For the left, it would appear that some morals are all-important, while others are just byproducts of our fascist Puritan heritage. Take this little advice column from the NYT for example.  A writer asks if he should let slip that an attorney up for a judge position knowingly gave him herpes, and the response?

You should not. No doubt your paramour acted dreadfully. She should have told you that she had herpes and let you decide whether you wished to accept that risk. But the selection committee is not choosing a role model for the kids or someone to ride the express elevator to heaven; it seeks a person who will excel at a particular job. I do not believe that this sort of sexual misconduct correlates with an inability to be a good judge.

Oh sure.  A serious violation of ethics certainly doesn't indicate a problem with someone's ability to fairly administer the law.  This isn't about sleeping around or being promiscuous, this is about telling someone that you could be seriously endangering their well-being by sleeping with them.  That's a big deal, you utter twit.

Many people whose sex lives would not stand up to ethical scrutiny do their work well. Notorious philanderers have been decent enough heads of state or C.E.O.’s or generals. Indeed, many Americans preferred President Kennedy promiscuous to President Nixon monogamous.

Posted by: Joseph at 07:24 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 3 kb.