We? What was that about a mouse in a pocket? Great post by the way. Kay, are you here?
2.
dpCap
JEez you scared the shit out of me. I thought that was a link to the other Glenn.
3.
Fred
I don’t read Greenwald because only idiots do that IMHO. But a quick browser search did not see Obama mentioned once. Did Greenwald actually get through a whole story without criticising Obama once? How is that even possible?
One quibble: Weiner called Breitbart a liar, which he is, but which he was not in this particular instance. He should have stepped up and come clean immediately, that was the only honorable thing to do under the circumstances.
Otherwise, Glenzilla would be completely right and Weiner would have a bit of high ground.
6.
jwb
@Fred: He still has eight or nine updates to go, so there’s time.
Would someone provide us with the bullet points so we don’t have to click?
8.
Whiskey Screams from a Guy With No Short-Term Memory
Well, for the first time I give GG an A+. Can’t disagree with a word he says.
9.
Genghis
I could care about the tweeting and sexting, but a politician who puts themselves into a position of having to lie better be doing it for national security reasons. He’s dead meat nationally, if not to his constituents, and he damages Democratic Party interests until he resigns. If he had said, “my private life is none of your business”, at least he wouldn’t have lied. I’d also like to say to him, “stupid, stupid, stupid”. Best…H
10.
Tim, Interrupted
I linked to this GG article in a BJ thread yesterday, John. Thanks for FPing it.
GG is not perfect in what he does, but damn near. All hail the Glennzilla.
Where’s eesmarm? GG USES TO MANY WORDS AND IS SELF RIGHTEOUS!
Also, too: Kay, what are your thoughts on the GG post?
I don’t read Greenwald because only idiots do that IMHO. But a quick browser search did not see Obama mentioned once. Did Greenwald actually get through a whole story without criticising Obama once? How is that even possible?
Fred, to this point I was thinking you and me were compadres. However and unfortunately, I will have to rethink being your bestest bud: My opinion of GG is 180 degrees from yours.
I take it you have Obot leanings? There is help for that…
12.
PS
Would this be a convenient moment to suggest that we endorse or refute opinions and actions rather than individuals?
Just thought I’d mention it.
13.
shortstop
@Fred: In contrast, you’re unable to get through an entire thread, or even the first few posts, without bringing up Greenwald. This time he actually happened to be a subject of the thread. Stopped clock and all that.
14.
Jay in Oregon
@arguingwithsignposts:
DC press sex scandals are an excuse for a sexually repressed society to talk about sex acts and people’s naughty bits with the pretense of noble intentions.
GG compares Weiner’s activities with similar scandals (Edwards, Ensign, Vitter, Spitzer, Craig) and wonders if some of the pundits and reporters that breathlessly cover this stuff would live up to their own high moral standards.
GG finished off by saying that he doesn’t really like Weiner personally or professionally and that GG’s objections to the whole mess are philosophical.
This is outrageously true and good. Stick a marker in this for the future.
Can one even imagine how much different — and better — our political culture would be if our establishment media devoted even a fraction of the critical scrutiny and adversarial energy it devoted to the Weiner matter to things that actually matter? But that won’t happen, because the people who comprise that press corps, with rare exception, are both incapable of focusing on things that matter and uninterested in doing so. Talking about shirtless pictures and expressing outrage about private sexual behavior — like some angry, chattering soap opera fan furious that one of their best-known characters cheated — is about the limit of their abilities and their function. And doing so is so easy, so fun, so self-justifying, and so exciting in that evasively tingly sort of way.
I agree largely with Greenwald, and with Amanda Marcotte who made a very similar argument yesterday, except for one very big point. You can’t claim this is a private matter, not when Weiner did this in a public space, however unintentional it was. I think all the tut-tutting over what Weiner did is nonsense, and I think the comparisons of George W Bush to Bill Clinton point out how stupid the argument that one’s marital fidelity is an indicator of one’s ability to govern effectively is, but the second Weiner sent the first pic over Twitter, this stopped being a private sexual act. It’s the equivalent of flirting in a public park–just because no one sees you do it the first dozen or so times doesn’t mean you’re never going to get caught, and you can’t really complain if it happens eventually.
17.
Judas Escargot
And in that regard, it sets a new standard: the private sexual activities of public figuresDemocrats that Brietbart wants to neutralize — down to the most intimate details — are now inherently newsworthy, without the need for any pretense of other relevance.
it’s more like flirting on your computer, except for the one time you accidentally sent your message to everyone in your address book instead of to the one person you intended.
it’s only public by accident.
19.
El Tiburon
Getting past Fred’s obvious and apparent extreme homophobia, it is true, that for the most part, we are a nation of little, immature juvenile punks giggling at the first girl who develops breasts or pretending that we would NEVER EVER choke the chicken.
I was listening to Sam Seder’s interview with Sarah Vowell and they were discussing the early days of America’s ‘conquest’ of Hawaii. They were talking about how prostitution was outlawed, yet a US battle ship bombed some town because they wouldn’t let any of their woman whore themselves for the sailors. (Or something close to that.)
My point is we all do this kind of shit to one extent or another, but if you are caught, then game over.
We really are a stupid people.
20.
Brachiator
Yes, Anthony Weiner lied — about something that is absolutely nobody’s business but his and his wife’s.
What a bunch of tiresome twaddle. I certainly don’t think the Weiner Roast is the biggest calamity in the universe, but I will bet you good money that Weiner never told his wife, “Hey, honey, I’m going to be doing some sexting with anonymous babes for a few hours. Okay?” Weiner didn’t consider his conduct his wife’s business. Some of the women he texted somehow thought that Weiner’s business was their business. And the voters in Weiner’s district might prefer that their guy either be more discreet or spend more time on the people’s business and less on monkey business.
GG tries to parse ethics without any coherent or interesting view of either morality or ethics.
In short, GG is in typical “make shit up mode” disconnected from common sense. And as always, he never strays far from that horse that he beats to death, where the only thing that matters in the world is his views on civil liberties.
GG is as tiresome as Sullivan, and often just as self-righteously wrong-headed.
@cleek: Sorry, but no. It’s always public. Best case scenario, that you don’t make any mistakes, you’re still depending on the good will of the person you’re talking to online, or at least their ability to not accidentally forward along anything you sent to them. Nothing online is ever really private–you only have an illusion of privacy there.
22.
drkrick
Did Greenwald actually get through a whole story without criticising Obama once?
Not directly. The point about how reporters who would never question a politician about illegal wars are all over this could qualify as a bank shot if you needed it to.
23.
ChrisNYC
This Greenwald piece is a fantasy. This thing started on the internet, raged on the internet — left and right — for days before the “DC press” picked it up. I’m just glad NO ONE on Balloon Juice is interested in it AT ALL.
24.
drkrick
@Brian S: Maybe the distinction shouldn’t be public/private, but between what is and isn’t anyone else’s business. Unfortunately for the Congressman, once he held a press conference and announced he hadn’t sent the message, that bridge was crossed, too.
I don’t read Greenwald because only idiots do that IMHO. But a quick browser search did not see Obama mentioned once. Did Greenwald actually get through a whole story without criticising Obama once? How is that even possible?
Typical dumbfuck Obot fluffer that infests this place. Can’t stand any criticism of Obama no matter how factual and valid it is.
You dumb fucks stick your fingers in your ears and scream “lalalalalala..i can’t hear you”. There is not a bit of difference in idiots like you and Palin or Bush’s diehard defenders.
@drkrick: For me the issue is “what kind of a job is the politician doing in office,” because I don’t give two shits about what sexual conduct they engage in as long as it’s consenting and legal. I figure that more than half the general population cheats at some point or another, so I shouldn’t be surprised when a politician does it. Odds are they probably have at some point. And as I said above, it’s not like the ability to stay faithful magically translates into competence in office.
28.
David in NY
@Brachiator: But the question is, who TF are you to decide what the rules in Weiner’s marriage are. That is, you think this is not his wife’s business, it’s yours. And I, and Greenwald, think folks like you (and Megan McArdle, whom you seem to emulate here) ought to spend your time thinking about actually important stuff, or at least mutter quietly to youself about it, so the world doesn’t stop its business for matters that are fundamentally private.
For me the issue is “what kind of a job is the politician doing in office,” because I don’t give two shits about what sexual conduct they engage in as long as it’s consenting and legal. I figure that more than half the general population cheats at some point or another, so I shouldn’t be surprised when a politician does it. Odds are they probably have at some point. And as I said above, it’s not like the ability to stay faithful magically translates into competence in office.
Oh, for god’s sake, Brian, stop being mature and reasonable! There is personal moral outrage to be had!
If you drop your trousers in a public park and show off your engorged junk through your shorts, I guarantee that you will end up with more than giggles and chuckles.
And Weiner’s lame denial and confession unfortunately raises more questions. He says he never had any physical contact with the women he texted. Did anyone ask or did he deny that he has not had affairs with other women not involved in the texting? His behavior has become a distraction, and his clumsy attempts to deny it initially just lands him deeper in the hole which he largely has dug himself.
31.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
What would someone who lives in Brazil know anyway?
What a bunch of tiresome twaddle. I certainly don’t think the Weiner Roast is the biggest calamity in the universe, but I will bet you good money that Weiner never told his wife, “Hey, honey, I’m going to be doing some sexting with anonymous babes for a few hours. Okay?” Weiner didn’t consider his conduct his wife’s business.
reading is fundamental, Brachiator.
Of course Weiner probably didn’t check in with his wife to get permission to go on a sexting spree with a bunch of women he never met.
But you Obot fluffers can’t get past your hatred of Greenwald to even comprehend what Greenwald is saying–that the goddamned resolution of the issue between Weiner and his wife over this form of “infidelity” is no one else’s goddamned business.
Jeez some of you folks don’t have a lick of sense…
33.
Joel
I see Paul Revere is ringing his bells to warn us that the whingenuts are coming!
34.
David in NY
@Brian S: It is not “always public.” By your standards, every such thing is public — a letter sent in the mail is “public” because the recipient might reveal it. That has certainly never been the standard for “public” in the history of this country. It is most certainly not the equivalent of “flirting in a public park” and if you think it is, you should think a little more.
Look, you made a good point, basiscally, that this is not a matter of public interest. I see no reason why you had to go on to blame Weiner for it based on a bogus ground, that he was doing something in a public forum. Because he wasn’t.
35.
Idiot
@Fred:
Yeah, god forbid he call out Obama for anything. Jesus.
@Brian S: it’s not like the ability to stay faithful magically translates into competence in office.
Nonsense! That’s exactly how W got elected the first time!
Wait a minute…
39.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
@Brachiator: I’m so glad you’re the morality police where husbands and wives are 100% vanilla and don’t have any discussion about what is allowed in regards to other relationships in their own marriage. AFAIK, we haven’t heard anything from his wife, and she could have been totally ok with this. I wouldn’t be surprised if AW is just apologizing publicly to his wife because the puritan squares in the media can’t handle a marriage that exists with this sort of agreement. Speculation I know, just saying that these sort of agreements are more common than “A”merica likes to acknowledge.
40.
Idiot
@drkrick: Yeah! That’s the ticket. And Judith Miller got a raw deal too.
@David in NY: If you send a letter to a person with a picture of your junk in it, you’re trusting that they won’t release it to the press, but the chances of it accidentally getting into the public are low because of the technology involved in sending it. You can’t say the same about anything sent online. There are too many easy ways for something to go wrong–you get an email address wrong, you put @ instead of D in front of your tweet, etc. Because the chances for something to go wrong are so much higher online than in any other form of communication, you have to work under the assumption that online privacy is an illusion and be prepared to deal with the consequences.
And by the way, of all the social media out there, Twitter is the most public because the only way you can control who sees your tweets is to protect them, and if you’re a public figure trying to get attention for your initiatives, then protecting your tweets kind of defeats the point. Sure, you can block individuals from following you, but how do you know who to block? You can’t know with certainty. Even if you’re trying to engage privately with someone on Twitter, you’re doing it in an inherently public space., and when you do that, you’re taking the chance that someone else will see if you do something that you don’t want them to see.
42.
artem1s
like some angry, chattering soap opera fan furious that one of their best-known characters cheated
this.the village propensity to treat actual people as if they are characters performing for our amusement. So we only get the gossip that the village is interested in reporting. I left high school a long time ago and wasn’t interested then in who was banging the lead cheerleader. But too many people never, ever get over it.
est case scenario, that you don’t make any mistakes, you’re still depending on the good will of the person you’re talking to online, or at least their ability to not accidentally forward along anything you sent to them. Nothing online is ever really private—you only have an illusion of privacy there.
that argument applies to every single form of communication that exists. if two people are communicating with one another, in any form whatsoever, either person could make the information public.
44.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
The real shame is that this scandal is distracting from the Dem’s skillful control of the political messaging.
Mate, nah. Setting aside any discussion as to how the world should or should not be, the reality of politics in 2011 in the USA is what it is. What Weiner did is now a huge distraction and was guaranteed to be so when he did it. He has to have known that. Maybe the populace shouldn’t freak out over something like this, but the environment is toxic and Weiner was taking a huge risk here. And the stakes are just too fucking high.
So, nah. If you can’t resist texting a picture of your hard cock then don’t be in the US Congress in 2011. He’s not the only smart and talented politician in his district, I’m sure. It may well be that it is a fucked up, unfair, twisted reality that texting a picture of your cock is political death, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is political death in 2011.
So, fuck Weiner. He hurt the team, probably cost them a basket or two and the score is just too damn close for that crap. There are plenty of applicants who can serve their time in the Congress without feeling the irresistible desire to text a photo of their stiff willy to someone on the Internet. Give the job to them.
@cleek: Yes, but online the chances that it will get out are higher than in any other form of written (or pictorial) communication, and that’s usually the most damaging type of communication. A person can argue that he/she was misquoted or misunderstood, but it’s hard to argue that a crotch pic isn’t a crotch pic unless you’re on Arrested Development.
49.
RossInDetroit
Spectacle over substance. The economy, the budget, Clarence Thomas’ income, wars, legislation, these are all complex things that require thought. Why should the media exercise themselves on actual reporting when there’s a bulging pair of BVDs to be tittered over?
This will always happen. It’s a feature of the media, not a bug.
What Weiner did is now a huge distraction and was guaranteed to be so when he did it.
Hey, Master of the Obvious. No one is disputing this.
The purpose of the GG piece is t argue that it’s a shame it is this way. Yes, Weiner is an idiot because you have to be to think this shit won’t come out. But, again, the argument is that even if it did come out, we as a nation, should give a large collective sigh and move on because it’s none of our goddamn businees.
We only get the gossip the Village is interested in reporting because it’s what the masses want, as measured in ratings, and that’s what’s most important to the Village. To get eyeballs, which translate into profit for their corporate masters.
That is what it is all about. Nothing more. If some actual information that can be useful is transmitted, well, that’s a by-product of what is really going on.
52.
boss bitch
Weiner deserves the slapping around he’s getting. What he did was incredibly stupid. He publicly humiliated his wife and the people that defended him prior to learning the truth. Same goes for the others who exposed their families to this type of controversy.
Let’s move on. No one is saying anything new.
53.
Pococurante
Quote Glennzilla:
… and, as I’ve noted before, he is one of the most extremist AIPAC loyalists in the Congress, which is not an easy distinction to achieve. This is about the principle, not the person.
I’d find his principle more believable if he’d noted the glee with which the Thomas story is being buried. Or even Thomas himself.
Weiner deserves the slapping around he’s getting. What he did was incredibly stupid. He publicly humiliated his wife and the people that defended him prior to learning the truth. Same goes for the others who exposed their families to this type of controversy.
Why is it the responsibility of the media to punish him and others for what he/they did to their wives and families?
You certainly tire easily. Is the world wearing you down with everyone failing to live up to your extremely high personal and sexual moral standards?
It’s not about my standards, high or low. It’s about stupidity, sloppy thinking, and lame punditry. And as for my own standards, my mantra is a line from Reversal of Fortune:
Alan Dershowitz: You are a very strange man.
__ Claus von Bülow: You have no idea.
Similarly, Tim, you clearly cannot imagine what behavior, even in public officials, that I might find personally acceptable. But unlike GG, I don’t have to jump through hoops to attempt to rationalize reckless behavior on the part of political figures.
But the question is, who TF are you to decide what the rules in Weiner’s marriage are.
Please pay attention. Weiner is a public official. I said that it is up to the voters in his district to decide what behavior is acceptable.
And if absolutely none of this mattered and nobody cared, politicians would never bother doing dog and pony shows where they trot out their wives and kids to show that “shucks, we’re good folks.”
That is, you think this is not his wife’s business, it’s yours. And I, and Greenwald, think folks like you (and Megan McArdle, whom you seem to emulate here) ought to spend your time thinking about actually important stuff, or at least mutter quietly to youself about it, so the world doesn’t stop its business for matters that are fundamentally private.
Oh, get off your high horse. In other posts I castigate Americans who have a permanent puritanical stick up their asses over sexual conduct. And I certainly don’t give a rat’s ass what Megan McArdle thinks about anything.
But as I said, I chuckle over the inconsistency of Balloon Juicers. One day many of you are bashing John Edwards and bloviating over how his behavior with his love muffin confirms his sleaziness. But with Weiner there are supposedly more important things to think about, so why don’t we just give him a pass.
Hell, I avoided most of the Weiner Roast initially, especially the boneheaded take down conspiracy posts.
And note that I am not roaring about how personally outraged I am by Weiner’s behavior or insisting that Weiner resign or be hounded from office.
What I am saying, quite simply, is that what Saint Greenwald has to say about Weiner is as stupid and confused as anything that comes from right wing defenders of their favored politicians. There are areas where I respect and admire GG. This ain’t one of them.
57.
trollhattan
Did the Weiner deal get started in part with help from someone in Issa’s office?
I’m sorry what? What does Weiner sending dick pics to women who are not his wife have to do with his wife? And you don’t think she is embarrassed by the media glare?
So it’s not the media’s job to shame Weiner but it’s OK if they’re doing it? That seems logically shaky.
The way I see it, it’s either their business or it’s not, and I favor the latter.
63.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
It’s amazing the hoops that somewill jump through to rationalize the bad behavior of the press and their audience.
64.
dollared
@Tim, Interrupted: This is not about high moral standards. Brachiator wants the Wenis-fest to go to 11 so s/he can see more blurred-out low-res pix!
65.
jimbob
@PS: You weren’t really expecting otherwise were you?
And by that same standard, a private conversation I have with another is “public” because that person might record it, or write about it online. If we define it that way there’s simply no sphere of privacy left.
67.
lacp
There’s always a silver lining. At least the Weinerator knocked Sarah! off the front page for a news cycle or two. Of course, now she’ll come back saying that Paul Revere was texting pix of his balls (or was it bells?) to Sam Adams or some such shit.
68.
Yutsano
@Valdivia: It could be worse. It could be Chris Christie. Yes I’ll pass the brain bleach now.
69.
Villago Delenda Est
I have no doubt that this entire “scandal” has more to do with taking Weiner out of the picture in exposing Clarence Thomas’ total lack of an ethical bone anywhere in his loathsome body than any actual concern about any “victims” who were grievously harmed by the “explicit” pictures of a wrapped in cotton schlong.
In that sense, it succeeded, and Weiner has only himself to blame for engaging in this activity as if he were a wholly private citizen (and letting people know it was him, Anthony “the wiener” Weiner) and then prevaricating about it for 10 days. “Certitude”, my ass.
70.
PS
@jimbob: Alas, no. But I thought it worth a reminder.
What I was trying to say, and didn’t do so very well, is that one has to PARTICIPATE in one’s own shaming for it to have any effect. Mrs. Weiner does not strike me as someone who will embrace the humiliation you hope for her.
That likely saddens you.
74.
El Cid
I think that it is extremely important for the nation’s most prominent news media to focus on the sexual indiscretions or romantic relationship problems, and to do so in ways which those writers and anchors find most exciting and intriguing.
Particularly when it involves liberals or Democrats like Bill Clinton. An obsessive focus on his affairs and his p3nis was incredibly valuable to the nation.
I believe this mostly because I hate Glenn Greenwald and I have to make sure everyone knows my opinion on him first and foremost.
75.
El Cid
@Villago Delenda Est: The inverse of a well-known saying: If there are indeed so many people out to get you, then it’s a good time to be paranoid.
76.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
drkrick: Thanks for giving me my QED moment, I’m gonna go smoke a cig.
and now the full monty is out there on the internets for everyone to see.
He’s got nothing to apologize in that department, as far as I can tell. Slurpilicious. Yes, I looked. I couldn’t stand the temptation. I was weak, alright?!
My god, the Karmic payback to Breitbart and his enablers will be epic.
In that sense, it succeeded, and Weiner has only himself to blame for engaging in this activity as if he were a wholly private citizen (and letting people know it was him, Anthony “the wiener” Weiner) and then prevaricating about it for 10 days. “Certitude”, my ass.
If not a Fainting Victorian Pearl Clutcher, you are certainly among those who enthusiastically enable same.
80.
Jewish Steel
Like a Frenchman, I expect powerful men (and women too, if they want, doesn’t seem as common with them though) to use their power to leverage sex. People are animals, and I mean that in the most animal positive way. That is why I am far more interested in the moral scolding in the media (along with Glenn) than in the story itself which turned out drearily predictable.
I do like what Hertzberg said in the linked article.
The modern media embarrassment machine is bigger than it ever was, but so is the fatal dose.
81.
Suffern ACE
@Montysano: Maybe, maybe not. But she would certainly mind being asked about by absolute and relative strangers.
Spectacle over substance. The economy, the budget, Clarence Thomas’ income, wars, legislation, these are all complex things that require thought. Why should the media exercise themselves on actual reporting when there’s a bulging pair of BVDs to be tittered over?
Ah hell, Ross, don’t blame the media– they’re just giving the people what they want.
Really, this little episode is just a symptom of a dying empire. It’s happened before. Juvenal recognized it about 300 years before the Roman Empire sputtered out…
Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses. Juvenal, Satire 10
—
86.
Joel
@RossInDetroit: With you here. But this is the media. These guys make their bones in takedowns, and always have, going back to Gary Hart and further. They don’t do it to republicans because they’re afraid of them. Notable exception of Larry Craig, but that’s because the guy was so publicly humiliated that he became an easy target. And the republican establishment decided not to defend him, which made the bullying even easier.
Maybe Weiner’s wife doesn’t give a flying fuck if he talks dirty on the internet.
Maybe Weiner’s wife does give a flying fuck if he talks dirty on the Internet or maybe she doesn’t. I certainly don’t give a flying fuck either way. That’s between him and his wife. I just wish that he hadn’t been such a weasel when the photo broke.
88.
MattR
@eemom: If we’re gonna be banning assholes, I’d suggest anyone (such as yourself) that baselessly accuses a commenter of creating an illness in order to gain sympathy or make a point should be tossed to the street as well.
Tim, it’s amazing how you can read your own horseshit into other people’s posts.
What Weiner does with consenting adults to get his rocks off is absolutely no concern or care of mine. It’s that he’s stupid enough not to realize that there ARE assholes like Breitbart who will play to the puritan mindset to destroy those they perceive as political enemies, and Weiner’s lead in taking on Thomas definitely made Weiner a target of assholes like Breitbart.
THAT is the reality of the political environment in this country. If you’re going to play in that game, you have to live by those rules, you can’t ignore them, and you can’t play to them by denying it for 10 days. Which is what Weiner actually did.
The point that the entire wiener thing has nothing at all to do with Weiner’s positions on Thomas, Israel, debit card fees, the price of tea in China, or who shot J.R. is utterly irrelevant to the political reality is that there are sleazebags like Breitbart who will use that sort of thing as leverage. You and I decrying the broomstick up the ass mentality of the masses will change nothing.
Weiner fucked up by not being anonymous, by boasting of who he was, and then when he got caught being a dumbass, lying about being a dumbass for 10 days…which only played into Breitbart’s hands and distracted attention from Clarence Thomas’ criminal lack of ethics.
But you Obot fluffers can’t get past your hatred of Greenwald to even comprehend what Greenwald is saying—that the goddamned resolution of the issue between Weiner and his wife over this form of “infidelity” is no one else’s goddamned business.
You just don’t get it, do you? I think that GG is overrated. He is often as useless as is Sullivan. GG was overrated when he was bashing Bush. That he bashes Obama now is irrelevant. You really should try to get your head out of the ideological fog.
I’m so glad you’re the morality police where husbands and wives are 100% vanilla and don’t have any discussion about what is allowed in regards to other relationships in their own marriage.
Oh, stop with the vanilla bullshit. I recall a conversation I heard years ago on the LA area Mark and Brian radio show. A female producer admitted that her boyfriend was once super hot for her to agree to a threesome with him, her and another man. When she finally agreed and they did the deed, the boyfriend went nuts. Seems that he didn’t realize that he would get jealous when she showed how much she enjoyed the other guy. His fantasy was that he would be the top gun in the threesome. Reality burst all the apparent understanding and original fantasy. In the real world, sexual desire can rarely be contained by genteel agreements. Haven’t you ever listened to a Savage Love podcast or read the column?
As an aside, I find that a lot of people who lead supposedly non vanilla lives often have even more rules than so-called vanillas. And these rules can be as useless as the codes of conventional morality when it comes to trying to prevent life from being what it is, inherently messy.
I respect Weiner and his wife. I don’t have to speculate about whatever rules they have in their marriage. This is irrelevant and immaterial.
But guess what? The women Weiner texted don’t have to give a rat’s ass about Weiner’s marriage or privacy. He cannot magically demand that they respect his and his wife’s privacy, precisely because whatever arrangement he made with them was independent of his marriage.
His lack of discretion leaves him open to attack. The messages and apparent photos that he sent them are like a pack of love letters that a rogue has gotten hold of. The line between private and public gets crossed whether anyone likes it or not. This is what GG and his defenders don’t understand.
AFAIK, we haven’t heard anything from his wife, and she could have been totally ok with this. I wouldn’t be surprised if AW is just apologizing publicly to his wife because the puritan squares in the media can’t handle a marriage that exists with this sort of agreement. Speculation I know, just saying that these sort of agreements are more common than “A”merica likes to acknowledge.
As I noted in another thread on a similar topic, speculation here says more about the poster’s fantasy and imagination than about the public figure being discussed.
You’re right that we don’t know what Weiner’s wife might or might not be OK with. But this is irrelevant now that Weiner’s behavior has become public, just as irrelevant as David Vitter’s claim that voters should have no opinion on his diaper wearing frolics with hookers just because he supposedly got the Okey Doke from his wife and the Baby Jebus.
hey there, timmeh. You know your obsession with me is getting downright creepy.
hey John, I know you don’t care what I think, but can we take a vote on banning this asshole?
Goodgawdalmighty but you are a detestable old crone.
You can’t stand someone rightfully bashing your sorry, non-thinking ass, so you whine, snivel and talk shit about banning someone.
If you can’t stand the criticism your stupid comments generate, then get up on the porch with the puppies you nasty old hag and keep that big piehole of your’s closed.
Weiner called Breitbart a liar, which he is, but which he was not in this particular instance. He should have stepped up and come clean immediately, that was the only honorable thing to do under the circumstances.
My only issue with Weiner is this, he couldn’t come clean and he gave Breitbart credbility that he’ll use to go after someone innocent. Also, Weiner should’ve known not the do this in this puritanical country of ours.
My only comment on this is that all this sturm und drang makes me *long* for the long hot summer of 2009 when we were all debating the public option and “death panels.” At least there was some semblance of fucking substance to the Obot/Firebagger bullshit name calling then.
ETA to fix time.
94.
timb
@WyldPirate: Uh, it’s not her we would vote to ban, wylde
Days like to today make we want to delete all my political feeds and stick to looking at blogs full of baby animals or landscape photos. Unfortunately, I am OCD wrt. the news.
hey John, I know you don’t care what I think, but can we take a vote on banning this asshole?
Typical eesmarm: Always with wanting to SHUT OTHER PEOPLE UP, silence them, ban them!
Now…tell the group the name of the man who did you so wrong, and whose face you project onto John Edwards and Anthony Weiner. Go ahead, you can do it. Here…I’ll balance your drool bucket so you can talk more clearly…
97.
Nemesis
So all the self righteous on both sides of the aisle pontificate on what a dastardly deciever we have in AW. A bunch of moral purists.
AW did nothing personal to me. I never campaigned for him. Never sent him money. He embarrassed himself and brought undue shame on his family. He lied and got caught. Lets not get all up in arms about a person lying. Happens all the time.
I cant get past why sooo many in the liberal community call for AW’s head on a pike, like AW did something personal to them.
I for one stand with AW. He and I have failed at times. He will get through this with the help of solid support from the people who really care about him. Standing in judgement of others is oh so easy. I prefer to stand up for those who are down.
And there is no Great Karmic Gawd keeping score as to which party fucks about the most. Its not as if the Dems have been so on-messgae that this scandal broke anyones concentration.
98.
RossInDetroit
We really have no press in the historical sense of presenting news, research and analysis. We have media entertainment based on current events. The entertainment value drives what’s presented and how.
99.
Yutsano
@arguingwithsignposts: How’s about no sex scandals during the summer? Though does it really count if the parties in question do not, in fact, have sex?
You can’t stand someone rightfully bashing your sorry, non-thinking ass, so you whine, snivel and talk shit about banning someone. If you can’t stand the criticism your stupid comments generate, then get up on the porch with the puppies you nasty old hag and keep that big piehole of your’s closed.
WP, is it wrong of me to admit that your eesmarm take-down produced warm stirrings in my nether regions?
102.
shortstop
@WyldPirate: “Crone”? “Hag”? You took too much heat for calling people bitch and cunt, so this is level two?
Your consistent inability to argue with female commenters without employing gender-specific insults is wildly revealing.
That’s probably what pisses me off about this more than anything: Weiner knew that this guy was Twitter-stalking him and he did it anyway.
Argue all you like about how it shouldn’t be a big deal, it was still epically idiotic of Weiner to do this when he knew perfectly well that he was being scrutinized by his enemies.
You just don’t get it, do you? I think that GG is overrated.
Nice non sequitur, Brachiator, but I get it just fine–your reading comprehension sucks.
Who the fuck are you to be the arbiter of what goes on between Weiner and his wife whether the issue is sexual in nature or not?
This issue regarding the Greenwald article has nothing to do with whether or not Weiner “asked permission from his wife” to go on a sexting spree. Rather, it has to do with your hatred of Greenwald for his criticism of Obama. I’ve been around here long enough to see you Obot nitwits have a fit over Greenwald’s usually airtight criticisms of Obama. Y’all get your knickers in a twist because someone has the temerity to criticize President Immaculate Perfection.
Greenwald is right. The media and the public are a bunch of underwear sniffers and leering sexual voyeurs in general and it’s a damned shame given all of the other serious, fucked up shit that is happening to the country that this has turned into yet another distracting Clown Show.
Ah hell, Ross, don’t blame the media—they’re just giving the people what they want.
…
Really, this little episode is just a symptom of a dying empire. It’s happened before. Juvenal recognized it about 300 years before the Roman Empire sputtered out…
Full quote about this courtesy of IMSDB:
“Games? He wants to hold games?”
“It’s madness.”
“No… it’s not. He knows who Rome is. Rome is the mob. He will conjure magic for them and they will be distracted. And he will takes their lives. And he will take their freedom. And still they will roar. The beating heart of Rome isn’t the marble of the Senate. It’s the sand of the Colosseum. He will give them death. And they will love him for it.”
(Gladiator)
“Crone”? “Hag”? You took too much heat for calling people bitch and cunt, so this is level two? Your consistent inability to argue with female commenters without employing gender-specific insults is wildly revealing.
Excuse me for leaping in the way of a bogus takedown directed at WP, but OH PUH-LEEEEEEEEEEASE MISS MARY! Eesmarm has called me several gender-specific names in threads, and no I am not going to go back and search them out, but top of my head things like “prick,” “tweezer-dick,” and others spring to mind, along with a plethora of obscene, non-gender specific epithets.
All of which I am ok with just as long as the old bag doesn’t scream “sexist” the first time she gets it thrown back in her face. Oh, but you seem to be doing that for her, and you are thus just as full of shit as is eesmarm.
Wow, someone else that can’t read. It was eemom sniveling about banning Tim, Interrupted. I’ve got no problem with what anyone says here even if they attack me. I’ll simply fire back and defend myself rather than whining like a little baby to Big Daddy John Cole about making the other kids not say mean things about me.
Also, I don’t think any of us get a vote here, dummy. My point was is you are going to fling shit here you damned well better be able to take it in return. eemom obviously can’t without being a whiny sniveling, whiny bitch about it.
This is not about high moral standards. Brachiator wants the Wenis-fest to go to 11 so s/he can see more blurred-out low-res pix!
Actually, I far prefer the supposed Blake Lively scandal. And I take note of the words of wisdom that Reese Witherspoon offered at a recent awards ceremony:
And if you took naked pictures of yourself on your cellphone, you hide your face, people! Hide your face!
But in the case of members of Congress, I would suggest that intelligence would lead them to be even more discreet. In the age of the Internet, anything that you post or transmit has a good chance of going viral. If you and your crony Tim would pay attention, you would understand that the morality of the thing is a small part of it.
@Montysano: RE: but I will bet you good money that Weiner never told his wife
Talk about “making shit up”. Maybe Weiner’s wife doesn’t give a flying fuck if he talks dirty on the internet.
Point noted. But I would still take that bet. And as others have said, it’s not about Weiner and his wife, but about Weiner’s weasel behavior once the news broke.
Bill Clinton’s impeachment was the biggest load of bull evah, and yet I am still annoyed that Bill tried to play the country and his supporters for fools when he tried his smarmy public lie about “not having sexual relations with that woman.”
I believe that he could have gone on TV and said, “Hell, yeah, I had relations with Miss Lewinsky. And when I’m done with this news conference, I am going to have more sex with her,” and the majority of the public would have easily moved on.
Well, OK, maybe not that last sentence about having more sex with her. But still.
110.
eemom
I take plenty of shit here from all kinds of people and I give as good as I get.
I wasn’t suggesting Tiny Tim be banned just for insulting me. I suggested it because he’s an arrogant, obnoxious asshole to almost everybody on almost every subject and contributes nothing positive to the discussion.
I suggested it because he’s an arrogant, obnoxious asshole to almost everybody on almost every subject and contributes nothing positive to the discussion.
No, dear, you’re projecting again; your own qualities onto me in general. If you pay attention you will notice that I am an arrogant, obnoxious asshole mostly just to YOU and a few select others who richly, richly deserve it and constantly ask for it.
Also, I know it’s hard for you to talk clearly thru the drool and the foam, but really, “EVERYbody” and “NOTHING” and “EVERY” are really, really large words in their all encompassing implications.
I believe that he could have gone on TV and said, “Hell, yeah, I had relations with Miss Lewinsky. And when I’m done with this news conference, I am going to have more sex with her,” and the majority of the public would have easily moved on.
I think a better approach would have been: “I succumbed to the charms of a very attractive young woman, we had a satisfying sexual relationship that did not involve intercourse, and in doing so I betrayed my wife and daughter, which I deeply regret. It doesn’t help matters for me much that this one fling is more sex than 95% of the members of the Washington Press Corpse ever get even with their own spouses, and they’re insanely jealous of me for that. Particularly that miserable broomstick up the ass prude, Sam Donaldson.”
No, dear, you’re projecting again; your own qualities onto me in general. If you pay attention you will notice that I am an arrogant, obnoxious asshole mostly just to YOU and a few select others who richly, richly deserve it and constantly ask for it.
No, you’re pretty much an arrogant, obnoxious asshole in general, except to Fred and WyldPirate, who seem to be part of your arrogant, obnoxious asshole clique.
Hey, you ladies (if you are one–I have no idea) wanted equal rights–you got ’em.
The prob;lem with many women (but certainly not all) is that many want the right to use specific names whenever you want, but you get all incensed when it is turned on women.
Me, I simply see no difference between the level of “badness” when using “pussy”, “cunt”, “twat” or “vagina” when referring to the same part of anatomy. Some do. Our board host did. He banned me for a bit. It’s his board, his rules. I had no problem with that even though I wasn’t aware there was a George Carlin-like list of the “Seven words you can’t say on blogs”.
But don’t pretend that a female referring to a man as a “slimy dickhead” is any less of insult than a man referring to a woman as an “ill-tempered cunt”. Moreover, substituting the proper anatomical terms for the body parts doesn’t make it any less of an insult.
But hey, feel free to take a seat up on the porch next to eemom if you can’t take the heat, shortstop.
a plethora of obscene, non-gender specific epithets
Nothing wrong with those.
Eesmarm has called me several gender-specific names in threads
Feel free to call her out on them anytime you wish. I don’t usually read her comments, so I miss most of what she shares. (This is not about eemom except to you, and that only because you’re hilariously unable to look at any comment outside your own banal categorizations: “Her friend.” “Him enemy.” “Him friend–wait; he dislikes Greenwald, and Greenwald friend, so now him enemy! Grunt!”)
YeOldeWyldeBedfordePyratt has a cherished self-vision that includes being openminded, non-biased and, to hear him tell it, even feminist. This vision is measurably at odds with the reality, and after every time he loses his shit–which happens frequently since he’s a fucking nutcase–and loses control to the point that he’s compulsively screaming “bitch” and “cunt” and so on, he’s later demonstrably embarrassed to have shown his hand yet again. Since I’m against banning of all sorts except for DoS moments and, perhaps, people making outright death threats, and I further have less than zero respect for people who whine to the host (either publicly or in email) that others should be banned, I hope that WP will stick around to humiliate himself again and again and again. And he will, because of that compulsive thang we discussed.
118.
MattR
@eemom: So when you responded with “now that you’re at the stage of just making shit up, how about you come clean and admit you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about?” to my comment that “Good to know that if my medical condition ever requires that I move to Canada in order to get coverage, I should immediately shut the fuck up about the country I lived in all my life.”, what exactly did you mean?
let’s see. Some of the highlights of your career here that I recall:
1. Insisting over and over again that the reporter who was raped in Libya had it coming for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and that anyone who denied it was an idiot.
2. Insisting that anyone and everyone who has ever served their country in the military is nothing more than a brutal killer.
3. Repeatedly badgering Cole about why he personally doesn’t post about topics that other FPers on this blog have thoroughly covered.
What I am saying, quite simply, is that what Saint Greenwald has to say about Weiner is as stupid and confused as anything that comes from right wing defenders of their favored politicians.
Argue all you like about how it shouldn’t be a big deal, it was still epically idiotic of Weiner to do this when he knew perfectly well that he was being scrutinized by his enemies.
Thread’s pretty much dead by now, but IMO this is the real takeaway from all this mess.
At least one thing should be unambiguously clear by now: that in this post-Spitzer, post-Edwards (and now post-Weiner) era, if you’re a high-profile Democrat, you’d better be extra-special, double-plus clean and wholesome.
Otherwise, Mr. Brietbart and company will come for you.
Some of the highlights of your career here that I recall…
LOL. Let’s start with your exhortation in these pages that American critics of Israeli ethnic cleansing should take pause because of the American ethnic cleansing of American Indians.
Would someone provide us with the bullet points so we don’t have to click?
Haven’t read the rest of this thread yet, so I don’t know if someone has already by the time I get to the end, but yeah, this. I refuse to click on that sumbitch’s website.
The “making shit up” part had nothing to do with your statement about your medical condition. I don’t have the conversation in front of me right now, but I know I was responding to something else you said — likely that you were making shit up when you attributed to me the statement that you “should immediately shut the fuck up about the country I lived in all my life.”
As I recall the whole thing started because you got in the middle of an argument I was having with someone else.
127.
shortstop
@liberal: I’d missed this — yeah, that was hilarious, VDE.
I know I shouldn’t be laughing at the direction this thread has gone, but I can’t seem to stop. It’s so much like a food fight right now, and yeah, I did lob some Tater Tots.
Read between the lines arguingwithposts–you are one of the “select others that often richly deserve it”, IMO.
Sorry I don’t turn my guns your way more often AWP, but this is a target-rich environment and there are only so many hours in the day. On the flip-side, it often gets old banging away at the same old rusted hulk of stupidity “downrange”, so maybe it’s time to start firing up at some of the less rusted hulks of stupidity that are fresh on the range.
At least one thing should be unambiguously clear by now: that in this post-Spitzer, post-Edwards (and now post-Weiner) era, if you’re a high-profile Democrat, you’d better be extra-special, double-plus clean and wholesome.
And if you’re not squeaky-clean, for chrissakes don’t flaunt it and dare your enemies to expose you! Because they motherfucking will expose your stupid ass if you hand them the ammunition.
you’d better be extra-special, double-plus clean and wholesome.
Or, they could stand up and make the argument. “This is none of your business, and I’m not going to play”. Rather than, “this didn’t HAPPEN”. Those are two different ideas. One is an implicit admission that it matters, and a lie, and the other is a substantive, truthful defense.
Two choices there. They all pick door number one.
131.
FlipYrWhig
To add to the “personal life should be nobody’s business” idea… Bob Somerby has been pointing out for years that when the what-passes-for-liberal-media gets caught up in sexytime scandal talk, all it succeeds in doing is validating that sexytime scandal talk is a newsworthy subject. Cackle about Christopher Lee’s body, David Vitter’s diaper fixation, Jack Ryan’s sex clubbing, and you get stuff like this.
On the other hand, I think it’s disingenuous to pretend like we — OK, I’ll admit, _I_ — haven’t had a lot of fun mocking mockable Republicans who make with the dirty-dirty, and then take refuge under this private-life-is-nobody’s-business principle.
So, at any rate, I lean toward the idea that Weiner shouldn’t resign based on nothing more principled than the fact that I kind of like the guy and think he’s funny, not because I have some important stance to take on the Zone Of Privacy and feel that I have to be consistent about that.
Read between the lines arguingwithposts—you are one of the “select others that often richly deserve it”, IMO.
You missed an “Obot” there, asshole.
134.
shortstop
@kay: You make a highly convincing case for not mixing those approaches. As you say, you can’t willingly own the shame and then blame the shamemongers.
Sure. I am deeply ashamed of calling self-righteous little twits like you out on their hypocrisy.
136.
lacp
This is GREAT! BJ should do an annual WeinerWhine! I can see it now…you could even get all NRO and sponsor a fundraising cruise “WeinerWhine on the Rhine” Amazing. How many of the (so far) 124 posts here are people endlessly repeating that they really, really don’t give a shit?
137.
liberal
@FlipYrWhig:
Not sure I get your point. The reason I cackle about someone like Vitter is the hypocrisy. Otherwise I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass.
Who the fuck are you to be the arbiter of what goes on between Weiner and his wife whether the issue is sexual in nature or not?
You still just don’t get it. Read my posts. No. Have someone read them to you. Slowly. It’s not about Weiner and his wife. And it is not what goes on between them. When Weiner chose to send messages and photos to other women, he took things outside the confines of his marriage. It appears that someone who got one of the messages, maybe by mistake, was one of the sources of the thing going public. Every woman that Weiner sent stuff to could make their own independent decisions about what Weiner meant to them and what to do with the material, whether to keep it private or to expose it. And there was not a damn thing that Weiner could do about it.
Here it is similar to the Tiger Woods scandal. It is pointless to say that what went on between Tiger and his wife was private, when it quickly became what went on between Tiger and Mistress One, Tiger and Mistress Two, Tiger and Mistress Three, etc., with Gloria Allred bringing up the rear.
This is the essential thing that you and GG and other people are missing. Your arbitrary designation of some zone of privacy and some zone of marital exclusion does not take into account the complexity of the situation. It is a made up, phony, ad hoc and utterly unconvincing moralizing masquerading as sexual sophistication.
This issue regarding the Greenwald article has nothing to do with whether or not Weiner “asked permission from his wife” to go on a sexting spree. Rather, it has to do with your hatred of Greenwald for his criticism of Obama. I’ve been around here long enough to see you Obot nitwits have a fit over Greenwald’s usually airtight criticisms of Obama. Y’all get your knickers in a twist because someone has the temerity to criticize President Immaculate Perfection.
There is something seriously wrong with you. Do a search. You will find that I think so little of GG that I rarely post about him.
Your rants about people’s supposed Obama love reminds me of the stick that Sullivan has up his ass over Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Your delusions fail any reasonable reality test. It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.
Greenwald is right. The media and the public are a bunch of underwear sniffers and leering sexual voyeurs in general and it’s a damned shame given all of the other serious, fucked up shit that is happening to the country that this has turned into yet another distracting Clown Show.
You know, most people are able to hold more than one idea in their head. Just the other day, I wrote a long email to my Congress person detailing everything that he could do to help rescue the country from economic, social, moral and political disaster, and still had time to go see the latest X-Men movie. Go figure. But I imagine that in your and GG’s universe of the serious, instead of going to the movie, I should have been meditating on all the fucked up shit happening in the country 24/7.
Like I said in one of my first posts, typical and tiresome.
And I am on to you now. You are a dreary little ideological doofus who views everything through the filter of your political heroes and enemies and your need to wage perpetual rhetorical war over God knows what. And so everything has to be about Obama, but in a negative way.
As I pointed out before, by your reasoning, essentially no one on the planet (no human, anyway) can criticize ethnic cleansing anywhere, because the chance that any one of us isn’t somewhere down the line a “beneficiary” of ethnic cleansing is remote.
I’ll avoid any mysogynistic adjectives mentioned upthread and just point out that, by God, you’re an idiot.
141.
shortstop
@FlipYrWhig: Sure, but isn’t the possibility of consistency made harder by the fact that most of the Republicans we laugh at are openly proposing or backing legislation that relates to other people’s sexuality and sexual expression? Craig was anti-LGBTQ rights. Gingrich was having an affair while leading charges against Clinton; Hyde, Livingston and Chenoweth had done the same. On and on and on the list goes.
We can say all private behavior should remain private regardless of the party of the person involved, but there is a difference in the way we view people who are actively using their political power to curtail other people’s sexual choices and those who aren’t.
Sorry I don’t turn my guns your way more often AWP, but this is a target-rich environment
You’re a regular one man judge, jury and firing squad. Good thing you have no power beyond your vote.
143.
MattR
@eemom: Re-reading the whole conversation the only excuse you might have is that you wildly misinterpreted what I wrote or thought it was a response to a different comment. Andy K mentioned that Glenn lives in Brazil which allows him to be super pure. You commented approvingly and said that no one was allowed to mention that fact. I pointed out that he had to leave in order to be with his partner and that it should not be held against him much like if I had to move to Canada for health care. At that point you said I was full of shit and making things up. Not only that, but you explicitly quoted my comment about moving to Canada in your reply. How else was I supposed to interpret that comment?
I don’t give a shit that Weiner decided to send out pictures of his weiner. I do care that he did it even though he knew he was being closely scrutinized — to the point of Twitter-stalking — by Breitbart’s minions.
I only have so much sympathy available for people who created their scandal through their own stupidity and arrogance.
Sure, but isn’t the possibility of consistency made harder by the fact that most of the Republicans we laugh at are openly proposing or backing legislation that relates to other people’s sexuality and sexual expression?
Much as I hate those hypocritical bastards, if the question is if the validity of a moral argument depends on the credibility of its proponents I’d have to say no. They can be hypocrites and still be right in pointing out others’ transgressions.
If a thief busted me for stealing I’d still be a thief.
There is a difference between criticizing and ignorant, sanctimonious finger-wagging, which is what you and others of your ilk dish out on the subject of Israel.
If you don’t understand that, it is you who are the idiot.
147.
lacp
@Mnemosyne: If you have any sympathy at all for him, you have more than I do. To me the most entertaining part of the whole affair isn’t what he did or didn’t do or did, or didn’t admit to: it’s the insane hyperventilating by the blogosphere. A bit too grotesque to be pure comedy, but fascinating nonetheless.
No, you’re pretty much an arrogant, obnoxious asshole in general, except to Fred and WyldPirate, who seem to be part of your arrogant, obnoxious asshole clique.
You guessed right! You are one of the “select few others” of which I wrote.
149.
Keith G
Oh fuck, this is soooo great, I am choking on my lunch.
Thanks Tim, ee, short and the rest. It was a bleak Wednesday til now.
I really don’t have time to reconstruct the whole thing. However, I know that I would never say to anyone that they were “making shit up” up about a medical condition, and if that is the impression you got from what I said, I apologize.
I think that the hypocrisy factor has a lot to do with it. Weiner has never been on a personal crusade over virtual sexual chatter and photo sharing through the intertubes, to the best of my knowledge. Yet Gingrich was railing about Clinton’s moral unfitness to hold public office while he was boffing one of his aides.
It is an unfortunate fact that this country has a very fucked up perspective, in the aggregate, about matters sexual of all types. What bothers me the most about Weiner is that he should have known this, and kept his online activity anonymous if he felt compelled to engage in it. How his wife views this activity is none of my business, or anyone elses, but the fact that he engaged in it and it became a public spectacle that destroyed his own campaign to expose Clarence Thomas’ corruption concerns me greatly.
Then he compounded matters by attempting to lie his way out for 10 days, drawing attention to it. Reminds me of the situation where Todd Palin’s past involvement with the Alaska Independence Party came up during the 2008 campaign, and Sarah Palin’s reaction was to lie about it, instead of following the very wise advice of Steve Smith, McCain’s campaign manager, who told her to laugh it off, it’s in the past, Todd’s a loyal American, and not to draw attention to it by telling a very easily exposed lie that Todd “made a mistake” and checked the “Alaska Independent Party” box instead of the “Alaska Independent” box. That’s bullshit, the press will see through it in a nanosecond, and all the sudden McCain himself has to get involved, which is nothing but pure distraction from whatever message they were pushing (which, at the time, was the unveiling of the “Joe the Plumber” trope which was felt to be their last best shot at putting a dent in Obama’s armor).
the sad thing is all this shitflinging has TOTALLY distracted me from my usual Greenwald-bashing. Cuz I think, as usual, that he’s full of shit on this topic.
153.
shortstop
@Keith G: I live to serve, shoog. What’s for lunch?
@shortstop: Well said and precisely on point. I don’t think anyone here can accuse me of being a fan of eemom, but I’m with her on this. Tim, you’ve recently risen from creepy minor-league Cole-stalker and scold to giant swaggering asshole prick towards just about anyone. You need a vacation, at least.
155.
Svensker
Isn’t it fun how even an uncontroversial Glenzilla posting (at least so far as I can see) brings out the grrrrr in everyone?
156.
FlipYrWhig
@liberal: @shortstop: I don’t know about you, but I would still think it was funny if a Republican who wasn’t prone to flogging “family values” ended up in some kind of sex scandal. Giuliani, f’rinstance. Schwarzenegger, for another. It’s funny because they’re horrible, and it’s amusing to see horrible people squirm, even when it’s a private matter between Politician and Partner and really none of my business. It doesn’t rise to the level of outrage or Important Public Issue; it’s just funny.
Way too often the hypocrisy line feels to me like the liberal version of “it’s not the sex, it’s the _lying_.” I think it’s particularly _sweet_ when someone who can’t stay out of other people’s personal business ends up having biz-ness of his own, but it’s more an aggravating factor than a determinant of how I feel. If Gary Johnson was into cosplay or something, that would be funny too. I want to reserve the right to mock even a libertarian for doing something funny with his naughty bits. I don’t want to give that up by drawing this line at “hypocrisy.” YMMV.
1. Insisting over and over again that the reporter who was raped in Libya had it coming for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and that anyone who denied it was an idiot. 2. Insisting that anyone and everyone who has ever served their country in the military is nothing more than a brutal killer.
Your maliciously, willfully bullshit mischaracterizations of my positions on those matters are beneath contempt. Clearly you cannot make a point or support your positions without lying about what your opponents say by making up absolutely ridiculous and grossly misleading paraphrases. Ergo you are a LIAR.
A few examples just from this last comment of yours:
When was it established that Laura Logan was raped? Links please.
When did I say she “had it coming?” Links please
When did I say that “anyone and everyone” who has ever “served” in the military is a brutal killer? Links please.
You, eesmarm are a vicious, hateful, foul mouthed liar whose own skin is as thin as the bile you spew is thick. And seeking to BAN and silence those who choose to call you out is never far from your mind, with never a thought to the very, very specific bannning policy that Cole has put in place.
All of which is why I enjoy calling attention to your very weak bullshit.
So here, just for now dear, hold your own drool bucket. I think you need to sit in your dirty depends for a while too.
guessed right! You are one of the “select few others” of which I wrote.
You, too, missed an “Obot” there, asshole.
And, if by “select few” you mean anyone and everyone who a) disagrees with you, or b) thinks you’re a flaming asshole, then my guess is that the “select few” means “vast majority” in the unicorn-pony world you type furiously from.
Closet case homophobe on aisle nine. You see, if I were eesmarm or ABL, I would now email Cole seeking to have you banned. ONly, in this case I would have cause, as homophobic remarks/insults are specifically cited in Cole’s new banning policy.
Hmmm…maybe I WILL send an email. I’m gonna sit write down and write John Cole a letter….
160.
shortstop
@RossInDetroit: I wasn’t thinking mere credibility so much as the fact that they’re actively working to curtail our legal rights on sexual matters. The sexual sanctimony of my officious Christian neighbor doesn’t affect my life in the same way that the actions of my elected representatives do. Hypocrisy is ugly–and very often funny–and it’s hard to resist mocking it. But this goes beyond plain hypocrisy to become actual or attempted interference in constituents’, particularly women constituents’, sex lives.
I suppose the argument against making that distinction is the same as the one you made, but I think we could also argue that when it comes to elected officials, criticizing sexual hypocrisy may act as a kind of disincentive for them to continue pushing for that kind of invasive legislation. The goal, after all, isn’t to get them to be more chaste but to get them out of everyone else’s bedrooms.
161.
Corner Stone
@Nethead Jay: God. Go climb back into your morality play you little bitch.
Hah. I like it. Especially, the Sam Donaldson part.
@liberal: RE: What I am saying, quite simply, is that what Saint Greenwald has to say about Weiner is as stupid and confused as anything that comes from right wing defenders of their favored politicians.
Except that Weiner is by no means favored by GG.
You see, that’s just it. I don’t care who GG favors or opposes. I am simply saying that while I understand that there are those who love GG, I don’t think that he is a clear thinker or much of a pundit or journalist or whatever it is he thinks he is. And for the sake of those in the room who are just slow, I do not dispute GG’s progressive credentials.
And so it is not that I simply disagree with GG’s take on Weiner. I think it is as incoherent as McArdle on economics or Sullivan on science.
But I understand that there are those who worship at the altar of Saint Greenwald, and that it is apostasy for any to dare veer from the path that he lays out in his mighty rhetoric. But veer I do.
sounds like I hit a nerve there, asshole. Ya got STEEEAAAAAAM oozing out your pointy little ears.
FTR, I don’t favor a heavy hand with the ban-hammer. There are plenty of assholes here who still manage to contribute something positive to the discussion once in a while. YOU don’t.
Plenty of people here besides you have insulted me personally. I can’t think of one that I wish would be banned, because most of them have something interesting to say once in a while. YOU don’t.
IMO when someone contributes nothing substantive but constantly hijacks threads with a purely obnoxious attitude, then it’s appropriate to ban them. Lots of people reached that point with toko-loko and her Kain obsession — and you’re a million times more obnoxious than she ever was. However, it’s not my blog so it’s not my decision to make.
and you’re a million times more obnoxious than she ever was.
Thank you. Your loathing and hurt feelings are a sure sign that I am on a good path. I am truly blessed.
By the way, your comment once again contains huge generalizing terms that are wildly inaccurate, so it’s good to know you’re not attempting to tighten your message, as per usual.
168.
Corner Stone
I keep waiting for Emily Hauser to show up in this thread and tell us to lay off one of her co-blogging friends.
Fucking please—what a bunch of long-winded drivel demonstrating that you are completely full of shit
This is what you said in the first paragraph of your post:
I certainly don’t think the Weiner Roast is the biggest calamity in the universe, but I will bet you good money that Weiner never told his wife, “Hey, honey, I’m going to be doing some sexting with anonymous babes for a few hours. Okay?” Weiner didn’t consider his conduct his wife’s business. Some of the women he texted somehow thought that Weiner’s business was their business. And the voters in Weiner’s district might prefer that their guy either be more discreet or spend more time on the people’s business and less on monkey business.
Two things. First, you made it all about what goes on between Weiner and his wife out of the gate. You also repeat the same contradiction in your second long-winded, illogical screed above.
What the other women thought about the exchanges (which may or may not have been between consenting adults) and what his constituents think of what and how discreet Weiner should be in his private life are not the issue (though I will concede his constituents can make that their business if they are prudish enough to do so) and wasn’t Greenwald’s point.
Greenwald’s point is that these sorts of sexual peccadilloes are just shameful media circuses that distract from serious issues such as Clarence Thomas’ monetary conflict of interest. Instead, the media and other prudish assclowns (look in the mirror for one) decide that a picture of Weiner’s trouser trout smothered in underwear is the equivalent of him selling the invasion plans of Iraq to Saddam Hussein. That’s Greenwald’s point and that’s the point that YOU MISS because you are incapable of recognizing that Weiner taking pictures of his dick and sending them to women has no bearing on his ability to be a Congressman (or at least it shouldn’t and wouldn’t in a society that wasn’t chockfull of sexual prudes).
Where the “complexity” you refer to comes in is when Weiner started lying about it once the allegation was made. And again, this is a part of Greenwald’s argument in that this incident should have never been newsworthy to start with. It shouldn’t be anything other than an issue between Weiner, his wife and the women he sent his dick pics to.
It is an unfortunate fact that this country has a very fucked up perspective, in the aggregate, about matters sexual of all types. What bothers me the most about Weiner is that he should have known this, and kept his online activity anonymous if he felt compelled to engage in it.
This is what drives me nuts about this topic. We live in an era of Wikileaks and people in the UK happily violating “super injunctions” and revealing the name of high profile people having affairs. We live in an era in which hackers blow up Sony’s PSP and release every personal detail about game players to take revenge on Sony for hassling a guy. We live in an era in which Mark Zuckerberg says that privacy is overrated while enticing Facebook users to give up every detail about themselves (and private companies turn around a look for Facebook info in deciding whether to hire people).
There is no such thing as online anonymity. I work on the presumption that the Republicans hire people to look through every nook and cranny on the Internets to find dirt on Democrats.
And in the absence of a personal relationship, how could Weiner ever be sure that the people he was sending messages and photos to would keep them private? Hell, there are online sites dedicated to people revenge posting intimate photos and videos of lovers who scorned them.
Anyone who is a public figure runs the risk of having his or her personal details exposed. And you have sites like TMZ whose very existence is based on enticing or bribing people to give up salacious stuff on celebrities and others they can get dirt on.
People can blather all they want about how Weiner’s private life should be private. This is not the world that we are living in.
Then he compounded matters by attempting to lie his way out for 10 days, drawing attention to it.
the sad thing is all this shitflinging has TOTALLY distracted me from my usual Greenwald-bashing. Cuz I think, as usual, that he’s full of shit on this topic.
“tis amazing you can even think, much less breath because judging from your comments, you seem to spend most of your day with your head firmly implanted in your ass.
“tis amazing you can even think, much less breath because judging from your comments, you seem to spend most of your day with your head firmly implanted in your ass.
Pot, kettle.
175.
SFAW
Hey Cole –
What’s the record for comments in a thread, where the entire discussion consists of “You’re an asshole!” ” No, YOU’RE an asshole!” “No, YOU ARE!” “No, you are and so’s you’re whole fucking family!”
‘Cause I think you’re approaching whatever that number is.
Thank FSM that the subject is so important to the continued existence of the country, otherwise one would be tempted to call this the world’s longest circle-jerk.
Hey Cole – What’s the record for comments in a thread, where the entire discussion consists of “You’re an asshole!” ” No, YOU’RE an asshole!” “No, YOU ARE!” “No, you are and so’s you’re whole fucking family!”
Not even close. You’ve got to dig out a Stuck, JSF, Corner Stone, eemom fest for that, although WP and T,I are definitely trying to go for gold here.
Bill Clinton’s impeachment was the biggest load of bull evah, and yet I am still annoyed that Bill tried to play the country and his supporters for fools when he tried his smarmy public lie about “not having sexual relations with that woman.”
OK, this is where we have a point of agreement, Brachiator. I also think it is where we are talking past each other.
Impeaching Clinton “biggest load of bull evah”. Check.
annoyed over Bill trying to weasel out by lying? Check
Both of these items hold true for Weiner-gate as well.
I’m in agreement with Greenwald that these things wouldn’t be newsworthy in a serious society and shouldn’t interfere with one’s ability to perform their job. weiner-gate might have made some tabloids in Europe and been worth some laughs and a joke, but here it’s a 24/7 weeks long media freakout with all of the sexually repressed rubes gawking and pointing at shit they are probably doing themselves.
I realize that the US hasn’t “matured” to the point as a society where we (as a society) can ignore sniffing public figures underwear. That’s where the complexity of the issue arises that you referred to. Greenwald’s argument, to me at least, is more along the lines that it is a shame that we haven’t got to that point as a society.
Not even close. You’ve got to dig out a Stuck, JSF, Corner Stone, eemom fest for that, although WP and T,I are definitely trying to go for gold here.
Seems like you are doing your own share of stirring of the shitpot you hypocritical wanker.
181.
Corner Stone
@WyldPirate: It’s true. He’s obviously not distracted enough by The Somebody. Or The Something. Or whatever middle school title is assigned to the anonymous at this point.
Will you have dinner with me? Check this box Yes.
182.
chopper
if glenzilla is pissed about how everyone is talking about the wiener scandal instead of important issues, he’z doin it rong.
183.
shortstop
@WyldPirate: I just saw this, probably because it was in moderation.
Your entire comment is fail, of course. First, you dishonestly conflate the existence of different nouns for body parts with the use of certain female body-part words as intended insults toward women. (As though you go around shrieking “You vagina!” at women you’re arguing with–fucking pleeeeeease.) And you tellingly refuse to address your current problem–your instant reach when angered for words like crone and hag (I believe harpy and harridan are other favorites of yours) that are relegated to women only. This is a longstanding, established pattern with you.
Second, I don’t use gender-related epithets against men and I’ve called out women (here and elsewhere, online and off) who do. I ain’t responsible for what eemom does around here and no BJer who can read would ever make the mistake of thinking that she and I have any mutual respect.
I’m calling YOU out, as others both female and male have done, on your ongoing habit of resorting when angry to epithets that are specifically reserved for women, in obvious illustration of your view that the state of femaleness is something to be derogated. In fact, your pattern of verbal behavior clearly indicates that you believe that using fighting language that’s designed only to emphasize a woman’s gender is, unlike criticizing her mutable traits or simply using a non-gender-loaded barb, the worst thing you can say to her, the biggest insult you can lob.
Issues with women? Dude, you’ve got a year’s subscription, and it shines brightly through your commenting history.
@shortstop: Isn’t there someplace you spent time while you weren’t commenting here? I don’t care if you are in Just Some Fuckhead’s clique at this point. You’re more than pretty tiresome. And boring like SP&T except without the attractiveness of a 92 year old to go along with it.
@WyldPirate: You and T, I have become about the most accomplished thread-shitting trolls on this here blog. CS and JSF are a least humorous on occasion and can discuss substantive issues without immediately resorting to Obot invective.
In short, you are the cancer that is killing /bj/
And with that, i’m out of this thread. You can keep shitting on it like m_c used to do with EDK’s threads. Whatever.
Fucking please—-what a bunch of long-winded drivel demonstrating that you are completely full of shit
My, my, what a little potty mouth you are.
Two things. First, you made it all about what goes on between Weiner and his wife out of the gate. You also repeat the same contradiction in your second long-winded, illogical screed above.
Uh, no. But thanks for trying. Weiner’s wife, who mercifully has stayed out of this thing, is not the issue, and I clearly said this a number of times. What I might bet about her feelings is separate from my point that what she thinks about her husband’s behavior, and whether she approves of it or not, is irrelevant. Again, get someone to explain this to you. Slowly.
What the other women thought about the exchanges (which may or may not have been between consenting adults) and what his constituents think of what and how discreet Weiner should be in his private life are not the issue (though I will concede his constituents can make that their business if they are prudish enough to do so) and wasn’t Greenwald’s point.
Weiner’s constituents, be they prudes or libertines, can decide whatever they want. We agree on this.
And it is not just what the other women think about anything. They are under no constraint to keep anything private. This is where Weiner is a fool, something which has nothing to do with either morality or his marriage.
And any formulation about “consenting adults” or what Weiner’s wife agrees with or disagrees with, in nonsense. It is not the beginning or the end of ethical or political considerations. I realize that this is too subtle a concept for you, but others may get it, which is why I bring it up here.
Greenwald’s point is that these sorts of sexual peccadilloes are just shameful media circuses that distract from serious issues such as Clarence Thomas’ monetary conflict of interest.
Wow. This is a point? This is the proclamation of the Great Saint Greenwald? Yeah, I got it. I ain’t impressed. This is trivial and small minded. And stupid. “Oh, God, we will never get to the bottom of Clarence Thomas’ perfidy because the entire universe is consumed with Weiner’s weenie.” This is typical GG hyperbole.
Instead, the media and other prudish assclowns (look in the mirror for one) decide that a picture of Weiner’s trouser trout smothered in underwear is the equivalent of him selling the invasion plans of Iraq to Saddam Hussein. That’s Greenwald’s point and that’s the point that YOU MISS because you are incapable of recognizing that Weiner taking pictures of his dick and sending them to women has no bearing on his ability to be a Congressman (or at least it shouldn’t and wouldn’t in a society that wasn’t chockfull of sexual prudes).
Wow. You got me. Even though I have never written squat about Weiner’s ability to be a Congressman, and have never squealed for his resignation.
Greenwald has no point because we live in a world where a dull, sullen media is easily distracted with the salacious and the sordid. Here, ironically enough, GG is the Puritan scold who thinks that he can decree what people should think and believe.
And we live in a world where people are often punished for expressing their sexuality. Even in supposedly progressive enclaves by people who supposedly know better. This ain’t gonna change just because GG gets up on his high horse about it.
And you and GG miss the point when you ignore that Weiner made the problem worse by trying to lie his way out of it.
So, the Great Saint Greenwald proclaims “Ignore Weiner’s lame, distracting lies, which drew this farce out longer than necessary. I, the Great Saint Greenwald have decreed that the media and the ignorant public are at fault, not this reckless fool. Pay no attention to that man over there with his dick in a Tweet. Only what I, the Great Saint Greenwald deem to be important is important.”
But in my corner of the universe, I want to know if the Blake Lively pics are authentic and I want Clarence Thomas investigated. I don’t need GG to set or approve my agenda.
Where the “complexity” you refer to comes in is when Weiner started lying about it once the allegation was made. And again, this is a part of Greenwald’s argument in that this incident should have never been newsworthy to start with. It shouldn’t be anything other than an issue between Weiner, his wife and the women he sent his dick pics to.
And here is where we get to simplicity again. The Great Saint Greenwald doesn’t get to decide what is and what is not newsworthy. I know that in his (and your) little universe, people are drones who concentrate solely on what is serious, based on orders that they receive from Progressive Central. Things operate very differently in the real world.
And as I have noted for the bazillionith time, anyone who sends anyone dick pics online cannot control what will happen to them. The nature of the Internets almost guarantees that someone would leak them eventually. To try to wrap this reality up with some bullshit about what might be between Weiner, his wife and the six (and still counting) women he sent stuff to, is insane.
GG’s supposed great insights are simpleminded precisely because he wants to insist that people behave and think in ways that he approves of. His overly legalistic mind doesn’t appear to comprehend what real people do or how they think. Now that I think about it, he is Ayn Rand for progressives. That people buy into his twaddle just amazes me.
193.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Which one are you again? I always get you and that other guy you’re always fighting with mixed up.
194.
SFAW
Which one are you again? I always get you and that other guy you’re always fighting with mixed up.
He’s either Who, What or I Don’t Know (Third Base!)
195.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: I understand it’s hard for you to keep track. Since you’re almost never here, but always here.
Know why guys like the idea of dating a shortstop?
Who died and made you a fucking psychiatrist, shortstop? Or are you just doing a Bill Frist impersonation and “diagnosing” people you know nothing about?
I did nothing “dishonestly” regarding my view of “words” describing anatomy. They mean the same thing or refer to the same thing in my view
The real question though, is who made you the “language police” of Balloon Juice or anywhere else for that matter? Do you run around in your real-life with a bar of soap threatening to wash out people’s mouths because they say something you find offensive? Is an insult less innocuous just because it isn’t “gender-specific”?
I am just as likely to use a gender-specific insult towards a man as I am a woman. I have no problem with men or women in my real life. What I do have a problem with is sanctiminous, moralizing bitches like yourself who are nothing more than prudish scolds.
Now run along and go fuck yourself with your favorite toy. I doubt that you get much dick (or penis–just in case I might offend your delicate sensibilities) anyway (if you swing that way) judging from your comments here.
197.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: I was almost never here, but lately I’m almost always here. Times change. People, too.
@shortstop: Gotta respect anyone who’s a pro at turning two.
200.
WyldPirate
@shortstop:
Who died and made you a fucking psychiatrist, shortstop? Or are you just doing a Bill Frist impersonation and “diagnosing” people you know nothing about?
I did nothing “dishonestly” regarding my view of “words” describing anatomy. They mean the same thing or refer to the same thing in my view
The real question though, is who made you the “language police” of Balloon Juice or anywhere else for that matter? Do you run around in your real-life with a bar of soap threatening to wash out people’s mouths because they say something you find offensive? Is an insult less innocuous just because it isn’t “gender-specific”?
I am just as likely to use a gender-specific insult towards a man as I am a woman. I have no problem with men or women in my real life. What I do have a problem with is sanctiminous, moralizing bitches like yourself who are nothing more than prudish scolds.
Now run along and go fuck yourself with your favorite toy. I doubt that you get much dick (or peenis—just in case I might offend your delicate sensibilities) anyway (if you swing that way) judging from your comments here.
201.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Oh, never a pro. You know how hard it is to get out of the minors with that?
202.
shortstop
@WyldPirate: Mmmm, I knew you’d double down. You always do when you’re embarrassed. Never disappoint us, WP. Always keep talking.
OK, this is where we have a point of agreement, Brachiator. I also think it is where we are talking past each other.
Impeaching Clinton “biggest load of bull evah”. Check.
annoyed over Bill trying to weasel out by lying? Check
Shorter version of my rant: Check the tapes. I never much paid attention to the Weiner Roast until he started back stepping on his admitted lies. And here, despite GG’s oracular crap, this is when the story became serious business. When a politician lies to me, even if he does so because he thinks that the rubes and the prudes won’t understand the truth, he is asking for an ass kicking comeuppance.
I’m in agreement with Greenwald that these things wouldn’t be newsworthy in a serious society and shouldn’t interfere with one’s ability to perform their job.
I don’t believe in some ideal, serious society. This is one of my biggest beefs with the cult of Greenwald.
And don’t bring up Europe. Even the Italians are beginning to get fed up with their philandering leader. They find that they have to distinguish between sex scandals that are nothing and behavior that not only interferes with the ability to do the job but which brings down scorn and disrespect from other national leaders. Sometimes shit is trivial; sometimes shit has consequences.
I realize that the US hasn’t “matured” to the point as a society where we (as a society) can ignore sniffing public figures underwear. That’s where the complexity of the issue arises that you referred to. Greenwald’s argument, to me at least, is more along the lines that it is a shame that we haven’t got to that point as a society.
Another point of near agreement. Yeah, some Americans need to grow up. But citizens have the right and the obligation to evaluate a politician’s behavior to determine whether that behavior has become reckless.
Greenwald doesn’t get this. Nor do some of his most devoted acolytes.
204.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Hmmm. Well, keep perfecting your craft! I’m sure one day it will be worth someone paying you to do it!
205.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Will do! I know you can share insights on paying for it — I hope to glean some good tips from your extensive experience with that, baby.
206.
Fred
@Tim, Interrupted: I have reality leanings. I know a good thing when I see it and I know a fake when I see it. Obot is some bullshit talking point someone came up with who’s opinion I could care less about. That has ZERO meaning to me.
Greenwald endorsed a Libertarian for Prez. A LIBERTARIAN. Let me repeat. A Libertarian. If you still think someone like that speaks for you then absolutely we are 180 degrees apart.
207.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: I’ll be happy to help you with that! The usual $20 per session?
208.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Is that all you pay? You are getting some quality alley lovin’ there, guy!
Reuter/Ipsos poll today has Obama ‘slaughtering’ Romney by 13. Funny you never mentioned it since you seem to be so concerned with polls…..when they go the other way.
210.
Fred
@Idiot: You mean God forbid Greenwald does not go out of his way to try call out Obama for something.
That would make more sense. I’m sure you just typed it too fast and never proof read.
And it is not just what the other women think about anything. They are under no constraint to keep anything private. This is where Weiner is a fool, something which has nothing to do with either morality or his marriage.
__
And any formulation about “consenting adults” or what Weiner’s wife agrees with or disagrees with, in nonsense. It is not the beginning or the end of ethical or political considerations. I realize that this is too subtle a concept for you, but others may get it, which is why I bring it up here.
Look, I never said that Weiner wasn’t a fool. Nor did I say that it is the beginning and end of any ethical considerations in our current society you long-winded, thick-headed, fuckwit.
My point (and I think Greenwald’s) is that it (the ability of society not to freak out over sexual issues) is something that shouldn’t be newsworthy. I never made any claims that Weiner-Gate isn’t newsworthy now or that I get to make the determination of whether it is or not. It clearly is. But to me, the issue is that it shouldn’t be a distraction and wouldn’t be in a less sexually repressed society.
This is not unlike the brouhaha that would have come to light at the revelation that a politician was gay just a few short years ago (or that one was an atheist now). He/she as a politician would have no future electability because people would judge them as unfit for the job. Neither of these two issues–or the fact that Weiner was sending dick pics to women online–should, in an ideal world have any bearing on their ability to do their job. Of course there is an exception to each of these situations where over-indulgence in anything can impair one’s ability to perform their job
I frankly think that Weiner is a fucking idiot for doing what he did and fan even bigger idiot for lying about it. He would have clearly been better off just to own up to it. But what he did is what the vast majority of other people would have done if caught in the same situation. Moreover, I’m not naive enough (nor is Greenwald) to believe we live in a society where this kind of shit doesn’t matter. What I–and I think Greenwald–am trying to get at is that we should aspire to living in a society where this kind of thing doesn’t matter any longer.
212.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Well, if you’re in truly desperate straights I *may* go to $25 per.
But stop trying to chisel any more out of me.
213.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Straits, dear, not straights. Any sort of restraint will cost you quite a bit more, and we’ll need to have someone else in the room for security ’cause of those pesky mood swings of yours. We talked about this, remember?
214.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: If you’d like someone to video these sessions, I’m cool with that.
I’m still not giving you more than $25 per.
215.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Alas, my summer schedule is terribly tight, but you can probably find someone willing to make $25 for 15 seconds’ work, what with the economy so shaky and all.
216.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: I agree. At $25 I was pretty sure I would be over paying for your services.
217.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: You just accidentally made a serious funny, but it would take too long to ‘splain and is too inside anyway. Me old man is standing behind me laughing his ass off at your inadvertent wording.
Good night, Corner Stone. Gotta talk to an Asian colleague at 4 bells and I need my sleep to stay beautiful, inside and out, for you. Thanks for the laughs.
218.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Hey, anytime I can tell you you’re a cheap somethingorother and have your hubby laugh about it let me know.
I’m all about contributing to marital bliss.
Comments are closed.
Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!
stuckinred
We? What was that about a mouse in a pocket? Great post by the way. Kay, are you here?
dpCap
JEez you scared the shit out of me. I thought that was a link to the other Glenn.
Fred
I don’t read Greenwald because only idiots do that IMHO. But a quick browser search did not see Obama mentioned once. Did Greenwald actually get through a whole story without criticising Obama once? How is that even possible?
jwb
I especially liked the digs against McMegan.
cervantes
One quibble: Weiner called Breitbart a liar, which he is, but which he was not in this particular instance. He should have stepped up and come clean immediately, that was the only honorable thing to do under the circumstances.
Otherwise, Glenzilla would be completely right and Weiner would have a bit of high ground.
jwb
@Fred: He still has eight or nine updates to go, so there’s time.
arguingwithsignposts
Would someone provide us with the bullet points so we don’t have to click?
Whiskey Screams from a Guy With No Short-Term Memory
Well, for the first time I give GG an A+. Can’t disagree with a word he says.
Genghis
I could care about the tweeting and sexting, but a politician who puts themselves into a position of having to lie better be doing it for national security reasons. He’s dead meat nationally, if not to his constituents, and he damages Democratic Party interests until he resigns. If he had said, “my private life is none of your business”, at least he wouldn’t have lied. I’d also like to say to him, “stupid, stupid, stupid”. Best…H
Tim, Interrupted
I linked to this GG article in a BJ thread yesterday, John. Thanks for FPing it.
GG is not perfect in what he does, but damn near. All hail the Glennzilla.
Where’s eesmarm? GG USES TO MANY WORDS AND IS SELF RIGHTEOUS!
Also, too: Kay, what are your thoughts on the GG post?
Tim, Interrupted
@Fred:
Fred, to this point I was thinking you and me were compadres. However and unfortunately, I will have to rethink being your bestest bud: My opinion of GG is 180 degrees from yours.
I take it you have Obot leanings? There is help for that…
PS
Would this be a convenient moment to suggest that we endorse or refute opinions and actions rather than individuals?
Just thought I’d mention it.
shortstop
@Fred: In contrast, you’re unable to get through an entire thread, or even the first few posts, without bringing up Greenwald. This time he actually happened to be a subject of the thread. Stopped clock and all that.
Jay in Oregon
@arguingwithsignposts:
DC
presssex scandals are an excuse for a sexually repressed society to talk about sex acts and people’s naughty bits with the pretense of noble intentions.GG compares Weiner’s activities with similar scandals (Edwards, Ensign, Vitter, Spitzer, Craig) and wonders if some of the pundits and reporters that breathlessly cover this stuff would live up to their own high moral standards.
GG finished off by saying that he doesn’t really like Weiner personally or professionally and that GG’s objections to the whole mess are philosophical.
@BGinCHI: That part, too.
BGinCHI
This is outrageously true and good. Stick a marker in this for the future.
Brian S
I agree largely with Greenwald, and with Amanda Marcotte who made a very similar argument yesterday, except for one very big point. You can’t claim this is a private matter, not when Weiner did this in a public space, however unintentional it was. I think all the tut-tutting over what Weiner did is nonsense, and I think the comparisons of George W Bush to Bill Clinton point out how stupid the argument that one’s marital fidelity is an indicator of one’s ability to govern effectively is, but the second Weiner sent the first pic over Twitter, this stopped being a private sexual act. It’s the equivalent of flirting in a public park–just because no one sees you do it the first dozen or so times doesn’t mean you’re never going to get caught, and you can’t really complain if it happens eventually.
Judas Escargot
(Edited to add precision.)
cleek
@Brian S:
nah.
it’s more like flirting on your computer, except for the one time you accidentally sent your message to everyone in your address book instead of to the one person you intended.
it’s only public by accident.
El Tiburon
Getting past Fred’s obvious and apparent extreme homophobia, it is true, that for the most part, we are a nation of little, immature juvenile punks giggling at the first girl who develops breasts or pretending that we would NEVER EVER choke the chicken.
I was listening to Sam Seder’s interview with Sarah Vowell and they were discussing the early days of America’s ‘conquest’ of Hawaii. They were talking about how prostitution was outlawed, yet a US battle ship bombed some town because they wouldn’t let any of their woman whore themselves for the sailors. (Or something close to that.)
My point is we all do this kind of shit to one extent or another, but if you are caught, then game over.
We really are a stupid people.
Brachiator
What a bunch of tiresome twaddle. I certainly don’t think the Weiner Roast is the biggest calamity in the universe, but I will bet you good money that Weiner never told his wife, “Hey, honey, I’m going to be doing some sexting with anonymous babes for a few hours. Okay?” Weiner didn’t consider his conduct his wife’s business. Some of the women he texted somehow thought that Weiner’s business was their business. And the voters in Weiner’s district might prefer that their guy either be more discreet or spend more time on the people’s business and less on monkey business.
GG tries to parse ethics without any coherent or interesting view of either morality or ethics.
In short, GG is in typical “make shit up mode” disconnected from common sense. And as always, he never strays far from that horse that he beats to death, where the only thing that matters in the world is his views on civil liberties.
GG is as tiresome as Sullivan, and often just as self-righteously wrong-headed.
Those of you who love him can have him.
Brian S
@cleek: Sorry, but no. It’s always public. Best case scenario, that you don’t make any mistakes, you’re still depending on the good will of the person you’re talking to online, or at least their ability to not accidentally forward along anything you sent to them. Nothing online is ever really private–you only have an illusion of privacy there.
drkrick
Not directly. The point about how reporters who would never question a politician about illegal wars are all over this could qualify as a bank shot if you needed it to.
ChrisNYC
This Greenwald piece is a fantasy. This thing started on the internet, raged on the internet — left and right — for days before the “DC press” picked it up. I’m just glad NO ONE on Balloon Juice is interested in it AT ALL.
drkrick
@Brian S: Maybe the distinction shouldn’t be public/private, but between what is and isn’t anyone else’s business. Unfortunately for the Congressman, once he held a press conference and announced he hadn’t sent the message, that bridge was crossed, too.
WyldPirate
@Fred:
Typical dumbfuck Obot fluffer that infests this place. Can’t stand any criticism of Obama no matter how factual and valid it is.
You dumb fucks stick your fingers in your ears and scream “lalalalalala..i can’t hear you”. There is not a bit of difference in idiots like you and Palin or Bush’s diehard defenders.
Tim, Interrupted
@Brachiator:
You certainly tire easily. Is the world wearing you down with everyone failing to live up to your extremely high personal and sexual moral standards?
Take a nap.
Brian S
@drkrick: For me the issue is “what kind of a job is the politician doing in office,” because I don’t give two shits about what sexual conduct they engage in as long as it’s consenting and legal. I figure that more than half the general population cheats at some point or another, so I shouldn’t be surprised when a politician does it. Odds are they probably have at some point. And as I said above, it’s not like the ability to stay faithful magically translates into competence in office.
David in NY
@Brachiator: But the question is, who TF are you to decide what the rules in Weiner’s marriage are. That is, you think this is not his wife’s business, it’s yours. And I, and Greenwald, think folks like you (and Megan McArdle, whom you seem to emulate here) ought to spend your time thinking about actually important stuff, or at least mutter quietly to youself about it, so the world doesn’t stop its business for matters that are fundamentally private.
Tim, Interrupted
@Brian S:
Oh, for god’s sake, Brian, stop being mature and reasonable! There is personal moral outrage to be had!
Brachiator
@Brian S:
If you drop your trousers in a public park and show off your engorged junk through your shorts, I guarantee that you will end up with more than giggles and chuckles.
And Weiner’s lame denial and confession unfortunately raises more questions. He says he never had any physical contact with the women he texted. Did anyone ask or did he deny that he has not had affairs with other women not involved in the texting? His behavior has become a distraction, and his clumsy attempts to deny it initially just lands him deeper in the hole which he largely has dug himself.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
What would someone who lives in Brazil know anyway?
WyldPirate
@Brachiator:
reading is fundamental, Brachiator.
Of course Weiner probably didn’t check in with his wife to get permission to go on a sexting spree with a bunch of women he never met.
But you Obot fluffers can’t get past your hatred of Greenwald to even comprehend what Greenwald is saying–that the goddamned resolution of the issue between Weiner and his wife over this form of “infidelity” is no one else’s goddamned business.
Jeez some of you folks don’t have a lick of sense…
Joel
I see Paul Revere is ringing his bells to warn us that the whingenuts are coming!
David in NY
@Brian S: It is not “always public.” By your standards, every such thing is public — a letter sent in the mail is “public” because the recipient might reveal it. That has certainly never been the standard for “public” in the history of this country. It is most certainly not the equivalent of “flirting in a public park” and if you think it is, you should think a little more.
Look, you made a good point, basiscally, that this is not a matter of public interest. I see no reason why you had to go on to blame Weiner for it based on a bogus ground, that he was doing something in a public forum. Because he wasn’t.
Idiot
@Fred:
Yeah, god forbid he call out Obama for anything. Jesus.
PS
@PS: Thought not.
David in NY
@Brachiator: Sort of a lack of evidence for your additional charges there, isn’t there? Jeez, you must really enjoy sharpening your axe.
WereBear
Nonsense! That’s exactly how W got elected the first time!
Wait a minute…
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
@Brachiator: I’m so glad you’re the morality police where husbands and wives are 100% vanilla and don’t have any discussion about what is allowed in regards to other relationships in their own marriage. AFAIK, we haven’t heard anything from his wife, and she could have been totally ok with this. I wouldn’t be surprised if AW is just apologizing publicly to his wife because the puritan squares in the media can’t handle a marriage that exists with this sort of agreement. Speculation I know, just saying that these sort of agreements are more common than “A”merica likes to acknowledge.
Idiot
@drkrick: Yeah! That’s the ticket. And Judith Miller got a raw deal too.
Brian S
@David in NY: If you send a letter to a person with a picture of your junk in it, you’re trusting that they won’t release it to the press, but the chances of it accidentally getting into the public are low because of the technology involved in sending it. You can’t say the same about anything sent online. There are too many easy ways for something to go wrong–you get an email address wrong, you put @ instead of D in front of your tweet, etc. Because the chances for something to go wrong are so much higher online than in any other form of communication, you have to work under the assumption that online privacy is an illusion and be prepared to deal with the consequences.
And by the way, of all the social media out there, Twitter is the most public because the only way you can control who sees your tweets is to protect them, and if you’re a public figure trying to get attention for your initiatives, then protecting your tweets kind of defeats the point. Sure, you can block individuals from following you, but how do you know who to block? You can’t know with certainty. Even if you’re trying to engage privately with someone on Twitter, you’re doing it in an inherently public space., and when you do that, you’re taking the chance that someone else will see if you do something that you don’t want them to see.
artem1s
this.the village propensity to treat actual people as if they are characters performing for our amusement. So we only get the gossip that the village is interested in reporting. I left high school a long time ago and wasn’t interested then in who was banging the lead cheerleader. But too many people never, ever get over it.
cleek
@Brian S:
that argument applies to every single form of communication that exists. if two people are communicating with one another, in any form whatsoever, either person could make the information public.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
The real shame is that this scandal is distracting from the Dem’s skillful control of the political messaging.
Oh, wait . . .
magurakurin
Mate, nah. Setting aside any discussion as to how the world should or should not be, the reality of politics in 2011 in the USA is what it is. What Weiner did is now a huge distraction and was guaranteed to be so when he did it. He has to have known that. Maybe the populace shouldn’t freak out over something like this, but the environment is toxic and Weiner was taking a huge risk here. And the stakes are just too fucking high.
So, nah. If you can’t resist texting a picture of your hard cock then don’t be in the US Congress in 2011. He’s not the only smart and talented politician in his district, I’m sure. It may well be that it is a fucked up, unfair, twisted reality that texting a picture of your cock is political death, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is political death in 2011.
So, fuck Weiner. He hurt the team, probably cost them a basket or two and the score is just too damn close for that crap. There are plenty of applicants who can serve their time in the Congress without feeling the irresistible desire to text a photo of their stiff willy to someone on the Internet. Give the job to them.
Chinn Romney
@Joel:
Don’t forget he was shooting warning shots at moonbats too. It’s true, I read it on Wikipedia.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
@Brian S: Every tweet and email by every public figure ever is totally everyone elses biznass, because you know, the internets have typos.
Brian S
@cleek: Yes, but online the chances that it will get out are higher than in any other form of written (or pictorial) communication, and that’s usually the most damaging type of communication. A person can argue that he/she was misquoted or misunderstood, but it’s hard to argue that a crotch pic isn’t a crotch pic unless you’re on Arrested Development.
RossInDetroit
Spectacle over substance. The economy, the budget, Clarence Thomas’ income, wars, legislation, these are all complex things that require thought. Why should the media exercise themselves on actual reporting when there’s a bulging pair of BVDs to be tittered over?
This will always happen. It’s a feature of the media, not a bug.
El Tiburon
@magurakurin:
Hey, Master of the Obvious. No one is disputing this.
The purpose of the GG piece is t argue that it’s a shame it is this way. Yes, Weiner is an idiot because you have to be to think this shit won’t come out. But, again, the argument is that even if it did come out, we as a nation, should give a large collective sigh and move on because it’s none of our goddamn businees.
Villago Delenda Est
@artem1s:
We only get the gossip the Village is interested in reporting because it’s what the masses want, as measured in ratings, and that’s what’s most important to the Village. To get eyeballs, which translate into profit for their corporate masters.
That is what it is all about. Nothing more. If some actual information that can be useful is transmitted, well, that’s a by-product of what is really going on.
boss bitch
Weiner deserves the slapping around he’s getting. What he did was incredibly stupid. He publicly humiliated his wife and the people that defended him prior to learning the truth. Same goes for the others who exposed their families to this type of controversy.
Let’s move on. No one is saying anything new.
Pococurante
Quote Glennzilla:
I’d find his principle more believable if he’d noted the glee with which the Thomas story is being buried. Or even Thomas himself.
Moral scold indeed.
Tim, Interrupted
@boss bitch:
I don’t feel that she has been humiliated. What does this have to do with her?
YOU are the one with the issues here.
RossInDetroit
@boss bitch:
Why is it the responsibility of the media to punish him and others for what he/they did to their wives and families?
Brachiator
@Tim, Interrupted:
It’s not about my standards, high or low. It’s about stupidity, sloppy thinking, and lame punditry. And as for my own standards, my mantra is a line from Reversal of Fortune:
Similarly, Tim, you clearly cannot imagine what behavior, even in public officials, that I might find personally acceptable. But unlike GG, I don’t have to jump through hoops to attempt to rationalize reckless behavior on the part of political figures.
@David in NY:
Please pay attention. Weiner is a public official. I said that it is up to the voters in his district to decide what behavior is acceptable.
And if absolutely none of this mattered and nobody cared, politicians would never bother doing dog and pony shows where they trot out their wives and kids to show that “shucks, we’re good folks.”
Oh, get off your high horse. In other posts I castigate Americans who have a permanent puritanical stick up their asses over sexual conduct. And I certainly don’t give a rat’s ass what Megan McArdle thinks about anything.
But as I said, I chuckle over the inconsistency of Balloon Juicers. One day many of you are bashing John Edwards and bloviating over how his behavior with his love muffin confirms his sleaziness. But with Weiner there are supposedly more important things to think about, so why don’t we just give him a pass.
Hell, I avoided most of the Weiner Roast initially, especially the boneheaded take down conspiracy posts.
And note that I am not roaring about how personally outraged I am by Weiner’s behavior or insisting that Weiner resign or be hounded from office.
What I am saying, quite simply, is that what Saint Greenwald has to say about Weiner is as stupid and confused as anything that comes from right wing defenders of their favored politicians. There are areas where I respect and admire GG. This ain’t one of them.
trollhattan
Did the Weiner deal get started in part with help from someone in Issa’s office?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/issa-aide-linked-weinergate-096417
H/T Rumproast.
boss bitch
@Tim, Interrupted:
I’m sorry what? What does Weiner sending dick pics to women who are not his wife have to do with his wife? And you don’t think she is embarrassed by the media glare?
yeah, I”M the one with issues.
boss bitch
@RossInDetroit:
Never said it was their job. I said he deserves the humiliation. You know, facing the consequences of his actions.
trollhattan
@Brachiator:
Heh-heh, you said “…Megan McArdle thinks…” That’s a ten-quatloo fine and no cookies for a week.
Valdivia
and now the full monty is out there on the internets for everyone to see.
gawd. will this ever end?
RossInDetroit
@boss bitch:
So it’s not the media’s job to shame Weiner but it’s OK if they’re doing it? That seems logically shaky.
The way I see it, it’s either their business or it’s not, and I favor the latter.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
It’s amazing the hoops that somewill jump through to rationalize the bad behavior of the press and their audience.
dollared
@Tim, Interrupted: This is not about high moral standards. Brachiator wants the Wenis-fest to go to 11 so s/he can see more blurred-out low-res pix!
jimbob
@PS: You weren’t really expecting otherwise were you?
Stefan
@David in NY:
And by that same standard, a private conversation I have with another is “public” because that person might record it, or write about it online. If we define it that way there’s simply no sphere of privacy left.
lacp
There’s always a silver lining. At least the Weinerator knocked Sarah! off the front page for a news cycle or two. Of course, now she’ll come back saying that Paul Revere was texting pix of his balls (or was it bells?) to Sam Adams or some such shit.
Yutsano
@Valdivia: It could be worse. It could be Chris Christie. Yes I’ll pass the brain bleach now.
Villago Delenda Est
I have no doubt that this entire “scandal” has more to do with taking Weiner out of the picture in exposing Clarence Thomas’ total lack of an ethical bone anywhere in his loathsome body than any actual concern about any “victims” who were grievously harmed by the “explicit” pictures of a wrapped in cotton schlong.
In that sense, it succeeded, and Weiner has only himself to blame for engaging in this activity as if he were a wholly private citizen (and letting people know it was him, Anthony “the wiener” Weiner) and then prevaricating about it for 10 days. “Certitude”, my ass.
PS
@jimbob: Alas, no. But I thought it worth a reminder.
drkrick
@Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .:
FTFY
daveNYC
Personally I think that Weiner should resign because he was stupid enough to do this over Twitter instead of using a fake gmail or hotmail account.
Tim, Interrupted
@boss bitch:
yeah, I”M the one with issues.
What I was trying to say, and didn’t do so very well, is that one has to PARTICIPATE in one’s own shaming for it to have any effect. Mrs. Weiner does not strike me as someone who will embrace the humiliation you hope for her.
That likely saddens you.
El Cid
I think that it is extremely important for the nation’s most prominent news media to focus on the sexual indiscretions or romantic relationship problems, and to do so in ways which those writers and anchors find most exciting and intriguing.
Particularly when it involves liberals or Democrats like Bill Clinton. An obsessive focus on his affairs and his p3nis was incredibly valuable to the nation.
I believe this mostly because I hate Glenn Greenwald and I have to make sure everyone knows my opinion on him first and foremost.
El Cid
@Villago Delenda Est: The inverse of a well-known saying: If there are indeed so many people out to get you, then it’s a good time to be paranoid.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
drkrick: Thanks for giving me my QED moment, I’m gonna go smoke a cig.
Tim, Interrupted
@Valdivia:
He’s got nothing to apologize in that department, as far as I can tell. Slurpilicious. Yes, I looked. I couldn’t stand the temptation. I was weak, alright?!
My god, the Karmic payback to Breitbart and his enablers will be epic.
Montysano
@Brachiator:
Talk about “making shit up”. Maybe Weiner’s wife doesn’t give a flying fuck if he talks dirty on the internet.
Tim, Interrupted
@Villago Delenda Est:
If not a Fainting Victorian Pearl Clutcher, you are certainly among those who enthusiastically enable same.
Jewish Steel
Like a Frenchman, I expect powerful men (and women too, if they want, doesn’t seem as common with them though) to use their power to leverage sex. People are animals, and I mean that in the most animal positive way. That is why I am far more interested in the moral scolding in the media (along with Glenn) than in the story itself which turned out drearily predictable.
I do like what Hertzberg said in the linked article.
Suffern ACE
@Montysano: Maybe, maybe not. But she would certainly mind being asked about by absolute and relative strangers.
Valdivia
@Yutsano:
OMG why why why did you put that image in my head???
bleach ain’t gonna do it buddy. where is the acid?
eemom
hey there, timmeh. You know your obsession with me is getting downright creepy.
hey John, I know you don’t care what I think, but can we take a vote on banning this asshole?
Yutsano
@Valdivia: I think I have some lye under the sink. Or if we wanna go high tech we could do a laser cauterization.
WyldPirate
@RossInDetroit:
Ah hell, Ross, don’t blame the media– they’re just giving the people what they want.
Really, this little episode is just a symptom of a dying empire. It’s happened before. Juvenal recognized it about 300 years before the Roman Empire sputtered out…
—
Joel
@RossInDetroit: With you here. But this is the media. These guys make their bones in takedowns, and always have, going back to Gary Hart and further. They don’t do it to republicans because they’re afraid of them. Notable exception of Larry Craig, but that’s because the guy was so publicly humiliated that he became an easy target. And the republican establishment decided not to defend him, which made the bullying even easier.
batgirl
@Montysano:
Maybe Weiner’s wife does give a flying fuck if he talks dirty on the Internet or maybe she doesn’t. I certainly don’t give a flying fuck either way. That’s between him and his wife. I just wish that he hadn’t been such a weasel when the photo broke.
MattR
@eemom: If we’re gonna be banning assholes, I’d suggest anyone (such as yourself) that baselessly accuses a commenter of creating an illness in order to gain sympathy or make a point should be tossed to the street as well.
Villago Delenda Est
@Tim, Interrupted:
Tim, it’s amazing how you can read your own horseshit into other people’s posts.
What Weiner does with consenting adults to get his rocks off is absolutely no concern or care of mine. It’s that he’s stupid enough not to realize that there ARE assholes like Breitbart who will play to the puritan mindset to destroy those they perceive as political enemies, and Weiner’s lead in taking on Thomas definitely made Weiner a target of assholes like Breitbart.
THAT is the reality of the political environment in this country. If you’re going to play in that game, you have to live by those rules, you can’t ignore them, and you can’t play to them by denying it for 10 days. Which is what Weiner actually did.
The point that the entire wiener thing has nothing at all to do with Weiner’s positions on Thomas, Israel, debit card fees, the price of tea in China, or who shot J.R. is utterly irrelevant to the political reality is that there are sleazebags like Breitbart who will use that sort of thing as leverage. You and I decrying the broomstick up the ass mentality of the masses will change nothing.
Weiner fucked up by not being anonymous, by boasting of who he was, and then when he got caught being a dumbass, lying about being a dumbass for 10 days…which only played into Breitbart’s hands and distracted attention from Clarence Thomas’ criminal lack of ethics.
Brachiator
@WyldPirate:
You just don’t get it, do you? I think that GG is overrated. He is often as useless as is Sullivan. GG was overrated when he was bashing Bush. That he bashes Obama now is irrelevant. You really should try to get your head out of the ideological fog.
@Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac:
Oh, stop with the vanilla bullshit. I recall a conversation I heard years ago on the LA area Mark and Brian radio show. A female producer admitted that her boyfriend was once super hot for her to agree to a threesome with him, her and another man. When she finally agreed and they did the deed, the boyfriend went nuts. Seems that he didn’t realize that he would get jealous when she showed how much she enjoyed the other guy. His fantasy was that he would be the top gun in the threesome. Reality burst all the apparent understanding and original fantasy. In the real world, sexual desire can rarely be contained by genteel agreements. Haven’t you ever listened to a Savage Love podcast or read the column?
As an aside, I find that a lot of people who lead supposedly non vanilla lives often have even more rules than so-called vanillas. And these rules can be as useless as the codes of conventional morality when it comes to trying to prevent life from being what it is, inherently messy.
I respect Weiner and his wife. I don’t have to speculate about whatever rules they have in their marriage. This is irrelevant and immaterial.
But guess what? The women Weiner texted don’t have to give a rat’s ass about Weiner’s marriage or privacy. He cannot magically demand that they respect his and his wife’s privacy, precisely because whatever arrangement he made with them was independent of his marriage.
His lack of discretion leaves him open to attack. The messages and apparent photos that he sent them are like a pack of love letters that a rogue has gotten hold of. The line between private and public gets crossed whether anyone likes it or not. This is what GG and his defenders don’t understand.
As I noted in another thread on a similar topic, speculation here says more about the poster’s fantasy and imagination than about the public figure being discussed.
You’re right that we don’t know what Weiner’s wife might or might not be OK with. But this is irrelevant now that Weiner’s behavior has become public, just as irrelevant as David Vitter’s claim that voters should have no opinion on his diaper wearing frolics with hookers just because he supposedly got the Okey Doke from his wife and the Baby Jebus.
WyldPirate
@eemom:
Goodgawdalmighty but you are a detestable old crone.
You can’t stand someone rightfully bashing your sorry, non-thinking ass, so you whine, snivel and talk shit about banning someone.
If you can’t stand the criticism your stupid comments generate, then get up on the porch with the puppies you nasty old hag and keep that big piehole of your’s closed.
OzoneR
@cervantes:
My only issue with Weiner is this, he couldn’t come clean and he gave Breitbart credbility that he’ll use to go after someone innocent. Also, Weiner should’ve known not the do this in this puritanical country of ours.
Other than that, I don’t care.
arguingwithsignposts
My only comment on this is that all this sturm und drang makes me *long* for the long hot summer of 2009 when we were all debating the public option and “death panels.” At least there was some semblance of fucking substance to the Obot/Firebagger bullshit name calling then.
ETA to fix time.
timb
@WyldPirate: Uh, it’s not her we would vote to ban, wylde
PeakVT
Days like to today make we want to delete all my political feeds and stick to looking at blogs full of baby animals or landscape photos. Unfortunately, I am OCD wrt. the news.
Tim, Interrupted
@eemom:
Typical eesmarm: Always with wanting to SHUT OTHER PEOPLE UP, silence them, ban them!
Now…tell the group the name of the man who did you so wrong, and whose face you project onto John Edwards and Anthony Weiner. Go ahead, you can do it. Here…I’ll balance your drool bucket so you can talk more clearly…
Nemesis
So all the self righteous on both sides of the aisle pontificate on what a dastardly deciever we have in AW. A bunch of moral purists.
AW did nothing personal to me. I never campaigned for him. Never sent him money. He embarrassed himself and brought undue shame on his family. He lied and got caught. Lets not get all up in arms about a person lying. Happens all the time.
I cant get past why sooo many in the liberal community call for AW’s head on a pike, like AW did something personal to them.
I for one stand with AW. He and I have failed at times. He will get through this with the help of solid support from the people who really care about him. Standing in judgement of others is oh so easy. I prefer to stand up for those who are down.
And there is no Great Karmic Gawd keeping score as to which party fucks about the most. Its not as if the Dems have been so on-messgae that this scandal broke anyones concentration.
RossInDetroit
We really have no press in the historical sense of presenting news, research and analysis. We have media entertainment based on current events. The entertainment value drives what’s presented and how.
Yutsano
@arguingwithsignposts: How’s about no sex scandals during the summer? Though does it really count if the parties in question do not, in fact, have sex?
Villago Delenda Est
@RossInDetroit:
Our glorious Ferengi Controlled Infotainment Networks.
Wyldpirate is quite correct, in my view, in quoting Juvenal.
Tim, Interrupted
@WyldPirate:
WP, is it wrong of me to admit that your eesmarm take-down produced warm stirrings in my nether regions?
shortstop
@WyldPirate: “Crone”? “Hag”? You took too much heat for calling people bitch and cunt, so this is level two?
Your consistent inability to argue with female commenters without employing gender-specific insults is wildly revealing.
Mnemosyne
@El Cid:
That’s probably what pisses me off about this more than anything: Weiner knew that this guy was Twitter-stalking him and he did it anyway.
Argue all you like about how it shouldn’t be a big deal, it was still epically idiotic of Weiner to do this when he knew perfectly well that he was being scrutinized by his enemies.
WyldPirate
@Brachiator:
Nice non sequitur, Brachiator, but I get it just fine–your reading comprehension sucks.
Who the fuck are you to be the arbiter of what goes on between Weiner and his wife whether the issue is sexual in nature or not?
This issue regarding the Greenwald article has nothing to do with whether or not Weiner “asked permission from his wife” to go on a sexting spree. Rather, it has to do with your hatred of Greenwald for his criticism of Obama. I’ve been around here long enough to see you Obot nitwits have a fit over Greenwald’s usually airtight criticisms of Obama. Y’all get your knickers in a twist because someone has the temerity to criticize President Immaculate Perfection.
Greenwald is right. The media and the public are a bunch of underwear sniffers and leering sexual voyeurs in general and it’s a damned shame given all of the other serious, fucked up shit that is happening to the country that this has turned into yet another distracting Clown Show.
Chris
@WyldPirate:
Full quote about this courtesy of IMSDB:
“Games? He wants to hold games?”
“It’s madness.”
“No… it’s not. He knows who Rome is. Rome is the mob. He will conjure magic for them and they will be distracted. And he will takes their lives. And he will take their freedom. And still they will roar. The beating heart of Rome isn’t the marble of the Senate. It’s the sand of the Colosseum. He will give them death. And they will love him for it.”
(Gladiator)
Tim, Interrupted
@shortstop:
Excuse me for leaping in the way of a bogus takedown directed at WP, but OH PUH-LEEEEEEEEEEASE MISS MARY! Eesmarm has called me several gender-specific names in threads, and no I am not going to go back and search them out, but top of my head things like “prick,” “tweezer-dick,” and others spring to mind, along with a plethora of obscene, non-gender specific epithets.
All of which I am ok with just as long as the old bag doesn’t scream “sexist” the first time she gets it thrown back in her face. Oh, but you seem to be doing that for her, and you are thus just as full of shit as is eesmarm.
WyldPirate
@timb:
Wow, someone else that can’t read. It was eemom sniveling about banning Tim, Interrupted. I’ve got no problem with what anyone says here even if they attack me. I’ll simply fire back and defend myself rather than whining like a little baby to Big Daddy John Cole about making the other kids not say mean things about me.
Also, I don’t think any of us get a vote here, dummy. My point was is you are going to fling shit here you damned well better be able to take it in return. eemom obviously can’t without being a whiny sniveling, whiny bitch about it.
Chris
OT but worth it:
“Stars collide: Bachmann vs. Palin.”
OH SHIT!!! Ginger, get the popcorn.
Brachiator
@dollared:
Actually, I far prefer the supposed Blake Lively scandal. And I take note of the words of wisdom that Reese Witherspoon offered at a recent awards ceremony:
But in the case of members of Congress, I would suggest that intelligence would lead them to be even more discreet. In the age of the Internet, anything that you post or transmit has a good chance of going viral. If you and your crony Tim would pay attention, you would understand that the morality of the thing is a small part of it.
@Montysano: RE: but I will bet you good money that Weiner never told his wife
Point noted. But I would still take that bet. And as others have said, it’s not about Weiner and his wife, but about Weiner’s weasel behavior once the news broke.
Bill Clinton’s impeachment was the biggest load of bull evah, and yet I am still annoyed that Bill tried to play the country and his supporters for fools when he tried his smarmy public lie about “not having sexual relations with that woman.”
I believe that he could have gone on TV and said, “Hell, yeah, I had relations with Miss Lewinsky. And when I’m done with this news conference, I am going to have more sex with her,” and the majority of the public would have easily moved on.
Well, OK, maybe not that last sentence about having more sex with her. But still.
eemom
I take plenty of shit here from all kinds of people and I give as good as I get.
I wasn’t suggesting Tiny Tim be banned just for insulting me. I suggested it because he’s an arrogant, obnoxious asshole to almost everybody on almost every subject and contributes nothing positive to the discussion.
Tim, Interrupted
@WyldPirate:
OMG, YOU USED A GENDER-SPECIFIC INSULT WORD!
eemom
@MattR:
I never said that to you. If you think I did you misunderstood.
Tim, Interrupted
@eemom:
No, dear, you’re projecting again; your own qualities onto me in general. If you pay attention you will notice that I am an arrogant, obnoxious asshole mostly just to YOU and a few select others who richly, richly deserve it and constantly ask for it.
Also, I know it’s hard for you to talk clearly thru the drool and the foam, but really, “EVERYbody” and “NOTHING” and “EVERY” are really, really large words in their all encompassing implications.
Are you SURE that’s what you meant to say?
Here…it’s ok…I’ve got the drool bucket…go ahead…
Villago Delenda Est
@Brachiator:
arguingwithsignposts
@Tim, Interrupted:
No, you’re pretty much an arrogant, obnoxious asshole in general, except to Fred and WyldPirate, who seem to be part of your arrogant, obnoxious asshole clique.
WyldPirate
@shortstop:
Hey, you ladies (if you are one–I have no idea) wanted equal rights–you got ’em.
The prob;lem with many women (but certainly not all) is that many want the right to use specific names whenever you want, but you get all incensed when it is turned on women.
Me, I simply see no difference between the level of “badness” when using “pussy”, “cunt”, “twat” or “vagina” when referring to the same part of anatomy. Some do. Our board host did. He banned me for a bit. It’s his board, his rules. I had no problem with that even though I wasn’t aware there was a George Carlin-like list of the “Seven words you can’t say on blogs”.
But don’t pretend that a female referring to a man as a “slimy dickhead” is any less of insult than a man referring to a woman as an “ill-tempered cunt”. Moreover, substituting the proper anatomical terms for the body parts doesn’t make it any less of an insult.
But hey, feel free to take a seat up on the porch next to eemom if you can’t take the heat, shortstop.
shortstop
@Tim, Interrupted:
Nothing wrong with those.
Feel free to call her out on them anytime you wish. I don’t usually read her comments, so I miss most of what she shares. (This is not about eemom except to you, and that only because you’re hilariously unable to look at any comment outside your own banal categorizations: “Her friend.” “Him enemy.” “Him friend–wait; he dislikes Greenwald, and Greenwald friend, so now him enemy! Grunt!”)
YeOldeWyldeBedfordePyratt has a cherished self-vision that includes being openminded, non-biased and, to hear him tell it, even feminist. This vision is measurably at odds with the reality, and after every time he loses his shit–which happens frequently since he’s a fucking nutcase–and loses control to the point that he’s compulsively screaming “bitch” and “cunt” and so on, he’s later demonstrably embarrassed to have shown his hand yet again. Since I’m against banning of all sorts except for DoS moments and, perhaps, people making outright death threats, and I further have less than zero respect for people who whine to the host (either publicly or in email) that others should be banned, I hope that WP will stick around to humiliate himself again and again and again. And he will, because of that compulsive thang we discussed.
MattR
@eemom: So when you responded with “now that you’re at the stage of just making shit up, how about you come clean and admit you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about?” to my comment that “Good to know that if my medical condition ever requires that I move to Canada in order to get coverage, I should immediately shut the fuck up about the country I lived in all my life.”, what exactly did you mean?
eemom
@Tim, Interrupted:
let’s see. Some of the highlights of your career here that I recall:
1. Insisting over and over again that the reporter who was raped in Libya had it coming for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and that anyone who denied it was an idiot.
2. Insisting that anyone and everyone who has ever served their country in the military is nothing more than a brutal killer.
3. Repeatedly badgering Cole about why he personally doesn’t post about topics that other FPers on this blog have thoroughly covered.
Ah yes. I see I’m projecting again.
liberal
@Brachiator:
Except that Weiner is by no means favored by GG.
Judas Escargot
@Mnemosyne:
Thread’s pretty much dead by now, but IMO this is the real takeaway from all this mess.
At least one thing should be unambiguously clear by now: that in this post-Spitzer, post-Edwards (and now post-Weiner) era, if you’re a high-profile Democrat, you’d better be extra-special, double-plus clean and wholesome.
Otherwise, Mr. Brietbart and company will come for you.
liberal
@eemom:
LOL. Let’s start with your exhortation in these pages that American critics of Israeli ethnic cleansing should take pause because of the American ethnic cleansing of American Indians.
AxelFoley
@arguingwithsignposts:
Haven’t read the rest of this thread yet, so I don’t know if someone has already by the time I get to the end, but yeah, this. I refuse to click on that sumbitch’s website.
liberal
@Villago Delenda Est:
LOL.
AxelFoley
@Tim, Interrupted:
You wanna suck his dick while you’re at it?
eemom
@MattR:
The “making shit up” part had nothing to do with your statement about your medical condition. I don’t have the conversation in front of me right now, but I know I was responding to something else you said — likely that you were making shit up when you attributed to me the statement that you “should immediately shut the fuck up about the country I lived in all my life.”
As I recall the whole thing started because you got in the middle of an argument I was having with someone else.
shortstop
@liberal: I’d missed this — yeah, that was hilarious, VDE.
I know I shouldn’t be laughing at the direction this thread has gone, but I can’t seem to stop. It’s so much like a food fight right now, and yeah, I did lob some Tater Tots.
WyldPirate
@arguingwithsignposts:
Read between the lines arguingwithposts–you are one of the “select others that often richly deserve it”, IMO.
Sorry I don’t turn my guns your way more often AWP, but this is a target-rich environment and there are only so many hours in the day. On the flip-side, it often gets old banging away at the same old rusted hulk of stupidity “downrange”, so maybe it’s time to start firing up at some of the less rusted hulks of stupidity that are fresh on the range.
Mnemosyne
@Judas Escargot:
And if you’re not squeaky-clean, for chrissakes don’t flaunt it and dare your enemies to expose you! Because they motherfucking will expose your stupid ass if you hand them the ammunition.
kay
@Judas Escargot:
Or, they could stand up and make the argument. “This is none of your business, and I’m not going to play”. Rather than, “this didn’t HAPPEN”. Those are two different ideas. One is an implicit admission that it matters, and a lie, and the other is a substantive, truthful defense.
Two choices there. They all pick door number one.
FlipYrWhig
To add to the “personal life should be nobody’s business” idea… Bob Somerby has been pointing out for years that when the what-passes-for-liberal-media gets caught up in sexytime scandal talk, all it succeeds in doing is validating that sexytime scandal talk is a newsworthy subject. Cackle about Christopher Lee’s body, David Vitter’s diaper fixation, Jack Ryan’s sex clubbing, and you get stuff like this.
On the other hand, I think it’s disingenuous to pretend like we — OK, I’ll admit, _I_ — haven’t had a lot of fun mocking mockable Republicans who make with the dirty-dirty, and then take refuge under this private-life-is-nobody’s-business principle.
So, at any rate, I lean toward the idea that Weiner shouldn’t resign based on nothing more principled than the fact that I kind of like the guy and think he’s funny, not because I have some important stance to take on the Zone Of Privacy and feel that I have to be consistent about that.
AxelFoley
@WyldPirate:
You wanna join Tim in slobbering over Greenwald?
arguingwithsignposts
@WyldPirate:
You missed an “Obot” there, asshole.
shortstop
@kay: You make a highly convincing case for not mixing those approaches. As you say, you can’t willingly own the shame and then blame the shamemongers.
eemom
@liberal:
Sure. I am deeply ashamed of calling self-righteous little twits like you out on their hypocrisy.
lacp
This is GREAT! BJ should do an annual WeinerWhine! I can see it now…you could even get all NRO and sponsor a fundraising cruise “WeinerWhine on the Rhine” Amazing. How many of the (so far) 124 posts here are people endlessly repeating that they really, really don’t give a shit?
liberal
@FlipYrWhig:
Not sure I get your point. The reason I cackle about someone like Vitter is the hypocrisy. Otherwise I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass.
AxelFoley
@Idiot:
Quite an apt username.
Brachiator
@WyldPirate:
You still just don’t get it. Read my posts. No. Have someone read them to you. Slowly. It’s not about Weiner and his wife. And it is not what goes on between them. When Weiner chose to send messages and photos to other women, he took things outside the confines of his marriage. It appears that someone who got one of the messages, maybe by mistake, was one of the sources of the thing going public. Every woman that Weiner sent stuff to could make their own independent decisions about what Weiner meant to them and what to do with the material, whether to keep it private or to expose it. And there was not a damn thing that Weiner could do about it.
Here it is similar to the Tiger Woods scandal. It is pointless to say that what went on between Tiger and his wife was private, when it quickly became what went on between Tiger and Mistress One, Tiger and Mistress Two, Tiger and Mistress Three, etc., with Gloria Allred bringing up the rear.
This is the essential thing that you and GG and other people are missing. Your arbitrary designation of some zone of privacy and some zone of marital exclusion does not take into account the complexity of the situation. It is a made up, phony, ad hoc and utterly unconvincing moralizing masquerading as sexual sophistication.
There is something seriously wrong with you. Do a search. You will find that I think so little of GG that I rarely post about him.
Your rants about people’s supposed Obama love reminds me of the stick that Sullivan has up his ass over Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Your delusions fail any reasonable reality test. It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.
You know, most people are able to hold more than one idea in their head. Just the other day, I wrote a long email to my Congress person detailing everything that he could do to help rescue the country from economic, social, moral and political disaster, and still had time to go see the latest X-Men movie. Go figure. But I imagine that in your and GG’s universe of the serious, instead of going to the movie, I should have been meditating on all the fucked up shit happening in the country 24/7.
Like I said in one of my first posts, typical and tiresome.
And I am on to you now. You are a dreary little ideological doofus who views everything through the filter of your political heroes and enemies and your need to wage perpetual rhetorical war over God knows what. And so everything has to be about Obama, but in a negative way.
Yep. Typical and tiresome.
liberal
@eemom:
Right…
As I pointed out before, by your reasoning, essentially no one on the planet (no human, anyway) can criticize ethnic cleansing anywhere, because the chance that any one of us isn’t somewhere down the line a “beneficiary” of ethnic cleansing is remote.
I’ll avoid any mysogynistic adjectives mentioned upthread and just point out that, by God, you’re an idiot.
shortstop
@FlipYrWhig: Sure, but isn’t the possibility of consistency made harder by the fact that most of the Republicans we laugh at are openly proposing or backing legislation that relates to other people’s sexuality and sexual expression? Craig was anti-LGBTQ rights. Gingrich was having an affair while leading charges against Clinton; Hyde, Livingston and Chenoweth had done the same. On and on and on the list goes.
We can say all private behavior should remain private regardless of the party of the person involved, but there is a difference in the way we view people who are actively using their political power to curtail other people’s sexual choices and those who aren’t.
RossInDetroit
@WyldPirate:
You’re a regular one man judge, jury and firing squad. Good thing you have no power beyond your vote.
MattR
@eemom: Re-reading the whole conversation the only excuse you might have is that you wildly misinterpreted what I wrote or thought it was a response to a different comment. Andy K mentioned that Glenn lives in Brazil which allows him to be super pure. You commented approvingly and said that no one was allowed to mention that fact. I pointed out that he had to leave in order to be with his partner and that it should not be held against him much like if I had to move to Canada for health care. At that point you said I was full of shit and making things up. Not only that, but you explicitly quoted my comment about moving to Canada in your reply. How else was I supposed to interpret that comment?
Mnemosyne
@lacp:
I don’t give a shit that Weiner decided to send out pictures of his weiner. I do care that he did it even though he knew he was being closely scrutinized — to the point of Twitter-stalking — by Breitbart’s minions.
I only have so much sympathy available for people who created their scandal through their own stupidity and arrogance.
RossInDetroit
@shortstop:
Much as I hate those hypocritical bastards, if the question is if the validity of a moral argument depends on the credibility of its proponents I’d have to say no. They can be hypocrites and still be right in pointing out others’ transgressions.
If a thief busted me for stealing I’d still be a thief.
eemom
@liberal:
There is a difference between criticizing and ignorant, sanctimonious finger-wagging, which is what you and others of your ilk dish out on the subject of Israel.
If you don’t understand that, it is you who are the idiot.
lacp
@Mnemosyne: If you have any sympathy at all for him, you have more than I do. To me the most entertaining part of the whole affair isn’t what he did or didn’t do or did, or didn’t admit to: it’s the insane hyperventilating by the blogosphere. A bit too grotesque to be pure comedy, but fascinating nonetheless.
Tim, Interrupted
@arguingwithsignposts:
You guessed right! You are one of the “select few others” of which I wrote.
Keith G
Oh fuck, this is soooo great, I am choking on my lunch.
Thanks Tim, ee, short and the rest. It was a bleak Wednesday til now.
eemom
@MattR:
I really don’t have time to reconstruct the whole thing. However, I know that I would never say to anyone that they were “making shit up” up about a medical condition, and if that is the impression you got from what I said, I apologize.
Villago Delenda Est
@shortstop:
I think that the hypocrisy factor has a lot to do with it. Weiner has never been on a personal crusade over virtual sexual chatter and photo sharing through the intertubes, to the best of my knowledge. Yet Gingrich was railing about Clinton’s moral unfitness to hold public office while he was boffing one of his aides.
It is an unfortunate fact that this country has a very fucked up perspective, in the aggregate, about matters sexual of all types. What bothers me the most about Weiner is that he should have known this, and kept his online activity anonymous if he felt compelled to engage in it. How his wife views this activity is none of my business, or anyone elses, but the fact that he engaged in it and it became a public spectacle that destroyed his own campaign to expose Clarence Thomas’ corruption concerns me greatly.
Then he compounded matters by attempting to lie his way out for 10 days, drawing attention to it. Reminds me of the situation where Todd Palin’s past involvement with the Alaska Independence Party came up during the 2008 campaign, and Sarah Palin’s reaction was to lie about it, instead of following the very wise advice of Steve Smith, McCain’s campaign manager, who told her to laugh it off, it’s in the past, Todd’s a loyal American, and not to draw attention to it by telling a very easily exposed lie that Todd “made a mistake” and checked the “Alaska Independent Party” box instead of the “Alaska Independent” box. That’s bullshit, the press will see through it in a nanosecond, and all the sudden McCain himself has to get involved, which is nothing but pure distraction from whatever message they were pushing (which, at the time, was the unveiling of the “Joe the Plumber” trope which was felt to be their last best shot at putting a dent in Obama’s armor).
eemom
@Keith G:
the sad thing is all this shitflinging has TOTALLY distracted me from my usual Greenwald-bashing. Cuz I think, as usual, that he’s full of shit on this topic.
shortstop
@Keith G: I live to serve, shoog. What’s for lunch?
Nethead Jay
@shortstop: Well said and precisely on point. I don’t think anyone here can accuse me of being a fan of eemom, but I’m with her on this. Tim, you’ve recently risen from creepy minor-league Cole-stalker and scold to giant swaggering asshole prick towards just about anyone. You need a vacation, at least.
Svensker
Isn’t it fun how even an uncontroversial Glenzilla posting (at least so far as I can see) brings out the grrrrr in everyone?
FlipYrWhig
@liberal: @shortstop: I don’t know about you, but I would still think it was funny if a Republican who wasn’t prone to flogging “family values” ended up in some kind of sex scandal. Giuliani, f’rinstance. Schwarzenegger, for another. It’s funny because they’re horrible, and it’s amusing to see horrible people squirm, even when it’s a private matter between Politician and Partner and really none of my business. It doesn’t rise to the level of outrage or Important Public Issue; it’s just funny.
Way too often the hypocrisy line feels to me like the liberal version of “it’s not the sex, it’s the _lying_.” I think it’s particularly _sweet_ when someone who can’t stay out of other people’s personal business ends up having biz-ness of his own, but it’s more an aggravating factor than a determinant of how I feel. If Gary Johnson was into cosplay or something, that would be funny too. I want to reserve the right to mock even a libertarian for doing something funny with his naughty bits. I don’t want to give that up by drawing this line at “hypocrisy.” YMMV.
Tim, Interrupted
@eemom:
Your maliciously, willfully bullshit mischaracterizations of my positions on those matters are beneath contempt. Clearly you cannot make a point or support your positions without lying about what your opponents say by making up absolutely ridiculous and grossly misleading paraphrases. Ergo you are a LIAR.
A few examples just from this last comment of yours:
When was it established that Laura Logan was raped? Links please.
When did I say she “had it coming?” Links please
When did I say that “anyone and everyone” who has ever “served” in the military is a brutal killer? Links please.
You, eesmarm are a vicious, hateful, foul mouthed liar whose own skin is as thin as the bile you spew is thick. And seeking to BAN and silence those who choose to call you out is never far from your mind, with never a thought to the very, very specific bannning policy that Cole has put in place.
All of which is why I enjoy calling attention to your very weak bullshit.
So here, just for now dear, hold your own drool bucket. I think you need to sit in your dirty depends for a while too.
arguingwithsignposts
@Tim, Interrupted:
You, too, missed an “Obot” there, asshole.
And, if by “select few” you mean anyone and everyone who a) disagrees with you, or b) thinks you’re a flaming asshole, then my guess is that the “select few” means “vast majority” in the unicorn-pony world you type furiously from.
Tim, Interrupted
@AxelFoley:
Closet case homophobe on aisle nine. You see, if I were eesmarm or ABL, I would now email Cole seeking to have you banned. ONly, in this case I would have cause, as homophobic remarks/insults are specifically cited in Cole’s new banning policy.
Hmmm…maybe I WILL send an email. I’m gonna sit write down and write John Cole a letter….
shortstop
@RossInDetroit: I wasn’t thinking mere credibility so much as the fact that they’re actively working to curtail our legal rights on sexual matters. The sexual sanctimony of my officious Christian neighbor doesn’t affect my life in the same way that the actions of my elected representatives do. Hypocrisy is ugly–and very often funny–and it’s hard to resist mocking it. But this goes beyond plain hypocrisy to become actual or attempted interference in constituents’, particularly women constituents’, sex lives.
I suppose the argument against making that distinction is the same as the one you made, but I think we could also argue that when it comes to elected officials, criticizing sexual hypocrisy may act as a kind of disincentive for them to continue pushing for that kind of invasive legislation. The goal, after all, isn’t to get them to be more chaste but to get them out of everyone else’s bedrooms.
Corner Stone
@Nethead Jay: God. Go climb back into your morality play you little bitch.
Brachiator
@Villago Delenda Est:
Hah. I like it. Especially, the Sam Donaldson part.
@liberal: RE: What I am saying, quite simply, is that what Saint Greenwald has to say about Weiner is as stupid and confused as anything that comes from right wing defenders of their favored politicians.
You see, that’s just it. I don’t care who GG favors or opposes. I am simply saying that while I understand that there are those who love GG, I don’t think that he is a clear thinker or much of a pundit or journalist or whatever it is he thinks he is. And for the sake of those in the room who are just slow, I do not dispute GG’s progressive credentials.
And so it is not that I simply disagree with GG’s take on Weiner. I think it is as incoherent as McArdle on economics or Sullivan on science.
But I understand that there are those who worship at the altar of Saint Greenwald, and that it is apostasy for any to dare veer from the path that he lays out in his mighty rhetoric. But veer I do.
Tim, Interrupted
@Keith G:
Keith, you are heartily welcome! :D I enjoy reading other thread fights myself so I understand the rubbernecking pleasure you are experiencing.
Tim, Interrupted
@Nethead Jay:
Oh, I’m sorry. Am I not allowed to speak MY mind because you disagree?
Anyone? Hardly. Pretty much just the Obot bully assholes of BJ, with whom you apparently identify strongly.
eemom
@Tim, Interrupted:
sounds like I hit a nerve there, asshole. Ya got STEEEAAAAAAM oozing out your pointy little ears.
FTR, I don’t favor a heavy hand with the ban-hammer. There are plenty of assholes here who still manage to contribute something positive to the discussion once in a while. YOU don’t.
Plenty of people here besides you have insulted me personally. I can’t think of one that I wish would be banned, because most of them have something interesting to say once in a while. YOU don’t.
IMO when someone contributes nothing substantive but constantly hijacks threads with a purely obnoxious attitude, then it’s appropriate to ban them. Lots of people reached that point with toko-loko and her Kain obsession — and you’re a million times more obnoxious than she ever was. However, it’s not my blog so it’s not my decision to make.
Tim, Interrupted
@Corner Stone:
YAYYYYYY. :D
Tim, Interrupted
@eemom:
Thank you. Your loathing and hurt feelings are a sure sign that I am on a good path. I am truly blessed.
By the way, your comment once again contains huge generalizing terms that are wildly inaccurate, so it’s good to know you’re not attempting to tighten your message, as per usual.
Corner Stone
I keep waiting for Emily Hauser to show up in this thread and tell us to lay off one of her co-blogging friends.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: How do you know his ears are pointy?
This has degenerated into one of the more useless threads ever.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
media pixilating pictures of underwear.
many of whom accept ads from lingerie manufacturers.
WyldPirate
@Brachiator:
Fucking please—what a bunch of long-winded drivel demonstrating that you are completely full of shit
This is what you said in the first paragraph of your post:
Two things. First, you made it all about what goes on between Weiner and his wife out of the gate. You also repeat the same contradiction in your second long-winded, illogical screed above.
What the other women thought about the exchanges (which may or may not have been between consenting adults) and what his constituents think of what and how discreet Weiner should be in his private life are not the issue (though I will concede his constituents can make that their business if they are prudish enough to do so) and wasn’t Greenwald’s point.
Greenwald’s point is that these sorts of sexual peccadilloes are just shameful media circuses that distract from serious issues such as Clarence Thomas’ monetary conflict of interest. Instead, the media and other prudish assclowns (look in the mirror for one) decide that a picture of Weiner’s trouser trout smothered in underwear is the equivalent of him selling the invasion plans of Iraq to Saddam Hussein. That’s Greenwald’s point and that’s the point that YOU MISS because you are incapable of recognizing that Weiner taking pictures of his dick and sending them to women has no bearing on his ability to be a Congressman (or at least it shouldn’t and wouldn’t in a society that wasn’t chockfull of sexual prudes).
Where the “complexity” you refer to comes in is when Weiner started lying about it once the allegation was made. And again, this is a part of Greenwald’s argument in that this incident should have never been newsworthy to start with. It shouldn’t be anything other than an issue between Weiner, his wife and the women he sent his dick pics to.
Brachiator
@Villago Delenda Est:
This is what drives me nuts about this topic. We live in an era of Wikileaks and people in the UK happily violating “super injunctions” and revealing the name of high profile people having affairs. We live in an era in which hackers blow up Sony’s PSP and release every personal detail about game players to take revenge on Sony for hassling a guy. We live in an era in which Mark Zuckerberg says that privacy is overrated while enticing Facebook users to give up every detail about themselves (and private companies turn around a look for Facebook info in deciding whether to hire people).
There is no such thing as online anonymity. I work on the presumption that the Republicans hire people to look through every nook and cranny on the Internets to find dirt on Democrats.
And in the absence of a personal relationship, how could Weiner ever be sure that the people he was sending messages and photos to would keep them private? Hell, there are online sites dedicated to people revenge posting intimate photos and videos of lovers who scorned them.
Anyone who is a public figure runs the risk of having his or her personal details exposed. And you have sites like TMZ whose very existence is based on enticing or bribing people to give up salacious stuff on celebrities and others they can get dirt on.
People can blather all they want about how Weiner’s private life should be private. This is not the world that we are living in.
Yep, you nailed it.
WyldPirate
@eemom:
“tis amazing you can even think, much less breath because judging from your comments, you seem to spend most of your day with your head firmly implanted in your ass.
arguingwithsignposts
@WyldPirate:
Pot, kettle.
SFAW
Hey Cole –
What’s the record for comments in a thread, where the entire discussion consists of “You’re an asshole!” ” No, YOU’RE an asshole!” “No, YOU ARE!” “No, you are and so’s you’re whole fucking family!”
‘Cause I think you’re approaching whatever that number is.
Thank FSM that the subject is so important to the continued existence of the country, otherwise one would be tempted to call this the world’s longest circle-jerk.
arguingwithsignposts
@SFAW:
Not even close. You’ve got to dig out a Stuck, JSF, Corner Stone, eemom fest for that, although WP and T,I are definitely trying to go for gold here.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
indeed. As noted above, I didn’t even get to attack Greenwald. :(
But juuuuuust for the record, lil Timmeh DID start it.
eemom
@SFAW:
@arguingwithsignposts:
lolz.
WyldPirate
@Brachiator:
OK, this is where we have a point of agreement, Brachiator. I also think it is where we are talking past each other.
Impeaching Clinton “biggest load of bull evah”. Check.
annoyed over Bill trying to weasel out by lying? Check
Both of these items hold true for Weiner-gate as well.
I’m in agreement with Greenwald that these things wouldn’t be newsworthy in a serious society and shouldn’t interfere with one’s ability to perform their job. weiner-gate might have made some tabloids in Europe and been worth some laughs and a joke, but here it’s a 24/7 weeks long media freakout with all of the sexually repressed rubes gawking and pointing at shit they are probably doing themselves.
I realize that the US hasn’t “matured” to the point as a society where we (as a society) can ignore sniffing public figures underwear. That’s where the complexity of the issue arises that you referred to. Greenwald’s argument, to me at least, is more along the lines that it is a shame that we haven’t got to that point as a society.
WyldPirate
@arguingwithsignposts:
Seems like you are doing your own share of stirring of the shitpot you hypocritical wanker.
Corner Stone
@WyldPirate: It’s true. He’s obviously not distracted enough by The Somebody. Or The Something. Or whatever middle school title is assigned to the anonymous at this point.
Will you have dinner with me? Check this box Yes.
chopper
if glenzilla is pissed about how everyone is talking about the wiener scandal instead of important issues, he’z doin it rong.
shortstop
@WyldPirate: I just saw this, probably because it was in moderation.
Your entire comment is fail, of course. First, you dishonestly conflate the existence of different nouns for body parts with the use of certain female body-part words as intended insults toward women. (As though you go around shrieking “You vagina!” at women you’re arguing with–fucking pleeeeeease.) And you tellingly refuse to address your current problem–your instant reach when angered for words like crone and hag (I believe harpy and harridan are other favorites of yours) that are relegated to women only. This is a longstanding, established pattern with you.
Second, I don’t use gender-related epithets against men and I’ve called out women (here and elsewhere, online and off) who do. I ain’t responsible for what eemom does around here and no BJer who can read would ever make the mistake of thinking that she and I have any mutual respect.
I’m calling YOU out, as others both female and male have done, on your ongoing habit of resorting when angry to epithets that are specifically reserved for women, in obvious illustration of your view that the state of femaleness is something to be derogated. In fact, your pattern of verbal behavior clearly indicates that you believe that using fighting language that’s designed only to emphasize a woman’s gender is, unlike criticizing her mutable traits or simply using a non-gender-loaded barb, the worst thing you can say to her, the biggest insult you can lob.
Issues with women? Dude, you’ve got a year’s subscription, and it shines brightly through your commenting history.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone: Hey, cs. Go fuck yourself.
SFAW
arguinwithsignposts –
Thanks for the help on this one.
(For a second, I considered writing “Did I fucking ask YOU? NO, I aksed Cole!”, but I figured you might have thought I was being serious.)
So is the record in upper-three-digit territory, or did they break the 1000 barrier?
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: Every night, amigo.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Isn’t there someplace you spent time while you weren’t commenting here? I don’t care if you are in Just Some Fuckhead’s clique at this point. You’re more than pretty tiresome. And boring like SP&T except without the attractiveness of a 92 year old to go along with it.
arguingwithsignposts
@WyldPirate: You and T, I have become about the most accomplished thread-shitting trolls on this here blog. CS and JSF are a least humorous on occasion and can discuss substantive issues without immediately resorting to Obot invective.
In short, you are the cancer that is killing /bj/
And with that, i’m out of this thread. You can keep shitting on it like m_c used to do with EDK’s threads. Whatever.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: Obot!
arguingwithsignposts
@SFAW: Had to be Over 9000!
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone: Too slow,cs.
Brachiator
@WyldPirate:
My, my, what a little potty mouth you are.
Uh, no. But thanks for trying. Weiner’s wife, who mercifully has stayed out of this thing, is not the issue, and I clearly said this a number of times. What I might bet about her feelings is separate from my point that what she thinks about her husband’s behavior, and whether she approves of it or not, is irrelevant. Again, get someone to explain this to you. Slowly.
Weiner’s constituents, be they prudes or libertines, can decide whatever they want. We agree on this.
And it is not just what the other women think about anything. They are under no constraint to keep anything private. This is where Weiner is a fool, something which has nothing to do with either morality or his marriage.
And any formulation about “consenting adults” or what Weiner’s wife agrees with or disagrees with, in nonsense. It is not the beginning or the end of ethical or political considerations. I realize that this is too subtle a concept for you, but others may get it, which is why I bring it up here.
Wow. This is a point? This is the proclamation of the Great Saint Greenwald? Yeah, I got it. I ain’t impressed. This is trivial and small minded. And stupid. “Oh, God, we will never get to the bottom of Clarence Thomas’ perfidy because the entire universe is consumed with Weiner’s weenie.” This is typical GG hyperbole.
Wow. You got me. Even though I have never written squat about Weiner’s ability to be a Congressman, and have never squealed for his resignation.
Greenwald has no point because we live in a world where a dull, sullen media is easily distracted with the salacious and the sordid. Here, ironically enough, GG is the Puritan scold who thinks that he can decree what people should think and believe.
And we live in a world where people are often punished for expressing their sexuality. Even in supposedly progressive enclaves by people who supposedly know better. This ain’t gonna change just because GG gets up on his high horse about it.
And you and GG miss the point when you ignore that Weiner made the problem worse by trying to lie his way out of it.
So, the Great Saint Greenwald proclaims “Ignore Weiner’s lame, distracting lies, which drew this farce out longer than necessary. I, the Great Saint Greenwald have decreed that the media and the ignorant public are at fault, not this reckless fool. Pay no attention to that man over there with his dick in a Tweet. Only what I, the Great Saint Greenwald deem to be important is important.”
But in my corner of the universe, I want to know if the Blake Lively pics are authentic and I want Clarence Thomas investigated. I don’t need GG to set or approve my agenda.
And here is where we get to simplicity again. The Great Saint Greenwald doesn’t get to decide what is and what is not newsworthy. I know that in his (and your) little universe, people are drones who concentrate solely on what is serious, based on orders that they receive from Progressive Central. Things operate very differently in the real world.
And as I have noted for the bazillionith time, anyone who sends anyone dick pics online cannot control what will happen to them. The nature of the Internets almost guarantees that someone would leak them eventually. To try to wrap this reality up with some bullshit about what might be between Weiner, his wife and the six (and still counting) women he sent stuff to, is insane.
GG’s supposed great insights are simpleminded precisely because he wants to insist that people behave and think in ways that he approves of. His overly legalistic mind doesn’t appear to comprehend what real people do or how they think. Now that I think about it, he is Ayn Rand for progressives. That people buy into his twaddle just amazes me.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Which one are you again? I always get you and that other guy you’re always fighting with mixed up.
SFAW
He’s either Who, What or I Don’t Know (Third Base!)
Corner Stone
@shortstop: I understand it’s hard for you to keep track. Since you’re almost never here, but always here.
Know why guys like the idea of dating a shortstop?
WyldPirate
@shortstop:
Who died and made you a fucking psychiatrist, shortstop? Or are you just doing a Bill Frist impersonation and “diagnosing” people you know nothing about?
I did nothing “dishonestly” regarding my view of “words” describing anatomy. They mean the same thing or refer to the same thing in my view
The real question though, is who made you the “language police” of Balloon Juice or anywhere else for that matter? Do you run around in your real-life with a bar of soap threatening to wash out people’s mouths because they say something you find offensive? Is an insult less innocuous just because it isn’t “gender-specific”?
I am just as likely to use a gender-specific insult towards a man as I am a woman. I have no problem with men or women in my real life. What I do have a problem with is sanctiminous, moralizing bitches like yourself who are nothing more than prudish scolds.
Now run along and go fuck yourself with your favorite toy. I doubt that you get much dick (or penis–just in case I might offend your delicate sensibilities) anyway (if you swing that way) judging from your comments here.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: I was almost never here, but lately I’m almost always here. Times change. People, too.
Where do you think I got my handle?
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: I had a post begging you to love me, but FYWP.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Gotta respect anyone who’s a pro at turning two.
WyldPirate
@shortstop:
Who died and made you a fucking psychiatrist, shortstop? Or are you just doing a Bill Frist impersonation and “diagnosing” people you know nothing about?
I did nothing “dishonestly” regarding my view of “words” describing anatomy. They mean the same thing or refer to the same thing in my view
The real question though, is who made you the “language police” of Balloon Juice or anywhere else for that matter? Do you run around in your real-life with a bar of soap threatening to wash out people’s mouths because they say something you find offensive? Is an insult less innocuous just because it isn’t “gender-specific”?
I am just as likely to use a gender-specific insult towards a man as I am a woman. I have no problem with men or women in my real life. What I do have a problem with is sanctiminous, moralizing bitches like yourself who are nothing more than prudish scolds.
Now run along and go fuck yourself with your favorite toy. I doubt that you get much dick (or peenis—just in case I might offend your delicate sensibilities) anyway (if you swing that way) judging from your comments here.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Oh, never a pro. You know how hard it is to get out of the minors with that?
shortstop
@WyldPirate: Mmmm, I knew you’d double down. You always do when you’re embarrassed. Never disappoint us, WP. Always keep talking.
Brachiator
@WyldPirate:
Shorter version of my rant: Check the tapes. I never much paid attention to the Weiner Roast until he started back stepping on his admitted lies. And here, despite GG’s oracular crap, this is when the story became serious business. When a politician lies to me, even if he does so because he thinks that the rubes and the prudes won’t understand the truth, he is asking for an ass kicking comeuppance.
I don’t believe in some ideal, serious society. This is one of my biggest beefs with the cult of Greenwald.
And don’t bring up Europe. Even the Italians are beginning to get fed up with their philandering leader. They find that they have to distinguish between sex scandals that are nothing and behavior that not only interferes with the ability to do the job but which brings down scorn and disrespect from other national leaders. Sometimes shit is trivial; sometimes shit has consequences.
Another point of near agreement. Yeah, some Americans need to grow up. But citizens have the right and the obligation to evaluate a politician’s behavior to determine whether that behavior has become reckless.
Greenwald doesn’t get this. Nor do some of his most devoted acolytes.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Hmmm. Well, keep perfecting your craft! I’m sure one day it will be worth someone paying you to do it!
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Will do! I know you can share insights on paying for it — I hope to glean some good tips from your extensive experience with that, baby.
Fred
@Tim, Interrupted: I have reality leanings. I know a good thing when I see it and I know a fake when I see it. Obot is some bullshit talking point someone came up with who’s opinion I could care less about. That has ZERO meaning to me.
Greenwald endorsed a Libertarian for Prez. A LIBERTARIAN. Let me repeat. A Libertarian. If you still think someone like that speaks for you then absolutely we are 180 degrees apart.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: I’ll be happy to help you with that! The usual $20 per session?
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Is that all you pay? You are getting some quality alley lovin’ there, guy!
Fred
@WyldPirate: Hey WyldPirate,
Reuter/Ipsos poll today has Obama ‘slaughtering’ Romney by 13. Funny you never mentioned it since you seem to be so concerned with polls…..when they go the other way.
Fred
@Idiot: You mean God forbid Greenwald does not go out of his way to try call out Obama for something.
That would make more sense. I’m sure you just typed it too fast and never proof read.
WyldPirate
@Brachiator:
Christ-Almighty but you are an long-winded idiot.
Look, I never said that Weiner wasn’t a fool. Nor did I say that it is the beginning and end of any ethical considerations in our current society you long-winded, thick-headed, fuckwit.
My point (and I think Greenwald’s) is that it (the ability of society not to freak out over sexual issues) is something that shouldn’t be newsworthy. I never made any claims that Weiner-Gate isn’t newsworthy now or that I get to make the determination of whether it is or not. It clearly is. But to me, the issue is that it shouldn’t be a distraction and wouldn’t be in a less sexually repressed society.
This is not unlike the brouhaha that would have come to light at the revelation that a politician was gay just a few short years ago (or that one was an atheist now). He/she as a politician would have no future electability because people would judge them as unfit for the job. Neither of these two issues–or the fact that Weiner was sending dick pics to women online–should, in an ideal world have any bearing on their ability to do their job. Of course there is an exception to each of these situations where over-indulgence in anything can impair one’s ability to perform their job
I frankly think that Weiner is a fucking idiot for doing what he did and fan even bigger idiot for lying about it. He would have clearly been better off just to own up to it. But what he did is what the vast majority of other people would have done if caught in the same situation. Moreover, I’m not naive enough (nor is Greenwald) to believe we live in a society where this kind of shit doesn’t matter. What I–and I think Greenwald–am trying to get at is that we should aspire to living in a society where this kind of thing doesn’t matter any longer.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Well, if you’re in truly desperate straights I *may* go to $25 per.
But stop trying to chisel any more out of me.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Straits, dear, not straights. Any sort of restraint will cost you quite a bit more, and we’ll need to have someone else in the room for security ’cause of those pesky mood swings of yours. We talked about this, remember?
Corner Stone
@shortstop: If you’d like someone to video these sessions, I’m cool with that.
I’m still not giving you more than $25 per.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: Alas, my summer schedule is terribly tight, but you can probably find someone willing to make $25 for 15 seconds’ work, what with the economy so shaky and all.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: I agree. At $25 I was pretty sure I would be over paying for your services.
shortstop
@Corner Stone: You just accidentally made a serious funny, but it would take too long to ‘splain and is too inside anyway. Me old man is standing behind me laughing his ass off at your inadvertent wording.
Good night, Corner Stone. Gotta talk to an Asian colleague at 4 bells and I need my sleep to stay beautiful, inside and out, for you. Thanks for the laughs.
Corner Stone
@shortstop: Hey, anytime I can tell you you’re a cheap somethingorother and have your hubby laugh about it let me know.
I’m all about contributing to marital bliss.