Friday, July 02, 2004

 

It's Just a Little Lie About Sex....Is That So Wrong?!

As I mentioned before, I think Jack Ryan got a raw deal, but when you align yourself with a party that is increasingly puritanical, you really shouldn't be surprised. I mean after all, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lawrence v. Texas and legalized private consensual, nonprocreative sex between adults, you had Senator Santorum out their saying that he doesn't think you have a right to sexual privacy.

Anyway, here's Mr. Ryan's quote, it actually made me laugh out loud.

"I think we need more people going to Washington, D.C., who want to engage in marital relations with their wives. I think that's a good thing for this country, not a bad thing."


Hello! Don't you just love quotes like that. I mean who wouldn't agree with that statement? But that's not the issue and Ryan knows it. The issue was wanting to have public sex with his wife, apparently against her wishes and then try to sweep it under the rug. In other words, Ryan is saying..."Hey, it's just a little lie about sex, is that so bad?" Well, the GOP seems to think so, the only other politician I know who recently told a "little" lie about sex was impeached.

Go back to your do-good-by-day, do-others-by-night Mr. Ryan, we don't need you lame spin.

Comments:
Well... not to put too fine a point on it, but Mr. Ryan didn't say a darn thing about whether it was a lie or not.

From what I've seen these are ALLEGATIONS made in custody proceedings. These, of course, are NOT findings of fact. The proceedings themselves are designed to foster the most outrageous allegations that (usually) cannot be disproven by the one whose character is impugned. What's harder to disprove than a "she said" / "he said" about whispered communications between a couple at a noisy (though admittedly seedy) club.

You're right, to the extent, that if you stand up for a group that believes in discernable right and wrong as versus "it's only wrong if you can't convince the majority that it's OK," you make yourself an easy target for the human shortcomings that we all have.

Surely the non-puritanical among us CAN tell the difference between relations within a marriage and those outside of it.

Is Jack Ryan a creep? Maybe. More likely he's just a human.

For the majority of those of us who didn't like the last fellow who told a "little lie" about sex, the issues were far more cut and dried. Clinton was committing perjury, and attempting to suborn it. He was attempting to corrupt a legitimate case that was in the judicial system. The Ryan event was mud-slinging of the worst sort. Clinton's stuff may have looked like mud-slinging, but it wasn't. Clinton deserved to be impeached because ADULTERY fits the classic definition of a "high crime or misdemeanor" (whether or not you like it) in that it is a demonstration of a grave moral failing. Furthermore, even the modern corruption of the term which attempts to make the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean some crime against the government (which only makes sense if you deify the government) is satisfied when you realize that the issue brought forward was perjury... an attempt to cheat the judicial system of its ability to adjudicate a legitimate case.

So… Jack Ryan’s statement made you laugh out loud. Are you really equating demonstrable adultery perjury to allegations made in a custody case without any context? You mock those who strive for what's right because they fail and applaud those who don't even try for their consistency.

As long as we’re going to pick apart people for their inconsistencies, let’s point out one that’s much more profound… Senator Waffles has come forward and said that he doesn't like abortion and that he thinks life begins at conception. Yet he fully supports abortion without ANY restrictions. What does that tell us. If he *believes* that life begins at conception, it means that he thinks that life means nothing, because he doesn't think that any reason should be required to end that life. In his morality, whim trumps life.

Does that make you want to laugh out loud too? The worst thing about this is that Kerry KNOWS, apparently, what is right, but he embraces what’s wrong. That makes him an amoral monster, not somebody who gets too suggestive with his own wife at an inappropriate place.

Oh... One final thing: What exactly did Senator Santorum say? Whether you like it or not, there are very strong arguments in favor of upholding a state's ability to outlaw certain couplings and private activity. You might not like it, and I might not like it, but Lawrence v. Texas is the outlyer here, not the norm, and what the Supreme Court decided was that, now, in their estimation, the vague privacy rights that probably do exist outweigh a state's interest in legislating about certain activities. It's not as if the Supreme Court had simply been ignoring a plain-as-day section of text for over 200 years.

Nobody likes feeling judged by other. OK. But realize, you’re just as guilty of that particular sin as the “puritanical� conservatives for which you apparently have such contempt.
 
Let's put the record straight on one more thing:

Without the "puritans" the Republicans wouldn't be able to get more than one or two elective positions throughout the nation.

Furthermore, if the Republican party abandons them, they'll eventually coalesce in some other political group. That new group will behave remarkably like the Republican party does today, and somebody, not unlike you, will find that they like the, generally pro-individual liberty aspects of the morally founded party that the "puritans" then occupy, but are uncomfortable with the core from which that support of individual liberty springs.

If you want to know what the GOP would look like without the Puritans, look at the Democrats (or Canadians, or French, etc.) To the extent that the GOP looks like the Democrats, we've already started to abandon the moral basis that the "puritans" brought to the party.

If you feel like you're "on the edge," perhaps that's because you're trying to walk the thin line that accepts the results of the puritans in the party, but rejects te beliefs from which those results have come.

The people in the "fly-over" country are pretty-well attached to those puritanical principles that you seem to dislike.
 
Ahh Bronson, how I relish your comments. First of all, the only thing I don't like about Mr. Ryan was his lame attempt at spin. "We should have more people in Washington who want to have marital relations with their wives." Sounds like a non-denial/admission to me. But that aside, I think that, and have posted as much, the people of Illinois are the ones to loose here. Barak Obama and Jack Ryan were probably two of the best candidates for their respective parties, now the voters of Illinois don't really have a choice or the competition that brings out the best in the candidates. That's unfortunate and sad.

As for the rest of the country, I won't presume to tell them what to think or dismiss them as living in 'fly-over' territory, but rather base my view of them on my personal experience in politics, that people are much more forgiving and understanding of peoples human failings than are politicians or the media, because they are likely aware of their own failings.

Also, I agree that Clinton was guilty of purjury, but I would offer that Ryan (if the allegations are in fact true) is guilty of .....

Suborning Covetivness!

Thanks for your continued comments!
 
Ahh Bronson, how I relish your comments. First of all, the only thing I don't like about Mr. Ryan was his lame attempt at spin. "We should have more people in Washington who want to have marital relations with their wives." Sounds like a non-denial/admission to me. But that aside, I think that, and have posted as much, the people of Illinois are the ones to loose here. Barak Obama and Jack Ryan were probably two of the best candidates for their respective parties, now the voters of Illinois don't really have a choice or the competition that brings out the best in the candidates. That's unfortunate and sad.

As for the rest of the country, I won't presume to tell them what to think or dismiss them as living in 'fly-over' territory, but rather base my view of them on my personal experience in politics, that people are much more forgiving and understanding of peoples human failings than are politicians or the media, because they are likely aware of their own failings.

Also, I agree that Clinton was guilty of purjury, but I would offer that Ryan (if the allegations are in fact true) is guilty of .....

Suborning Covetivness!

Thanks for your continued comments!
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

archives