Ramona's picture

    Men, power, reckless sex: Why? What are we missing?

    I don't always read or agree with Maureen Dowd, but I do have her on my blogroll and now and then a title grabs me.  Yesterday she wrote "Your Tweetin' Heart".  Yes, I knew it was going to be about Anthony Weiner, but I read it anyway because sometimes her take on odd things like that is refreshingly different. 

    She talked not just about Rep. Weiner, but about what has been bothering me for so long about the men (it's been men so far) we liberals count on to help solve the country's problems.

    First there was Gary Hart, who practically begged the press to catch him with a babe on a boat and got caught. Bill Clinton fooled around with women (whose appeal caused some real head-scratching for most of us) and got caught.  Then it was John Edwards, who co-created a child with a woman who was not his wife and got caught.  Now it's Anthony Weiner, who got down and dirty in words and pictures and got caught.

    (In earlier times it was FDR, JFK and Lyndon Johnson, but, while rumors flew, they didn't get caught.  And who knows how many others there were?)

    They were all supposed populists -- my kind of people.  Their ability to speak up convincingly for the poor and disenfranchised is what got them where they were.  Their inability to tame their penises is what brought them down and ended any chance for us to count on their intelligence, their compassion, their flair for skewering the lies.

    Dowd says:

    Often powerful men crave more than love and admiration from The Good Wife. Sometimes they want risk, even danger. Sometimes they’re turned on by a power differential. They adore a fan reaction like the one from Lisa Weiss, the Vegas blackjack dealer, who flirted with Weiner on Facebook: “you are sooo awesome when you yell at those fox news” pundits, and “I bet you have so many chicks after you! you are our liberal stud.”

    In her book, Elizabeth Edwards wrote that she would have bet her big house that her husband would not fall for a cheesy line like the one Rielle Hunter tossed at him: “You are so hot.”

    But clichés work. As Weiner wrote to Weiss: “What are you wearing?”

    Meagan Broussard, a 26-year-old college student and single mom from Texas, wrote on BigGovernment.com, conservative Andrew Breitbart’s site, that her relationship with Weiner began when she wrote on his Facebook page that one of his speeches to construction workers was “hot.”

    “Within an hour,” she wrote, “we were sending messages back and forth.”

    So what is it?  What happens there?  Isn't the chance at saving the country a big enough ego-driver?  What is it about power that makes it such an aphrodisiac?  These are all men who worked long and hard to get to the top.  They're men who prided themselves on their willingness and their ability to help those who can't help themselves.  Their passion for progressive causes made them heroes in the eyes of millions of people.  We trusted them to help us move mountains.  Was that too much to ask?

    Their men, not Gods.  I get that.  They don't always want to be the Good Guys.  But there are easier, more dignified ways to end a career than to self-destruct with your pants down. 

    So I'm asking:  Why?  Why do they do it? 



    I don't know why we ask "why do they do it?"  Why expect extraordinary people to behave in ordinary ways?  You don't get to be President by, to borrow a phrase from the Big Dawg, "working hard and playing by the rules."  That's just not how it works.  You do it by making your own rules in so many areas of your professional and public life, so why wouldn't you also make some of your own rules in your emotional and sexual life, too?

    Seems to me that one one hand we reward noncomformists but on the other act all shocked when they don't act just like everybody else.  Why did Weiner carry on with women he met on social networks?  Because he felt like it and I rather doubt he thought there was anything truly wrong with doing it at the time.

    The key word is "reckless".  Who expects extraordinary people to behave like the rest of us?  Not me.  That's what makes them special--the drive to take chances and take punches along the way.  That's what makes heroes. 

    But when it comes to our so-called leaders and illicit sex acts, part of the thrill seems to be in the chance they'll get caught. That might be okay for Joe blow (sorry), but for major political leaders who've spent their lives working toward that grand goal, it just seems nuts.  They're not just self-destructing, they're doing in their followers, too.  The people like me who count on them to use their talents for the common good expect more from them than feet of clay.  Why do I expect more from them?  Because they promised more. 

    Ramona, I think all of us have scratched our heads in wonder and disappointment as you are. I particularly felt this way about Bill Clinton. But look at what you say...

    That's what makes them special--the drive to take chances and take punches along the way.  That's what makes heroes.

    Notice what you say here yourself. They take chances; they are risk-takers; that's in part what sets them apart. So it's relatively easy to see how that take on life would pervade more than their political ambitions.

    But all that said, I think more politicians DON'T do what these guys have done than do. We just don't remark on the fact that Carl Levin doesn't have a mistress. Or maybe he has and, for whatever reason, no one cares because he hasn't become the political target of many people.

    I don't follow him that closely, but I don't recall Weiner specifically promising not to send pictures of his ... ummm ... wiener ... to select admirers.

    Me, I'm still annoyed by his HCR flip-flop. It's one thing to get whipped into voting for it ... but he went from saying "If this is all we can do, it is better not passing." on Monday to "OMGZ! This is the most awesomest expansive reform ev-var!" on Friday (and ever since). I would have expected him to at least keep fighting to fix the deficiencies.

    Having a few racy electronic exchanges? Who gives a damn. If Vitter can weather hiring a hooker to change his *$#~ diaper, Weiner would be a total wiener to just quit. I mean, obviously he's a total political whore ... so why quit over this? He should just ignore the crap out of it for a few months and then take a look at where his constituents are with the whole thing closer to crunch time in deciding if he's going to run again. And maybe stop making dick jokes on his Twitter (or better yet - let someone ghost-twit for him).

    Both the hookers associated with Vitter ended up at the end of a noose, too.

    The whole damn thing still creeps me out. I can't believe he's still around.

    There's also the numbers angle. Lots of adoring women turning their gaze toward you. More men (and perhaps women) would act this way if they had this number of adoring fans tempting them.

    They are rock stars...and we're never shocked when we learn that Mick Jagger has had 69,000 lovers before, during, and after his marriages.

    Beyond what Destor says about their making their own rules--or perhaps bending events to their will against incredible odds, often--there's the numbers game.

    They are tempted a lotta, lotta times.

    No, I'm not shocked at rock star sex revelations.  Rock stars sell sex.   It's more shocking when they don't do it.

    These men are government officials, not rock stars.  If they're assuming that status, it's a measure of how deep into celebrity addiction we've mired ourselves.  Our country is dying around us; the enemy is everywhere, waiting to take our jobs, our money, our rights away from us.  The men I've cited here could have gone a long way toward helping us win this battle.   Their enemies lie in wait, itching for a chance to take them down.  These men know this, and instead of using their heads to keep from ever giving them the chance, they succumb to the inevitable whiff of female pheromones.

      It's not as if any of them don't know what they're getting into when they make that first contact.  They know exactly what they're getting into, and what the consequences will be, not if but when they get caught, and they do it anyway.

    It's not as if they can't look at their wayward peers and see how devastating it is when they're finally brought down. Their downfalls have been splashed all over the planet, to be dragged out and relived whenever a new scandal rears up.

    And yet these men who would be heroes dive willingly into the hot sexual soup.  I'm looking for a real good reason why.


    I think Peter may hit on a lot of it. Weiner is a human ... it feels good to feel attractive. I have no idea what Weiner's early life/career was like, but I think there is a chance much it has been devoid of cute ladies actively trying to flirt with him. My take is that he *isn't* a rock star - he strikes me more the life-long geek. It seems a a rock star would have a far easier time just ignoring that sort of thing than an 'oft shunned political geek.

    Or maybe he's just a perv and always has been a perv. Who knows?

    Narcissism, arrogance, love of power, elite exceptionalist crap (rules don't apply), and this: fear of death?

    Yes!  Stardust, I love that movie and I love that scene.    Saladin almost said "Get over it!".  Funny, because that's also one of the more memorable lines in "Moonstruck".

    ;o)  Kinda thought you might.  D. Ratigan asked his panel about it, and an author on infidelity or something was there saying that any time spent sexting was infidelity.  Dunno, but they finally talked about marriage being wrong for some people (agreed) and yada, yada...but no one thought to mention children.  It was like they saw the sexual biological imperative (for men mainly?) but didn't factor in family structure and the early necessity for male/protector/provider or however it went.  Still, nuclear families do provide some of that, even with the changing nature of families.

    "Get over it!"  Was that when Cher whacked Cage?  Called him a wolfe in a trap?  ;o)  Still, I don't care so much that the Weiner did it, but that he lied.  And lied again.

    I learned from some men on my my.fdl weiner diary that many men under forty sext a lot, and are so glad for strong, sexually honest women, though they were al single from the sounds of it.  The women, however, were less apt to say they engaged in it, but it's a pretty narrow sample.

    Sorry, I didn't get back to this until this AM. Had that kind of day yesterday and too tired last night to even open the laptop. I do understand why men do it, and I frankly don't care what happens between consenting adults. My question was more to why men who ask for and get votes to put them in positions of power, where they could actually do the right thing for an ailing country, take such chances, having to know they're inevitably going to get caught. That's the mystery.

    The quote from "Moonstruck" is actually "Snap out of it!" and yes, it's when Cher slaps Cage for telling her he loves her. I realized later that I got it wrong. But I do love that movie!

    I can't wait for the Hallmark/Lifetime movie - A Weiner in the Shadows - A successful, thin career woman is betrayed by the one weiner she thought she could depend on.

    There won't be a single answer that fits for all cases of course.  And male politicians are just that males.  Men who don't have any power or wealth cheat and otherwise do stupid things in the pursuit of the transitory thrill.  But when we look at politicians there are some commonalities - like the numbers game as mentioned by Peter. 

    There is also the controlled persona factor.  Politicians, especially ones like Weiner who go on a lot of the news shows, are constantly having to control everything they say and do pretty much 24/7, or at least when they are out in public or sending anything out in public.  There have been a few emails I have sent over the years where a friend and I were joking about something, which if I was politician would have at least caused the damage control crew to work for a few days. I just don't think one can control oneself like that without some kind of dysfunction coming to the surface.  In effect, one is for a huge chunk of time not letting oneself be oneself.

    We wonder why we get the clowns in politics that we do.  But who among us would choose to live that way, to be put under the judgment microscope.  Entertainment stars don't have that generally.  For many, being bad (and getting caught) is a boost to their career. Or at least it just goes along as before.  Hugh Grant was lucky he wasn't a Representative.

    This is not to take away any responsibility.  They chose the career path.  Folks like Weiner chose an outlet that will cost him dearly politically, as it should.  As I mentioned before, I don't care if he and some other woman chose to engage in virtual flirting.  But the college student, from what I have gleaned, did not.  Consequently, in his search to find the thrill, to fullfill some desire of expression, he engaged in an unsolicited sexual "attack" that has definitely caused the victim here harm (if only in the aftermath of being dragged into the media and blogosphere circus she never asked for). 


    I don't read that anything Weiner did would constitute an "attack".  That's a little harsh.  But no, the young woman didn't deserve to be dragged into the spotlight.  I guess I'd place the blame for that on the media folks who can never get enough of sex stories. (Even sex stories without actual sex, when the real thing isn't available.)

    It would be difficult living a life so public and so controversial as to have your every move scrutinized and judged (as Weiner does).  All the more reason to find his actions baffling.  This isn't something he did once and was sorry for.  No, he's been doing this for years, racking up contacts who never promised to stay quiet, getting closer and closer to satisfying his enemies with the inevitable slip-up.

    It had to happen, and it did, and now he's sorry.  Too late.

    If she had no personal relationship with him prior to the tweet being sent out*, then what he did was pretty darn close to as if he walked up to her, opened his raincoat and flashed what was in the picture.  The only difference was that since he wasn't there phyically, she wouldn't also have the added threat of a physical assult. While it was not an attack, it was "attack."  Since he did not know her nor her past experience, he could have seriously traumatized her.

    * The only information I've seen is that she had never met him nor were they in any personal correspondence.

    Hmmm.... Why do they do it? .... Because, the office comes with a certain degree of power. and as a society we tend to equate sexuality with power and .,.. oh hell, they all do it because they can.    That's all.  Sorry, but It's the dog licking his balls explanation. As much as we'd like for there to be a different, more eloquent excuse, there just isn't one.  

    Perhaps we could cut down on this sort of thing if we stopped voting for the JFK archetype of politician (handsome, lots of hair and youthful vitality) and start voting for older, uglier people (y'know, like Everett Dirkson types.)  Or perhaps we could pass some legislation making people legally unable to run for office until their sex drives calm down below a certain level.  Campaign commercials would then tout candidates as having inordinately low sex drives, making them ready, willing and able to serve the people.     

    Or perhaps we could pass some legislation making people legally unable to run for office until their sex drives calm down below a certain level.  Campaign commercials would then tout candidates as having inordinately low sex drives, making them ready, willing and able to serve the people.

    Okay, that made me laugh!  And I wanted to stay mad, too.  But Anthony Weiner a hunk?  He may be a lot of things but -- uh uh.   So all it took was for some young thing to call him "hot" and he was off to the races.  So there's the paradox:  Which is it, the super-ego or the fragile ego that makes them go nuts?  Either way, they do their thing and we lose.

    It is probably that a super-sized ego is by its nature fragile, in constant need of reassurance and support in order to sustain the inflated size.

    Yeah, I gotta say that I don't go to the gym every day hoping for Anthony Weiner like results... Which might also be why he (and John Edwards and Bill Clinton, for that matter) fell for the flattery.


    What people find interesting is that it is self-destructive behavior.  If the dog knows the master will beat him with a rolled up newspaper if he gets caught and still does it, then one starts to wonder about the dog.  Especially if in everything else the dog does, it does a means to avoid getting beaten by a rolled up newspaper. 

    "Why? Why do they do it? "  

    Becuase men like women. And if they can't have them (prude/marriage/morals)then they still want to think they can, they at least want to play with them. We all want that. Truth is, if given the chance most men--even our progressive heros--would be like this sleazbag:


    Because we like women. Alot. More than "saving the country"?..no, but all of us should resent that the two often seem mutually exclusive. Liberals in this country are fairly conservative idealists (at least morally,thats why they are liberal), but they want their heros to be morally perfect.

    I'd say get over it, but there is an appeal to having the moral high ground. Particularly as we are having our ass handed to us. 

    Yes to your last line.  I'm no prude and normally I wouldn't care what they do when they're not at their jobs, but these are the guys who are supposed to be out there helping us fight the politically  amoral.  As role models, they pretty much suck.

    Yes, they have a greater responsibility to the rest of us.

    Why? Because they're men. Even if through the recruiting, vetting, campaigning process you try to weed out the jerks, you still end up with 20% jerks with a sense of sexual entitlement willing to screw their constituents by screwing around.

    All I can think of is: recruit more female candidates.

    Good suggestion, Mr. Cho.  But are we supposed to take suggestions on sexuality and politics from a man whose daddy (we assume) named him Chubby?    Cool

    lol. not that kind of chubby. If that is a kind of chubby...


    Beats me....   Innocent

    As long as I get to be on the recruitment board.

    Oh yeeeeeaaaaaaaah. 

    Ah, I see the problem.

    Okay - so only recruit women as recruiters! Problem solved.

    oh wait...

    I do not know what the motivations of someone who is sexually over active.

    However it is well known that repressed sexuality leads to more horrendous behavior as this article in Psychology Today points out.

    Nothing inspires murderous mayhem in human beings more reliably than sexual repression. Denied food, water, or freedom of movement, people will get desperate and some may lash out at what they perceive as the source of their problems, albeit in a weakened state. But if expression of sexuality is thwarted, the human psyche tends to grow twisted into grotesque, enraged perversions of desire. Unfortunately, the distorted rage resulting from sexual repression rarely takes the form of rebellion against the people and institutions behind the repression. (If it did, perhaps we'd be reading of abused priests rather than priests as abusers.)  Instead, the rage is generally directed at helpless victims who are sacrificed to the sick gods of guilt, shame, and ignorant pride.

    Today, the BBC reports  that Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, an Iranian cleric, has declared that, "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes." I think we can assume he said this with a straight face, Iranian clerics not being known for their impish sense of humor.

    Lest we dismiss this as just another example of distant fundamentalist craziness, we might take a look at some examples a bit closer to home.

    We can start with Christianity, a religion centered upon a figure whose holiness begins with his having been conceived asexually. Mark Twain noted the bizarre anti-eroticism of Christianity when he considered heaven:

    [Man] has imagined a heaven, and has left entirely out of it the supremest of all his delights, the one ecstasy that stands first and foremost in the heart of every individual of his race . . . sexual intercourse! It is as if a lost and perishing person in a roasting desert should be told by a rescuer he might choose and have all longed-for things but one, and he should elect to leave out water!

    (Letters from the Earth)

    There's little question that the centuries-long campaign of child rape enabled by  institutional cover-up is a direct result of the Church's inhumane teachings concerning human sexuality. If priests—gay, straight, and bi-sexual—were allowed to form erotic connections with consenting adults, who can doubt that countless children would have been spared outrageous torture at the hands of these sick, distorted men?

    Gay, conservative, Catholic author Andrew Sullivan has written that "the suppression of these core emotions and the denial of their resolution in love always always leads to personal distortion and cumpulsion and loss of perspective."

    Of course, it's not just a question of repressing homosexuality, but of all sexuality. And religions aren't the only institutions to champion such abuse of spirit and body; medical doctors have participated in some of these shameful crimes against humanity.

    In 1850, the New Orleans Medical & Surgical Journal declared masturbation public enemy number one, warning: "Neither plague, nor war, nor smallpox, nor a crowd of similar evils, have resulted more disastrously for humanity than the habit of masturbation: it is the destroying element of civilized society."

    "Scientific" declarations like these inspired Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (brother of the Corn Flakes Kellogg) in his campaign to eradicate masturbation from the United States.

    Though widely considered to be one of the leading sex educators of his day, Kellogg proudly claimed never to have had intercourse with his wife in over four decades of marriage.

    As a medical doctor, Kellogg claimed the moral authority to instruct parents on the proper sexual education of their children. If you're unfamiliar with the writings of Kellogg and others like him, their gloating disdain for basic human eroticism is chilling and unmistakable. In his best-selling Plain Facts for Old and Young (written on his sexless honey- moon in 1888), Kellogg offered parents guidance for dealing with their sons' natural erotic self-exploration in a section entitled "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects:"

    A remedy which is almost always success- ful in small boys is circumcision. . . . The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. . . . [emphasis added]

    If circumcising a struggling, terrified boy without anesthesia wasn't quite what a parent had in mind, Kellogg recommended "the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the nee- dle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur. . . ."

    Parents were assured that sewing their son's penis into its foreskin "acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice [of masturbation]."

    Circumcision remains prevalent in the United States, though varying greatly by region, ranging from about 40 percent of newborns circumcised in western states to about twice that in the Northeast. This widespread procedure, rarely a medical necessity, has its roots in the anti-masturbation campaigns of Kellogg and his like-minded contemporaries. As sexologist John Money explains, "Neonatal circumcision crept into Ameri- can delivery rooms in the 1870s and 1880s, not for religious reasons and not for reasons of health or hygiene, as is commonly supposed, but because of the claim that, later in life, it would prevent irritation that would cause the boy to become a masturbator."

    Lest you think Kellogg was interested only in the sadistic torture of boys, in the same book he soberly advises the application of carbolic acid to the clitorises of little girls to teach them not to touch themselves. Kellogg, the Catholic church, and Iranian clerics all demonstrate that sexual repression is a "malady that considers itself the remedy," to paraphrase Karl Kraus's dismissal of psychoanalysis.


    t would prevent irritation that would cause the boy to become a masturbator.




    (I had no idea that those perverted motherfuckers were so explicit...)

    Many of our fore fathers were far sicker that anyone around today.

    Ummmm.... Start by filling a body with testosterone. Now put that body on stage, and have lots of women respond by coming up close and saying, "You're hot, powerful, amazing... and I'd like to fuck you."

    Gee. Tough to imagine. 

    The mental leap really isn't that big. Imagine you spent pretty much your entire life working for other people. People less well off. And in the process, gave up a great deal. Including all sorts of nice things - money, time off, a stream of young women - that your intellectual peers and former friends had access to.

    Now.... give yourself access. And note that many of these women are not just willing, but actively interested.

    Easy to understand, I think.

    What I find less easy is the nonsense our society throws at these guys. We're complete hypocrites, and we want to force our hypocrisy on everyone else. the only ones I want to see resign are the ones busily trying to impose their moralistic nonsense on the rest of us. Like Vitter. As far as Weiner goes, no surprise, no big deal, he and his family will sort it out.

    End Weiner talk.

    Wasn't it JFK who said "What's the point of being President if you cant fuck Marilyn Monroe?"

    Which is to say, it's not that having accumulated power men stray--they accumulate power so that they can stray.

    Yeah, but what does power tripping have to do with Weiner?  In this case, Weiner is just a typical schmoe talking dirty and sending racy pics on the internet in the privacy of his own living room.

    Unencumbered by any actual data, I'm guessing that until he rose to political success, Weiner was not mobbed by eager female acolytes.  Once the Kissenger effect set in (I mean, good grief!  If Henry could score top shelf pussy, there's hope for anyone...) he may have perhaps gone kid in candy store nutz.   BTW (disclaimer) the JFK quote is completely fabricated.

    My broader point, however, (not sure how power tripping applies) is that but for the competition for reproductive access, we wouldn't hardly get out of bed and go to work. (well, me anyway...)

    Well stated Quinn, I hope "he and his family will sort it out" .

    It is uncomfortable for many, when something becomes public, what should have remained private.

    I feel as strongly about public displays of affection, thinking to myself "Get a room" 

    What you or others do in private, I do not make it my business, but if someone wants me to observe their public displays, they prick my conscence 

    I do not want to encourage public displays, so that my children are exposed to something I do not wish for them to see.

    It was wrong of Briebart to bring humiliation to Wieners Family. It was wrong of him to bring out that which was private so as to invoke or stumble others consciences, in what should have stayed a private matter.

    Breibart should be chastised.


    Once again, Breitbart finds himself in the middle of a scandal he helped perpetuate, and in which he, too, got stung. Will the pseudo-​journalist/​media whore ever learn?

    Will Andrew Breitbart now apologize to Anthony Weiner, as Weiner apologized to Breitbart? All he could say was, “I regret that this occurred.” Again, no responsibility.


    Sexual pleasures should remain private matters "  

    I think Ramona wasn't asking why men like Weiner would want to do stuff like this, but more why would they risk it knowing what fate it usually brings down on them. 

    And they must know how insecure social media and all that are.

    My preferred alternative for him was to make sport of the whole episode; instead he did interviews.  Then lied.  then cried and repented.  I would have felt better about deflecting the questions with absurd humor.  The way he did it sorta proved he was ashamed of it.  Might even put him in the hypocrite category, IMO.  Though come to think of it, Cinton lied, and damn straight he was proud of it all.  Who doesn't see Monica under the Resolute desk when they think of him?  Seriously.

    But fate doesn't usually come down on them like this.   You think Weiner is the only guy in the House of Representatives engaging in extra-curricular activity?

    Ramona pointed out enough cases to ballast her argument; but I seriously have no idea how widespread this is, Dan.  About all I can say is I don't find the photos stimulating; mostly funny, and especially thinking of someone taking the pix, then sending them to...arouse a woman.  Just.Don't.See.It.

    Larry Flynt discovered a few hypocrites

    Larry Flynt: Democratic moralist


    Remember Bob Livingston; would be speaker?

    It's all that love in their big ol' bleeding hearts that has to find its way out through some orifice.

    When I find myself in the dumps

    And having a very bad day

    I just take pictures of my junk

    And twitter away

    There's really nothin like pics

    Of my nether parts

    Where I can get my kicks

    And appeal to those younger hearts

    All this new techs allows

    That incredible feeling of being really free

    And it all seems to follow

    That I gotta be me!

    When I find myself in times of trouble,

    Mother Mary comes to me....

    Now waaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiit a goddamn minute. 

    Not in THIS blog she ain't. 

    Hahaha! Dick...ah, I mean Richard...you always come thr...I mean...you always have the right video for the occasion.

    I'm not sure why it's such a big mystery.  Weiner is just one of a few billion really horny guys on the planet Earth craving the fun and excitement of sexual gratification - something he is programmed to seek by his biological nature - and seeking it through whatever outlets are available.

    People act on cravings all the time that have the potential to be bad for them in the long run or short run.   Why do people drink alcohol or eat sugary, fatty foods even though these things aren't good for them and can damage their long-term life plans?   Well, apparently dirinking alcohol and eating unhealthy but indulgently tasty foods is fun.

    Weiner didn't do anything that doesn't happen a few million times a day via the internet.

    The real mystery and marvel is how we have managed to create a successful, organized and reasonably disciplined society in which people don't act on their cravings and impulses all the time, but manage to adhere to self-imposed rules most of the time.

    I tweet to Jill Biden that she's hot all the time and I get squat back.

    More proof that women should be running things. Wink

    Are you saying that's her way of saying she likes me? Help me out here.

    What ever you do ........DONT SEND PICTURES

    Goddess forgive me for adding these items: Breitbart released the naked photo on Gawker and Huma announced she's pregnant.  For crying out loud; we are a messed up society.  By the by, the photo was soooo bad it froze Mr. Stardust's computer (I made him look to share the pain...)

    (Hint: of no prurient interest; funny, nonetheless.)

    Hello, ladies!

    Tweet me: http://twitter.com/#!/wolraich

    Oops, how do I delete this thing?


    Nice waterfall, dude!   ;o)

    Hello, still waiting for nubile women to twitter-follow me! I'm a powerful and influential dude (with a guido neckchain), and I'm willing to reduce myself to a public sex object. If I have to publish penis pics, I'll do it.

    Genghis is erect?

    If ya lowered the bar from 'nubile'...maybe...or included 'nubile men'...? 

    Man, that surgery must be sweeeeet. 


    . . . Genghis, circa March 2011

    I can't say with certitude whether that is my chest.

    (Curses! I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that meddling Breitbart!)

    Bob Cesca talks about the Weiner thing, and yes, this is what I was trying to say:

    Among the casualties of the congressman's hubristic online grabass sessions, it appears as though the progressive movement will lose a smart, tough-talking champion. A rarity in the Democratic Party. If he doesn't resign, Congressman Weiner will never again enjoy the trust and admiration of the left, much less the press. If he does, he's going to have to work damn hard to reacquire it. Meanwhile, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have been gifted another massive excuse to dust off out their ridiculously hypocritical family values attack against the left, even though the thrice-married, drug addicted, alleged sex tourist Limbaugh is far from being a family values action hero.

    Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/anthony-weiner-scandal_b_873614.html

    Latest Comments