Yeah, nothing big to focus on right now – except the collapse of the global economy. Other than that, nothing major. :rolleyes:
First of all, no-one was expressing shock and outrage at Condit’s lack of monogamy. He can fuck as many people as he wants, and i won’t raise an eyebrow. But i’ve always believed that if you want to do that, you should be upfront about it, rather than making a promise to be faithful and then betraying your partner. It’s not about the sex, for me, but about respecting the person to whom you’ve made promises.
Second, while i am generally opposed to adultery, in principle, it doesn’t really worry me very much when other people do it. I’m realistic enough to know that there’s plenty of adultery happening in America, and it’s not something that causes me to stay awake nights.
However, as hajario noted earlier in the thread, Condit was an elected representative who played the Christian moralist in order to elicit public support for his elections and for his political positions, and then betrayed his very public ideals by fucking his own interns behind his wife’s back. We should balk at that sort of hypocrisy from our elected officials, whether the subject in question is sex or something else.
It’s not the adultery, it’s the obstructing the police’s investigation into the murder of a human being by being such a tool that he outright lied to police.
There’s lying to cover your ass, which is one thing, and then there’s lying to cover your ass so that a missing person, who is supposedly important to you, by the way, can not be found and perhaps saved.
If he didn’t kill her, and he probably didn’t, then his main concern should have been to help the police in every way possible so that Chandra could be recovered alive.
Yeah, thats my take on it too. And that goes for anything “shady” someone is doing.
When the police come to you about a possible kindnapping or murder, its time RIGHT THEN to come clean about any embarrassing thing you did or are doing. Face it, at that point its all likely to come out sooner or later anyway. Who knows what details you tell them might save the person or catch the killer.
Now, of course I guess if you think there is any possibility they suspect YOU, its time to clam up and get a lawyer.
This thread makes my brain hurt. I don’t believe at any point did I or MPB in Salt Lake say Levy was more guilty or as guilty of Condit. No one is excusing Condit. I did see two posters pointing out that portraying her as innocent in her affair is not a realistic portrayal.
I will put myself further out on the limb. Unless the boss in one of these relationships pressured the employee/intern for sex, the willing young woman is not an innocent young woman. It does not mean she deserves any thing worse than the loss of the adjective ‘innocent’, but it does mean she clearly is not.
Now I guess I should go climb back into a hole with my 1950s quasi-morality of people being responsible for their choices and actions.
BTW: One last time, I do not believe in any way shape or form that Levy deserves what happened to her. At worst she might has deserved a public tongue lashing from Condit’s wife as said wife threw him out of her life. Sadly it appears some psychopath murdered her in a completely unrelated and horrible incident.
I was in the DC area when this was going on. The police were right to look at the boss, he was an obvious suspect. The evidence was just darn odd. She did some internet searches for some feature (cabin?) at Rock Creek Park. She seems to have never been there before.
The guy they have charged (are going to?) had been preying on women in Rock Creek Park. He was convicted for two assaults , so I (for one) presume he was guilty of more. He has long been a suspect in the Chandra Levy case. So who the heck walks into this guy’s crosshairs?
Of course what was so special about Chandra Levy? The other women this fool attacked were just as innocent as Levy. Had the police looked into those cases just as closely, would there have been so many strange complication?
I agree that I went too far out on a limb when I called Levy innocent with regards to the affair.
BTW, check out Condit’s wiki entry. This guy and his family are some corrupt scumbags.
Condit swore to his constituents that he didn’t drink but was known to frequent the bars in D.C. and was one of the loudest to condemn Clinton over Lewinsky. One of his brothers was a crooked cop and both of his kids were prosecuted for PAC fraud.
I guess you’ll have to point out to me where anyone suggested that you did.
Please, dude, spare us your faux self-deprecation.
No-one said that Levy was not responsible for her actions. If it makes you feel any better, i’ll state it outright: Levy was responsible for her actions.
What i said, quite clearly and unequivocally, was that, in terms of the relationship in its work-related context, Condit has greater culpability than Levy because he was her boss, and because of the dramatic differential in power and authority between them. That’s my position on almost any work-related affair where there is a large disparity in authority and age between the participants.
And while Levy was definitely responsible for her own actions in having a relationship with Condit, she is not responsible for maintaining his vows. That’s not her concern. Similarly, if i step out on my wife and have an affair with a single woman, the moral culpability for the adultery rests with me, because i’m the one who’s made the contract to be faithful to my wife; the other woman is bound by no such agreement or promise.