Re: Confessin' The Blues
- From: "RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:44:12 -0400
"treadleson" <treadle99@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:891ef885-d832-4a5c-ae9a-8562bf2e3570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 8, 9:30 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:"treadleson" <treadl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message--
> On Jun 7, 10:50 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "treadleson" <treadl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > On Jun 7, 1:48 pm, Janice <jan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 7, 12:33 am, "M. Rick" <insomniati...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > I might have done something in the past but I m not exactly sure
>> >> > what
>> >> > it might have been.
>> >> > I might have had some inappropriate correspondence and I can t >> >> > say
>> >> > more at this time.
>> >> > There might be some indiscrete photos of myself floating around, >> >> > we
>> >> > are reviewing how that happened.
>> >> > I might have talked about racy things, but that s just my
>> >> > personality.
>> >> > It appears that I had at least one sexual conversation with at >> >> > least
>> >> > one woman.
>> >> > It s possible that I ve had more than one sexual conversation, we
>> >> > are
>> >> > reviewing how that happened.
>> >> > Upon review, it appears that I ve had some interaction that might >> >> > be
>> >> > construed as sexual.
>> >> > After a deeper investigation it appears that I ve had a series of
>> >> > sexual dalliances.
>> >> > I tweeted my dong.
>> >> > This is my private business and I make no apologies.
>> >> > Please disregard the above. I ve made a terrible mistake. I >> >> > take
>> >> > full responsibility. This will never, ever happen again. I m
>> >> > deeply
>> >> > sorry for screwing around behind my wife s back. I ask for your
>> >> > compassion in this difficult time.
>> >> It just goes on and on and on...
>> >> I would ask two questions of these (and other) men:
>> >> 1) What would you think of your wife if she behaved similarly?
>> >> and 2) How are we supposed to believe and trust your judgment in
>> >> anything when you have such lousy judgment concerning your own
>> >> behavior?
>> >> ~`~
>> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Oh Janice, your question is so quaint.
>> > A lot of people are squarely on his side. The quaintness of your
>> > question has to do with the way it touches on the question of
>> > character. Lousy judgment concerning your own behavior is about
>> > character. The battle of character versus
>> > credentials was waged and lost many years ago when Bush tried to >> > "make
>> > character an issue" after Clinton's infidelities surfaced. Pls >> > recall
>> > that Americans chose to not make character an issue. Why? Because
>> > French presidents have mistresses. Yup. That even gave Dudley a
>> > chuckle I'm shure.
>> > His constituents are standing hard behind him. "You Can't Lick Our
>> > Weiner!" they seem to be shouting. And why not? The character issue >> > is
>> > yesterday's cornflakes. And irony of ironies--his wife was Hillary's
>> > special assistant.
>> > And though your question is a good one, there is a reason you don't
>> > hear it asked about Big Anthony.
>> David Vitter, anyone?
>> John Ensign, anyone?
>> Let's not pretend this sort of behavior is the province of one >> political
> No one is.
> The character question mentioned above came up during Clinton, and
> yes, they went to the wall for him, lock stock and three smoking
> barrels. So I guess you could say one side defended it more than the
> other side does. I remember all that and I recall a lot of clucking
> about overly prudish, overly conservative Americans. I know that you
> know that I know that you know what I mean.
> But from the little I've read, I don't get any kind of "partisan
> divide" about this thing right now. Except--that a conservative
> blogger was the one who "outed" the congressman. Now, I haven't
> followed it that well, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the
> blogger was politically motivated--that he wouldn't have come out with
> the same photos of a conservative candidate. I sound so cynical,
> don't I?
No, realistic. Breitbart's mission is to discredit any Democratic
politician that he can. That's not to say there aren't equivalents on the
other side of the fence, but Breitbart's achieved a degree of notoriety in
this respect in recent years, notably because of the frequency with which
he's been wrong.Update: apparently one way the Dems are considering dealing with this
embarrassment is to redistrict Weiner out of his congressional seat if he
refuses to resign. NY is due to lose two seats due to redistricting, and
the NY legislature can easily justify making his seat "disappear".
Sorta like watching sausage being made, isn't it?
I'm glad somebody's on the inside story.
Heh....living in the DC area is both a blessing and a curse :-)
I'm interested in the mixture of politics, partisanship, internet
technology, pursuit, morality and sex. On the one hand, this is not
much different from Citizen Kane. But one thing that's different from
Kane or even the Clinton scandals is that the progress of the
internet--they way it now connects all people and all data together--
allows the pursuer to pin his target like a butterfly. The pursuer can
prove his allegations quickly and completely with a few clicks of the
mouse. The second the target squirms, hundreds of millions of computer
platforms are instantaneously flooded with photos and information that
have been digitized, time-stamped, and archived. Trial, jury, and even
the court of public opinion are bypassed. But of course, he used the
same medium to satisfy his lust, or whatever it was. Be that as it
may. We're all living under the cloud.
"Hoist with his own petard".
Technology. What a concept. I'm not an opponent, being a contributor to it in my day job. Still, some of the implications give me pause. 12-year-olds "sexting"? Yikes! Parents clueless about technology in immature hands. Fortunately most of my kids grew up before cell phones were prevalent, and my youngest didn't get a cell phone until she was 16 (much to her dismay). And I kept a fairly tight leash on the computer, no parental advisory software, just enough tech savvy that I could tell what they were up to without them realizing it. Oddly enough, it wasn't necessary for any of them to be called on what they were doing. I got lucky, I guess. But I can see how a lot of parents aren't technologically equipped to deal with it.
Maybe they need a course.
Technology has the capability of letting everyone know what's on everyone else's mind. But what's up with the compulsion to TELL everyone else what's on our minds? Some of what's on our minds never gets out in the "real" world, for good reason. But for some reason, some of us consider cyberspace some sort of parallel, non-overlapping universe. The problems occur where the two intersect, as they inevitably will.
- Re: Confessin' The Blues
- From: treadleson
- Re: Confessin' The Blues
- Prev by Date: Re: Dylan ain't got no home
- Next by Date: Re: Dylan ain't got no home
- Previous by thread: Re: Confessin' The Blues
- Next by thread: Re: Confessin' The Blues