The Good, The Bad, The Influential

[hartlikeawheel]

Whatever you want to post.

I DO have a question, though. Should we consider a person's personal habits when we elect him for greatness?

Several people influential in the history of our country in social, political areas have been mentioned this morning.

I'm not talking about the basic boo-boos we all make. I'm talking about character in general.

I continuously have a problem with seperating a person's ability to rise to wisdom, leadership and greatness while maintaining immoral, or illegal habits.

One of my lawyer friends defended a man whom had sexually attacked a woman. She is a staunch feminist.

When I asked her how she could do that she told me that she just seperated her working life from her private life.

Perhaps we, in general, do this with our "greats."

Ideas?

[joew]

When bad people do good things, I suppose we need to give credit for the good things.

Just avoid imitating the bad stuff or thinking it should be acceptale.

[hartlikeawheel]

This was the post where I was hoping to have a conversation about the foilbles of MLK and other prominent persons.

Rather ironic that no one posted here and it went onto Idle Chatter.

[doctork]

Some of the foible-afflicted self-destruct - thinking about Mark Foley, those two evangelists who recently went down in flames over homosexual sideline activities, Richard Nixon and Watergate, many others.

But Americans got over Reagan and IranContra, Clinton and the bimbo eruptions, and others. The press now exposes many activities that previously might have gone unmentioned. Think JFK and his many liaisons that just didn't seem to be important political discussion at the time - and compare to Clinton and the blue dress. Perhaps we're prudishly schizophrenic on the issue; it's kind of expected men in power will fool around, but please use some discretion rather than flaunting it.

For most, accomplishments and results seem to matter more than absolute behavioral purity. I think Bill Clinton's zipper problem should have been resolved between Bill and Hillary. However, the political circus created distracted attention from many important matters that deserved more attention. The World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993; had attention been focused on terrorist activity instead of a dress stain and other bimbo matters, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

To me that straddles minor foibles vs character flaws. My employer had ten floors in the South Tower, and I lost 176 co-workers that day. It's so personal, it's hard for me to get past the foible and look at the accomplishment on that one.

For the current occupant, stupidity, greed and stubbornness are serious character flaws, for which there is no excuse.

In other instances, demonstrated solid character will trump some disagreeable (to me) political opinions.

[booklady]

It may be just me, but I honestly don't think we need to be so legalistic about where (in which thread) we talk about things. As long as we're talking, that's what I like!

I'll bring up Dylan (again). He is/was another one who couldn't keep his pants zipped, but the man has words of gold that speak to the deepest parts of at least some of us, what it means to be a living, breathing, suffering, sinning human being.

We eat and we drink, we feel and we think
Far down the street we stray
I laugh and I cry and I'm haunted by
Things I never meant nor wished to say
The midnight rain follows the train
We all wear the same thorny crown
Soul to soul, our shadows roll
And I'll be with you when the deal goes down

[hartlikeawheel]

That's' all interesting, k.

I didn't know that you had lost co-workers on 911. I'm sympathetic. Oh Dear. Such grief.

Star says "Power corrupts."

This is something I've given a great deal of thought to and I am more apt to express that idea as, "Corrupt people seek power."

I suppose, as in everything, it is not either/or but rather a mixture.

Those of you who understand sociopathy will recognize what I am saying. This personality disordered person can be very charismatic and compelling. They are also notorious for putting their needs above anyone else's.

While many sociopaths elect for a life of crime others seem able to direct their power into something which is positive. (And yeah, they still maintain a few serious and persistent flaws.)

But they are able to stand in the spotlight and they are able to take the kind of pressure which would crush someone without that diagnosis.

So those folks turn out to be our big-time workhorses of society: our legislators, presidents, lawyers (Star excluded, of course), mental health workers (moi excluded, of course!), doctors (k excluded, of course), EMTs, police, firemen, and yes, ministers.

They become a real gift because they can deal with the difficult aspects of our humanity without it being handicapping to them. It seems they are addicted to adrenaline-producing situations and thrive on them. And they are all over the place!

[mike]

booklady said:

It may be just me, but I honestly don't think we need to be so legalistic about where (in which thread) we talk about things. As long as we're talking, that's what I like!

OK Booky, here's my two stupid pennies...

Once upon a time, in a Chatterbox similar to this, I was a big proponent for cross threading, free speeching, disruptive spirited, self expression, free ranging talk! I thought that the tangents to the point at hand were the shortest cuts to finding out who we (each other) are.

It was not appreciated by a majority of my fellow Chatterboxers... it lead to riots in the street.

We must adhere to a strict regimen of stick to the topic, or you will die. Thusly I have been brain washed!

So, Booky, please forgive me if I sometimes play Bad Cop -- Worst Cop when it comes to stray chit-chat. I just can't help myself.

P.S. Lawrence Welk is reported to have been a secret admirer of Bob Dylan!

[booklady]

I'll put up with you, Mike, if you'll put up with me.

(Ah one, and ah two... Lawrence was a smart dude.)

[mike]

Booky, oh sweet Booky, putting up with you is a delight! It truly is.

[booklady]

Well, on that nice note, I'll get going so I can be late for work!

[brutus]

mike said:

booklady said:

It may be just me, but I honestly don't think we need to be so legalistic about where (in which thread) we talk about things. As long as we're talking, that's what I like!

OK Booky, here's my two stupid pennies...

Once upon a time, in a Chatterbox similar to this, I was a big proponent for cross threading, free speeching, disruptive spirited, self expression, free ranging talk! I thought that the tangents to the point at hand were the shortest cuts to finding out who we (each other) are.

It was not appreciated by a majority of my fellow Chatterboxers... it lead to riots in the street.

We must adhere to a strict regimen of stick to the topic, or you will die. Thusly I have been brain washed!

So, Booky, please forgive me if I sometimes play Bad Cop -- Worst Cop when it comes to stray chit-chat. I just can't help myself.

P.S. Lawrence Welk is reported to have been a secret admirer of Bob Dylan!

Well, Mike, in a lot of ways, your two pennies carry more copper than mine do, but I'll attempt to weight in anyway.
I see each thread as a conversation, just as if we were sitting in someone's living room, talking. Most of the time, a conversation doesn't stay on the same line for long. Something, during the course of conversing, will trigger a comment of a different nature and away it goes in a different direction. No harm, no foul. It's the way of things.
I don't mind at all if the last post of a thread bears no resemblance to the listed topic.
~B~

[Trusty]

mike said:

Once upon a time, in a Chatterbox similar to this, I was a big proponent for cross threading, free speeching, disruptive spirited, self expression, free ranging talk! I thought that the tangents to the point at hand were the shortest cuts to finding out who we (each other) are.

The old CBox had ONE category for general chatter. A topic came up, some talked about it, others didn't, but didn't want the thread to disappear from page 1 before their 2¢ was expressed. It had s built-in stress factor and a very narrow window of time and space.

But, we made the best with what we were given, and if that was altering the subject a bit to keep the thread on page 1, so be it.

It's the main reason prairieCHATTER has a few different topics (without fragmenting the board). Hopefully, we can go to a topic and feel comfortable - and if the discussion EVOLVES to be off topic, that's OK. Remember the 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not sweat it."

[hartlikeawheel]

Heeheehee.

What the Driver said.

I like the idea of being casual with each other. But then I'm so incapable of being on subject that I would, wouldn't I?

[hartlikeawheel]

Did you guys know that I am indirectly related to Lawrence's accordian player? Indirectly is the key word. But in this part of the country people have gone back to second and third cousins probably to keep a sense of cohesiveness in such a brutal environment during the days of early settlement.

It occurs that that isn't such a great thing to brag about. Maybe he was a sociopath?

Is this a derailer?

[hartlikeawheel]

We don't even know what kind of naughty things Myron may have been doing. Dem Nort Dakota guys can be so beguiling while they are doing more than playing the squeezebox.

[hartlikeawheel]

And heaven help the vimmins who fall in love with an accordian player. Bet they never sleep at night. Oh stop me.

[doctork]

Isn't a derailler that electric thing in the middle of the New York subway tracks? Or no, I think it's something on a bicycle.

I live on the Left Coast - we don't sweat anything here, not us Sproutheads.

[hartlikeawheel]

Geez, doc. I think I just trashed my own thread.

So, WTH? My SIL sent me a newspaper article today from England telling about a bunch of seventy to ninety-somethings whom had planned a naked birthday party for one of their friends in the care center. They were caught in the buff with baby oil judiciously applied.

She had made a comment about the people in England and I took her to task. It ill-behooves a SoCal woman to comment on the sexual habits of others.

Now what were we talking about again?

[hartlikeawheel]

OK. I'll give it another try if anyone dares to comment on the foibles of the great.

Marilyn
Frank
Edgar J. (Maybe everone will feel comfortable going after him.)
The Candy Man

I remain puzzled why we tolerate outrageous behavior in our greats that would get a person ostracized in a small town. But not always as I will mention.

Do you have to balance the bad works with the good works or just talent to be accepted?

There is a married woman (actually more) in my home town, notoriously a heavy partier and sexually loose who is a workhorse in the church and in the school. From what I was brought up to believe one could not do those things and get away with it but apparently if you provide value in other areas of your life you can. Guess she's got it figured out.

Talk more, please.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incidently when the naughty partiers "got caught" (guess you aren't allowed to express your sexuality when you are old) they hadn't managed to do much yet as the guys were taking a while to warm up! Could be the vimmins weren't doing much to help either. Hard to do much when arthritis is beating you up.

Oh gosh. I could make so many jokes here. If we live long enough that's where we will all be going though I doubt that I'll be much willing to prance around nude with baby oil slathered all over my skin. Too cold and messy. I'm still laffing.

[rogesgallery]

Tom Cruise has let his greatness go to his head — there is certainly little else there of any worth. What Celebrity Drug is he on??!!

See the video here:
gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

[rogesgallery]

Scary scary scary Celebrity does something bad to ones brain.

[michael]

Who gives a rat's patties about Tom Cruise? I have more respect for Mark the shoe shine boy than I do for him.

Mike

[gailkate]

I can't understand all the uproar. Proselytizing is what all religions do to a greater or lesser extent. Why are people shocked by this any more than they are shocked by Huckabee or Romney?

What's most remarkable about this tape to me is how inarticulate he is. I could only watch a couple of minutes and then it got too funny. He looks like an actor trying to show how you can make even the yellow pages sound meaningful. Since he's talking about what he considers "Really - REally IT- like oof!" I can only infer that his brain is an echo chamber.

[joew]

You clarified it for me gailkate. The word to describe him in that video is "incoherent."

[ozski]

I couldn't watch it all the way through either.
He would fit right in as a comedic character on "The Office", perhaps as Andy Bernard's brother...?

[ozski]

I do agree with roges....scary indeed! Tommy does appear a tad mad, doesn't he?
[glow=green,2,300]
And HELLOOOOOOOOOO Prairie Woman of the North!!!! Good to see you again. [/glow]

[rogesgallery]

Nice Avatar Oz!

Gail the thing about this tape is that even the Scientologists are trying to suppress it. You're right though it does kind of remind you of GWB on one of his bad days.

I have to think of all the money the people have paid him and this is where he goes with it. I find it interesting to compare the people that reach celebrity status in this country with those of other countries, Baliwood stars for instance. I have had the opportunity to hear an interview with one in particular that was a very impressive speaker and was involved in truly benevolent, realistic causes. I think I posted a link to that interview on this site some time back.

What is it about our society that seems to drive celebrities over the edge?

And yes Mike, a rats pattuti would seem quite soft and cuddly compared to "The babbling lord of darkness"

[Seattle Taz]

hartlikeawheel said:

Star says "Power corrupts."

Well I can't say as I know who Star is, but Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I understand this to mean that power, no matter how slight, is sometimes put into the service of our various hangups. Often displaced, such as a grade school teacher who finds herself at last more powerful than all of the fourth graders who so tormented her twenty years earlier. Or, most recently, the borderline personalitied women who've 'borrowed' the personality of the grade they are teaching and use their power as teacher to compete successfully (at last!) with the girls of that grade. Just to keep gender balance, how about that Judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case? What must his problem be?

As Acton (an historian) implies with his choice of the word "tends," this may very well be resisted and usually is.

Absolute power, however, such as Sadam Hussein's, corrupts absolutely because there is no corrective pressure to give form and direction to the exercise of it. Absent correction, anybody eventually goes crackers. Look at Howard Hughes! (And Hussein). I do hope that President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan was yanked back from that abyss by being forced out of the military. He's too valuable to that nation to be left to the soul rotting corruption of absolute power.

Wiser imperial heads listened to their jesters.

cf our current idiot-and-petty-crook-in-residence who believes he does have absolute, magical power when the reality is he has had to lie and cheat to get what limited power he has.

[Seattle Taz]

Rogues, did I know that you are in Washington? And have I properly cross-examined you about where, and who your grandparents are, and where you went to school and such? Great chunks of my mind have calved off, as if it were the fading end of a glacier, and they take a lot of the boulders and debris that make up my life down with them. Beg pardon.

[rogesgallery]

sjeswine said:

hartlikeawheel said:

Star says "Power corrupts."

Well I can't say as I know who Star is, but Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I understand this to mean that power, no matter how slight, is sometimes put into the service of our various hangups. Often displaced, such as a grade school teacher who finds herself at last more powerful than all of the fourth graders who so tormented her twenty years earlier. Or, most recently, the borderline personalitied women who've 'borrowed' the personality of the grade they are teaching and use their power as teacher to compete successfully (at last!) with the girls of that grade. Just to keep gender balance, how about that Judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case? What must his problem be?

As Acton (an historian) implies with his choice of the word "tends," this may very well be resisted and usually is.

Absolute power, however, such as Sadam Hussein's, corrupts absolutely because there is no corrective pressure to give form and direction to the exercise of it. Absent correction, anybody eventually goes crackers. Look at Howard Hughes! (And Hussein). I do hope that President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan was yanked back from that abyss by being forced out of the military. He's too valuable to that nation to be left to the soul rotting corruption of absolute power.

Wiser imperial heads listened to their jesters.

cf our current idiot-and-petty-crook-in-residence who believes he does have absolute, magical power when the reality is he has had to lie and cheat to get what limited power he has.

Well said Taz. I like that apothegm.