The BlogProf has video of the Secretary of Education saying “My Commitment To LGBT Students Is Unequivocal”. Really:
Why does you commitment to ANY student, as an educator, require mention?
What does sexuality have to do with education?
Yet another creepshow aspect of this administration. I shall ensure that my offspring enjoys both better education and protection from the likes of this fellow.
“Just perfectly innocent. A married 46 year old Congressman private messaging a smitten, hero-worshipping, bad-girl-talking 17 year old girl who ‘loved’ him. What could be more innocent than that?”
— Ace of Spades
Before proceeding to examine the really troubling question here, let’s begin by reviewing what we already know:
Anthony Weiner’s “online relationships” (as he called them in his June 6 press conference) apparently “fit a pattern,” according to the New York Times: “[I]n rapid and reckless fashion, he sought to transform informal online conversations about politics and partisanship into sexually charged exchanges, at times laced with racy language and explicit images.”
Weiner admitted at his press conference that the May 27 Twitter message including a link to a photo of his bulging crotch, which began the so-called WeinerGate scandal, was accidentally sent as a public message, when he intended to send it as a private direct message (DM).
Another of Weiner’s “online relationships,” porn performer Ginger Lee, says Weiner urged her to lie about their communications, sending her an e-mail suggestion that she issue a statement saying, “‘This is silly. Like so many others, I follow Rep. Weiner on Twitter. I don’t know him and have never met him.” (In fact, Ms. Lee says she and Weiner “exchanged scores of sexual emails over a long period of time.”)
From these facts it seems obvious that Weiner’s online sexual adventures were so recklessly indiscriminate as to demonstrate an out-of-control compulsion. This is particularly true if we accept Cordova’s assertion that none of her private communications with Weiner were “inappropriate,” so that the congressman would have been sending her that bulging-crotch photo unsolicited, without any previous indication from Cordova that she had a sexual interest in him. (Broussard has also said that none of her communications with Weiner could reasonably have been viewed as an invitation for the congressman to send her the penis photo of himself.)
Weiner’s complete disregard for the dangers of sending these kinds of photos and messages to women he never met is important to note because, by his own public admission, he also disregarded other dangers:
Q: These were young girls, very young, 21 years old. Does that bother you, that they’re — the youngest —
REP. WEINER: I don’t know the — I don’t know the exact ages of the women, and they —
Q: Young enough to be your children.
REP. WEINER: I don’t know the exact ages of the women, and I don’t know if you do. I’m going to respect their privacy. But they were all adults — at least to the best of my knowledge they were all adults — and they were — and they were engaging — and they were engaging in these conversations consensually.
Q: But if you don’t know how old they are, how do you know they’re adults?
REP. WEINER: Well, all I know is what they publish about themselves in social media. Someone could theoretically be — have been — have been fibbing about it, and that’s a risk.
He exists under a constant pressure cooker of self-analysis and public appraisal. Like other politicians, he needs something to take the edge off. For some people, regardless of occupation, that could mean booze, drugs, gambling, food or shopping. For high functioning men like Weiner and other officials who have lived through such scandals, who are constantly on the go, that leaves one tried and true source of a reliable high. The affirmation that comes when someone lets you know they want to sleep with you. Or even cyber-sleep with you.
This is sex for many people now. No time for Mateus and cheap spaghetti. No time for slowly moving toward one another with a combination of hope and caution, lust and integrity. One can push a button and get something beyond porn. Porn is essentially two dimensional. One sees and hears. Internet sexting can be perceived as three dimensional by adding the component of “feel”, regardless of how cheap and unearned those feelings are. That person on the screen is doing whatever they’re doing… just for you.
Weiner is so busy, he forgot the important rule that everyone you interact with on this plane becomes a co-conspirator. You rely on them to remain confidential.
Weiner is the modern, high functioning man. The fact that he is married is just one, albeit a huge, factor.
“Once again I’ve made an a– of myself getting to a phone to make a phone call … I’m tired of playing this game with you. You have insulted me for the last time …You’ve made feel like sh– and you’ve made feel like a fool over and over again … I’m going to straighten your a– out … You are a rude, thoughtless little pig.”
Baldwin is a profoundly flawed human being and therefore defends the profoundly flawed Weiner as a comrade — a defense that liberal Baldwin would never offer to any Republican similarly exposed, but let’s go ahead and admit that conservative bloggers are loving this scandal precisely because Weiner is a Democrat.
Yet the partisan parallels are not perfect. One cannot merely say “tu quoque.” Why? Because liberals repeatedly assert that conservatives are stupid, ignorant, unsophisticated, etc., which makes it incumbent upon liberals to justify their pretensions to intellectual superiority.
This is why Joan Walsh is so risible. So long as Weiner stuck by his denials, Walsh continued to insist that this was just a phony scandal ginned up by Breitbart and “his army of political sewer workers.” You might have thought that, endowed with the insuperable mental excellence inherent to liberalism, Walsh would have been able to examine the available evidence and conclude, “Hey, maybe there’s something going on here.” But that didn’t happen, did it?
Nor did Alec Baldwin, before publicly empathizing with Weiner as a “modern, high functioning man,” hesitate long enough to examine the full extent of the suspicions swirling around the embattled congressman.
But that disturbing topic, which others recently have developed in some detail, deserves a post of its own. I will, however, ask if you think that a majority of Weiner’s constituents — who told a pollster the congressman should not resign — are more fully aware of the facts than Alec Baldwin. Because I don’t think they are.
The problem was the wife. Aides to Newt Gingrich have resigned from his presidential campaign in protest of what they felt was a takeover by Callista Gingrich, the candidate’s wife since 2000. . . . Callista Gingrich gradually emerged as Gingrich’s most influential adviser this year, supplanting longtime aides like Rick Tyler, his press secretary and aide-de-camp, and Sam Dawson, who was a major adviser for more than three decades. That Tyler and Dawson would join four others in quitting was a particular blow to the Gingrich campaign.
The others who resigned are: campaign manager Rob Johnson, Carney, and consultants Craig Schoenfeld in Iowa and Katon Dawson in South Carolina. Besides the entire senior staff, ten other campaign aides also quit.
Given that the Newt 2012 bandwagon has now obviously run into a ditch, let’s talk bluntly: In February 2009, I attended the premiere of the Reagan documentary, Rendezvous With Destiny, which was produced by Citizens United and “hosted by Newt and Calista Gingrich.” It was a great movie, except . . .
Calista Gingrich? What the hell was she doing in this movie? Every time she appeared on the screen, it felt wrong. Jarringly wrong.
Here was this cast of authentic heavyweights –James Baker, Marlin Fitzwater, Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, Ed Meese, etc. — sharing their recollections of the Reagan era.
And then there was Calista Gingrich.
She quite clearly did not belong in this company and, while I understand she played an important role in helping coordinate production of the film, her on-screen presence was a distraction. I didn’t write about it at the time, but I talked to several people at the premiere who had the same impression: Why would she insist on intruding herself into the movie?
Two Potsdam [N.Y.] women are accused of threatening to falsely accuse a man of rape if he didn’t give them a car.
Village police say that Christine L. Laraby, 45, and Miranda L. Laraby, 17, threatened a man that they would report to police that he had physically abused and raped Miranda Laraby if he did not sign over his vehicle to the defendants with a note saying that they had paid him $500 cash for it.
Police say the defendants subsequently took possession of the man’s 1997 Subaru Legacy.
Why didn’t the Laraby Vagina Extortion Gang target the owner of an Escalade or a Mercedes?
But why stop at car theft? If the vagina can be used as a weapon to steal a 1997 Subaru, why not a Gulfstream?