Just as I went to air today on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network, CNN proclaimed "Breaking News."
The big news? Yet another woman has come forward to say she had a sexual relationship with Herman Cain.
This one says she had a long-term affair with the GOP presidential hopeful. So, whether this falls into the same category of the previous allegations - that Cain inappropriately and against the will of women over which he held control or sway - remains to be seen. But it prompted me to ask a question that, to my mind, went insufficiently answered.
That being, how is it that we become so righteously indigent over a politician or candidate's alleged or real sexual indiscretions but we seemingly fail to pause to consider the ethical or moral consequences of going to war?
Riley from the UK called to argue that the two issues are completely different. But I believe that misses the question's premise.
I just don't get why we are all over the private lives of politicians on moral grounds - but not the decision to put American lives at risk and the killings of thousands of people when the nation goes to war.
You'd think, with so much more at stake - like the lives of Americans and others, civilians included - than whether a politician can keep his zipper up - there's at least be some discussion of the morality.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Julie Morse
Ande Bliss
Barbara Joanne
Marilyn Sands
Susie Lindau
RomanticPoetess
Salon.com
Comments