Good for Obama coming out with the fact that he's used drugs. It was bound to be surfaced by "opposition researchers" at some point, so better that he rob the revelation of its power.
But that's just the start. We all should get it all out of the way right now, in one gigantic Gotcha Fest, because we're all guilty of just about everything and — thanks to the Internets — we're all going to know just about everything about everyone.
Let me make it easy for us. Here's a form you can post on your own site.
Preemptive Disclosure
Thievery
I stole:
as a kid as a teenager as an employee as a CEO
The cumulative amount I've stolen amounts to approximately:
$1-$9 $10-$99 $100-$999 $1,000-$9999 $10,000-$100,000 I work for a bank, an investment firm, or a large government contractor
Drugs
I have used:
alcohol marijuana cocaine meth LSD mescaline ecstasy heroin banana peels, nutmeg and other folk tales
I used drugs:
as a result of peer pressure (=in high school or younger) as a youthful indiscretion (=in college) recreationally (= in my thirites) during a difficult period (= forties) as a part of a pattern of dependency (= fifties) because I really, really like them (= sixties and beyond)
Sex
I have had sex:
before marriage outside of marriage with someone of the same gender with more than one person at a time with someone I paid with someone who paid me with other species
I have masturbated:
once, but I didn't inhale lots of times so many times, so many many times within the past ten minutes can you hold on for just one more minute?
Lies
I have lied about:
my age my education my place of birth my employment history my service record how much I give to charity who wrote my book who writes my blog my gender certain elements of my anatomy about liking country music about caring about anyone except me
Religion
In truth, I go to my place of worship once every:
day week month year karmic lifecycle
One of my parents or grandparents was Jewish: True Will turn out to have been true
Vices
My vices not listed above include:
swearing nose picking smoking downloading MP3s downloading porn uploading porn making "blonde" jokes watching anything with Howie Mandel. I just find him funny!
Regarding your classification of "making 'blonde' jokes" as a vice, I think special dispensation should be available when referring to the coultergeist.
I think that a score of less than about 75 or 80% ought to disqualify one from running for public office on the grounds that proposed candidate is not normal or "out of touch" with potential constituency.
I think that a case where a potetntial candidate responds in a pattern that delivers a 75 or 80% "squeaky-clean" ought to disqualify one from running for public office on the grounds that proposed candidate is not normal or "out of touch" with potential constituency.
Thanks for the pointless and offensive post. I used to read Jay Cross' site feeds, which includes your post, until I became fed up from stupid postings like yours and from many of the others that had nothing to do with learning and development. Those that attempted to be related to learning and development were usually too busy trying to predict the future to actually discuss effective current practices. Jay Cross and the rest of you need to realize that your postings are pointless and not helpful at all.
Comments
Oh, the shame of it all. :-)
Posted by: fp | March 4, 2007 03:46 PM
Would it be possible to add an "all of the above" button?
Posted by: Jon Cahill | March 4, 2007 04:42 PM
Wow, I'm really fucked up.
Posted by: barb | March 4, 2007 06:15 PM
This actually made me feel nearly squeaky clean! True, there was that shoplifting thing in 5th grade...
Posted by: Ruby Sinreich | March 4, 2007 11:08 PM
Regarding your classification of "making 'blonde' jokes" as a vice, I think special dispensation should be available when referring to the coultergeist.
Posted by: Bill K | March 5, 2007 09:17 AM
Completely wonderful. Shouldnt there be a section on 'military service'?
Posted by: adam hodgkin | March 5, 2007 10:53 AM
I think that a score of less than about 75 or 80% ought to disqualify one from running for public office on the grounds that proposed candidate is not normal or "out of touch" with potential constituency.
Posted by: Jon Husband | March 5, 2007 01:49 PM
I think that a case where a potetntial candidate responds in a pattern that delivers a 75 or 80% "squeaky-clean" ought to disqualify one from running for public office on the grounds that proposed candidate is not normal or "out of touch" with potential constituency.
Posted by: Jon Husband | March 5, 2007 01:51 PM
I'm glad to see that I'm so far not "out of touch" that, aside from Jon Cahill, I'm practically a trend setter ;)
Posted by: Doug Alder | March 5, 2007 09:02 PM
Thanks for the pointless and offensive post. I used to read Jay Cross' site feeds, which includes your post, until I became fed up from stupid postings like yours and from many of the others that had nothing to do with learning and development. Those that attempted to be related to learning and development were usually too busy trying to predict the future to actually discuss effective current practices. Jay Cross and the rest of you need to realize that your postings are pointless and not helpful at all.
Posted by: none | March 8, 2007 07:48 AM