here

http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.asp?id=926932

set your slidebar 33 minutes into it; the interview ends 28 minutes into the second hour.

Check it out and see if you like it. The whole Condit situation is just a mess. Here's a guy who has OBVIOUSLY been leading a double life. he's been cheating on his wife for years, folks. He's had NUMEROUS affairs.

If Chandra thought she was a girl he cared about she was very wrong-- he's had dozens. His nickname in the California state house was Gary 'Condom'....

this jerk should resign immediately. Whether he was involved or not in Chandra's dissappearance, he IS an adulterer, and has now admitted that much. I think it is just INSANE that we do not demand more credibility, responsibility and CHARACTER of our elected representatives. If your own wife can not trust you, then

WHY THE HELL SHOULD THE VOTERS?

So have hundreds of elected officials - and that's a conservative estimate.

Would you ask a great painter or rock star to stop doing what they do just because they've cheated on their wife? What about a great cop? A great chef? Where do you draw the line? Why the fuck do you think sexual proclivities have anything - anything - to do with ability to successfully govern a constituency?

you missed the entire boat on that one. It is AMAZING to me that people who apprently feel as you do fail to see that if the man's wife couldn't trust him with simple wedding vows, then WHY should he be trusted with the most secret and serious problems we face as a nation? Why should we trust him to spend our money wisely...

or to tell US THE TRUTH?

It's apparent that you've never been married. Anyone who considers marriage, or its vows, simple is living in a fantasy.

Now if you could just explain what the one about the "big...croissant...Rhett Miller....monkeys" I'd be thrilled.

I base this on the fact that some (not all, certainly) of the great leaders of history were sexual scoundrels, and the fact that many, but not all, politically corrupt leaders were--as far as anybody knows--faithful spouses. I would never say that sexual misdoings are irrelevant, but I think Americans tend to overscrutinize their impact.

The very existence of such men shows that the primary force in their lives certainly is NOT sexuality, and even though they fancy themselves a leader they also manage to keep their wedding vows. People FAIL TO SEE that Condit could have had an affair right out in the open with Chandra....

he could have taken her to off Broadway shows, and public events.

All he had to do was GET A DIVORCE from the woman that he had made serious vows to...but he didn't want to do that. Awe Naw. He wanted to have NUMEROUS affairs, which he did, in secret. And in light of the fact that he made a vow in front of others in a lawful ceremony called marriage, he was BREAKING his VOWS.

And I think infidelity says a LOT about a leader's honesty, and his attitude about power may very well need to be adjusted occasionally...by LOSING an election.

The LOSER in this case isn't Chandra alone; the loser in this case is Condit's WIFE....oh YES...his WIFE, sitting in her California mansion, while Chandra KNEW he was married she still went after him. And the most culpable one in the whole sordid mess is CONDIT. He had the power, and should have had the maturity. And HE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS MARRIED.

Chandra wasn't married. So the adultery was primarily his...

Oh, I strongly disagree. Those men are adept at controlling their natural urge to roam. I think most faithful married men would agree that they still like to look at sexually attractive women (and men in some cases), but they don't touch. That says a lot about what's going on in their deepest psyches, that primordial sexual drive that compels them in other directions when they are unable to sate it in the most natural manner, due to moral conventions and ethical restraints. Men of power will disregard the latter because their egos demand gratification. Men of more humble circumstances will do it, too, but I'm talking about leaders here.

Jesse mentions Camille Paglia below, and I will add as a footnote her hilarious commentary on what's eating Gary Bauer, a determinedly faithful spouse and self-styled soldier of God. His virulently hostile denunciation of homosexuality led her to surmise that his homophobia "...suggests a dark psychic turbulence."

Please provide evidence of this. Oh, that's right - you can't. You're talking out your ass.

Most people I know who have lied to their girl/boy friend have typically only lied to their girl/boy friend.

Of course, that's not evidence of a worldwide trend, either - just personal experience.

(with whom no secrets should exist...with whom he PLEDGED to the world he would provide for and love...and the world saw that she promised to honour, cherish and love...forsaking ALL others...until death only would they part) then he'll easily LIE to anyone else.

Those are SERIOUS VOWS.

And I think you will find that cheaters have areas in their lives where credibility is shot as well. I totally disagree that a person can be an adulterer yet maintain totally honest relationships in every other area of his or her life...

Oh yeah? What about people who get married at Star Trek or KISS conventions? Are those people just as serious as a Mormon couple from Salt Lake City?

It's not that I don't believe you - but present them. Give me a slight clue as to where these "examinations" were. Let me know how I could find them for myself, at least.

integrity is a selectively-exercised trait

A politician lies to his wife about an extra-marital affair because he likes nookie.

Many people lie to get nookie.

Lying to get nookie does not causally imply lying about anything else. Just as robbing a liquor store does not automatically make you a suspect for every bank robbery in the state.

A question (I know you won't answer, but I'll ask it anyway):

Until then, Julie's position is, thus far of what I have read, the most balanced and (tacitly) likely to be true position (rim shot) on the subject.

I dunno, Mike; I think it was Woody Allen who said "Everybody lies about sex." And to me, that is a pretty good "general" principle. Sure, maybe it doesn't apply to everyone, but you'd have to prove it to me.

YOu must grant that if you believe sexual dishonesty = propensity toward dishonesty in every aspect of life, then we would have to accept the corollary as well: dishonesty in ANY aspect of life = propensity toward dishonesty in EVERY aspect of life. (Unless you can somehow prove that lying about sex is somehow uniquely important in the annals of prevariction, which is something you will have to prove to me).

Thus, we would then have to believe that if a president lied about his various deeds, as Ronald Reagan, George Bush, George W. Bush, and Richard Nixon have all been proven to have done, we would, by your logic, have to assume that they have cheated on their spouses.

Me, I don't believe Dick would ever have cheated on Pat. He was a Quaker, ferchrissake. I doubt Ron would have cheated on Nancy, but if he did, he would have conviently forgotten it, if pressed for the truth. Same for the Bushes.

Mike, your logic presumes equal concern for morality and immorality (as you call it), in all aspects of a person's life. Simple observation (not logic!) should show you how wrong such a thesis is. Here, I'll use myself as an example: I have taken pens home from my office. Pads of graph paper too. Would I do the same at a retail store? No.

If you want, I can go into the "Whys" of this behavior, but it really isn't necessary. Point is, national estimates range into hundreds of millions of dollars in business losses because of such actions as mine, because millions of employees like me do it. Does this mean that they will cheat on their spouses? By your logic, yes. But I doubt it could be called a likely indicator.

People lie about all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Trying to force this into an equation such as "lying = immorality; immorality = any sort of bad behavior, therefore any immorality you indulge in means you are equally likely to indulge in all other immoralities," is simply an inappropriate model. I know people who lie about their drinking habits; about their drug habits; about their spending habits; about their high school football careers; about their current careers; about how much they earn; about how much they weigh; about how much hair they have; about how much work they did on a project; about how much they paid for their house; about...everything.

Do you honestly believe that each one of these types of lies means the person lying is equally likely to lie about all other aspects of life? I sure hope not...

"...as a general principle, if an individual is willing to achieve one particular end via dishonesty, that individual is liable to achieve other ends via dishonesty as well."

"...you've made the error of assuming that my description of a general tendency is concomitant to a monolithic principle..."

Two points, Mike:

1. I made no error. I applied the logical device of reducto ad absurdum to your argument, demonstrating that, your "general principle," "notion," "general tendency," or "general rule" (which do you want it to be, Mike? you're being squishy, which makes it unfairly easy for you to wriggle away when pinned), when taken to its "logical" extreme, is absurd. Ipso facto, your position is founded on a false premise.

2. As the quotes from your posts above clearly show, you haven't been clear on what you actually are basing your argument on. Before going further, you should clearly set forth what you are basing it on, and what you are trying to prove. Note: The premise from which you have been arguing is false. You'll need a different premise.

I don't think you should go on, though. You've demonstrated your belief. That's cool. You've not shown it to be either a "general principle" or a "general tendency," nor are you likely to.

Let's look at other of your statements:

"While it is certainly true that there are many instances where well-regarded historical figures were extra-maritally promiscuous, I think such examples are 'in spite of' situations rather than evidence of non-correlation..."

"...there are degrees of dishonesty, and there areas where different individuals place greater and lesser premiums on honesty."

"...everyone has limits, places they consider beyond the pale of even their own immorality..."

The first is an example of you simply saying, "Well, yeah, okay, I admit that, but I DON'T THINK that discredits my argument." (Just FYI, I THINK you're wrong; more "great men" of history that I know of [and history is one of my fields, remember] have been promiscuous than have not; including several popes.)

The other two are examples are of you placing qualifiers on your statement after being confronted with instances where it doesn't necessarily work the way you'd like it to.

You have weakened your premise over the course of the argument by acknowledging these instances where it does not apply. Nonetheless you insist on rejecting Julie's examples that are contrary to your premise as "exceptions." You continue to insist on the validity of your argument in spite of its weakened premise and evidence to the contrary.

This is an inductive argument. At best, you could have made it a strong argument, that is, an argument where the probability is that the conclusion is true. I think it unlikely you ever could have done so, because there are far too many variables which your premise fails to account for, but that is just my opinion. At any rate, as it stands now, your logic is flawed and your premise is unsound. That has been demonstrated. You cannot now construct a strong argument for your position from the basis you currently hold.

The reducto ad absurdum applies, Mike. That you prefer to not acknowledge it only betrays your *sigh* emotional investment.

If you won't accept the obvious flaws in your position, as demonstrated, I'm afraid it does indeed show your emotional investment in your position. You do have an extremely emotional investment in the topic. I was trying to be polite about it, but...I have seen you raving (and I do mean raving) about this subject in bars on at least five previous occasions. That pretty much demonstrates your investment in the issue. I'm not invested in it. I don't rave about it in bars. I rave about the injustice that the Guess Who never got their proper dues as a great pop band and about angry, drunken, Native American lesbians in bars.

As I said, you've stated your opinion, and that's cool. But, if you want it to be taken as anything more than that, first you have to acknowledge where you're coming from with it, and second, you have to back it up with evidence, which you have so far neglected to do.

If you say, as you have, "As a general principle, a person who cheats on his spouse is more likely to lie to his constituency," you must also accept the converse: "A person who lies to his constituency is more likely to cheat on his spouse." This is clearly absurd. Thus, the reducto ad absurdum applies, and the "general principle" upon which your argument is founded disappears. You can argue against that all you want, and I know you like to, but it won't change the truth of it.

If I smoke pot, does that mean I'll commit rape?

Why? Because you brought it up first? If we're both talking out our asses (as I admit I'm doing but you don't), how can either of us be right?

If it's so "logical" that a person who lies about one thing will also lie about another totally unrelated thing, then by all means, present your logic. If you're not misusing the term "logical", you should be able to lay it out in steps. Personally, I think all you mean by "logical" is "it makes sense to me".

What makes sense to me, what is logical to me, is that humans do not decide to "be liars" and then proceed to lie about everything. People decide what they will and won't lie about and usually stick to it. And again, just because someone lies about nookie does not mean they're a self-serving jerk with no redeeming social value who will lie about everything. John F. Kennedy cheated on his wife - fact. Do you think he was a liar to the people, too? Cause I don't. I think he genuinely wanted to help the country. He just happened to have a monster in his pants. And it did a funny dance.

Only if the circumstances are comparable. They're not. You lie to your wife, you get divorced. You lie to the people and get caught, you go to jail. If you're suggesting that divorce is equitable with jail, I suggest you visit one. Preferably as a guest.

Nonsense. Lying is making a knowingly false statement. Whatever process may or may not take place prior to this is not lying.

...it nonetheless stands to reason that one who finds it efficacious to lie in one circumstance will more likely do so in another.

"Efficacious?" What sort of verbosity is that? You seem to be stuck on this mantra that if someone lies, they are likely to lie.
Whoa.
Let's let that settle in a bit before continuing....

Now, for this to mean anything, we must assume that you are distinguishing these people who have lied from the remainder of the population.

And that percentage would be? Zip.

Furthermore, I don't know what sort of weird ideas you and JJJ seem to have about the transformation that takes place when marriage occurs. It's as if you believe that this person, this spouse, sheds their vulnerability and becomes one with your own conciousness. It ain't like that.

Sure, you have a very special relationship. And ideally your respect for your spouse is such that it would prevent you from imposing upon them an untruth. But frankly, that ain't the way it works. Oftentimes you become the only person to understand the vulnerabilities, the faults, the neurosis, and the overall shortcomings of this person. In fact, you may be the only person who does know all of this. Any faltering of respect under these conditions is mitigated by love.

So when faced with a question like "Do you like my new haircut?" You lie. You lie willingly and gracefully and without hesitation and as convincingly as you can -- to someone who is often the most adept at determining whether you're lying or not.

Stop trying to suggest that if someone lies to their spouse, they're more likely to lie to someone else. People lie. Period. Phrases like "one who finds it efficacious to lie" imply that there exists another one who doesn't. Ask Diogenes about that next time you see him. And drop the rhetoric.

Calling to mind Mike's reference to promiscuity, I put these example to the Board and ask for comments: 1. Congressman A is a real dick monster. He'll do any girl with a cute figure and a packet of birth control pills, as long as she's under 23 and HIV negative. He doesn't give a shit about the girls, and can't even remember all their names. He just knows they were all over 18. But Congressman A's wife knows about the affairs, because after 30 years of marriage they're over each other sexually, and they've privately agreed to live separate lives while remaining married. 2. Senator B has been married for ten years and has four children. He has always been faithful to his wife, but after kid # 4, wife has shut down the nookie department of their partnership, and Senator has found a 30-yr-old unmarried mistress. He doens't mess around with anybody else, but he goes to great lengths to avoid his wife's finding out about the one he does mess with.

They just would love to refuse title on the deed...

YES, they should be role models in fidelity, and fidelity is a paramount part of marriage! The key that is missing here is that there are now so utterly many people who don't have any morality that they fail to make the EASY deduction that marriage ain't boyfriend and girlfriend-- it's an economic contract, legally binding in the eyes of the law, and it is the righful and just union of Man and Woman. It is the highest calling in life to be a member of a family which expands with children, and then to guide them forward with love and selfishness.

Congressman A is an adulterous letcher, who is cheating on his wife with several, and so he is marginally worse than the Congressman B, who cheats with only one. I see the difference between the two as rather small actually-- both have violated their vows.

A is only slightly worse than B.

The fact is that we make EXCUSES for behaviour that is driven by lust, and we should NOT; Man is more than lust and a penis...and he can be more and should always be more. To say we are 'led around by it' would only demean the ones among us who really DO have victory of intellect over testosterone.

It also doesn't shock me one bit to see that MOST intellectual people have a muted sexuality...in other words, their sexual nature is not an overt part of their life, or even a really big part of their life. And it also doesn't shock me that really STUPID people are often very horny, very open about promiscuity, and have a very simplistic 'if it feels good do it' attitude.

In fact, I would say that STUPIDITY and HORNY are roommates of a less evolved creature; most of the people I have known in my life who were definitely genius were not overtly sexual, and didn't really discuss their sexuality that much, and I can say that I have known many STUPID people who were very sexually oriented.

Situation B: "Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained." -- William Blake

JJJ said, "It also doesn't shock me one bit to see that MOST intellectual people have a muted sexuality...in other words, their sexual nature is not an overt part of their life, or even a really big part of their life. And it also doesn't shock me that really STUPID people are often very horny, very open about promiscuity, and have a very simplistic 'if it feels good do it' attitude."

Most intellectual people have a "muted sexuality"? Like who? Benjamin Franklin, maybe? Thomas Jefferson? Pablo Picasso? Ernest Hemingway? Walt Whitman? Camille Paglia? Gertrude Stein? Georgia O'Keefe? Caravaggio? The Marquis de Sade? Rousseau? Allen Ginsberg? Socrates and Plato? Lord Byron? Pray tell, of which intellectuals do you speak?

I'm not saying you can't find some good, faithful husbands and wives among the great intellects of the ages (or even some celibates), but I think you're on pretty thin ice if you're trying to draw an inverse correlation between intellect and libido. History's full of brilliant people with voracious sexual appetites.

I don't. Why should government officials be role models? They're simply executing a job within a bureaucracy. Ideally, they shouldn't even think for themselves - they should represent as literally as possible the views of the people that elected them.

I personally have been in two different positions. I have had someone cheat on me, and I have also been involved in a fling in which the person I was flinging with just happened to be married. Likewise, I have friends who have been both cheaters and cheatees, and many of them have, like me, been both. That doesn't leave me with much moral high ground to stand on. Nor do I think a high moral ground is called for. As Ms. J points out, these are very complex, fundamental, and most of all human issues. And I admit that I still hold a little pride in the fact that I have never personally cheated on someone I was involved with (I was otherwise unattached at the time of the aforementioned fling). But that's kind of moral semantics, isn't it? It sure wouldn't have mattered to the significant other of the person I was flinging with.

The bottom line for me is how much I personally trust someone and understand the motivations for their actions. If someone cheats on me, I'm not likely to trust them. If they cheat someone else, well, then it depends on why they cheated. There are people I know that I would never blame at all, and others in whom I would be very disappointed. I agree that when that's all you know about someone, it tends to make you suspicious. Likewise if all you know is that they have a drug conviction or a rap sheet for armed robbery. But if you then find out the circumstances of those things and develop a more three-dimensional view of the person, your reference points change and your judgment (or my judgment, anyway) becomes more complex.

I'm not a big proponent of absolute judgments, obviously. I think life and the world are way too subtle for that, and I think we as humans are capable of much more subtle understanding. Black and white pronouncements tend to distract us from what's actually going on in any given circumstance.

"I've looked at life from both sides now
From win or lose, and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all"

Men have been vanishing after having sexual affairs with women throughout history. But one woman does it and...

~Gene Harrogate

Since Mr. Condom had extensive amounts of affairs, he knew he could get away with it. Who allowed for this? The women. Just another way women mistreat men. We use, abuse and lose them. Obviously, Mr. Condom had got enough of this abuse, and his strength as a man broke. Females should band together and think long and hard about Mr. Condom's situation. Males ahould remember that when they covet thy neighbor, thy neighbor might covet another covetess. Yes. The ways women treat men are repulsive, and lead to barbaric acts.

The worst ones though, are those feminist lesbian typos. They hate men. Women need penis as much as men need vagina. Mr. Condom was just doing what his body said it needed. Sex.

If your own lover cannot trust you, why do you ride the short bus?

Ten million handles in the world and by choosing one that confuses people here you only make matters worse.

It's such a mess to see message boards nowadays; I can remember DOS 2 point 1 and local bbs systems. Everyone KNEW basic respect about things back then. No one ever hijacked another person's handle.

All of that changed with the WWW, AOL, the invention of the mouse, WIN 95...

pick a decent handle that won't confuse the board, PLEASE...

You know what? This is 2001, not 1983. This is the World Wide Web, not your local BBS. And these are not the mythological "good old days." You did not, as you would have us believe, pioneer this media. And you're whining is indicative of just how little experience you DO have.

If you can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of this kitchen.

God, you're such a wacko. Get a life.