More Signs of Moral Relativism

For quite some time I have been complaining about the political myopia that seems to be running rampant throughout the country. It is considered by some people to be S.O.P. to try and marginalize those that disagree with them by labelling them Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican.

The problem is that this is frequently done in an attempt to squash dissenting opinions even those that have merit. Walking alongside this issue is a severe case of Moral Relativism that is assisting in the prevention of real dialogue.

One of the examples of this problematic rhetoric is here. The poster posits that Americans are stupid because a survey claims that more Americans believe that Libby’s indictment is more important then Clinton’s.

He offers the following as part of the reason for his distress.

I mean come on, really. The survey should have asked “Did you know who Libby was BEFORE the investigation?”, because I didn’t. Clinton’s lies are certainly more important than some White House staff member’s perjury. For Christ’s sake, Clinton embarrassed our nation.

This is sheer fluff and silliness. The issue is not who embarrassed the nation, the issue is which of these situations created a bigger problem and a bigger risk of danger to the nation. Personally I don’t waste much time worrying about whether the rest of the world agrees or disagrees with how our country is run.

As long it is done in a moral and ethical fashion, or as close as possible I am happy with it. That obviously is food for a separate post.

If the POTUS can do a good job I don’t care who he sleeps with or plays with. Again this is provided that he is not endangering anyone or breaking any laws while engaging in this activity. There is still plenty of room for legitimate criticism of Clinton, but this is not the area to focus on.

As for my claim of moral relativism I said that because I suspect that the initial poster would argue against the UN and doesn’t have a problem with the US taking unilateral action when needed.

My real beef here is with the inconsistent and illogical argument and the lack of recognition of why there really is no relationship between Clinton and Libby’s actions.

(Visited 33 times, 1 visits today)


  1. Jack's Shack November 10, 2005 at 7:09 am


    I hate all of these silly excuses. Honesty is lacking on all sides.


    Something stinks.


    I don’t care who the blogger is, sometimes we make foolish comments and get called on it.

    Clinton lied under oath, but what he lied about is not of the same magnitude as potentially outing a CIA operative.

    But I do agree that lying under oath is not something to be ignored.

  2. Gothamimage November 10, 2005 at 6:53 am

    On First Looking Into Fitzgerald’s Indictment

    A Pre-Emptive Poem
    From A Keats Ghost To Gothamimage:
    Much have I witnessed the Scandal of Bush
    And many awful lies and outrages seen;
    Round many breaches have I been
    Which bards in fealty to Republic hold.
    Oft of one great Injury had I been told
    That worried the Founders in repose;
    Yet did I never see it so clear
    Till I heard Fitzgerald speak out loud and bold:
    Then I felt like some Justice on High
    When a pure Truth comes into his view:
    Or like Honest Abe when with wise eyes
    He saved the Union – and all his men
    Look’d at each other with great relief –
    Silent, upon a stillness at Appomattox

    The Libby indictment is more importan than many Dems think. You have to read it carefully- it’s very clear that Fitz says the indictment is used to find the hidden truth and only once the truth that Libby was hiding is exposed that he will be able to answer the original question posed by his mandate.

    It’s more like Fitzball than Fitzmas, which has caught on as a nickname. Some have even called it Fitznukkah, but that is even less strong metaphorically than Fitzmas.
    Ofcourse, it’s not a game, but sometimes watching, reading, and blogging about it is. Hence, Fiztball, with Fitz as QB. Red State 8, Red State 8, Hut Hut.

  3. Ezzie November 10, 2005 at 6:25 am

    Argh. I’m going to get frustrated again (by the comments, not your post, Jack…).

    Jack – picking on a teenager? Especially one who has contributed so much to the blogging world? Tsk tsk. 😉 But I have to agree with you on this one – I thought much the same.

    However, I’d note: Neither Clinton nor Libby were indicted for anything more than perjury, so the “which one’s worse” question doesn’t really seem to matter. They’re both VERY bad – lying under oath is no joke. Clinton was even found guilty. The poll itself was stupid.

  4. Terri in PA November 9, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    This is a very disturbing survey if it is a true one.
    I did not know who Libby was before this came up, but once I found out I was amazed at the indiscretions that have been taking place in this administration.
    I also don’t care who sleeps with who in the entire scheme of things, but outing a CIA operative, and then lying about it, is putting the security of our country in jeopardy.
    I am slowly becoming a bit more concerned about this administration as each day passes.

  5. The Misanthrope November 9, 2005 at 9:07 pm

    Sounds like the typical kinds of weak arguments Republicans make for their bad behavior once the shoe is on the other foot, to use an old cliché.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

You may also like