Sex, lies, and the internets.
Okay, I'll admit to being a bit disappointed in the guy. He went on a lying tour, and that was dead wrong as well as impossibly stupid. Didn't think Weiner had that kind of stupidity in him, but I guess a certain amount resides within us all, eh? Though I'm not particularly given to admiring politicians, it's always encouraging to see one that's combative and unapologetically in favor of things like single-payer health insurance. Still, the basis of that is a willingness to speak often unpopular truths, so if you undermine your credibility, you lose your voice. That is the worst of what a guy like Weiner is facing. One wishes he had thought of that before taking chances like a drunken fourteen-year-old.
I think, personally, that he missed an opportunity to make a point here: namely, that we all have private lives - that we all do things that are not illegal but that we prefer not to make known to the entire world. What Weiner was confessing in front of the ubiquitous blue curtain of shame is probably slightly less compromising than the secret online activities of most of the people in that room. He's a sexting addict. There is a growing population of middle-aged people who are fans of sexting. It's not an obsession I share (not at my data rates - every time I get a freaking text weather alert it costs me 30 cents... and I get a lot of alerts) but I may be in the minority. What Breitbart and his minions have done is just "out" the guy, not because they have some overriding conviction about fidelity and niceness, but because they disagree with him politically on a range of other issues, and Weiner has always been outspoken.
The basic question is this: Does a public figure have a right to a private life? Is it anyone else's business if Anthony Weiner or Chris Lee or whoever engages in dalliances on the side, unbeknownst to their wives, if those persons they exchange x-rays with are 1) adults and 2) willing participants in the exchange? Sure, it's embarrassing to have a picture of your privates circulated to all and sundry. It would be so if that image was taken from an airport scanner, too. The real question here is what are the limits to legitimate human sexuality, and do these limits apply to members of congress? I'll be honest - I don't give a shit what people do over the internets, so long as they are not exploiting, harassing, or otherwise abusing people, children, animals, etc. Relationships between consenting, fully informed adults are between those adults. All Breitbart did was thrust it into the public space (so to speak).
Gotta love the guy, though. When Breitbart hijacked that press conference, he had the gall to complain about how Weiner's dishonesty spoiled his weekend, then he proceeded to explain how he was blackmailing him with yet another photo, framing it as an act of human decency. As far as I'm concerned, any passing discomfort caused to Breitbart - rightly or wrongly in this case - is richly deserved.
luv u,
j
I think, personally, that he missed an opportunity to make a point here: namely, that we all have private lives - that we all do things that are not illegal but that we prefer not to make known to the entire world. What Weiner was confessing in front of the ubiquitous blue curtain of shame is probably slightly less compromising than the secret online activities of most of the people in that room. He's a sexting addict. There is a growing population of middle-aged people who are fans of sexting. It's not an obsession I share (not at my data rates - every time I get a freaking text weather alert it costs me 30 cents... and I get a lot of alerts) but I may be in the minority. What Breitbart and his minions have done is just "out" the guy, not because they have some overriding conviction about fidelity and niceness, but because they disagree with him politically on a range of other issues, and Weiner has always been outspoken.The basic question is this: Does a public figure have a right to a private life? Is it anyone else's business if Anthony Weiner or Chris Lee or whoever engages in dalliances on the side, unbeknownst to their wives, if those persons they exchange x-rays with are 1) adults and 2) willing participants in the exchange? Sure, it's embarrassing to have a picture of your privates circulated to all and sundry. It would be so if that image was taken from an airport scanner, too. The real question here is what are the limits to legitimate human sexuality, and do these limits apply to members of congress? I'll be honest - I don't give a shit what people do over the internets, so long as they are not exploiting, harassing, or otherwise abusing people, children, animals, etc. Relationships between consenting, fully informed adults are between those adults. All Breitbart did was thrust it into the public space (so to speak).
Gotta love the guy, though. When Breitbart hijacked that press conference, he had the gall to complain about how Weiner's dishonesty spoiled his weekend, then he proceeded to explain how he was blackmailing him with yet another photo, framing it as an act of human decency. As far as I'm concerned, any passing discomfort caused to Breitbart - rightly or wrongly in this case - is richly deserved.
luv u,
j
Comments