An article in today's Chicago Tribune tells a tale of a teacher who lost her job over upholding academic standards. After warning her students that they would get no credit if they didn't do their own work on their course project, several of them plagiarized anyway. When she attempted to follow through, she was undercut by the school board. Now she's given up, and is doing day care.

I think that this is just a continuation of the deterioration of our society's ethical base that became so clear in the Clintonized nineties. And it's an indictment of the school system as well--a school system that, under insane "zero tolerance" policies, will expel a child for heroically taking a knife away from someone attempting suicide, or who accidentally brings a plastic spork in his lunchbox, but has abundant tolerance for students who cheat (and who are cheating themselves, as well as their classmates).

Just out of curiosity, is there anything bad that has ever happened that is not Bill Clinton's fault? Jeez, the guy has been out of office for a year, let it go already!! How exactly did Clinton make those kids cheat? And how did he get the school board to act stupidly. I have it on good authority that he was in Harlem at the time of the incident!!

I didn't say that it was directly Clinton's fault. I believe that Bill Clinton was a symptom, not a cause, of the moral morass of the 1990's. But he did nothing to help it, much to encourage it, and he is emblematic of it.

But as long as you mention it, consider--we now have teenagers, and often pre-teens, engaging in oral sex, and telling us "it's not sex." Similarly, we had a President who set an example not of following rules, but of how admirable it was instead to get away with breaking them.

test

When I was in college in the mid 70's there was a student there who had grown up in Russia. Except for their equivalent of high school ROTC, weapons - especially knives were grounds for punishment and expulsion (which meant essentially a short life of grinding poverty - even by their standards). Cheating was expected. How else could you get good grades.

It was not because of communism. It was because it was a centrally run system that had a one size fits all mentality. This kind of thinking always precludes ethics or morality - because those are not universal.

I read your article just as you explained it. That this had been a growing trend and that the Clinton behavior was just a well-known (and therefore appropriate) example of that trend. I think Paul is just a tad sensitive to it

Don't worry folks, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek on that one (insert Clinton joke here!) Unfortunately, although I was a Clinton supporter (both times!) I can't argue that he was a fine moral example. I just think its funny to measure how long it will take for some other name to be associated with dishonesty (Ken Lay, Andy Fastow, Dick Cheney, Mitch Daniels ... the list goes on). Of course, none of them got a hummer from an intern, I'm sure, so I am afraid their scandals will be far too mundane for the average Washington press corp member (oh man, those Clinton jokes would kill here!!).

Gee, forgive me for a naif, but who is Andy Fastow? And what dishonesty have the Vice President and the OMB Director perpetrated on the American people?

Andy Fastow (I think I spelled it right) is former CFO of Enron, who set up the various debt-hiding partnerships that got them in trouble. A major troublemaker. Mitch Daniels has been lying to us for months about the various budget projections for the next so-many years. Dick Cheney, well, I am not sure where to start! He lied at the beginning, when he said he didn't want to be Veep, then chose himself as head of Dubya's search committee. I think, personally, that he has been doing some fairly unethical stuff in his role as chief oil man in gov't, and I think his stand on "principle" against the GAO is a pile of fetid you-know-what! Based on what I have seen, this administration, like those in the past, is very careful to guard against any leak that makes it look bad, while quick to leak anything that makes it look good. I realize I have drifted off topic here, but ya got me started! Perhaps their dishonesty is no worse than that of any number of officials of administrations past, but the rank odor is starting to get to me.

If I don't know who Fastow is, I doubt if the nation's schoolchildren are likely to use him as a role model...

And there is no evidence that Mitch Daniels has been "lying" about budget projections. These are always estimates, and subject to change as conditions change. To substantiate that charge, you'd have to show that he believed them to be one thing while saying another. I seriously doubt if you can.

And as to Cheney's change of mind, it was simply that--a change of mind. When you change your mind, does it mean that you were "lying" previously?

And your opinions about his ethics are not shared by most, and are not in any comparable to Clinton's behavior. Or, actually they are--Clinton's behavior was much, much worse. Absent specifics, I don't know how to respond any further, and am not sure there's any point, since you don't really seem to have anything on him.

I give! Aside from Fastow, I don't really know much about the other two. I remember reading Josh Marshall's blog, where he cited some examples of Mitch Daniels' dishonesty, but I don't really have the inclination to follow up. As far as Cheney goes, I am not inclined to believe that he "changed his mind", but nevertheless, I have no proof. As far as more general dishonesty goes, we will just have to wait for the Energy Policy details requested by the GAO to be released...Oh wait, they are fighting that to the death...I wonder why??

"As far as Cheney goes, I am not inclined to believe that he "changed his mind", but nevertheless, I have no proof."

Alas, another Clintonian legacy. When you have nothing on your opponents, simply attack their integrity and honesty. Then repeat the charges, avoid providing proof, and then if ever called to the carpet, meekly admit that you have no evidence.

See also, "Nuts and Sluts" defense.

I think this is starting to diminish a little bit in Washington. If you notice, the moment the GAO stated they intended to sue the White House for records, you DID NOT see a load of administration officals out screaming, hollering, and claiming partisan politics. If Clinton and Clinton and Carville and Blumenthal and crew were still in power, they would be spending every waking moment on televisin and in print smearing the reputations of those involved with the GAO. They would be labeled as 'right wing hacks' partisans, etc...

I will forgive the ad hominem (although I am merely assuming that you mean Clintonian as an insult, based on subsequent remarks), but I must say that the reason for the quietness on the GAO case is not a reduction in hacky politics, but the fact that the GAO administrator (and probably the rest) is a Republican! Presumably, he and the rest were installed in the 6 years or so that the Congress was fully controlled by the GOP. I am pretty sure that is a bad example of "changing the tone".

It did not matter to Clinton what party you were registered to. They attacked and maligned many registered Democrats, to include Pat Moynihan, when he did not agree with them on Social Security....