What Were They Thinking?

Okay, I'm the Detroit girl, so I'll take Kwame. Honestly, the story was off my radar for most of the controversy. And then I was driving into work one morning and a couple DJ's, a man and woman, were doing an on air dramatization of the text transcripts. They played a dramatic gangsta' rap song low in the background—a bit racist, don't you think? I hadn't heard any of the transcripts and I admit, my dark sense of humor was pretty eager to hear a lurid romance performed in 'text' language. Is there anything less romantic? When they started, very campy tones, laughter from the studio in the background, it WAS funny. And then the woman said something that honest to God made me pull my truck off the road. I can't remember the exact line, but it was REAL and omigod could you hear the pain in her words, even in text-ease. And I felt dirty. Much dirtier than two people who'd fallen in love, even if they were breaking the rules. All the way to work, I thought about why WE all love these stories. Isn't that bigger question? If it was just about justice, and I DO think these cases fall into legal jurisdiction, especially in this one, why wouldn't we get so involved when doesn't involve passion? Where are all the dramatizations on embezzlement trials?

You want my pet theory? I'll go out on a psychoanalysis limb, too. Mr. Peterman said that they do this because they think they are above Joe Lunchbucket; I would argue that it is because they have forgotten that they are no longer a Joe Lunchbucket. Because they cannot turn off their human side. And I think that we, the Joe Lunchbuckets, love these stories so much, because they make us feel better about the fact that we have not chased our dreams as far as these people have, in the above rogue cases, men. We can say, See? See what happens when you want it all? I'm so glad I'm sitting in my recliner in my Joe Lunchbucket life. That'll teach him to climb too high and forget that he's a Lunchbucket. Is this making sense? I'm making myself hungry with all the talk of lunch.

And, as a woman, I have to take one more issue with the gender thing. Poor Mr. Peterman, he's struck a nerve. How are women not equally as responsible in all these stories? Other than the senator in the bathhouse, of course. Women flock to powerful men. If I agree that it is a man abusing his power over the woman, that somehow he should 'know' better, then what am I saying about women. I'm always amazed that feminist arguments that scold men for 'abusing their power over women' only reinforce that they indeed are the ones in control. Sorry, Foucault bubbling up.

And, one more thing, I have come out shooting in defense of these men, but I also absolutely believe they should resign. Quickly. And I also feel we should not publicly crucify them. Is that combination even possible? A public that demands a resignation, but also says, who are we to judge?

Here's a plan. We have a rehabilitation committee in government for such cases. So when the senator gets caught in the bathhouse with his man-friend, two agents in dark glasses approach him and say, Sir, it has become apparent that you are no longer able to wear the HEAVY mantel of leadership, and that's alright, it is HEAVY and we thank you for trying. And we have compiled this list of careers that we feel would better suit you. Maybe an investor in Greek bathhouses, for example. Sorry. I had to.

Morning all. And love this topic, Mr. Peterman, respectfully.

Post script. Can I just add that I am not, by any means, advocating the above liaisons, either, lest we forget the innocent spouses and children that they take down with them.

I think the last point says it. Women have never had enough power to abuse it. Absolute power corrupts. Absolutely.

I think these men were narcissists to begin with and no doubt carried on while under the radar. Then again, it probably takes a narcissist to run for office in the first place.

Dutchman,

Please know that I ask this in the spirit of a fair debate, and not to antagonize, but then what are we to make of Christine Keeler, or Monica Lewinski, or, to go back a bit further, addressing your claim of 'never', Helen of Troy, or Daliliah?

I hesitate in writing this, because I very much admire the women here, and would never wish to offend. I realize that I run a great risk of offending when I locate the 'power' in all these women in their sexuality. But it IS powerful and it has been proved true in all the cases I just mentioned. Hasn't it? I am by no means asserting that it is the ONLY source of power, either. Far from it. Nor, and this is very important, am I advocating that women exploit that source of power. It's not a fair fight. The poor boys don't stand a chance. And I love a fair fight.

Also very important, I am not, by arguing, half in jest, that the 'boys don't stand a chance,' that they are not responsible in these cases either. I am arguing for what I like to call true equality of power. And I firmly believe, again, per Foucault, that the only way to take power is to take the equally heavy mantal of responsibilty. Some might say, accountability.

These are not one-sided stories. They are probably not even limited to two-sided stories. But you cannot escape the fact that Lewinsky SAVED that dress. Who had the power there? She had the President of the United States' career stashed under bed somewhere. I can only imagine what she was Twittering that night.

I am actually half in agreement with the Dutchman. In all these stories, power is being exploited, and it is corrupting. I'm just suggesting that two types of power are at play.

wow thats a really great point - that women are seldem in any way corrupted, at least in comparison to the men. it kind of throws a wrench in the assumed benefit of a male dominated society- or at least a male lead society

Well, Missive, that's what you get for reading my posts too clearly. I agree it was a bit of a blanket statement, and the women that did hold positions of power...if we dig deep enough...I'm sure we can come up with a few skeletons.

As far as Monica and Christine, I think they were initially victims. Willing, perhaps, but still victims. Whether Monica saved the dress or not. Maybe she just knew a good dry cleaner in the neighborhood.

Dutchman said:
Maybe she just knew a good dry cleaner in the neighborhood.

Touche.

And now she is laughing.

Point Dutchman.

Well, as the resident New Yorker in this group, I suppose I should tackle the Spitzer matter.

First, I must say I love the question that columnist, Leonard Pitts asked on the subject, "What, exactly, does a man get for $5,000 an hour sex?"  Although it did not happen in this particular case, I might postulate that $5,000 an hour buys silence.

While arrogance is certainly a possibility and, given that we are talking about people who consider themselves worthy of leadership positions, it is a very probable option, let me suggest another.  Some of these leaders (and Spitzer in particular) may have a bit of a death wish.

Consider:  Governor Spitzer campaigned for laws that targeted Johns and pushed through certain surveillance methods.  Those surveillance methods were the very ones used to catch him breaking the very laws he had campaigned for.  Sure, it might be arrogance, but Freud would have a field day analyzing how, deep down, Gov. Spitzer must have known he was digging his own grave... and wanted it that way.  Entire books have been written about the desire to get caught and it's quite possible that this was such a case.

Please bear in mind that this is just a hypothesis.  I don't know it to be true but it fits the facts.

Ooooh. That's dark. I like, DPR. Excellant point. Maybe the 'mantle' is just too much, but there's no way out. How do you walk away from power an go back being Joe Lunchbox, right?

Nice.

Am a bit God-smacked by this post. Unbelievably well-articulated.

The sum of being very intelligent, politically astute, well spoken, extremely focused, highly accomplished, very persuasive; a subject matter expert and not too hard on the eye is really only the ticket into the game. What isn't determined, nor do I think can effectively be predicted, is if he/she can wear the mantle of higher expectations from successfully attaining a position of power until they have been in it for some time. Does the person make the job or does the job make the person?

A flawless person is either an endangered species or already extinct. When one is charged with making decisions that will greatly impact the lives and well being of perhaps millions of people, . . . I honestly don't know how do you deal with something like that without being effected one way or the other. It seems that it would either make you humble/yet stronger, or give you the mindset that you are above the standards that govern the masses.

I have empathy for those who have succumbed to power, but absolutely no sympathy. As we discussed earlier, we bear the consequences of our actions.

Once trust is broken, it's so hard to restore. I wish we had more Jimmy Stewart type characters in many of these positions of power but that doesn't seem very likely.

The other big point is that such big public figures are under constant scrutiny. It's only a scandal if the perpetrator is some famous guy. When Joe Lunchbucket calls a prostitute, it never really matters. But when a mayor, governor, et cetera, does something remotely wrong, it's a big deal.

The One at the Desk,

You are certainly correct about the additional scrutiny, but these folks, especially with today's media, know the job is dangerous when they take.  Is it fair?  Probably not.  The sad thing is that so many of those who are throwing stones at the folks in the big glass houses are throwing them from the inside of their little glass houses.

"Does the person make the job or does the job make the person?" 

"It seems that it would either make you humble/yet stronger, or give you the mindset that you are above the standards that govern the masses."

The above 2 statements made by Mr. PeterLake seem to me to be the most interesting thoughts about what holding power can do to anyone.

The fact is if you argue that the Person MAKES the job you would be led to believe that he is more humble & respectfully stronger in character & can handle the "Mantle of Power" more readily than others.

If you happen to believe that Job MAKES the Person than the way of the Person may in fact become corrupt.  The cop who speeds in his personal vechile on his personal time & get the tickets thrown out of the system, the politician who calls "call Girls, doesn't pay taxes, or the CEO who knowingly takes thousands of dollars from the company.  

Those seem to be the ones who see at times stating the "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? question to us meager 'worker bees" so they can get what they want whetehr its right or wrong.  

So Jefferson had liasons with marrid women while in France wasn't more of a fact that it was a part of the French Culture at the times. In France I have a feeling that there wa sno stigma about it in France but in America heaven forbid.  Even though he wasn't married he was widowed I really don't see the scandal with it must be due to understanding what was more of a cultural divide.

For women having some of the power ~ Missive ~  you forgot to mention Cleopatra the women who brought down Ceasar & Anthony in pretty much one move.  I also would like to add Catherine the Great to the list, this women got an ARMY on her side to over throw her husband &  to have him & possibly some of his lineage killed off. Yet she ruled pretty fairly until she got dementia & she also brought great prosperity to Russia during her reign.  Soemtimes maybe to get the mantle you have to use what you can & you do realize that  the answer is ~ You Make the Job.

I had to read this one three times before I realized it was a comma, and not a period, after Buffalo  "Grover Cleveland fathered an illegitimate child by a Buffalo, New York prostitute...... "

That image is going to haunt me for some time.

PeterLake! Laughing my arse off. Needed that. Miss Ive does not like to dig as deeply as she has today. Ahhh. Also, PL, Mr. Stewart was on my mind this very morning when I was writing my first post. Not in his 'Mr. Smith' role, but in his long-lasting marriage while living in the spotlight. Really something.

All Peterman's Eye Crew,

I am going off the grid in the very early AM, and into the mountains until early August. Will sorely miss this level of engagement. I will post my full-length goodbye and explanation to my readers tomorrow, and, of course, have roped poor Mr. Peterman into my scandal, yet again. www.sandinmyswimsuit.blogspot.com.

Please don't forget poor Miss Ive. Will see you all soon.

MackDaddy,
Please forward me your email so that I can reply to your wonderful note. Loved it.

Men certainly can not claim a monopoly when it comes to flagrant political/any power position scandals.  Without naming names or particular indescretions, I can tell you that the state in which I reside there is a woman who at the time of her political power was the biggest NARCISSIST of them all!  She could put all of these men to shame.  She didn't start out that way, but over a short period of time the rules all changed to suit her desires.  As DPR puts it, Spitzer must have known he was digging his grave.  Well, she intentionally dug many graves although not for herself...but for others!  She demanded that good, decent people go down with the ship.  It wasn't going to be her at any cost.  And believe me...her ship should have been sunk many times.  If the truth ever comes to light, it will be the Titanic all over again!  But let's face it, all government is corrupt.  Egos and pocketbooks alike increase even for those who start out with the best of intentions.  It is just the nature of the beast, no matter the gender... no matter whether the power is political, professional, cooperate etc... it just is!   

I think it's true that you have to have a certain amount of self-regard to go into any role (public or private) that comes with a certain amount of responsibility.  Initially, entry may be motivated by a desire to "fix" something and you must be pretty impressed with yourself if you think you're the only one who can do that (John McCain and Barack Obama leap immediately to mind).

On the whole, any position that includes power and/or money gets to be pretty attractive, even if you're taking a lot of heat from critics.  It's gotta be a great gig, otherwise why do these people hold onto their jobs with such tenacity? I'm in Canada and we typically have to pry out federal politicians out of office with a crowbar. 

I think that the focus on sexual peccadilloes is a mistake.  Doesn't everyone have sex?  Don't we all do it pretty much the same way except with a different selection of condiments?  Why is someone else's fun-and-games in the sack so much more interesting?   I think it's because we're still not that comfortable with the whole idea of sex.  At one time, people spoke about pregnancy in hushed tones...you didn't talk about it too much.  I finally realized it was because people were uncomfortable with the fact of pregnancy...you had to have sex to become pregnant.  There's still a schoolyard pubescent fascination with the act of sex.

I think I'm drivelling on now, I'm going to stop. 

Oh, and by the way?  If I was Spitzer and $5000 was supposed to buy a little discretion...I'd ask for my money back.

Jeremiah said:

"If I was Spitzer and $5000 was supposed to buy a little discretion...I'd ask for my money back."

Too funny. Hope you post again.

And, if I say Foucault one more bloody time, somebody kill me, but Jeremiah is pretty much in agreement with him and the "why do we talk about it so much?"

History of Sexuality- Michel Foucault.

Will change your life. Especially its 'dirty' parts.

"Don't we all do it pretty much the same way except with a different selection of condiments? "

Thanks ~ Now I feel that I have to rent 9 1/2 weeks this weekend. :)

A politician will always look out for "number one" first.  Don't you have to be an egomaniac to work in politics in the first place?

Most of them practice "do as I say, not as I do" when it comes to their personal lives.  If they didn't think they were above the law, what would make them cheat, lie, and/or steal in the first place?  Because for the most part they have been above the law and are never forced to be accountable to anyone, least of all their constituency.

Wow!

Jeremiah may be right but this topic has brought three eloquent new posters to the forum.  If Jeremiah, Pondering Reality, and belleball are exemplary of the new state of clever and articulate new contributors we can expect, I say let's keep the randy officials at the center of discussion!  Okay, maybe not.  But I hope you get the point.

There will be many who disagree with me here but I truly do feel that Jeremiah's excellent point can be answered quite simply:  Because it isn't just about the sex.

I know we all went over this during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and the whole "Is it about the sex or is it about the lie?" debate.  There were many who chose the more jaded and cynical response that it was truly about the sex and not about the lie.  In a culture in which jaded cynicism is popularly confused with cultural and intellectual sophistication, this was to be expected.  But, when we consider Jeremiah's witty observation, "Doesn't everyone have sex?  Don't we all do it pretty much the same way except with a different selection of condiments?" it seems so patently obvious.  In view of this, the notion that we are more obsessed with the mere sexual details of the scandal than we are with the bald-faced lies of someone we had enthusiastically voted into a position of leadership isn't even probable!

Once again, I appreciate that I fly in the face of intellectual fashion here, but I know a lot of people who ask "If he will betray his family, who else will he betray?" and I find myself respecting the question while those who insist that such questions can only be asked by roaring right-wingers snarkily snicker and say, "Yeah, sure!"  But The One at the Desk also had a great point when he mentioned that Joe Lunchbucket's purchases of a prostitute's services don't make the front page.  Between his and Jeremiah's observations, I can't imagine how anyone would assume there isn't more to it.

To err is human, but to forgive is . . . . .  blah blah blah blah.   The thing that galls me about the Clinton/Lewinski thing as compared to Joe Lunchbucket ( I couldn't find him in the white or yellow pages) is that Clinton, under oath, looked directly into a camera, shaking a "how dare you question me I'm the frigging presidenti" finger at it, while saying he didn't do it.  Now if that isn't arrogance born of getting away with things his entire caree. . . . . 

I'm just releived he didn't have the absolute power of , let's say; Henry VIII.

Now I'm going to take my less than perfect self off the air for awhile until the storm blows by.

Personally, I have very little concern about the proclivities of politicians or CEOs as long as they don't interfere with productivity and/or profitability.  I recall that the US economy was at its strongest whilst Bubba Clinton was receiving oral service from a chubby intern.  The denial of the act is what gets these people into trouble.  Had one said, "Yes, I did it, I enjoyed it, and I plan to do it again at the earliest possible opportunity", we'd probably give them credit for honesty and move on. 

Narcissism and arrogance sound like good reasons for the behavior of these so-called men.  The Greeks had a word for it "hubris".

Hillary often spoke about Bill's "Bimbo Eruptions" as if his affairs were frequent occurrences.

Lord Nelson had an openly notorious affair with Lady Hamilton.  It didn't hurt his career or after-death reputation. Movie stars and celebreties are notorious for their affairs. We still go see their movies and buy their records or their artwork.

But I am not being "moral" here, as I agree with Onc Doc; as long as they do the job or entertain me, I don't care about their affairs or dalliances.  I don't care if Lindsay Lohan has a female lover or if Tom Cruise has a male lover in the closet. I care if they're using the company profits for their affairs or telling business secrets to their male or female lovers. Their spouses can deal with the cheatin in divorce court.  What's it to me?    

Peter,

Funny you should mention Henry VIII.  Here's a man with six wives and the power to behead those whom the Pope won't let him divorce.  Then, you have Charles II who never left a legitimate heir but had somewhere between 28 and 40 illegitimate children from various mistresses (truly the father of his country).

Nobody cared!  Why not?  Surely not because people were more enlightened in the illiterate and church-driven 16th and 17th centuries than they are today.  That would be preposterous.  In fact, it is for precisely the opposite reason.  No one cared because they had no expectations from their king.  When you elect a president (or governor, mayor, etc.), you have a choice; you can have 'em bad or you can have 'em worse.  But with a king, you're stuck with whatever comes down the hereditary pipeline.  And the king proceeds to exercise the privileges that his power grants.  So no one expects a king to hold true to any promises, principles, or standards.  When you elect someone, the first power they wield is the power to disappoint you.

First of all, let me thank DreadPirateRoberts and missive for their kind welcomes.

DreadPirate says, "...but I know a lot of people who ask "If he will betray his family,
who else will he betray?""   

Since I'm sticking to my "it's only sex" mantra, I'd be inclined to say that someone who betrays his wife for an expensive thrash in the hay might still be reliable, responsible, dependable (and any other words that end in "ible") with his children, wife, job or colleagues.  It isn't as though Spitzer wasn't doing a good job in either of his last 2 professional incarnations.  No one has accused him of stealing money or making outlandish deals with drug dealers or money launderers. He might not even be a very pleasant person to be around, but that's not why he was elected to the governorship; he demonstrated an ability to do the job.  

I'm not making light of this; his wife must be completely humiliated and nothing is going to make that better.  All I'm trying to say is:  People have sex. Sometimes they're not very wise in who and how they do this.  As long as they're doing a relatively good job in other areas, I'd just as soon not know.

When I was younger and out of legitimate work, I signed on with
Starbucks as a behind the counter nebbish for a while.  One is trained
at Starbucks for about 8 hours or so.  At the end of it, the trainer
said, "Just remember, at the end of the day, it's only coffee.".  The
point being that there's no percentage in getting your knickers in a twist
over a cuppa jabba.  That's how I feel about other people's sex adventures.  

I think you have narrowed it down to hormones -- male hormones most exactly -- and that means testosterone. A few women have enough testerone to make a difference in arrogance and stupidity so perhaps that accounts for Aimee Semple McPherson.

It is not "only sex," or we wouldn't have such examples as road rage.

LadyL