I think many of us are simmering on this very issue, Tom, but as our ole pal elucidator noted so many months ago, we’re fresh out of outrage. This entire bunch of criminals should be frog-marched down Pennsylvania Avenue, but who’ll replace them? As we’ve already seen, electin’ doesn’t accomplish shit except rip the veneer off the current set of henchmen (some of whom we’ve been bashing for years) so a new bunch of bad guys can take over.
The whole system is bankrupt. So fuck it, I’m gonna crack jokes about how he loogs on his comb.
Hey, I’m not saying he’s “desirable,” just that it’s not inconceivable that a woman would be attracted to him. And I’m not saying a full head of hair is what defines desirable.
But after seeing the holes in the socks thing, I can’t bring myself to defend Wolf’s appearance in any way. There’s no excuse for that shit. So fuck Wolfowitz with a hot poker, and fuck whoever thought it would be a good idea to pay him massive amounts of money for anything.
Do “rational institutions” really not consider it a conflict of interest when the president of the institution has a long-standing extramarital relationship with one of the institution’s employees, as long as the president recuses himself from official matters dealing with that employee?
Shoot, in that case I can’t see why the WSJ editorial page got so huffed up about the notorious Clinton-Lewinsky affair. After all, Lewinsky worked many more than four reporting layers below President Clinton in the White House hierarchy, right? And AFAIK he had no say whatsoever in any official personnel matters dealing with her.
Apparently, by the standards the WSJ is applying to Wolfowitz, Clinton’s conduct of his affair with Lewinsky wasn’t unethical in the least. Boy, you wouldn’t have known that to hear the cries of outrage—not just about the perjury, but about the “scandalous sexual misconduct”—from the WSJ and its ilk back then! :dubious:
Actually, I think that’s pretty fair. He was offered a job, and he said (paraphrased) “I’d like to take this job, but you guys have to understand that I’m laying one of the people in your institution”. They say (paraphrased) “Well, she doesn’t report to you and you don’t supervise her. As long as you don’t mess around with the people who DO supervise her, or try to influence their decisions, that’s okay.” So he recuses himself from any personnel discussions about her, and everyone’s fine. It’s similar to the military rules which stipulate IIRC that officers of different rank may get involved so long as one does not report to the other.
I realize that this can lead to ethical problems, but it doesn’t have to. And I would certainly be more inclined to trust someone who had brought it up during job negotiations more than someone who tried to hide it until after they were in place. The problem here was that, after promising to recuse himself (and thus demonstrating that he understood the ethical problem), he turned around and did the opposite (thus demonstrating that he didn’t care).
Do “rational institutions” really not consider it a conflict of interest when the president of the institution has a long-standing extramarital relationship with one of the institution’s employees, as long as the president recuses himself from official matters dealing with that employee?