As I explained to Boberin, I "misspoke" when I wrote "...shoot down the people who try..."

The point I meant to communicate is that we act as if the very expectation of fidelity is somehow less valid because a few public spokespeople are discovered to be unfaithful. I don't mean to defend those who perpetrate the scandal as victims; they've earned the scorn that's fallen upon them, although we do have the obligation to exercise forgiveness toward them. My main concern is that the cause they promoted is no less valid for their failure to live up to it.

Additionally, I was responding more to the Sarah & Bristol Palin side of your comment. Bristol has been lifted up as the poster-child for how abstinence doesn't work, as if Bristol's failure to abstain (as millions of other kids across the country have successfully done) is evidence that her mother's stand for abstinence is somehow flawed.

Would we say the same thing if Sarah decried handgun violence, only to have her daughter perpetrate a school shooting? Doubtful; she'd be comforted for her pain and given greater fuel for a fight against gun violence.

" 'And why is adultery resumé enhancement ...'

Ask John McCain, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh! You could also ask Sarah Palin about child rearing, and the fornication of her offspring!' " -SaneScrappler

...versus...

"OK, Sanescrappler. It's time for your nappy-poo. Ask Mommy for your milk and cookies and your soft banky. After you've had some rest you can come back and try to act like an adult." -IndyJohn

Which of those posts seems more "adult"? "SaneScrappler" posed a fair question (in the form of a statement) in response to UpNorthLurkin's goad. Who's the "troll"?

Again, I'm not taking his/her side ideologically, but if you're going to claim the high road, you should probably walk it.

"...we assume that the accuser is guilt free and when we discover they are not then it surely detracts from the message...even though perhaps it shouldn't"

Exactly. It should detract from the accuser's own self-righteousness, but not from the core, unchanging fact that the act they were accusing another of is still wrong.

To reference another common quote, "Remove the plank from your own eye, so that you may see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (paraphrased). The fact that I have a plank in my eye doesn't negate the fact that the speck in my brother's eye is still there. It just means that I shouldn't approach him self-righteously, as if I don't have issues of my own. The goal is to eradicate the "speck" while preserving my brother.

All that to say that wood in the eye is a bad thing, regardless of what anyone says or does about it. Clear as mud?

"Well, there is the 'glass houses' thingy; and the 'cast the first stone' thingy"

Right, neither of which is negligible, but it doesn't change my point. Or maybe it does.

I guess my point is actually that it's pathetic how attention is driven toward the person's failure, so that their original message is completely lost. In the "cast the first stone" case, the point is driven in that, while the woman was guilty of adultery, those who would stone her were equally guilty of their own sins, adultery probably among them. HOWEVER, the point that most people miss from that story is that Jesus was not excusing the sin, but the sinner. He forgave the woman and let her go, but he instructed her to "sin no more." The act of adultery (or any of the other sins represented in the crowd) didn't become any less wrong simply because it was a common sin.

Why, then, do we act like people who succumb to sexual sin, drug abuse, or financial scandals are somehow evidence that their prior stands against such causes are worthless?

While I'm not going to argue with you about Craig, McCain, Gingrich (previously unaware), or Limbaugh, I would posit that it's not fair to attack Palin's "child rearing" skills.

Bristol obviously knew the difference between right and wrong, and she chose to do wrong. That's her mistake, not her parents'; their job is to raise her to an awareness of right and wrong, not to keep them from ever making mistakes.

I think it's pathetic how we shoot down the people who try to hold up a standard, even though they might fail to meet the standard themselves. It's like someone saying that smoking is bad, but they succumb to a cigarette. Does the fact that they failed to resist mean that smoking is actually okay, or that they were bad for decrying it in the first place? Absolutely not. It should just raise greater awareness of the dangers associated with smoking (or unfaithfulness, or teenage sex, or [insert cause here]).

I just click "Last Activity" at the top, which pulls all of the recent threads to the top.

I'm guessing that your problem with the missing buttons/links might be due to you not having an IntenseDebate account? Maybe there are extra functions available to those of us who had to sign up for one (as I mentioned, ID didn't like my two character "JQ" login, so I had to create a new account).

It's kind of weird, but it appears that we can edit our posts, so long as we're the "originator" of the sub-thread (replies aren't editable, apparently, although I do have a "Delete" link).

If your browser is acting like mine, you should see "Edit" and "Delete" next to the "Report" button at the bottom-right of your originating post.

[EDIT: OK, paint me a liar. I guess we're allowed to edit our replies for a limited time...? Whatever.]

...but you are allowed to edit your posts, at least with this new system. Go ahead and fix your typos in the original...we'll pretend not to notice your third-grade spelling.

:)

It would definitely be easier to keep costs down if we all just got the Barack Obama cut; a few passes of the electric razor, and voila! Haircut's done. This is even a solution for the "balding old white men," as a shorter cut draws far less attention to balding than does a combover.

Hopefully, they'll allow for an optional "Michelle" cut, as I'd rather not see my wife sporting the "Barack"...

I see where you're going with this, Boberin...

"This REVOLUTIONARY home haircutting system..."

¡VIVA LA REVOLUCION! Che would be proud...