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
Well, toss the hypocrites out of the way and we COULD have better government. Leave them in there, and it's no surprise they are the deceitful individuals they are. The pol is taking the place of someone who might have more integrity. Let's make a vacancy and aim a little higher next time.
July 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDR cheated on Eleanor Roosevelt with Lucy Mercer for years. Herbert Hoover was very faithful to his wife Lou.
July 14, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, you think I would not find FDR's time in office complete when he started believing it was okay to wander? What was his position on fidelity and did he ever beat the people over the head with that position? You think because Hoover had one thing right he had everything right?
July 14, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what you are saying Gregor Zap, but my point was that marital morality and success in governance do not necessarily go together. Roosevelt's love affair with Mercer began 15 to 20 years before he became president, and continued up until the day he died. And yet he is clearly one of our most successful presidents.
If your beef is with the moral standards and public policies Republicans support, then oppose those policies. Discriminating against gays should be opposed because it is wrong to discriminate against gays. It doesn't matter whether the guys passing the conservative anti-gay policies are also wearing women's underwear and cruising airport bathrooms for gay sex. When critics of a policy go after the people defending the policy instead of focusing on the arguments against the policy, then they unfortunately send the message that their arguments aren't powerful enough.
Perhaps we could use more hypocrites in office: people who work energetically to enact idealistic improvements to our society, even if the improvements reflect ways of behavior that exceed the standards they are able to maintain personally in their private lives. If a guy is a secret racist, but works his butt off shepherding voting rights and anti-discrimination legislation through Congress, do we want to sift through his emails to find out if he ever used the N-word?
The private lives of our political leaders have in recent decades become the object of intense media scrutiny. As a result, you get some pretty weird and ineffective people in office: either people who are unnaturally morally spotless with limited experience of life, or people whose inconsistencies go beyond mere hypocrisy, but who are masters of the double life and the chronic lies needed to maintain them. Maybe we would do better to attract a few more normal people into public life, people who do some things that are condemned by conventional morality, but manage to get some good done too.
These witch hunts just scare people away. I know that I personally would never be willing to stand for these intrusions and for having my life made an open book. And I wouldn't recommend that life to anyone else either.
July 14, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're goign to disagree is all. I do not believe that the lawmakers and those champions of morality do gt a free pass regardless of what good they may do for the rest of us. I disagree that jocks get special treatment.
FDR was not advocating morality. It was not on his agenda, but these idiots do. Here in Oregon they took down Senator Packwood because he was chasing underage girls. Packwood did a lot to advance women's rights, but do we look away from his predilection for young girls? I should hope not. MLK was not going around advocating discrimination against gays. That was not his agenda. But for these recent idiots, it is!
I guess what I want to see is these guys sign a pledge they will no longer find it necessary to cater to as population obsessed with the private lives of others. Until then, yes, I will make their private indiscretions my business until they do the same for me.
July 14, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you wouldn't, because I hate these sex scandals. They're boring; they're distracting; they're stupid; they're tacky. And they just make the people who flog them look as foolish as the perpetrators.
July 14, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
when he wasn't in drag.
July 14, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops wrong Hoover! Sorry, I still have tears in my eyes from Desi's "too fat to fuck" line
July 14, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes more than 7 people to staff a full government, and probably those 7 are already employed elsewhere anyway.
July 14, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snow White said she would send them over as soon as they're free.
July 14, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, I thought they were the pure ethical ones, and turns out they have a bondage thing going on. Just goes to show...
July 14, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention I hear one of them uses dope.
July 14, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear the Web site Huffing.com is for sale. Potential dwarf den, maybe, have to check with the little fellas and see what they think. Believe it or not, Grumpy's not so bad once he's got his fix.
July 14, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who isn't when they've seen the man?
July 14, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tanned, rested and ready.
How much for a citizenship card?
July 14, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, as we recall, you had the requisite dental work. Why, then, allow a little detail like citizenship get in the way of running for office here? Since, as the GOP would have it, we now have a president who is not a citizen?
July 14, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to point out the requisite cavity search, but disgustingly we can see most of his cavities already. Still, I think he's molarly unfit for office.
July 14, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha.
July 14, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant.
July 14, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP in California hired a Canadian without a green card as a spokesperson to rail about illegal immigrants stealing all the jobs.
You should do fine Q as long as you keep your "aboots" to a minimum and don't go and on about hockey. With any luck you could be our Tommy Douglas.
July 14, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the Tim Bits on his lapels.
July 14, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a lot of rules that are contradicted by the natural state of things which makes for a lot of confusion. Those who profess to have figured this out are delusional.
July 14, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the proper place to apply for a Debt Consolidation Loan?
July 14, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
Your number is: #76,511
Now serving: #17
July 14, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Payments to your mistress eating away at your nest egg? Don't wait till you're outed on national TV. Call now! Our friendly operators are standing by to process your application. Best of all new federal tax regulations make interest charges on loans designed to offset the high cost of keeping extortionists quiet, tax deductible. I'm Phil Rizzuto, and you can take that to the bank! Call now! 202-555-CASH.
July 14, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever a phone number comes up during Murder, She Wrote or Matlock reruns, I always rush to dial the number with the 555 prefix in the hope I might solve the case before the show is over. It’s always busy. Too many great minds thinking alike, I guess.
July 14, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I'm getting personal with you, but Desi Corollary reads: "Pathetic minds think alike too." In general we move in packs. But keep dialing 555, don't want to discourage you.
July 14, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pure coincidence, but 555 just happens to be my prefix, too!
July 14, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Synchronicity...patterns in Mayan pyramids...eternal recurrence - nothing is coincidence in this sphere.
July 14, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys must be the 'new age grandpas' that complement the new age grandmas, huh?
July 14, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hand me a beer and a Tums, bud, hate to be outed but you went and done it. Your turn to watch the grill.
July 15, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair to Rachel Maddow, the interest in Ensign is based not so much in sex as in malfeasance and cover-up. It is Politically relevant when someone gives a lover and their family jobs, and then takes those jobs away when the affair ends. It is also relevant how inept Ensign has proven to be in this whole mess. Still I believe that most of the media, be it right or left has missed the real lede , which is that Mitt Romney has had a great run going back to McCain not offering him the Veep Spot. Romney seems to be seeing most of his likely 2012 challengers self-destruct in just seven or eight months. Jindal, Ensign, Sandford and Palin have all gone down at little to no cost to the Mitt. Danger, Tim Palenty, Danger!
July 14, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I had originally fast forwarded the podcast through the Ensign stuff. Some one at TPM pointed out it was an excellent segment. I downloaded it again and to my surprise I had missed the C street expose'.
July 14, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's also the issue of whether a public figure used public resources in furtherance of his/her dalliances, and/or whether the public figure in question broke a law while engaged in the dalliance or behavior related thereunto.
(For that matter, were Sen. John Ensign's mistress and/or her husband trying to blackmail the senator? Not only is that a crime, it also could, conceivably, affect how he approaches some of his public duties.)
July 14, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's a critical question. Having an affair compromises the ability of a pol to exercise decisions free of undue influence, i.e. blackmail. We can all be aghast at the intrusion the public makes into one's private affairs, but until we change out attitude to wards these issues, it remains a scandal and leverages against decisions a pol may make. He has compromise dmore then his marriage when he, or she, is caught going astray.
July 14, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point; that was the original cover for not letting gays in military.
July 14, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are somethings off limits? Like posting the grades of a politician's child? Isn't that personal and should be kept private?
As someone who has been cheated on various times throughout the past two years, I would be mortified if any of it had to play out in a public arena.
If you want to call out politicians on their hypocrisy, fine, campaign against them and don't vote for them. But I do not understand why we are so interested..writing, reporting, the constant 24/7 updates. Do we really benefit from reading the private letters? From the press conferences? If I have to see another wife standing next to their husband while he confirms his infidelity... why do we expect such behavior? How does that make anything better?
If you think that politicians do not lie or cheat... well I don't know.
July 14, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presumably there are also some honest people going into prison as well, but by the time they get out, they're trained. Once upon a time Marion Berry was a rather heroic, idealistic Black Panther. A few decades on... Power corrupts. Better to be corrupted with stupid sexual foibles than big stuff that affects the nation.
July 14, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better not to be corrupt at all.
July 14, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually one of the inadvertant benefits of reading Sanford's Email is the exposure of the degree to which some of the press was in bed with him.
July 15, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheating is actually just another sound-bitable, polarizing issue. Like the gender or race of a candidate. Abortion. Tax increases. Gays in the military. There are many more.
It allows people to "be expert" on something and express an opinion and "participate". That's why these are "important" issues for some... even though they may be far more directly affected by other issues.
Rarely are complex issues of any sort discussed in the press (in terms of all their complexity) and never are they brought up on the campaign trail. Most people just aren't capable of keeping a focus -- to many realities set in: care of children, getting a paycheck, etc.
Even to take a look at an issue like health care. It's also been reduced to memes - on both sides. We just had a blog where people chanted "Single Payer, Single Payer" over and over again. And TPM is far better than most media sources for trying to dig deeper at issues.
July 14, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheating is actually just another sound-bitable, polarizing issue.
It's not even polarizing. It's just equal opportunity non-partisan infotainment, tabloid titillation, accompanied by pious disclaimers about why there must a real issue here somewhere that justifies us in putting our hands down the pants of the powerful and famous.
July 14, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point. I was referring to voters (and there are many) like Stilli for whom this *does* become an election issue.
July 14, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all part of the "idealistic" package, I think we should require better of ourselves as well as our elected officials... :-)
July 14, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your notion is nice, but in all of human history hasn't been practical. Not that I'm a believer, but you are one: where do you think the notion of "original sin" comes from?
Humans are animals (tribal animals at that). We like to congratulate ourselves for being big thinkers, but the fact is that more often than not, it is our reptilian brain that runs things on a moment to moment basis.
Suppose you found out that a favorite teacher from childhood cheated on their spouse? Or on their taxes? Does that change that teacher's ability to inspire you?
Did you have "Here comes the bride" played at your wedding? The author is Richard Wagner a known anti-Semite.
I honestly believe that your notions are dangerous for society because it sets ridiculous standards thereby debilitating true progress.
Do you like FDR's policies less because he had a lifelong affair with a mistress?
Do MLK's speeches matter less because he cheated on his wife?
Where are you drawing the line here?
July 14, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just continue to hope that we will require better behavior from ourselves and our elected officials.
If our reptilian brain is such a good thing, then why have laws that run counter to it? Some guys are wired to like sex with little boys. If that is how they are wired, how can you possibly expect them to act any differently?
July 15, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, your comment is quite prejudiced.
First, we are the elected officials. So it's pointless to separate into us and them. That's the principle of the constitutional republic -- we are a country of law and all equal under it.
Second, laws are an attempt to organize society. That's it. What many progressives sometimes forget is that laws are not around to change people's personal behavior. You can't regulate individual attitudes with laws.
And the laws about not having sex with children, are to protect the children, not try to change the attitudes of the men.
You never answered my other, direct questions. I believe they get at the heart of the matter.
July 15, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm letting you get me sidetracked from the original post, which is discussing our elected officials, not my old teachers or the composer who wrote "Here Comes The Bride."
If you want to do a post on these other subjects, go ahead, and I'll join in.
I continue to maintain that it would be helpful if we all kept TRYING to be better than our nature would have us be.
July 15, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No other American group , any group , operated under such a presumption of respectability then our elected leadership. Well maybe the Catholic clergy but they also screwed that up. We're simply finding out that our elected and pampered leadership have a lot more time then "working and fighting" Americans to do some flucked up stuff. I like the fact that they can't hide behind the "curtain" anymore. Tar and feather all of hem.
July 14, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disagree - tar and feather the ones taking bribes, the completely incompetent. Many Americans have time to screw around, not just politicians. Watch Jerry Springer et al. I don't care if my elected officials are pervs or saints - I want them to take care of important issues. Their private lives are not one of them.
July 14, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that we elect our leaders on personality; a façade of character traits and image. Live by the sword…
Are there more important things? Infinitely, and there are more important things than what baseball player's taking steroids, too. I agree with Des that we shouldn’t obsess over this stuff and an affair is a personal matter, but politicians will fight fire with fire.
The Left has been knocked down and held there with a family-values boot to the neck, and liberals, as a practical matter, will use whatever advantage to regain ground. If Dems have a chance to turn that perception around, I don’t expect they’ll take the high road.
The media is another story. If it bleeds it leads and if it's seedy, even better. We are a culture of personality. Anyway, I heard there was a video two Republicans and one cup coming soon to CNN.
July 14, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you've got that one pegged. During the Watergate/Lewinsky brouhaha I was amazed at the lengths pols will go to to get the other guy. I mean $300M on investigations/etc? Round and round, and round we spin, with feet of lead and wings of tin.
July 14, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never been sure if Lewinsky was a win for the hypocrites like Gingrich or if it actually backfired on them. Most people I talked to during that period (of all political stripes) seemed to feel a 'gotcha congress' had gone too far (of course, the neocon 20%, the hard-core Limbaugh loudmouths, kept at it, but I wonder). I suspect they won in the end because I've not seen a recent ex-president (even Nixon) treated with as much disdain in the press as Clinton was last year (though Carter came close after he criticized Israel).
July 14, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
My take on it was that it was a perfect example of a 'lose-lose' political action, yet like moths before the flame...
July 14, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, every time you mention flame or fire, my reptilian brain pops up "BBQ!!!" Is it my fault, or are you egging me on?
July 14, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your avatar could inch up just a little bit more-mmmm, smoked ham!
July 14, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MMMMMmmmm, back bacon.
HEY DES! TURN IT UP!
July 14, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cuidado amigos! Esto cerdo es muy peligro cuando el nubarron del hongo es cerca.
July 14, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not worry Miguel, I am kind of a fowl personage.
July 15, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a poll quoted to me by a government official that said that Americans were willing to spend an amount equal to a government contract to ensure that the money of the government contract was spent properly.
That's where the real waste in government comes from.
Even shopkeepers know that some shoplifting will occur -- they just build it into their price structure.
Although I wouldn't equate the investigation of Nixon's misdeeds (abuse of the highest levels of government against its citizens) to those of Clinton's.
July 14, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spending money to ensure that money allocated for a certain purpose is being spent properly should, in theory, prevent public officials from lining the pockets of their buddies. Unfortunately, politicians always know how to get around laws, since they write them, so trying to prevent government from wasting money is like trying to prevent the sun from rising. However, there are instances when investigations serve a greater good. I would argue that investigating Cheney and his dealings with the CIA and Congress do merit investigation.
July 14, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are people going to recognize that politicians aren't the only ones working with government funds? Whole government agencies exist including USDA, NASA, NOAA, EPA, USGS, the Coast Guard, DOJ, DHS, VA, etc, etc, etc.
July 14, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment! It is a dishonor and an insult to those military members who have made the ultimate sacrifice and to those who risk their lives every day to spend so much time on such trivial nonsense and (truth be told) banal gossip.
Does anyone think that an unemployed worker whose prospects for employment are poor gives a hoot about the Appalacian Trail? I didn't think so.
I agree there is hypocracy, morals and judgment involved in these dramas, but let's weigh them against what is really significant and important.
I also wish that the media would stop giving that undeserved idiot Palin any more free publicity. Her narcissistic need to remain in the spotlight and the media's aquiescence speak volumes about what is wrong with our country.
Again, great post!
July 14, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, remember Terry Schiavo?
July 14, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des?
Maybe it's just easier to think about shallow stuff like affairs, and too painful and difficult to confront what's really important.
Are we not a shallow society?
July 14, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, duh!! But how long can we get away with using that excuse? Especially the supposedly politically aware segment?
Anyway, would love to chat longer, but there's a Lost re-run I need to catch and then a Michael Jackson retrospective, busy day...
July 15, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Patronizing lecturing...Conclusory, pompous statements..wikipedia link....
I'm done here.
-CT
July 14, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is you have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, we all just screw everything that moves, the family disintegrates, and we become like Rome and their drunken orgies.
Maybe that's where we're headed, but I'd like to think not. I'd like to think we've progressed some. Yeah, I know, it's easier to just turn a blind eye and let standards go down the drain, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Who is it that gets to make these calls on which ethics are important and which aren't? We're all up in arms about the rich screwing over the poor, but there's nothing illegal about it. So what's the big deal? Rich folks have more ways of dodging taxes than we can even imagine. It's abhorrent, but it's not illegal. So go for it. Same for everything that we just went through in the financial arena. Everything they did was legal. Immoral, but legal. Bouncing people out of their houses if they can't pay their mortgage because they were sweet talked into something they couldn't afford is legal, so what's the big deal?
What is so darn wrong with expecting more? Yeah, I know, it's not the popular view around here, but I don't care. If just following human nature is okay, we are in BIG, BIG trouble, 'cuz human nature stinks. Greed and lust are the two biggies. I thought the idea was that we were supposed to try and rise above it.
July 15, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, the central point is what someone does in their personal life is not correlated to how they perform on the job.
There is an evangelistic tone to this particular post, stilli. As if you believe we need to reform people and their attitudes. That's not the job of the state. Despite what we get from some politicians that want to tell us how to live.
The circumstances you describe are societal. Therefore, they are different to what someone does in the privacy of their own life.
July 15, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Again, the central point is what someone does in their personal life is not correlated to how they perform on the job."
Then why do so many people not get hired to do jobs because of things they did (in their personal lives) even when those things were done when they were kids?
The reality is, if you are unethical in your personal life, there is no reason to believe you wouldn't be in your job...However, being ethical in your personal life is no guarantee you'll be ethical in your job, either.
July 15, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we are supposed to try and expect more. But just expecting more isn't enough. We have to try and figure out how to make that happen.
As I stated in a previous thread we need to figure out how to organize just as the conglomerates and government have organized and have decidedly joined forces against us.
Look at what Bush did. We were powerless to stop it while it was happening and probably nothing will ever happen.
As far as ethics and morality, the other team has thrown them out, ripped them clean out of the rule book. That is the ugly fact of it.
The bad guys just love it that we argue our religious and gender differences. Our differences over color and ethnicity and whatever else makes us different. It keeps us distracted from what is really happeneing and the other team actively promotes these frictions.
Notice the one thing we all have in common is we are being screwed by corporate America, global conglomerates and their partners in government.
They know all too well the difficulty and improbability of organizing such a diverse population. We argue about dems and repugs but in reality they are just different members of the same force of elites allied against us. Both produce a roughly equivalent result. Repugs are solidly against us. We say so what, we have a majority. But really we only have parity when you count in the blue dogs. What we really have is a facade.
We the People get a progressively smaller piece of the pie at each go around; freedom, privacy, financial, healthcare etc etc. The whole ball of wax. We have less. They let us keep our ethics and morality though.
July 15, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been very disappointed in Rachel Maddow. She seems to have gone on vacation with waders and sex scandals. What about Palestine? What about Health Care? What about the continuing deterioration of our economy despite the claims that we're 'in recovery'. She's smarter than this. I think her content is clearly controlled by MSNBC.
July 15, 2009 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink