On Blowjobs, Progressives and Caring: The Next Step
[In honor of Marcie Wheeler using the word "blowjob" on MSNBC and dishonor of Rachel Maddow taking up 40 minutes of her program for the Ensign sex scandal when we presumably have some real serious problems to concern ourselves with]
To (mis)paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, what if they held a Sex Scandal and nobody came? Or at least no liberals/progressives? Nobody chortling and rubbing their thighs, nobody justifying their hypocrisy because of the offender's hypocrisy. Because it's (almost always) none of our business.
I like this rule. Unless it's pedophilia (one of the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse) or affects national security, forget it, however salacious, however fun. In principle. Hard to believe, but people's private lives should be private, and just because someone jimmied the door open doesn't mean we now have a right to prop it open and make videos. Just because Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher is going on about it doesn't mean it's news or grownup. It doesn't matter if they're the Pope, a top Republican, a top Democrat, their spouse, in the military, in the KKK, a Priest, a TV host, whoever. Just say No to 7th grade. "It's none of my business".
People have sex under all sorts of circumstances, some embarrassing, some nice, some a bit of both. Marriage vows are between 2 people, not between them and me. However they keep their marriage together is fine by me - they'll work or yell it out, or divorce, their business.
Some gays have lots of problems coming out - not surprising some may have to lie or find themselves in unwanted circumstances thanks to societal pressures. If it doesn't involve murder or embezzlement or sexual violence/harassment, I don't care. Someone taps my foot in a bathroom stall at an airport, I now know not to tap back. Not that I would have before. So surprise, surprise - I don't care. (Or maybe I do - my business, not yours).
Now, about our atrocities in Afghanistan, about our escalation in Afghanistan, about our coverup of torture, about those Dick Cheney death squads that we still don't know full detail about, about naked short selling that brought down multibillion dollar corporations, about those trillion dollar TARP payouts and the Goldman Sachs swindle of billions, our making a mess of healthcare reform while other countries have universal care and pay half as much - yes, about these I do care.
Anytime a politician is willing to make or enforce law on you, in a way that he doesn't abide by, it becomes your business. Period. All the Republican gay-busters that spend their time trying to pick people up in washrooms? Fair game. They did it to themselves.
Do we have to dwell on it? No. But they ought to be thrown out, just the same. Practice what you preach, or at least, STOP PREACHING, seems fair to me.
July 14, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is up to their constituents to throw them out, not the mob.
Being a hypocrite still isn't illegal and is hardly the sole province of republicans who have issues with gay and lesbian citizens. Hypocrisy comes in many forms and when this particular bugaboo disappears, I am sure there will be another to rear its ugly head.
We need to change our expectations of our representatives as well as of ourselves. Our system of government will only work if the silent majority starts to speak up again.
July 14, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wish I could rec this comment! Spot on.
July 14, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason Miller sez...
But when exactly did the "silent majority" ever speak up? Where did they speak? To whom? About what?
Jason has probably forgotten that it was Richard Nixon who made that phrase famous...
But Nixon ignored the "noisy minority" who wanted to end the war right away, on November 3, 1969, and the "silent majority" elected and re-elected Nixon, and the War in Vietnam ran year after year after year after year...
So maybe instead of eagerly awaiting that beautiful day when "the silent majority starts to speak up again," jason everett miller should try to add something a little less inane to the tiny and almost entirely insignificant noise which the last pitiful remnants of the "noisy minority" are still emitting in a few low-traffic internet venues, because the "silent majority" doesn't speak, it swears...
July 14, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I well remember those words from Richard Nixon, and the disgust and fear they aroused in many of us. The image of a seething, furious "silent majority" waiting to open up and scream its lungs out in rejection of peace and equal rights is just as ugly now as it was then.
July 14, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could recommend that.
July 14, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime a politician is willing to make or enforce law on you, in a way that he doesn't abide by, it becomes your business.
I disagree. That's an ad hominem fallacy. The issue of the wisdom or stupidity of a law should be addressed according to the law's own merits, attending to the arguments offered for or against it, and has nothing at all to do with the behavior of the person defending or proposing the law.
July 14, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
July 14, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with the blogger on this one. Really, who gives a crap? And why would you? Leave the wallowing in the cesspool to the Republicans.
July 14, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't take the heat get out of the brimstone. Thats what I always say.
THE ISSUE IS HYPOCRISY, Desi.
The C Street crowd are a bunch of hypocrites and I want their sins spread all over the walls of every city.
The pain and suffering that these conservative pretend religious people spread across our continent is inexcusable and I will use everything in my power to uncover their own personal faults--their own personal contradictions in order to SHUT THEM DOWN.
July 14, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sad little irony is that all the so-called liberals asking for conservatives to respect their privacy only shoot themselves in the foot/privates by going gonzo when leering at others' privacy.
Yes, it's our hypocrisy on the line, not just theirs. And we're losing, badly, however clever and justified we think we're being.
"It's okay just this once. Because because because". We're all just rubber-necking at the same pileups and the traffic jams are getting longer.
Respect for others' privacy doesn't start with a litmus test of whether they're Republican or Democrat, whether they're properly supportive of women's rights or not, whether they're pro- or anti-war, whether they're too conservative about religion or not...
Tolerant can't be "tolerant of those like me". By definition, tolerance means "tolerant of those not like me", tolerant of those that drive me crazy.
July 14, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I aint shootin myself in the foot.
I do not stand up and tell people how to live their lives and steal all their money and give it to all my friends and do anything to keep all the power and all the riches of this country in the hands of the oligarchy that controls this nation and yell about deficits when monies are being used to protect the powerless....
Hey I can use their phony book against them any goddamn time I please:
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
July 14, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant, "blessed are the nosy-bodies".
July 14, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD now you can say it like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction? And Des when Republicans stop pandering to their crazy troglodyte base, stop winking and nodding at the murder of abortion doctors, we'll stop chortling when they're proven just as fallible as anyone else. I don't care about anybody's sexual peccadillos either but as long as they do I'm all for them proving that they're the ones who are stuck in 7th grade.
July 14, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahah
Hey Samuel L. is one of my FAVORITE PREACHERS. HA!!
July 14, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hypocrisy is a fact of life and isn't really an important issue. How many people are actually successful in living according to the rules they think ought to be promoted for the whole society? If a government official promotes policies I support, I will support and vote for him. If he promotes policies I oppose, I will oppose and vote against him.
That said, prurient curiosity and gossip are facts of life too, so if a politician shows a tendency to engage in behavior that is likely to grow scandalous and cause distracting, negative publicity that damages the causes he supports, it is worthwhile looking for better messengers.
July 14, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
these people have not taken the righteous path and deserve absolutely no respect from me whatsoever and if it helps to point out their hypocrisy
SO BE IT
July 14, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you taken the righteous path?
July 14, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about taking a righteous public path. Holding yourself up for all to see and then declaring, don't watch me, is hypocrisy. Yes, we all get dirt on our hands when we stoop to this level, but the question, no, the demand really ought to be, "Hey, GOP, STFU!!! You're making rules you don't respect. You expect others to follow these rules and you do not. STFU already!"
YES! We have the right AND the obligation to point this out. But it should be less about playing gotcha with the politican then to say, "Now, about those stupid rules you profess we should all follow and you ignore, whaddya say you give the rest of us the same discretion, to live in the way we choose as long as the parties are consensual?
People want to live a pure and chaste life. Good for them, but stay out of my affairs cause, as you so admantly declare, Desidero, it's none of anyone's business. Don't make my business yours, Mr./Ms. GOP, and I will not make your business mine. Take another tack and yes, we will hold you to the standard you proclaim. You asked for it, you got it. If you don't want anymore, don't give anymore.
July 14, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha. good for you Gregor. ha!
July 14, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think the GOP should stop supporting marital fidelity?
July 14, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they should stop misrepresenting marriage... and using marriage as a trojan horse to violage church/state separation.
July 14, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Zip. You always have a concise way to express things I need a few paragraphs to say. Trojan horse! Indeed!
July 14, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be mighty consistent with the standards they expect of people wouldn't it?
July 14, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No big surprise that I disagree. Make all the excuses you want for why powerful men have these big old libidos...cheating is a matter of integrity. If they will violate their vows and screw over their wives and children (who they supposedly love), they will violate their vows and screw over us (who they most certainly do not love)...
I don't think we need to be tolerant of lack of integrity, or are the "ethically challenged" now a protected group? After all, it doesn't look like the greedy bastards on Wall Street broke any laws. Does that make their behavior okay?
July 14, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, I knew there was a reason I loved you Stilli. Ha!!!
July 14, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh-huh!
July 14, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. If we care so much about "integrity" and "ethics," then we should care more about all politicians' public actions first and hold public servants to our standards every day. What about cheating on the "contract" with the American people? What about campaign promises not kept? What about deliberately screwing the unprivileged and to benefit the privileged? What about lobbyists writing legislation? What about a million other lies and scams and hoodwinkings? I could go on, but I think you'll get my point: What is it about cheating the public in broad daylight that's acceptable to us? What is it about not doing the public servant's job that's acceptable, yet having an extramarital affair isn't? That doesn't make sense. Hypocrisy happens every day right in front of our eyes and we permit it.
No, stilli, we are the inconsistent ones, not the politicians. We seem to be the ethically-challenged ones when we "protect" politicians' corrupted actions by doing nothing. We only get self-righteous when they cheat in the bedroom.
July 14, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment. Focusing on the personal shortcomings of the pols is a distraction from the real business at hand. Of course those in power understand that. Like a prestidigitator, one hand distracts while the other is involved in the real business at hand. Pols relish the days when 'the other party' gets caught with their pants down, as it frees them up to be the sloppy, half-assed politicians they know themselves to be, while getting enough slack from the public to actually pull it off.
July 14, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, Gasket's got a big one there. I just feel like we've all becoming willing to eat lies, endless lies, 24/7. We just seem to accept advertising, and it's nothing but lies. Politicians and their promises and positions, same.
I have trouble with hypocrisy, and the stuff from the Right about God, Family, Country just makes me ill. But ask yourself this - how many Democrats even come from the working or middle classes anymore? How many forego lobbyist cash? If those constituencies and their needs are central to the credo of the Democrats, then how can we not call them out? They talk peace and jobs and health and the hard-working, but then ....?
Thank God baseball is still pure. Otherwise, I think I'd lose faith.
July 14, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worse than that, we're willing to be distracted by silly shit 24x7. No time to think of anything important.
July 14, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speak for your self, he who doesn't read books.
July 14, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who let the dogs in?
July 14, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
G-r-r-r-r-r-r - Snap!
July 15, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Little League. Little else.
July 14, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, not Little League. I recall a scandal a few years back with some kid, Cuban I think, that was aged down so he could pitch on a team.
July 14, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There goes the whole neighborhood...
July 14, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well except for steroids; and picking up diseases from the likes of Madonna, and 800 million dollar contracts, and..........but I digress
Hey, how about those Twins
July 14, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think if is right to ignore other types of ethics problems Your points are spot on. I was limiting my comments to the scope of the post. I stand by my comments and add yours. :-)
July 14, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personal lives have nothing to do with professional public ones. Well MLK had affairs, JFK had affairs, Bill Clinton had affairs. Their lack of pristine personal lives does not mean that they were less than great leaders. The media knew about it and didn't publish it because it's totally irrelevant.
GWB has apparently been a faithful husband to Laura which by your analogy (how he treats his wife is how he will treat the public) would have led to a morally sound administration and no cheating of the American people. I'd much prefer a philanderer who is imperfect, has personal failings, and can acknowledge shades of gray, over a decider who is so absolutely certain of his perfection, moral superiority and the righteousness of his path.
July 14, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like the voices you've offered. I want leaders who are faithful AND ethical in all ways. There is still such a thing, isn't there? Or is that just too much to ask?
July 14, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, we can't even assume that Catholic priests are ethical!
The world is a dirty, complex place and I don't care about what a person does in private so long as they bring their best to their job. (Except, of course, if they publicly expound standards that hurt people and yet hypocritically violate these same standards in private.)
July 14, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My attitude on the personal stuff is akin to the sentiment, "Judge not lest you be judged". Let he is free from sin, etc. Or more to the point, being human is [almost] always having to say you're sorry. All of us are just doing the best we can, and sometimes it's hard to predict the circumstances that might lead to a lapse in judgment in others and perhaps even ourselves. I'm not making excuses for these tools, but on some level *shit* does happen, and making our elected officials hew to a higher example of moral rectitude, to me at least, virtually ensures we continue to be saddled by a bunch of two-faced boyscouts in public office, whose statements require extensive sifting before a kernel of truth emerges. On the public actions of the pols I hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
July 14, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing new about some professions being held to a higher standard...police officers, judges, teachers. No reason why our elected officials can't be as well.
July 14, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. I know I've been faithful in my marriage(s), and yet I lack the moral conviction necessary to use another persons failing in that area as a yardstick for his/her suitability for public office. I regret the lack of candor which ensues from holding those pols to that standard. As I think Quinn said somewhere here, we end up with a bunch of pols claiming they didn't inhale, etc. and to what effect? Are we better off for the lies we subscribe to? I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote the perpetrators out of office when the time comes, but that our political and public dialogue suffers in direct proportion to our focus on the titillations of public scandal and that carries over into how even those not involved in such scandals present themselves to the public. The glass box we've created in which we place our public servants may in the end be too small for honest, free flowing political dialogue to exist and we end up with more kabuki theater rather than the honest exchange of ideas.
July 14, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's a "higher" standard?
Seriously, all of the individuals you name are people who are trying to do a job.
Do teachers need to be at a higher standard than the airplane mechanic looking over the plane you are about to board?
I think you should watch THE SOPRANOS. One of the great points it made was how organized crime permeates all of our lives -- and "good" citizens -- and who we all contribute to it.
July 14, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ain't no such animal.
July 14, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli,
You need to be gender neutral in a comment like this unless you are referring to a specific case. Studies show that wives are cheating in the business place as much as husbands.
Also, be aware that much philandering is based on power and not sexual interest. The idea of walking into the candy store and grabbing anything and everything for free can be quite seductive. That is why that Bill Clinton was willing to cheat with someone that looked like Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, neither of which were particularly attractive.
July 14, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When there is something close to gender equality in our leadership your critique might have some merit. Your sexist comments that follow completely negate any standing you have for your critique.
July 14, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dare you to define the "sexist" comments you allege I made.
You miss the point: it's about power not gender. Your mind can't seem to grasp that there are different ways of organizing objects. I understand that gender is a bit obvious, so it's the first thing you think of. However, I suggest you look beyond and see the deeper relationships that lie below the surface.
TPM is getting to be more and more like FNC -- reach for a smearing label, apply, repeat.
July 14, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton was willing to cheat with someone that looked like Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, neither of which were particularly attractive."
This about as sexist as it gets.
July 14, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't defined what made the remark sexist. Except I deigned to apply a standard of attractiveness.
Do you think that Clinton was philandering with Jones and Lewinsky because of their minds?
July 14, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Particularly the "which" rather than "whom" -- objectified much?
July 14, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of these points from Wendy and JNH are well said. And true!
July 14, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except JNH made no point. He merely provided proof by "self-evidence".
And I note, no one has answered my question about why Clinton was with these particular women.
It wasn't for their mind nor looks (they had neither), so what would you next deduce?
Again, it's about power. Just like rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Plain and simple.
July 14, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, with Paula we don't even know that he was "with" her in any way. That "distinguishing mark" was proven a lie for one.
With Monica he might have been lonely, might have been bored, might have liked her energy, might have liked the attention she gave or stories she told, maybe she was the only girl available thanks to the full media press. Whether you think she was attractive is rather irrelevant. He felt she was attractive in some combination of physically, mentally, psychically, whatever else. Their business, not mine. I'm sure I won't be coming for approval for whomever I choose to sleep with, and from general reactions to my posts, I'm sure there will be at least some who disagree with my tastes. Women and men come in all different qualities. Any need to pigeon hole our desires into GQ/Maxim stereotypes?
July 14, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn. There are central standards of beauty.
Yes, I know. It bothers some that there are.
But there are.
July 14, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! No, there aren't "central standards" of anything, you gasbag!
I shudder to think you ever taught school. Your misuse of language is appalling.
July 14, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arguably, there's the Central Standard Timezone. And I'm not sure there are any others which matter.
Certainly, none as pretty.
Objectively-speaking.
July 14, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Central Standard Timezone of Beauty. Could be a title for a poem.
July 14, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Central Standard Timezone of Beauty
I stand alone at the corner of Which and Whom,
Lost. Pondering paths not taken,
Lewinsky prototypical non-objectified babes,
Wholly slutty, in non-objectified ways
Yet somehow reminding me of Mum.
Willie sits on the corner stoop
Waiting for Paula,
Who will or won’t do him
But no matter
For Willie, like me, sails free of desire
Desireless we ride the boulevard
Searching for the reality fix
The pre-fixe, slo-ride to Hell
In our freedom-bound low-bound carro
Like S & M monsters waiting to be born.
Beauty. Is transcendent.
Sans lust, there is no objectification,
Only clear thinking.
Which I hold near and dear
To the non-objectified love of the non-objectified prototypical babe.
July 14, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
you rawk
July 14, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You spelled "rock" wrong.
July 14, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, we always say rawk.
And just so you don't think I'm beating you up needlessly:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/1849/2009/07/frankens-statement-in-sotomayo.php#comment-3526638
Even Josh don't agree with you. Except once.
Dude, it's not us. It's you.
You're a nice guy when you want to be, but that only seems to be in one-on-one conversations. In group situations, you're the most condescending asshat I've met since Lalo.
And at least Lalo wears a hat.
My point, in closing, is that if you are the only one here who feels that others are out for you for "blood sport", time after time after time, mayhap you'd best study your approach and see if perhaps it's something you are doing wrong, and not all of them.
Peace.
July 14, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Lis? It was a joke.
And I didn't appreciate your use of invective. Sad you went there, actually.
July 14, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, CT? It's hard to tell, with you, what a joke is, anymore. And, personally, I'm only saddened by a lot of your comments.
July 14, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, you believe your your little world is the world. As a result, you see a dozen posters here in agreement actually meaning something. It's simply a group of like minded people who enjoy the feeling of security that the group provides.
There is a group of trusted people I know that are amused by the antics of the group here. From their point of view, those people are the flamethrowers that can't argue their positions because they are so weak.
So you tell me: who's right?
Something else to consider (since you brought it up): did it occur to you that Josh reads what I say, despite not agreeing with it? Why would he waste his time if it was all drivel?
July 14, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How little can you get?
Don't you ever stop getting little?
Well, okay... I'll give you the last word, since that is what you crave. Have at it, CT. Enjoy belittling yourself. Me? I'm going to bed, at peace.
July 14, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Why use the word "peace" to me after you called me an "asshat"?
Answer: because you wanted to feel better about yourself.
Something to think about.
July 14, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm at peace, thanks. I just wish it to you.
July 14, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point: why wish me peace after calling me an asshat?
July 14, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy.
July 14, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes one has to just tell it like it is to be at peace.
July 14, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wish you had ability to parse English. LisB wished me peace after the comment. That's the contradiction.
July 15, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
*snap* *snap* *snap* :)
July 14, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muy bueno, peegitito.
July 14, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that was beautiful, miguelitoh. ;-)
July 14, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriuosly. I am going to needlepoint that an frame it unless Chuleto has it copywrighted :)
July 14, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Open sources, all the time Dij. Don't forget to use a thimble.
July 14, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another win for Mr. Peeeg tonight. You Rawk, sir.
July 14, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
INCREDIBLE!
July 15, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superb, Mr. Peeg. An A+ from the "dinosaur schoolmarm."
July 15, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
gasket, actually there are standards and if you knew anything, you'd know they have been subject to real research. I'll help you out by pointing to here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
Of course, if you watched the world around you, you'd know that as we are subject to evolution -- as all living species are -- these standards of beauty are based, in a good measure, on special survival.
I know you and some of your friends subscribe to the fascist notion of doing away with our wiring, but just Hitler could not define "art" in the 3rd Reich, you cannot change human nature with all the politically correct thinking in the world.
July 14, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Linking to Wikipedia tells us all we need to know about your depth of knowledge on the subject.
July 14, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
F@#k! Now I've got to clean up my act and start referencing Harvard.edu articles instead of wiki?
July 14, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what it should show you is how easy it was to prove my statement.
I try to keep the references at the level I think the poster can handle.
July 14, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Wrap your math around that.
July 15, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
...our "standards of beauty" change?
July 14, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try. There are standards, even if they are culture centric.
But here's a clue: Paula Jones went out for a make-over. So apparently she didn't think she looked that great.
Oh, I know, she was "brainwashed" by society ... because... um... I guess we do have some standards of beauty. Else what would we be brainwashing these people with?
July 14, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? I never said a word about Paula Jones, and I certainly don't pretend to know what's in her brain, or whether it's washed or unwashed.
July 15, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lowest form of scoundrel. When you are backed in a logical corner, you just say you weren't participating. Or do you just post randomly?
Yep, another one you blew, gasket.
July 15, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't figure out what you are talking about, clearthinker. One minute you're arguing with stilli that Paula Jones is "not particularly attractive," the next minute you're arguing with me that Paula Jones had a "makeover" to achieve a socially accepted standard of beauty (which presumably she achieved). Somewhere in between you insinuate to jonnienohand that Bill Clinton was attracted to Jones for her looks, not her mind (even though, in your opinion, her looks didn't measure up). So, no, I can't participate because I can't follow this erratic, contradictory-seeming logic. Doesn't make me a scoundrel, it makes you a poor communicator.
July 15, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did you get out of that corner?
July 15, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket got out her little kitty saw and cut a big hole in the logic of that particular "logical corner". :)
July 15, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I note, no one has answered my question about why Clinton was with these particular women.
---------------------------------------------------
Your comment was unbelievable sexist and ignorant. I've seen many pictures of Monica and Paula that were attractive. Neither are my type, I tend to go for the hippie type. Perhaps because that was the standard among my peers when I went through puberty. I also tend to like waifish women, perhaps because my mother weighed less than 100 pounds when married and for many years after. Who knows what unconscious influences affect what I find attractive.
Who knows why Clinton finds certain attributes attractive. Lots of men like big breasted women with voluptuous curves. Lots of men like a women with hair all styled and permed. Perhaps that was the style he grew up with when he went through puberty. Perhaps they have characteristics that remind him of his mother on an unconscious level. Perhaps he was just excited to be with such a young women. As one gets older they sometimes get jaded. It can be exciting to be with a young person who can still take pleasure in simple things just because they're still somewhat new.
Very few people meet any standard of beauty, whatever it might be. Yet men and women seem to find them/each other attractive anyway. Neither Paula or Monica is ugly, unattractive, disgusting. While they wouldn't be considered model beautiful and think many men would consider them pretty enough to attract their sexual interest. You know, I never saw myself as a handsome man yet god only know why some women have wanted me anyway. No accounting for taste is there?
So satisfied? Someone answered your all important question.
July 15, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes! The mind reader returns!
Grammatical point noted. Little else. If you really bothered to note, I've often made subject/verb errors and have "its" for "it's" and a bunch of other grade school mistakes. Okay, school marm? Mea culpa.
Unless you want to claim all those other mistakes are subconscious ruminations as well.
I'm no longer scared of fascism: the progressives are now just as into mind policing. There is no escape!
July 14, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grammar mistakes are grammar mistakes. They jar, but never mind. I am not talking about grammar here; I am talking about reference intent.
You referred to Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, three times, effectively as "it," which is de-humanizing and objectifying, no matter what their shortcomings or flaws, which we could enumerate and about which most of us would agree. Nonetheless, what you said was dehumanizing and objectifying -- as it was when, sadly, Elizabeth Edwards referred to her husband's alleged child as "it."
To be specific, you de-humanized and objectified both Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, three times:
first, by saying: "Clinton was willing to cheat with someone that looked like Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky..." (you said that not who);
second, you said: "....neither of which were particularly attractive..." (saying which rather than whom); and,
third, by saying, incredibly: "there are different ways of organizing objects...."
CT: I admire your views on population control as well as some of your other areas of focus. But, please. The sign of a truly mature person is he, or she, who is willing to admit his, or her own oversights, shortcomings and/or mistakes.
Be all you can be, and not someone who cannot acknowledge error.
July 14, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least he didn't say, "too fat to fuck" or mention big hair trailer trash and slutty flight attendants.
These are the consolation prizes in our daily progressive discourse. Savor them for what they're worth.
July 14, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
rofl
July 14, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak has referred to me as "it" on more than one occassion.
Your schoolmarmishness is frankly beneath you Wendy.
You are a dinosaur fighting a battle that was long ago won.
Stop seeing boogie women behind every closed door.
Live a little.
July 14, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear CT.
WOW did you just get trashed.
I always wondered what it would feel like to come on all pompous and puffed up... start lecturing women on gender neutrality and such... and then BOOM BOOM, OUT GO THE LIGHTS... and all the air comes out, and you crash and everyone sees your big bare ass hangin' out....
I mean, it must be a helluva rush.
What's it like?
You seem to get to experience it a lot. Though I don't think it's quite fair the way you keep the ride all to yourself.
Sincerely,
Your ever-lovin' Schoolmarm from the North
P.S. You misspelled occassion.
July 14, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, there should be a comma between "you" and "Wendy." LOL! ;-)
July 14, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am forever fascinated by the little group here who feel the need to pile on... yet go around thinking they are good people.
quinn, gasket, bwak (although to be fair, I did invoke her name this time), seashell, old grouch, and a few others, need to feel superior somehow, I suppose. It's really interesting that most people don't tend to get involved in things that don't concern them. But the blood lust from this particular group -- as evidenced by many content-free posts that merely sling invectives because they don't like an opinion -- shows a definite need for smugness, a desire to be on the "correct side" of a group, and an ability to work out old feelings buried from earlier in life.
It's a fascinating study of social dynamics.
I'll further point out that this same behavior is pretty much lampooned when coming from right-leaning politicians. The irony is that the general pettiness of this particular group is not apparent to themselves.
Be well, my fellow posters, be well. And take care, life is too short to go around so angry.
July 14, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to point out that most of the people you just mentioned hardly ever "post", if at all. So if you meant "comment", please keep in mind there is a difference.
I'd also like to point out, for the umpteenth time, that so-called blood lust goes both ways. If you look at Grouch's comments to Barefooted, for example, you will see that Old Grouch does not lust for blood. If you look at Bwakfat's comments to many a fine poster here, like Ramona, for example, you will see that she has nothing but good things to say and intelligent remarks that add to the conversation.
If either of them disagree with any post or comment -- not just yours -- they let the commenter or poster know it. That's sort of the way this whole thing is supposed to work.
Many a TPM Cafe reader does the same thing. The fact that you continue to call it "group think" tells me you just don't know how to think inside a group. If you want to say that makes you a "clear thinker" and thereby keeps you clear of the rules of socializing, that's your prerogative. I just think you don't know how to socially interact well enough yet and need to do some deep soul-searching and growing up before you can be taken seriously in such a place as this.
Spoken as someone who cares about you but just can't figure out where the hell you're coming from, much as I try, I remain, your pal Lis.
July 14, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it doesn't come from both sides. In fact, you just posted without carrying it out.
There is a group so comfortable here, that they know no bounds of restraint and think nothing of posting (or commenting, or whatever you like calling it) content-free invectives. There isn't even cleverness in them.
Most of these people in this group, could not convince a room already not in agreement with them of their point of view. It's not surprising that they act out of sorts when challenged... and it's no different than the dittoheads on Rush finding out that when not among their own kind, their world view just isn't so obvious.
Wendy was on a crusade of sexism. I note that she was never able to answer just why Clinton went for the likes of Jones and Lewinsky... because the conclusion is too uncomfortable. (Indeed, she then tried to ambush me on Seaton's thread when I said the Palin plays the gender card and asked for an example. When I posted that TPM itself said this back in 2008, I haven't heard from her since.)
Rather than try to discuss an uncomfortable topic, she choose to jump on the "CT is sexist" wagon with JNH. Of course, I saw no evidence presented by JNH at all. But it certainly got us off topic quickly, didn't it? (Never mind that my comment was at least on topic for the thread.)
Most of TPM is quite enjoyable. I do like discussing difficult issues. It's a shame some here are entranced with dogmatic responses.
July 14, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I left out the other half. The other half is you.
Blood sport, indeed.
July 14, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rawk, LisB.
July 14, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's a shame some here are entranced with dogmatic responses."
Mirror, mirror...
July 15, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is seldom that I reply when I believe my reply would be redundant. There are two reasons for this. First, I'm physically challenged and a redundancy of prior comments would be a wasted physical effort. Second, some people (not just here) see redundancy as piling on.
In this particular case both reasons apply. It would be a waste of my effort to get in a "pissing contest" with you and you would certainly accuse me of "group think" and "piling on". The "piling on" I agree with, as I stated above. Your accusations of "group think", in my eyes, are nothing but self pity.
July 15, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT --See my specific response to your cited links in David Seaton's blog.
July 15, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
So does this mean I do, or I do not, have an ability to work out old feelings buried from earlier in life do u think??
My earlier selves are a wondering!
July 14, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are an it.
July 14, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you, my dear, are one fowl poster.
July 14, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps she's a "fowline" to be specific.
July 15, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Just when you are invited to transcend sexist opinions, CT, you raise the ante with Ageism and, by calling me a dinosaur, hyperbole. Although that, I confess, did make me laugh. So thanks.
BTW, thanks, Quinn, for expressing schoolmarm solidarity. Nice images evoked here: if I am perceived as a dinosaur with "new age grandma glasses," it was generous of you to volunteer to be seen as a hockey player in a dress. :-)
July 15, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of this post what happens in the general workplace is irrelevant. We are talking about our elected officials and if we have had any scadals of this nature involving women I have missed them. So my comment stands as is.
July 14, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so maybe we should just un-elect most of those lyin' men.
July 14, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES!!!
July 14, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The government is a workplace as well!
July 14, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
All cases of seeing and reacting to someone's private lives are not the same. If we are walking down the sidewalk and our eye is caught by a flash when someone throws back a curtain we can be expected to look. That is hardly the same as peeking through the shades or planting a wire in their bedroom.
If we see a politician hypocritically behaving in a way that he/she has demonized others for behaving then we would be fools to not react to it and put the information out so that others can react, that is, so that the politician's constituents can know to throw their sorry asses out.
With the foregoing said, I agree with what I take to be the spirit of your blog.
July 14, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly Des. The private lives of politicians is not my business, and my private life is not theirs.
The only reason Sanford even matters is that he went incommunicado for days as the governor of a state. Mayor Bloomberg regularly vacations and doesn't give the press any info about where he's going, but can be reached in emergency, has a chain of command aware he's out of town etc. Had Sanford the common sense to do the same thing, I would have no criticism of him. He should be censured for that epically stupid blunder, not for having an affair.
Larry Craig actively and repeatedly voted against sexual orientation protections for job discrimination and hate crimes. I don't judge his conduct but his hypocrisy.
July 14, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Sanford turned into his own soap/sitcom - I can't begrudge people a serious spectacle.
With Larry Craig, maybe we missed a wonderful teaching moment. Maybe if we had reached out to him and said, "Hey Lar, it's okay, sex is normal and your private business, we're glad you're human and if you need a home, the Democrats are willing to stand by you" we could have had another Senator. Seems Ruby Ridge was about getting government off our backs and out of our business. Maybe true concern about personal privacy would have crossed political lines in the same way that Bob Barr is now a strong ally of the ACLU.
July 14, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If paying for sex is illegal, a politician should be held to a high standard when it comes to crime. If a politician spends time vilifying gays while being gay, he should be hung out as a hypocrite. If a state governor disappears for a week without any way to contact him that's a problem.
If a politician, as a public person, has an interesting sex-life, well the press will put it on the front page, whatever progressives do. It's just celebrity news. That said, it shouldn't therefore be celebrated...
July 14, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Francois Mitterrand's longterm concubine and natural children stood next to his wife during his funeral and not a word was uttered by the French press on the subject, I realized to what extent American politics needed to grow up. On the other hand, M. Mitterand and other French politicians are not in the business of preaching and imposing sexual mores.
In that sense, I do understand when a gay blogger points out the hypocrisy of a politician who's policies and rhetoric renders said blogger and other gay people's life a living hell. Exposure of hypocrisy has been a critical device in the debate over gay and other sexual rights.
Pointing out hypocrisy, in general, has played a critical role in our discourse from Didérot to modern truthseekers, and this post is in itself a fine example of this valuable exercise. The obsession with the sexual behavior of politicians and its elevation to the level of public discourse is, however, a very Anglo-American tragedy which in my experience is considerably less pervasive in other western cultures.
July 14, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above was not meant as a response to you, Obey, but rather to the blog.
July 14, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
C Street interacted with both Ensign and Sanford. Since the group has access to many powerful men, the public has a right to know something about the organization.
If C street members believe that they are specially chosen men, whose sins are more readily forgiven than those of others, then we might want to know more details about these men since they want to hold pubic office.
July 14, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
HERE HERE!!!!!!!!!!
July 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A comment on a few points raised by others above.
Stilli wrote: cheating is a matter of integrity. If they will violate their vows and screw over their wives and children (who they supposedly love), they will violate their vows and screw over us (who they most certainly do not love)...
Stilli - That's a claim subject to empirical testing, and I would submit it turns out to be false. For example, as far as we know, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney have all been faithful to their wives, while FDR, Jack Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, among others were not. Those are selected examples, but I believe an unselected sample would simply show little correlation between private and public misbehavior.
The reason, I suggest, is that all human beings are both imperfect and complex, and their imperfections find an outlet in different ways. Like others who commented here, I think we should focus on the public element and avoid voyeuristic obsession with private wrongdoings. I would add that when it comes to marital relationships, it's often not easy for outsiders to fathom which actions are causes of marital trouble and which are symptoms.
Regarding hypocrisy, everyone probably has at least a small tendency towards hypocrisy. Denouncing a politician's hypocrisy is a useful weapon when the politician's policies deserve condemnation, and so I wouldn't eschew its use, but over the long run, it tends to balance out among different sides. The more important issue is always the public stance. If that is reprehensible, the private convictions of its advocates don't excuse it. In fact, as I've argued elsewhere, most successful politicians manage to convince themselves to believe in whatever is politically expedient for them, and so I generally take their sincerity for granted. Homophobic attitudes may be one of the more common exceptions.
I also liked George Bernard Shaw's response to critics who accused him of not always adhering to principles he espoused in his writings. He claimed that he saw his job as that of a signpost - to point the way to a destination without necessarily going there himself.
July 14, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think George Wallace started out much less racist, but then figured out who his constituency was. One of the ugly sides of democracy, getting what we want.
July 14, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO
July 14, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race?... I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."[note 2][8][9] In the wake of his defeat, Wallace adopted hard-line segregationism, and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election. When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor."[10]
HOW MUCH LESS RACIST MIGHT HE HAVE BEEN?
July 14, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an unusually thoughtful discussion you've started here, Des.
As a general proposition, I think an American political figure's failure to conform to standards of conduct that he or she stridently to impose upon the pubic through legislation is a matter of public interest. If the transgression involves sex and people also take a certain voyeuristic interest in it, well, hell, Europeans do too. The difference is that the average European's interest in the sexual peccadillos of their leaders is far more healthy than ours precisely because it is more frankly pruient and less neurotically twisted up with religion and politics than ours. That's why our media becomes hysterical about it for months on wherein Europe it's read about it, respond with with a leer, a shrug or a roll of the eyes (depending on circumstances and the individual) and then move on to the football scores.
Indeed, a case can be made for being particularly tough on ideologues whose sexual conduct is contrary to the standards they want to impose on others. The obessive urgent desire to regulate and control sexual conduct by and between consenting adults (and, for that matter, by and between sexually mature teenagers) is one of the hallmarks of the totalitarian mentality to which ideologues both left and right are highly susceptable. I've never heard of an authoritarian state--whether leftist, rightist or theocratic--that did not heavily regulate sex and sexuality and impose savage penalties for transgressions of legally sanctioned sexual norms.
So when our own ideologues go there, I worry. Once you give yourself permission to control consensual sexual conduct, you've essentially decided that there isn't any aspect life into which the government shouldn't be allowed to intrude.
So when someone who is a vociferous advocate of governmental control of sex and sexuality gets caught violating the very standards he or she wants to impose on others, I consider it a useful object lesson in why privacy is the best policy and I tend to shamelessly indulge in the voyeuristic schadenfrude.
Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge that we don't live in a society, nor do we have a media, that's capable of making such fine distinctions between which transgressions are newsworthy and which ones aren't. It's not fair and balanced to take sides and, besides, sex, anything about sex, sells soap and HFCS laden beverages. And thus is the presidency of a good president who was (for whatever reasons) an advocate of privacy on sexual matters derailed over a blowjob.
So although I started this comment with frankly contrarian intent, maybe Des is right after all. Maybe the best way to promote privacy as an essential civic value is to give it to, and demand it for, those who deserve it the least.
Dang it. I hate it when that happens.
July 14, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us not forget that Jimmy Carter cheated in his heart... a point that followed a clear tradition.
July 14, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Camp #1:
Politicians' private lives are private. In their private lives, they are private citizens and have a right to privacy like the rest of us. We should focus on their actions as public officials, in the context of representing voters who elected them. You can be a great executive even if you're twice divorced and have difficulty controlling your libido.
Camp #2:
The job of representing the people, as Governor, Congressman or President, is not the same as an "executive". This requires more than great organizational skills, it requires a vision, personal integrity and a moral compass - because, for the duration of the term, you're required to lead: a state, a party, a nation. Can a politician's integrity and moral compass be trusted when he breaks a personal committment made to his wife and family, and lies about it?
July 14, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Camp #3: Buzzards. Schadenfreude. Snickering. Ethical positions of convenience. MREs (Morals Ready To Eat).
July 14, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can a politician's integrity and moral compass be trusted when he breaks a personal commitment made to his wife and family, and lies about it?
That's hard to say. But how do we know what personal commitments that politician has or has not made to his wife and family, or what is the precise nature of the partners' sexual or non-sexual relationship? We have a cookie-cutter image of this unified social institution called "marriage", and maybe the social promotion of that willfully simplified, normative image does more good than harm, but behind the crude image is a varied assortment of complex adult relationships. It ain't always the Waltons. Those relationships are held together by a tangle of promises, understandings and negotiations. And people in such a relationship frequently lie about its precise nature to people outside the relationship.
Intense, anxious curiosity about what is really happening inside other relationships in one reason that cracks in the social facade so often provoke a feeding frenzy of prying interrogation.
July 14, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Lalo is just summarizing the position, and of course DJ provides one obvious, that people's public lives often do not reflect their private, and it might be guessed that sometimes their private lives contain an outlet for frustration in public.
If only we had more perfect people to run for office.
July 14, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink