what those long arms and prehensile tails were designed to do.

I loathe these types because the economist in me sees the utter folly of trying to legislate morality and moral behaviors. Does one really believe that laws governing behaviors that tiptoe moral boundaries are really going to address the critical issues this country faces? Are proposed amendments to ban flag burning and gay marriage, debates over prayer in schools, etc. relevant when a war in Iraq, public education, energy and environmental issues, healthcare and social security, and other major policy topics are also on the agenda?

And does morality and Christian values make one a better decision-maker? Undoubtedly our leaders of government, business, and industry need to know the difference between right and wrong: don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill, pick up your trash, try to leave the world a better place. But does an Evangelical perspective add that much to your decision-making toolkit? George W. Bush placed a premium on morals, values, and personal loyalty in appointing many of his advisor and deputies, and all it got him was failed policies, public humiliation, and an invitation to serve as MC to the Lame Duck Presidential Gala. Memo to our values-based political leaders: competence trumps morality. Good job, Brownie!

Good essay. And I agree wholeheartedly.

As the old saw goes, "live by the sword, die by the sword." If you claim to derive your ability from superior moral standing, prepare to lose your ability when your moral standing is shown to be a false front. Hopefully most people are learning that no party holds the exclusive rights to "moral values."

heyzeus wrote:Good essay. And I agree wholeheartedly.

As the old saw goes, "live by the sword, die by the sword." If you claim to derive your ability from superior moral standing, prepare to lose your ability when your moral standing is shown to be a false front. Hopefully most people are learning that no party holds the exclusive rights to "moral values."

Well put. I think you said it better than I do. "morality-based" leadership is as much a myth as TLR not trusting young players.

Hungary Jack wrote:"morality-based" leadership is as much a myth as TLR not trusting young players.

I wouldn't say that, necessarily.

Instead, I would say a personal commitment to morals by leadership is as much a myth as TLR not trusting young players.

I approve of this rant!

It drives me nuts when I hear the guys on RWTR (right wing talk radio) act like they have the moral high ground over the "left".

In particular the one that really drives me nuts is the implication that anyone opposed to the Iraq war somehow hate the troops, or America, or want to see us lose the War on Terror. All of it is bullsh!t and it makes me want to claw someone's eyes out when I hear arguments like that.

The lesson being that if you're trusting politicians who claim they have more morality than the other side(and yes, both sides have laid claim to such), then you get what you deserve.

Almost didn't read this, I wasn't sure what the thread title meant so I just didn't open it for a day. Then, when I opened it, I saw it was more than one line - ugh. Going to take a minute or two to read, should I?

Well I did, and I have to put this right up there with one of the most well written threads ever on GRB. So MY rant is, how many terrific threads have I not opened out of laziness that I missed out on?

'Cuz this was almost one of them.

well said

Jack, while I certainly agree with your stance and hope that this man is removed from Congress, I hope you and others will find it in your <3's to forgive him. (And no, there's none of Snayke's trademark snark in there either) While Craig's actions contradict the way he voted, I'm guessing he is truly gay or bi. Maybe this is an out for him? What I do know is, while Craig is a hypocrite for what he did, it's kinda hypocritical of our left-leaning members to throw out subject headlines such as "Another Holier-Than-Thou" or somehow finding cause for celebration in this. As I recall, one of the trademarks of being liberal is practicing tolerance and I found those kinds of words in the thread the other day INtolerant. Did Craig do something specifically to you? Has he slighted you in some way? He messes up...and you take joy in that? Weird. I didn't find anything remotely funny about that, nor did it put a smile on my face. I found it disturbing.

I'll end with this: Hillary or Obama better not screw anything up between now and next November. As Jon Stewart says, it's not so funny when it's your guy.

pop_haines wrote:So bear with us if more than a few of us seem fed up to here with the [expletive].

Spot on, pops. Seems to me, Snayke, you don't like it that another one of your "guys" screwed up again, because there was no inaccurate wording in the "holier than thou" thread. We're not talking about just any public figure who's fallen from grace in his personal life, we're talking about a senator who soapboxed and tried to legislate against said behavior.