Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a misdirected text is just a misdirected text. However, I wonder ... isn't it just possible that this little slip-up resulted from the LW's unacknowledged desire to actually have it out with her boss (or at least have the satisfaction of attacking her from a technological distance)?

If the LW was so angry at her boss, why text to her husband rather than discussing the problem (in a professional manner) with the person she was in conflict with? Once things get to the "I'm so sick of her" stage, one has generally already passed by dozens of opportunities to communicate with the offending party. Gossip is in part an act of passive aggression - it's the confrontation, but with no possibility of having a two-way encounter. Instead, all you get is the reflection (usually unthinkingly supportive) of whomever you have chosen to speak with. We women have an unfortunate (and not unrelated) tendency towards both passive-aggression and gossip (which in my opinion results directly from our gender socialization to be less assertive, but I digress).

The problem is that this passive mode of dealing with issues leads to a slow pressure build-up. Usually the gossip does nothing to relieve this - it actually makes the feeling worse, because without real conflict there is not usually going to be real resolution. But isn't it ... suspiciously amazing ... how these words of ours almost always manage to get to the subject one way or another? How we then get to initiate conflict with an uninterrupted opening salvo that is often pre-loaded with the support of whomever has participated in passing it along?

It may be too late for the LW to mend this particular fence, but perhaps this incident will help her learn to deal more directly with people when conflict arises. Otherwise she might find herself once again in the aftermath of an embarrassing and destructive Freudian slip.

It has been suggested here that Mayor Sanders' decision today is less ethical because a) it is a position that has changed and hence is not based on an absolute principle and b) it is a position deeply influenced by personal relationships.

I would suggest that these qualities are precisely what makes something ethical. Abstract principles that are not responsive to lived experience are not ethical, they are merely theoretical. Concrete responses to real human suffering are a sign of real moral strength.

Ultimately all human experiences are based in relationships. There is nothing about our lives that is not intimately influenced by the people with whom we come into direct contact on a daily basis. So it makes perfect sense that our ethical decisions would be informed by our personal relationships. The moral obligation, then, is to cultivate personal relationships with people who will challenge you to rethink your own ethical perspective, and to be open and responsive to such challenges.

I would add that this clip is touching not because of the moral quality of Mayor Sanders' decision (though I honor it as a moral choice), but due to the humility with which he was able to express himself. He was very clear about his past ethical blindness, and the shame he experienced when he imagined the harm that his earlier position had caused his lesbian and gay associates was palpable and, frankly, beautiful to behold. It was not so much a display of heroism as it was (to borrow from another letter writer here) an instance of "Amazing Grace."