Weiner: He’s Not Stupid, He Just Likes Showing His Hot Links

Anthony Weiner was stupid. Anthony Weiner displayed the critical thinking skills of your average tree stump. Anthony Weiner embarrassed himself, his wife, and Congress – at least to the extent you can embarrass a den of thieves and charlatans. Heck, Mom and Daddy Big Weiner probably should’ve thought seriously about aname change to save their son a lifetime of tedious jokes too. But then, the millions of people who dingle their dangly bits in front of any convenient cell phone camera are stupid too.

Absent violating the law,what a person does in the privacy of their own photo booth is no concern of mine, or yours either. The famous and powerful may not put their pants on one leg at a time, but they still share some of the same foibles as the rest of the Great Unwashed. For example, extreme pride of your junk and wanting the world to see just how wonderful it truly is.

Americans expect their rich and famous to be clay-footed. We take delight – or sometimes faux sanctimonious objection – to their self-destructive behavior. It’s what keeps NASCAR growing – a car crash is an awful thing, but it’s damn sure interesting.

When a Dick is Really a Weiner
But mixed into those America’s Funniest Home Video-style crotch shots we harbor a mixed standard for celebrity behavior. The only difference between how the Honorable Mr. Weiner behaved and how “actor” Andy Dick behaves is occupation. When Dick shows his dick it’s sort of funny in that, “Look, that lunatic goob is at it again” way. When Weiner waves his Weiner, it’s a travesty of the first order, demanding resignation, eternal ridicule, and the opportunity to return to private life where he can waggle his Weiner or patronize Heidi Fleiss and no one would be the wiser.

That’s not to say I always give them a free pass. If the amateur photo enthusiast loudly preaches the opposite of what he doth practice, I assume he’s fair game for charges of hypocrisy and an extra spoonful of castor oil for his trouble. But that doesn’t mean I’m for firing them. Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, I’m talkin’ to you!

But if a little hanky panky is grounds for a Sharia-style stoning, we wouldn’t be able to raise a quorum in Congress or scrape enough tattooed thugs together for a pickup game in any NBA arena or NFL stadium in the country.

An assessment of their critical thinking skills is in order too. Getting a BJ under the Oval Office desk while fantasizing an S&M session with Angela Merkel and simultaneously negotiating a nuclear treaty probably is critical thinking gone intolerably awry. Getting a BJ under the desk while on a coffee break and there are no wars breaking out or financial collapses du jour, not so much.

And that stupidity thing?

They Got Elected Didn’t They?
Most of these pervs are nothing if not smart in their own way. They managed to get elected didn’t they? They know the consequences and carry on anyway. I don’t agree with the conventional analyst couch wisdom that they secretly want to be caught either. I think they do it because they spend all day with dozens of people telling them how wonderful and powerful they are and that anything is possible with only a Caesar’s slight thumbs down toward the losing gladiator.

They do it because of hubris. Their already significant egos become more grotesque the longer they listen to their own puffery. A few years of that and most of us would develop the mistaken impression we could will Tweets invisible, erase video tape, or lie ourselves out of a pinch like some new X-Man.

Remember, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones – but breaking some glass will be the least of your worries.

Especially, if the stone bounces off some high and mighty’s head and smacks you square between the eyes.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

 

 

Awaiting the Facebook Attitude Adjustment

We've all heard hand-wringing over what will become of the facebook generation when their drunken college-age (And you don't have to go to college to do stupid crap at that age, which seems to be getting older all the time, if you know what I mean.) facebook pictures come up in middle age. People can even point to the would-be teacher, Stacy Snyder, who was denied a teaching credential by Dr. Jane Bray of Millersville University, because there was a tame picture of her on MySpace in costume holding an opaque cup and captioned "drunken pirate."

When the Dr. Brays of the world are replaced by Stacy Snyder's contemporaries, I bet that will happen ... very rarely. [I could perhaps have chosen a better example. Oh well.]

Anyway, that's my guess. That people who've grown up in more of a public fishbowl, without the fictional veneer of respectability, where it's shameful to admit nearly universal indulgences, will give less of a damn about stupid non-issues and have more room to worry about big crimes that affect us all. But we don't live in that future.

We live in a present where the Republicans ran three admitted adulterers, including John McCain, for the presidency - and no one cared. But a former Democratic contender's affair is revealed - big news.

Bush is rendered an unfit campaigner for his party successor not because of lies, torture, lawbreaking, economic havoc, an unjust war, the death of hundreds of thousands, the loss of an entire city - but because his poll numbers have tanked. Bill Clinton was rendered an unfit campaigner for his party successor, in spite of being very popular at home and overseas, presiding over an era of general peace and prosperity, winning a war - just because he did, in fact, have sex with that woman.

That's our media world. That's our reality. It's stupid and unfair. It's grossly immoral if your ethical compass includes a measure of the suffering caused by an action, and isn't solely predicated on whether the lapse in question touches you there.

Yet one of the main messages the blogosphere has been trying to drum into our representatives' heads is that while they're looking to build us all a better future, they need to operate in the media reality of today.

The Established Church

While the US doesn't have a state religion, it does have a state prudery somewhat based, still, on what it was acceptable to show on television during the "Leave it to Beaver" era. Like other authoritarian moralities, its allegiance is to the dominant power structure more than its alleged ideals, which is clear from the enforcement patterns.

Take something lots of people do, make it a 'crime'. Don't enforce it among the establishment. Use it as a stick to beat dissidents and potential dissidents with.

There's more...

Awaiting the Facebook Attitude Adjustment

I should hope I don't have to cite a source for the fact that lots of people wring their hands over what will become of the facebook generation when their drunken college-age (And you don't have to go to college to do stupid crap at that age, which seems to be getting older all the time, if you know what I mean.) facebook pictures come up in middle age. People can even point to the would-be teacher, Stacy Snyder, who was denied a teaching credential by Dr. Jane Bray of Millersville University, because there was a tame picture of her on MySpace in costume holding an opaque cup and captioned "drunken pirate."

When the Dr. Brays of the world are replaced by Stacy Snyder's contemporaries, I bet that will happen ... very rarely.

Anyway, that's my guess. That people who've grown up in more of a public fishbowl, without the fictional veneer of respectability, where it's shameful to admit nearly universal indulgences, will give less of a damn about stupid non-issues and have more room to worry about big crimes that affect us all. But we don't live in that future.

We live in a present where the Republicans ran three admitted adulterers, including John McCain, for the presidency - and no one cared. But a former Democratic contender's affair is revealed - big news.

Bush is rendered an unfit campaigner for his party successor not because of lies, torture, lawbreaking, economic havoc, an unjust war, the death of hundreds of thousands, the loss of an entire city - but because his poll numbers have tanked. Bill Clinton was rendered an unfit campaigner for his party successor, in spite of being very popular at home and overseas, presiding over an era of general peace and prosperity, winning a war - just because he did, in fact, have sex with that woman.

That's our media world. That's our reality. It's stupid and unfair. It's grossly immoral if your ethical compass includes a measure of the suffering caused by an action, and isn't solely predicated on whether the lapse in question touches you there.

Yet one of the main messages the blogosphere has been trying to drum into our representatives' heads is that while they're looking to build us all a better future, they need to operate in the media reality of today.

The Established Church

While the US doesn't have a state religion, it does have a state prudery somewhat based, still, on what it was acceptable to show on television during the "Leave it to Beaver" era. Like other authoritarian moralities, its allegiance is to the dominant power structure more than its own ideals, which is clear from the enforcement patterns.

Take something lots of people do, make it a 'crime'. Don't enforce it among the establishment. Use it as a stick to beat dissidents and potential dissidents with.

There's more...

Larry Craig: "jerk us around" ???

Yes, this is juvenile and immature.

But, shouldn't Larry Craig and his Republican buddies (Lindsay?  Charlie?) watch their metaphors?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20 4498.php

There's more...

Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment

Toe Tapper and I pay for sex Vitter must protect us from those EVIL GAY PEOPLE.

http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/CraigVitte r_0627.html


Two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Now remember Larry Craig IS NOT GAY

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc hives/16020.html

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads