Subj : Re: Ethics test To : alt.tv.farscape From : Jim Larson Date : Sun Sep 11 2005 07:08:56 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape John Iwaniszek wrote: > Jim Larson wrote in > news:Xns96CDE1EDCB6E23v234oiwofui3284af93@130.133.1.18: > >> Nick wrote: >> >>> Jim Larson wrote: >>> >>>> Trouble wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jim Larson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Nick wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jim Larson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nick wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jim Larson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John Iwaniszek wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns96CD8EBB268E2joiwhnanri@66.26.32.7: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> weirdwolf wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns96CDBA1CAE389r73u67jw56nas@62.253.170.163: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ethics Test >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This test only has the one question, but it's a very >>>>>>>>>>>>> important one. By giving an honest answer, you will >>>>>>>>>>>>> discover where you stand morally. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The test features an unlikely, completely fictional >>>>>>>>>>>>> situation in which you will have to make a decision. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet >>>>>>>>>>>>> spontaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to >>>>>>>>>>>>> each line. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos >>>>>>>>>>>>> all around you caused by a hurricane with severe >>>>>>>>>>>>> flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The situation is nearly hopeless. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>> houses and people swirling around you...some disappearing >>>>>>>>>>>>> under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its >>>>>>>>>>>>> destructive fury. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suddenly you see a man floundering in the water. He is >>>>>>>>>>>>> fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the debris. You move closer... somehow the man looks >>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's George W. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters >>>>>>>>>>>>> are about to take him under... forever. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have the two options: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can save the life of G.W.Bush, or you can shoot a >>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the >>>>>>>>>>>>> death of one of the world's most powerful men. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So here's the question, and please give an honest >>>>>>>>>>>>> answer: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you select high contrast color film, or would you >>>>>>>>>>>>> go with the classic simplicity of black and white? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd fish the moron out. Even a shit-heel deserves humane >>>>>>>>>>>> treatment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah but John you are a liberal, probably after it happens >>>>>>>>>>> people who weren't there and you've never heard of will go >>>>>>>>>>> on tv saying how you didn't rescue anybody and that in fact >>>>>>>>>>> you turned and ran like the big commie pinko that you >>>>>>>>>>> really are. Ted >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And they will call themselves Rescue Boat Veterans for >>>>>>>>>> Truth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (You know, that whole espisode still boggles the mind. You >>>>>>>>>> have two individuals, both patricians for lack of a better >>>>>>>>>> term. The first volunteers to serve during a time of war, >>>>>>>>>> never mind his conduct during or after. The other hides >>>>>>>>>> behind Daddy's trousers. Yet it's the first one that is >>>>>>>>>> somehow vilified and called a coward 35 years later.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Not to mention that joining the national guard is considered >>>>>>>>> hiding behind daddy's trousers.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ((No. Joining the national guard then consistently failing to >>>>>>>> show up with impunity is considered hiding behind daddy's >>>>>>>> trousers. And are you seriously saying that serving in Texas >>>>>>>> in any capacity was equivalent to serving in S.E. Asia?)) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I don't remember typing that. I am saying that serving in >>>>>>> Texas is better than leaving the country.) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (Kerry left the country...but didn't serve in S.E. Asia??? Now >>>>>> I'm confused.) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In order of relative servitude, least to greatest >>>>> >>>>> Clinton signed up for ROTC, but then left the country, went to >>>>> Russia, joined the British Communist party and organized other US >>>>> draft dodgers for anti-war demonstrations. >>>>> >>>>> Bush signed up, missed a physical, and had a tour just as easy as >>>>> anyone serving in the Guard at the time. >>>>> >>>>> Kerry served in SE Asia, wrote notes to himself about the war, >>>>> but was smart enough not to demoralize the men he served with, >>>>> went home and participated in rallies against the war. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Woohoo! >>>> >>>> (I still don't get how Clinton got into this.) >>>> >>> >>> I never really meant Clinton particularly. I just thought Bush did >>> better joining the national guard than so many others did leaving the >>> country. >>> >> >> Ah...I disagree, sort of. Those who left because of genuine issues of >> conscience are o.k. by me. Those who left not because of any real >> conviction but because they were a) scared and b) could get away with >> it are pond scum. I suspect Clinton, at least for the purposes of this >> discussion, was leaning towards the scummy end of the pond. >> > > Clinton had an academic deferrment. He didn't dodge the draft any more > that Cheney did with his family deferrment, he was never drafted to > begin with. He was studying abroad. What's magic about using a > deferrment at a US school? Yes, he did nothing illegal. However, it is hardly as cut and dried as that: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp (Pardon the source, but it's a decent summary.) If you're going to apply a critial eye to Bush's ROTC service (or lack thereof), it's only fair that the same level of scrutiny be applied to Clinton. His behavior during the period was not entirely exemplary. -- Jim .