Living proof of FW's theories

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The only real criticism would be that he ran off without telling anyone where he was going, I guess, but that seems like that should be forgivable.

 

Disregarding the whole "moral values vs. hypocrisy" conundrum, this is the biggest problem with Sanford. The guy ran off without telling people where he was going. This seems kind of like a big deal, considering that he's, y'know, running the state.

 

I, too, am sick of hearing about politicians/celebrities/whoever and their personal infidelities. Maybe we should just smash monogamy? The NY Times had a funny article in the science section: Politicians Are Primates Too

 

People lie about sex, remember?

[prole]

Wow, you sound just like a conservative: Outraged because of his immorality. Should we all start legislating morality now? I guess that means you supported Clinton's impeachment? I sure didn't. Personal lives are personal lives. He didn't break the law; his offense is between him and his family. I thought you were a liberal! huh, strange.

 

If his own wife, with whom he shares the closest emotional bond a human being can have, can't trust him not to fuck her over, how can he be trusted not to fuck over people he doesn't even know? It's not about legislating morality, it's about holding a someone with an enormous responsibility to represent people to a higher standard of trustworthyness. "They're all hypocrite parasites anyway so..." isn't an acceptable standard to hold an elected representative to. A functioning democracy demands more.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If his own wife, with whom he shares the closest emotional bond a human being can have, can't trust him not to fuck her over, how can he be trusted not to fuck over people he doesn't even know?

 

Right! So you supported the impeachment of Clinton and were disgusted when he was judged "not guilty" at the trial?

 

 

[prole]

Clinton's a scumbag but the impeachment was a transparent, cynical farce and never should have gotten as far as it did. I'm not saying screwing an intern or cheating on your wife (or husband(?)) should be an instant disqualifier for public office, public censure seems about right. What bothers me more is permissive cynicism that accepts corruption and hypocrisy as a given or that politicians should be free to party like oil sheiks because "that's what powerful men do".

[Bosterson]

If his own wife, with whom he shares the closest emotional bond a human being can have, can't trust him not to fuck her over, how can he be trusted not to fuck over people he doesn't even know?

 

This sounds extremely subjective.

 

Also: when did we start assuming that politicians had integrity?

[Bosterson]

What bothers me more is permissive cynicism that accepts corruption and hypocrisy as a given

 

You can define it how you want, but real life is not like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Without severely restricted, publicly funded elections, politicians are like mercenaries - they respond to whoever pays them the most. "Payment" can be take many forms, so think campaign contributions, votes (ie, keeping them in power), sex, etc. But VERY few politicians are out there standing up in public and saying things that most people don't want to hear, even if those things are just and honorable.

[prole]

Also: when did we start assuming that politicians had integrity?

 

There is an assumption that they should?

[prole]

What bothers me more is permissive cynicism that accepts corruption and hypocrisy as a given

 

You can define it how you want, but real life is not like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Without severely restricted, publicly funded elections, politicians are like mercenaries - they respond to whoever pays them the most. "Payment" can be take many forms, so think campaign contributions, votes (ie, keeping them in power), sex, etc. But VERY few politicians are out there standing up in public and saying things that most people don't want to hear, even if those things are just and honorable.

 

Uh, I know you haven't been around here long, but trust me, I "get it". Just because existing politicians are corrupt, doesn't mean we have to accept it. I find influence peddling and the revolving door between the State and corporate capital far more egregious betrayals of the public trust. Hell, I think this Sanford is a much bigger asshole for refusing emergency money on behalf of his constituents than for anything else, but I'm not going to suggest that cheating on your wife and skipping the country is no big deal or what happens in Argentina stays in Argentina because "well Gawd, he's a politician, what'd ya expect?" Come on.

[rob]

The problem is that you're holding these guys to a higher standard than the rest of us. They aren't any better. By many accounts, infidelity is extremely common. Everyone I've ever been with has cheated on me. Most people I know have been cheated on.

 

I hate it that people hold these guys up like some kind of Religious Icon, that should be void of all fault. Humans are generally pretty fucked up. I've done lots of stupid shit. Many of our greatest leaders have had seriously conflicting personal issues. It's not a matter of whether it was right or wrong; it's a matter of relevance. Where do you draw the line?

 

If you expect your leaders to not have personal flaws, then you're constantly going to be disappointed. I say it's better to just judge them on their performance at work. I don't get judged at my office on any personal transgressions; why should they? If they're doing a good job, who cares what they do behind closed doors? If they're doing a bad job, then get rid of them for that -- why dig up personal garbage to bolster your case? Use their poor performance. If their personal transgressions cause a negative effect on their job performance, then you shouldn't have any reason to NOT nail them on their poor job performance. Why bring up the personal at all -- UNLESS THAT'S ALL THAT YOU HAVE?

 

I'm sick of people expecting these guys to be paragons. Religion is dead. Haven't you heard?

[Bosterson]

Uh, I know you haven't been around here long, but trust me, I "get it". Just because existing politicians are corrupt, doesn't mean we have to accept it. I find influence peddling and the revolving door between the State and corporate capital far more egregious betrayals of the public trust. Hell, I think this Sanford is a much bigger asshole for refusing emergency money on behalf of his constituents than for anything else, but I'm not going to suggest that cheating on your wife and skipping the country is no big deal or what happens in Argentina stays in Argentina because "well Gawd, he's a politician, what'd ya expect?" Come on.

 

Thank you for patronizing me, and I have actually read other things you've written here and find you to be very progressive-thinking, but what I disagree with is your assertion that some "higher level of trustworthiness" must apply to what politicians do in their personal relationships, since they are somehow ubermenschen who should be above such temptations. If you want to talk about influence peddling and revolving doors and all that stuff, I am behind you 100%. But no one here is asserting that politicians are corrupt and we should just deal with it - that is a separate topic. What people are saying is that marital infidelity is not our business, and is also not some sort of yardstick by which we should judge a politician's worthiness in other areas.

 

Feel free to disagree, and certainly this begs a discussion of whether we should judge people's public words and works by what they do and say in private. (Think Jackson Pollack: "great" painter > abusive husband, or Leni Reifenstahl: great filmmaker > Nazi sympathizer, etc.) I also would conjecture that however much interpersonal distress to families is caused by marital infidelity among politicians is dwarfed by problems due to alcoholism. That doesn't make as good press as Argentine mistresses though...

[Off_White]

Religion is dead. Haven't you heard?

 

Unfortunately, a lot of these guys haven't gotten the memo. The problem isn't their transgressions, but the way they thunder on (and legislate) about other people's failings while doing the same thing themselves.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I think its OK to expect that when you vote someone into office, they'll try to reasonably represent you.

 

In a constituency of 1 person that is, but there aren't too many constituencies that small and if there were, I'm not sure elections would be on the top of the agenda.

 

The minute you've got more than one angry hairless monkey in the constituency, the idea of what a politician is supposed to do or represent gets pretty fuzzy pretty fast.

 

When it comes to dirty laundry on the home front: it matters in so much that such indiscretions can reduce individual and party electibility, which can be a real problem if you're one of the angry hairless monkeys rooting for that side. Clinton really fucked all of us with that blowjob by fucking over Gore's chances of preventing that fucking brain damaged chimpanzee from occupying the White House.

 

In the world of the angry hairless monkey, politics, and that means public perception of every aspect of a high visibility official's behavior, affects that larger agenda and, at times, all of us. Morally speaking, we're all in the gutter to varying degrees, to be sure. But when a person begins to enjoy a larger public stage, the unintended affects of their 'humanity' are of a greater magnitude.

 

The best thing we can do, therefore, is to reduce the unavoidable ripple effects of these high level 'lapses in judgement' by reducing the power of these individuals and reclaiming that power for ourselves.

 

Fuck the federal government, for example. It has squandered our wealth, lives, environment, health, and quality of life. It needs to be severely pruned, particularly its most sacred and bloated carbunkle; the military. Too much of our everyday lives are dictated by people thousands of miles from where we live who don't know us, don't care to know us, and really couldn't give less of a shit about us.

 

The fascination with celebrity will continue as long as we are human: we are, after all, just another herd animal. People will continue to be put into and run out of office based on public perceptions of events having nothing at all to do with their fiduciary responsibilities. The smaller we make these fish, however, the less these events will actually affect us one way or the other. They will be reduced to what they should be: pure tabloid entertainment.

Edited July 8, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Manifestosteronisimo!

[pink]

And some democrats preach about global warming and then go home to their mansions and leave the lights on. They're all suns-of-bitches, and they're mostly all so terrible at their job why do we need to bottom feed?

 

Whatever Rob. Leaving your lights on isnt shit compared to cheating on your wife.

 

But, Boner, Global Warming is a crisis that threatens our very existence. Individual acts of infidelity are small beans by comparison.

 

hey wait, does'nt getting a blowjob in the whiteblack house count as cheating on your wife?

[tvashtarkatena]

Wasn't anyone deeply moved by my thoughtful post?

[tvashtarkatena]

my anthem for a new age?

[Doug]

Wasn't anyone deeply moved by my thoughtful post?

 

Does a spontaneous bowel movement count as being "deeply moved"?

[prole]

The problem is that you're holding these guys to a higher standard than the rest of us. They aren't any better. By many accounts, infidelity is extremely common. Everyone I've ever been with has cheated on me. Most people I know have been cheated on.

 

I hate it that people hold these guys up like some kind of Religious Icon, that should be void of all fault. Humans are generally pretty fucked up. I've done lots of stupid shit. Many of our greatest leaders have had seriously conflicting personal issues. It's not a matter of whether it was right or wrong; it's a matter of relevance. Where do you draw the line?

 

If you expect your leaders to not have personal flaws, then you're constantly going to be disappointed. I say it's better to just judge them on their performance at work. I don't get judged at my office on any personal transgressions; why should they? If they're doing a good job, who cares what they do behind closed doors? If they're doing a bad job, then get rid of them for that -- why dig up personal garbage to bolster your case? Use their poor performance. If their personal transgressions cause a negative effect on their job performance, then you shouldn't have any reason to NOT nail them on their poor job performance. Why bring up the personal at all -- UNLESS THAT'S ALL THAT YOU HAVE?

 

I'm sick of people expecting these guys to be paragons. Religion is dead. Haven't you heard?

 

Uh yeah, if these people are going to be running shit for a while (and they are), they damnfuckingskippy need to be held to a higher standard. They're not hooker-beating college football players or child diddling pop stars, they send people into wars and make billion dollar deals with our money. If their wives can't trust them not to immolate their own families over a piece of trim, we probably should think twice about their other "lapses in judgment". Is this news, am I way out on a limb here? I don't want my elected leaders to be "just like me". That kind of bullshit thinking coupled with celebri-tizing politics is how our standards and expectations have been so degraded as to allow someone like Sarah Palin to actually be taken seriously on the national stage.

[Rad]

God gave men a brain and a penis but not enough blood to use both at the same time.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I consider most politicians to be of a lower order, so I expect a lower standard of behavior than the folks I hang around with.

 

Except Ivan, of course. That fuckerz playn crazy.

Edited July 8, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I consider most politicians to be of a lower order, so I expect a lower standard of behavior than the folks I hang around with.

 

Except Ivan, of course. That fuckerz playn crazy.

 

Lowest forms of humanity:

1) child molestors

2) lawyers

3) politicians

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, not sure I agree there. Child molesters have a brain disorder. That's like hating on Down's Syndrome cases for being stupid. Sure, you want to keep them away from the kiddies, but getting all riled because their brains don't work right is a waste of time. Lawyers are awesome. I know many; they're generally principaled, intelligent, irreverant, and funny.

 

I would say politicians, biz executives, and orthodontists occupy the lowest rungs on the ladder.

Edited July 8, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

Uh yeah, if these people are going to be running shit for a while (and they are), they damnfuckingskippy need to be held to a higher standard. They're not hooker-beating college football players or child diddling pop stars, they send people into wars and make billion dollar deals with our money. If their wives can't trust them not to immolate their own families over a piece of trim, we probably should think twice about their other "lapses in judgment". Is this news, am I way out on a limb here? I don't want my elected leaders to be "just like me".

 

Pols should be held to ethics regarding conflicts of interest and corruption, not their personal lives as long as the media does its job of exposing moralist hypocrites (which it hasn't done). Extra-marital sex is just part of the range of human behavior. I don't think we want representatives 'above' the human experience.

 

That kind of bullshit thinking coupled with celebri-tizing politics is how our standards and expectations have been so degraded as to allow someone like Sarah Palin to actually be taken seriously on the national stage.

 

You could say the same thing about Reagan and Bush2.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That kind of bullshit thinking coupled with celebri-tizing politics is how our standards and expectations have been so degraded as to allow someone like Sarah Palin to actually be taken seriously on the national stage.

 

You could say the same thing about Reagan and Bush2 Obama.

 

Fixed that for ya

 

[prole]

That kind of bullshit thinking coupled with celebri-tizing politics is how our standards and expectations have been so degraded as to allow someone like Sarah Palin to actually be taken seriously on the national stage.

 

You could say the same thing about Reagan and Bush2 Obama.

 

Fixed that for ya

 

Yeah, except Obama actually has his shit together.