With Spitzer and multi-thousand dollar hookers, Larry Craig and his wide stance, the ex-New Jersey gov and his wife’s threesome, Bill and Monica, and now this about Spitzer’s replacement, is there a politician in the country who hasn’t been gittin’ some on the side? Have we reached the point where a politician would be afraid to admit to fidelity because that’s apparently becoming the un-normal thing to be?
David Paterson, New York’s New Governor, Admits To Extramarital Affairs For Years
The thunderous applause was still ringing in his ears when the state’s new governor, David Paterson, told the Daily News that he and his wife had extramarital affairs.
In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.
(hand raised)
I’m not a politician.
Its sad. The electorate paying attention to irrelevant things injures the democratic process so deeply we end up with the totally dysfunctional government we have today.
Make people of accomplishment and education act like they believe in god, and you get a lot of hypocrites and liars.
Make people of accomplishment and education act like they are monogamous heterosexuals and nothing more, and you get a lot of hypocrites and liars.
Now that these hypocrites by necessity are in office, tell me why they shouldn’t take money for their votes?
Speaking of Paterson, I loved one comment he made in response to a journalist’s question about whether he had ever consorted with any prostitutes. His answer was, “Only the lobbyists.”
Let’s not forget ex-Prime Minister John Major and his affair with former Conservative minister Edwina Currie.
#2 (bobbo)-
Yeah, irrelevant things like felonies (Spitzer). We wouldn’t want our leaders to be actual law abiding citizens or anything. That might set a dangerous precedent.
I sorry, I am just not sure why anyone is surprised by this? Infidelity is very popular among the population these days. Sad but true.
I am not sure why we would think any differently of politician’s.I am still not understanding how this would affect the persons work ethic? This too me seems more of a personal family issue then anything to do with how it affects job performance. I think we should have learned by now that holding a public office does not make you morally better than anybody else.
#5 jescott418 said,
“I am still not understanding how this would affect the persons work ethic?”
It is not only a question of ethics, but if a politician has personally betrayed the person he loves, who trusted him the most and with whom he took a solom oath of fidelity with, what is the chance that he is not going to screw over the faceless public that he was elected to serve? His personal behavior is an indicator of his professional character. They are not separate!
#7 Nope. Your words are all gushy, “moral” and such but humans are sexual creatures. We are driven by a powerful sexual urge and many succumb to it.
Tying how humans are genetically programmed to satisfy sexual urges to their “trustworthiness” is plain baloney.
This is the same conservative bullshit jammed down our throat (no pun intended) to deflect from real criminal behaviour.
#6 – Infidelity is very popular among the population these days.
Back up your bullshit.
Infidelity isn’t “popular”. It isn’t like we have celebrations about infidelity. The better word is common. But that isn’t what is bullshit. The bullshit part is “these days.”
“These days” aren’t any different that any days in the past. The human animal isn’t naturally monogamous.
#5 – Yeah, irrelevant things like felonies (Spitzer).
Is it a felony to pay for sex? That’s a shame.
What Bobbo meant by irrelevant wasn’t what Spitzer did (and it wasn’t the girl, but the hypocrisy that was wrong), but rather our obsessive interest into the mundane and private aspects of the lives of others…
…and ironically, he is right.
(ironic because he’s such a staunch supporter of of our emerging Orwellian surveillance society)
#9 OFTLO – I don’t think the felony was paying to get his knob polished. I think that it was the money transaction across state lines in the commission of a crime.
He’s already old news….(Spitzer).
wow! i guess i’m qualified to be in politics..
ok ok it is obvious who isnt having an affair..
dennis kucinich….
#10 – Wait… He was Governor of New York and the future Celebrity Boxing contestant has an apartment in Manhattan…
In order to understand how he crossed state lines I’m gonna have to read up more… Or not, as I don’t care that much 🙂
10–steveO==”I think that it (the felony) was the money transaction across state lines in the commission of a crime.”
What difference does this felony make when whatever it was (Mann Act or Transfer Structuring==both felonies) was in support of paying a prostitute which should be nobodies business==including Spitzers when he was prosecuting the same. The morality doesn’t change just because a hypocrite get caught up in the same bullshit.
When you require your leaders to lie to get into office, there is no reason to think they won’t expand their areas of lying–ie, we the public give them a very big shove in the wrong direction.
The oath of marriage is more sacred than the oath of office in my book as it is more personal ((only in a sense, maybe just “my” sense)) but that marriage oath is much more complicated. None of my business what the Spitzers have going on between themselves.
Yes, I support certain extreme libertarian issues while supporting certain extreme Orwellian exercises of surveillance. Why?–because I advocate personal freedom AND responsibility in a thoughtful balance.
#13 – Yes, I support certain extreme libertarian issues while supporting certain extreme Orwellian exercises of surveillance. Why?–because I advocate personal freedom AND responsibility in a thoughtful balance.
What will you support when it becomes clear that the watchmen are abusing their power and we become one nation incarcerated under God?
You CANNOT trust anyone with the data they collect so you must oppose the collection of the data. If you don’t, it will be what convicts you whenever it becomes advantageous for the authoritarian state to convict you on whatever they’ve outlawed on a whim this week.
But whatever… This is the wrong thread for that.
#14–OFTLO===This is the right thread for exactly that subject. Your concern is exactly what Orwellian Surveillance is all about.
The difference between us is where on the slippery slope do you sound the alarm/raise the concern/prohibit the practice?
My answer is Orwellian Surveillance is useful until the government in question starts doing just what you are concerned about. My concern, as BushCo exemplifies, is that the public surveillance systems do fight crime and don’t lead to your issues whereas if the government is going to abuse their surveillance power they will do so without the benefit of the crime fighting tools.
So–in reality, I think it is most likely that the crime fighting and the invasion of privacy are mostly two different issues. Certainly they can overlap, but they are easy to separate.
To rephrase and emphasize–street crime in London is harder to get away with than is street crime in New York City BECAUSE OF THE CAMERAS. Lack of cameras however has not stopped BushCo from warrantless copying of all our phone calls for the last 5 years.
So, I’d much prefer to be safer in the streets while my privacy was being violated, than not.
Why is it that we want Leaders with “BALLS”, but get annoyed when they use them ???
#15 bobbo–
But who gets to define what is a crime? Those who are in power? What may not be a crime today might well become a crime in the future (total ban on gun ownership for private citizens, peaceful mass assembly and protests, anonymous internet postings).
Oh let the conservatives have their young boys and let the liberals have their hookers and get back to the same sex marriage, health care, taxes battles
And #9 if you don’t think infidelity is very popular you haven’t been around the world or watched much TV lately. Infidelity is not only popular, hell it’s big business for movies and all other areas of entertainment.
Besides in current businesses there is often an abundance of horny married women. When I started at this office I had just gotten a divorce. I found lots of married women that wanted a lunch of sweet talk with foreplay and a good strange position switching hump job several times a week. After seven years I still enjoy a half dozen of them and I suspect I’ve fathered a few children as well. I always enjoy hearing “I would never do this for my husband”.
#17–MRN==I don’t understand your point. Once again, it seems to me that these various offenses stand or fall on their own merit and one may or may not be helped or hindered by the occurrence of any other hypotheticals?
Taken to one other extreme–you are saying there should be no laws at all and no police force, for they can all be abused.
Argument from the extreme application is not helpful.
#15 – The difference between us is where on the slippery slope do you sound the alarm/raise the concern/prohibit the practice?
You sound the alarm the very first time you see a camera because history teaches us again and again that when governments start spying for any reason, it will go bad.
My answer is Orwellian Surveillance is useful until the government in question starts doing just what you are concerned about.
Which they will.
My concern, as BushCo exemplifies, is that the public surveillance systems do fight crime and don’t lead to your issues whereas if the government is going to abuse their surveillance power they will do so without the benefit of the crime fighting tools.
What is this belief you have about crime? Do you think rampant crime is occurring all over creation? What crimes? Guys breaking into cars? Rape? Murder?
I wish we could see non-crime reports. I want to know how many times a crime doesn’t happen so we could put crime into perspective. Our society is a quivering mass of fear stricken jell-o. We refuse to believe the truth, which is that our streets are actually pretty safe and your chances of being a victim of one of your generic crimes is mighty low.
So–in reality, I think it is most likely that the crime fighting and the invasion of privacy are mostly two different issues. Certainly they can overlap, but they are easy to separate.
How do you separate them?
To rephrase and emphasize–street crime in London is harder to get away with than is street crime in New York City BECAUSE OF THE CAMERAS.
Says who? Posters from England on this forum often say different. Articles I’ve read say different. We’ve had cameras in airports and hospitals and retail stores for many many years now. What evidence do you have that they are effective.
I had cameras in my store when two punks stole a customer’s laptop from my work bench. It wasn’t easy to get to the laptop, having had to enter a work area. But I have both punk’s faces and the act on camera. I have about 10 clear minutes of video, and the cop actually recognized the crooks. They were never caught.
Lack of cameras however has not stopped BushCo from warrantless copying of all our phone calls for the last 5 years.
That Bush can, without repercussion, violate civil liberties and circumvent the law in so brazen and petulant a manner, is just one bit of evidence that they very authority who wants the cameras is very capable of and predisposed to abusing the cameras.
So, I’d much prefer to be safer in the streets while my privacy was being violated, than not.
You are different from me. You fear the streets whereas I know they are not dangerous, and you’ll happily sacrifice liberty for safety, and I won’t.
#19-bobbo
They’re not hypothetical at all and some of those are actually crimes in countries such as China(all of them), Japan, United Kingdom, and Singapore.
I mentioned them because some U.S. lawmakers and a few law-enforcement officers actually suggested them in the media as examples of what could be done to make their jobs easier. The statements were usually made ostensibly to support the fight agaist drugs, terrorism, public disorder, etc.
OFTLO–the camera safety discussion came up recently regardling the subway bombings in London 6 months ago? No witnesses yet the perps were caught within 24 hours by review of the camera data. So, it can work. Always the issue of cost. BTW–I am greatly encouraged by your report of how safe streets are. I think humans, including myself, do exaggerate the safety issues, but you only have to be wrong once? I’ve walked down some very bad streets all over the world without incident and only now am I getting afraid. I think the locals were shocked that “anybody” was there? The luck of the innocent. I don’t advocate cameras==my arguement only goes to those who are against them.
#21–MRN==ok, lets take the hypotheticals on. “But who gets to define what is a crime?” ==the same people who always do and who are we to criticize what other cultures do or our own society at a different point in time? So, you and I might not like some future law in a vacuum, but so what? Just about “everything” human is not a choice between right and wrong, good and bad, but a mixed-up trade-off of both. Ying/Yang considerations. What does outlawing peaceful assembly or anonymous posting got to do with cameras in public places anyway? Can you make that connection for me?
#22 bobbo-
When you said-
“Yes, I support certain extreme libertarian issues while supporting certain extreme Orwellian exercises of surveillance. Why?–because I advocate personal freedom AND responsibility in a thoughtful balance.”
and
“My answer is Orwellian Surveillance is useful until the government in question starts doing just what you are concerned about. My concern, as BushCo exemplifies, is that the public surveillance systems do fight crime and don’t lead to your issues whereas if the government is going to abuse their surveillance power they will do so without the benefit of the crime fighting tools.
So–in reality, I think it is most likely that the crime fighting and the invasion of privacy are mostly two different issues. Certainly they can overlap, but they are easy to separate.”
– I responded with the posts about how a society defines criminal activity and who decides what activity is considered a crime. Spitzer pushed for harsher penalties for what he regarded as criminal behavior, but he cried foul when the same laws were applied in his circumstance. The line between crime fighting and invasion of privacy are blurred in this instance. The same officials who are pushing for a ‘surveillance state’ object to being placed under the same surveillance and scrutiny that they are so eager to subject their constituents to, which to me seems hypocritical behavior. The current administration advocates total surveillance and ignore the privacy which Americans expect, yet themselves reject judicial oversight over their activities.
The placement of cameras in places of public gatherings serve to stifle peaceful assembly and protests against an incumbent government, as seen in China where until recently the sight of plainclothes officers holding cameras scare off protesters and reporters. During anti-war rallies in the USA, cameras were used by police to identify and document those who participated and entered them into a database. In China, internet cafes are by law required to ask for identification and photographs of users therby making anonymous internet postings impossible for most and stifle dissent (any dissenting views posted online can be prosecuted under its ‘state secrets act’, which is so vaguely defined it can cover anything from economic news to political views). A U.S. lawmaker recently blamed anonymous internet postings for his troubles and stated that he would push for a law making it illegal. Since a lot of astroturfing also occurs in forums and discussion groups, am I being cynical in thinking that his proposal will never make it on the floor?
#17
Your elected officials in the legislature decide what is considered criminal within the bounds of the Constitution. It is important to understand that the purpose of criminal law is to change behavior. Take for example the Florida article about confiscating the vehicles of speeders doing 30 MPH over the speed limit. The vast majority of the time, there is no vicitm in speeding. However, in the interest of public safety, the legislature decided that a simple fine was insufficient to curb the (supposedly) undesirable behavior of speeding. Right now, most legislatures deem prostitution to be undesirable behavior and thus have deemed it a criminal activity. If you want to change that, either run for office or write your elected representatives.
#24 Thomas–
You have no argument from me. It is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to exercise the right to suffrage –otherwise in choosing to take no action, they have by inaction gotten the leadership they deserve.
My point was that people in power -the ones who make the laws- are just fine with imposing laws that infringe on rights granted by the Constitution, yet they balk when the same laws are applied to their person. For example, in the news the police are just fine with placing surveillance cameras in public areas yet some arrest people who document their actions with video cameras and confiscate the recordings. Those who exercise power without responsibility are guilty of tyranny, to paraphrase C. Eric Lincoln. It is unjust to exempt someone from a law while enforcing it on the rest, making a mockery of the law.
#24 – Take for example the Florida article about confiscating the vehicles of speeders doing 30 MPH over the speed limit…
…Right now, most legislatures deem prostitution to be undesirable behavior and thus have deemed it a criminal activity.
So when I fuck a whore, will they confiscate my cock?
#26
Humor aside, again it is your elected officials that decide the appropriate penalty that will change behavior. Personally, I think that prostitution should be legal and regulated. Unfortunately, most people and most lawmakers appear to disagree with me. It is clearly an imperfect system.
When will people stop worrying who the president (or whoever) is F***ing, and just worry that they are doing a good job?
#27 – Humor aside, again it is your elected officials that decide the appropriate penalty that will change behavior.
Civics aside, I will decide what is right and wrong, moral or immoral, for myself… and if the legislature is wrong (imagine the odds) I’ll decide whether or not obeying their rules are in my interest.
What it would take to get government to do their job, which is a money and infrastructure management job coupled with a national defense spin-off business (and not a morals job) is for others to start thinking that way too.
#29–OFTLO==you aren’t connecting with #27 Thomas’s point. Indeed, your morality is whatever it is, but the laws are what put you in jail, take your car, and not yet, but maybe soon, take your cock as well. Your personal autonomy position is good and well, but doesn’t subplant reality.