<ot> G'day all - dear Richard, I guess it is customary to say I am not here to defend the President <vbg>, but you have used an interesting case that gets me thinking. You said, "I often ask my business partner if we had a vice president in our company who committed the same acts in our office with a subordinate, and then swore to us that it wasn't true, what he'd want to do. He'd be out in a heart beat..."
The question to your hypothetical case is that: did that vp live in your office? If so, wouldn't you and your business partner be responsible for some building code violations etc? And if that did something with his/her subordinate in the privacy of their home, would a firing be subject to civil right litigation? To kinda preempt this line of questioning, one could also inject the military codes into the scenario [such as no faternalization between officer and enlisted individuals etc.] My point is not so much of for or against the President; rather, I want to point out we carry our set of bias and prejudice with us without admitting that we very often project our own moral codes on to a murky event. So, am I one of them relativists? Not at all. I too use my moral judgement and can't help but to feel a sense of failure if I transgress. But certainly, one has to ask oneself: if "freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" applies to everyone. Did the President's private behaviour prevent our [yours and mine] pursuit of our happiness? And is peeping into the President's bedroom [um, pantry <vbg>] an imposition on the President's privacy. Does this temp still have a private life after he has sworn in? These are interesting questions I have not seen commented in the media. Btw, this affair is certainly different from the former Senator Packwood, who was accused by his victims. Nearly everyone who comes into direct contact with this episode is a victim. Or, to paraphrase the esteemed Judge Johnston's ruling is another case, "he may have behaved boorishly, but..."
best, Bosco |
