Page 1 of 1

What The Mitchell Report Says About Society

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:55 am
by mitsuki lover
"I'm shocked,SHOCKED,I say,that gambling is going on here!"
Claude Raines in 'Casablanca'

Remember that iconic moment when Raines' character is informed that
gambling has been going on at Rick's bar?Just a few moments after he orders the bar closed the attendant gives him his winnings for the night and he serediptiously stashes it in his coat pockets.
Many of us probably acted the same way when we heard the results of
The Mitchell Report on steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in
MLB.
Like Raines' character we reacted with a mock show of surprise.
But are we really that surprised that many of our pro-atheletes cheat to get where they are?
Is it any surprising when we live in a culture and society that often times
rewards cheating over honest hard work and effort?
Is it also anything but surprising that this should be revealed when the entire War on Drugs is nothing in and of itself a total farce now?
Barry Bonds ain't the only cheater around.He just happens to be the poster child of cheating.

Cheating goes beyond sports and permeates all aspects of our society.
In many ways it is the gate keepers of our society that are most to blame for the state of affairs today.
If a talented,gifted and highly intelligent student cheats on their exams or
papers teachers and professors may look the other way,it's best that we not even know that Johnny or Jane is doing this,after all Johnny or Jane are
bright lights of the future and will be running the country in a few years,so let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand if someone who works hard and earns respective grades but is simply accused of cheating without evidence the attitude might be entirely different.

Cheaters do and often prosper in our society often because we allow them to.

It's not that cheating in any form is wrong,it's the way it reflects on our
moral compass as a society.
Ted Haggard may have gotten a pass because he cheated on his wife with another man,if he had been cheating on her with another woman he would certainly have been booted out of the NAE faster than the proverbial bat out of hell.

Not only that but we often help and abet the cheaters among us,knowingly so.

Bill Clinton was elected President twice because,and not despite of his
womanizer that made Bubba look like a good ol' boy.This was known
from the start but no-one objected much.

Indeed,if anything it is our overall attitude to cheating that is the best friend to our terrorist enemies.In the end it will not be a terrorist bomb that brings down Western society but Western society's lack of respect for morals and
living by the law.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 pm
by Mr. SmartyPants
Wait... what are you saying again?

If I recall, Clinton was the only President in recent years where we actually had a budget surplus during his time in office. I don't think he was necessarily a bad as a president. But enough of that issue already.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:48 pm
by Fish and Chips
Did you write this yourself, or copy-past?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:51 pm
by Nate
I just want to know how many times mitsuki lover has posted threads like this, that will OBVIOUSLY turn into political debate. It's like watching someone touching a hot frying pan over and over again.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:00 pm
by Sakaki Onsei
Yeah...I ain't touching this with a 10 foot pole.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:49 pm
by Debitt
:| Right, because threads trying to instigate political debate are SO what CAA is all about.

Also...uhm...while I'm a big proponent of using the 'enter' key when typing replies, I find that abusing the key is just as reprehensible as neglecting it altogether.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:50 pm
by EricTheFred
As a died-in-the-wool Libertarian with no interest in seeing either major party prosper, I will offer my independent view on this. I will state unequivovably that Bill Clinton was elected president twice because, very specifically, the Republican Party fielded two of its worst Presidential candidates since the Depression era.

This is totally unrelated to how well these two would have done as president. I'm strictly talking about how they did as campainers.

GB the elder might have been a genius and a real trooper in his first campain, but he had somehow lost all of his skills by the time of his second campain. In the debates he looked confused and lost. And on the campain trail, he just plain looked worn out.

Bob Dole had been virtually handed the presidency on a silver platter by a lackluster first Clinton Administration and managed to campain himself out of it. In both cases, the US elected the less bad of two poor candidates.

Facing them was a Clinton who, whatever your opinion of his morals or his politics might be, was arguably one of the best Presidential campainers ever. In the second campain, he was politically wounded and bleeding, and should have lost easily, and instead he pulled off a strong win. Actually, I think I'll rank him third, with second going to Reagan and first to FDR.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:31 pm
by uc pseudonym
As much as I would like to close this with sarcasm or a funny picture... no. CAA is not a politics forum and bringing up contentious political issues, much less ones implicating morals, is not allowed. Locked.