The Girl That I Marry, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise
February 6, 2010 Martha Thomases 0 Comments
For reasons beyond my comprehension, a publisher has decided that there is a market for a book about John Edwards’ sex life. The Politician is advertised as if it is supposed to be a high-minded book about the 2008 presidential campaign run by John Edwards. Maybe that’s what it is. Unfortunately, the author, Andrew Young (a former campaign staffer, not the real one, in his appearances on television, appears to me to only be promoting the sleaziest aspects of his story.
The bare bones are old news: John Edwards had an affair with a woman working as a freelance videographer for his campaign. He lied about the relationship, even after the woman gave birth to a daughter he fathered. At the time, his wife, Elizabeth, had only recently discovered the return of her cancer, originally diagnosed after Edwards’ 2004 campaign for vice-president.
That’s a horrible story, one I find especially distasteful because I liked John Edwards’ campaign. He was the only candidate speaking about poverty in this country, and why it is so important to fight against it. I’m disappointed that he’s not a better person. And I’m disgusted at the way some in the news media blame his wife.
Believe it or not, Elizabeth Edwards, a person with cancer, has the nerve to be something less than a saint! She got angry at staffers and lost her temper. She yelled at her husband when she found out he was cheating. Instead of smiling sweetly and appreciating every moment of the life she had left, Mrs. Edwards instead did things that made other people uncomfortable. The gall of that woman!
Believe it or not, people with cancer (and other terminal diseases, including being alive) do not stop being human just because they might die soon. People with cancer can be just as petty, just as annoying, just as human as the rest of us. Maybe even more so. Not only do they have a disease, which can be exhausting, but they frequently have to take medicine that makes them feel crummy, and they have to go to the hospital and be around other sick people, which is scary.
If I have a cold, I’m no fun. I hope I never have to see what I’m like with cancer but, if I do, I’m willing to bet I’m going to kvetch. A lot.
It seems to me that I never read a news article that attempts to justify a female politician’s infidelity by describing her husband’s temper. Men are supposed to get angry. That’s manly. Angry women are shrews, and they deserve everything they get.
Except laid.
While we’re at it, I’m also grossed out that I have to think about John Edwards having sex when I watch a news program. I also don’t want to think about David Vitter and his diapers, or Eliot Spitzer and his socks. I don’t want to think about any other person having sex, except for me.
Not to harp on this “We’re human” thing too much, but I expect that our elected officials have sex. That’s what people do. I’m not surprised that they get married and divorced, cheat or stay faithful, or whatever combination of behaviors works for each individual couple. I just don’t want to hear about it.
If anything, I’d like to hear about the other, more mundane things they do that make them human. Tell me about their kids. Do they go to public school? Does the official go to parent-teacher conferences? Do they go shoe-shopping? Do they take public transportation? Do they have their own EZ-Pass, or are they always driven by a driver? If they fly, do they fly in coach, first class or on a private jet? Who does the cooking, and who does the grocery shopping?
These things tell me a lot more about how much I can trust a politician than what he’s doing with his dick.
Media Goddess Martha Thomases is extremely sorry she put the image of Eliot Spitzer, naked but for socks, rutting away with a hooker, in your brain. However, the New York newspapers make her think about it, and she doesn’t like to suffer alone.
Mike Gold
February 6, 2010 - 12:06 pm
I like John Edwards and supported him until he no longer had a shot. My bad. He acted like a dick — not for cheating on his wife (people’s sex lives are not my business, unless I’m somehow involved) but for the cover-up. That’ll get you every time. And for the stupidity of not thinking it prudent to keep it in his pants during the campaign. That’s not just stupid, that shows the type of judgment I don’t want to see in a president.
Yes, I said that screwing around does not necessarily show bad judgment but screwing around during a presidential campaign does. The difference is what is my business and what isn’t. It’s a very conservative stand.
I like Eliot Spitzer, even though he looks like the Red Skull’s grandson. And who he rents for sex is not my lookout. As if he were the first. He didn’t dick us around. He fessed up.
R. Maheras
February 6, 2010 - 1:22 pm
The way I look at it, if a politician betrays the trust of the person who he/she is closest to and allegedly cares the most about, that politician won’t think twice about betraying the trust of constituents.
For awhile during the 2004 primary campaign, Edwards seemed to be the Democratic candidate I could most support. Little did I know that he was just manipulating us all like he was manipulating those closest to him, and that his righteous public face was all a disgusting and sordid facade.
Martha Thomases
February 6, 2010 - 2:31 pm
I don’t particularly have a problem with prostitution. It seems to me to be a service that serves a need, and the difficulties associated with it come from it’s prohibition, much like drugs. However, when Spitzer was Attorney General, he made a big deal about how he was bringing charges against them, so that would seem to be hypocrisy.
Not as bad as the family values types (like Vitter) who make a big deal out of their holier-than-thou-ness, but bad.
Howard Cruse
February 6, 2010 - 3:06 pm
While I appreciated many things about both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and was pleased that we had several good options during the 1968 primaries, I initially supported John Edwards for reasons similar to yours, Martha: I’m really hungry for politicians who actually seem to care about alleviating poverty. Now I shudder at the thought that he could have gained the nomination and only to provide scandal-fodder during the general campaign that would probably have wrecked the Democrats’ changes for a win.
I leave it to the individuals in a marriage to determine where the boundaries of trust about sex lie and what level of betrayal is involved in one or the other seeking adventure outside of a monogamy template. But I feel deeply betrayed by Edwards’s willingness to risk destroying the hopes of voters who trusted him to be serious about the values he campaigned about. Thank God the Democratic Party dodged a bullet that it had no way of knowing was headed its way.
MOTU
February 6, 2010 - 4:32 pm
I don’t give a flying fish what somebody does with his dick as long as they do their goddamn jobs. Was Martin Luther King less of a leader because he had some ass on the side? Was Clinton less of a great President because of what he did with that that intern?
If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a million times, you CANNOT regulate morality. When the GOP went after Clinton America could not give a shit about his dick, because things were GOOD. I’m SO sick of the stupidly surrounding morals and government in this country.
Who rents porn in this country?
EVERYBODY.
When some asshole in the California Assembly suggested that their be a 25% increase in taxes on the Porn Industry just because they were the Porn Industry that shit when NOWHERE. Why? Because the Porn Industry said “Fine we’ll just leave California.” That tax suggestion died quicker than Lincoln.
I would STILL vote for Edwards. EVERYBODY lies. No? You don’t think so? You’re lying.
Whatever a women decides to do when she finds out her husband has been sleeping around is her fucking decision. Society has no fucking say in what goes on in anyone’s relationship. If Mrs. Edwards wants to pimp slap her husband or make him an egg sandwich after he screws his mistress, how the fuck is that my business?
OH, what about trust? How can we trust someone that lies in government?
Give me a goddamn break, to hold these people to a higher standard when the very mention of the word Politics makes you THINK OF LIARS, dirty deals and smoke filled rooms is fucking crazy. Being shocked and outraged that a Senator lied is like being shocked and outraged after YOU rent a PORN video and see people fucking.
My family values are for MY family not yours.
Mike Gold
February 6, 2010 - 6:19 pm
I see that a proposal to mandate a condom be included in each copy of every pornographic magazine sold was just defeated. I gather the couch-cleaning industry has a strong lobby.
MOTU
February 6, 2010 - 6:46 pm
Mike…
Yep.
JohnnyC
February 6, 2010 - 9:05 pm
If the media reporters who spend all their time reporting on politicians and their affairs actually asked more pressing questions and reported on things like how Tuvalu is going to create this century’s first ecological refugees from rising ocean water levels from global warming, I would pay attention to a lot of the news.
If someone released a report on the sexual innuendo these reporters get into themselves, I don’t think they would bother bombarding us with this trivial gossip masquerading as news reporting.
R. Maheras
February 6, 2010 - 10:34 pm
Well, JohnnyC, perhaps they don’t report on that because the science doesn’t back it up.
For, while, yes, the sea levels are rising, the fact is they’ve been constantly rising since the last ice age — something like 300 feet. And the rate of increase during the past 100 years has been steady — virtually linear — regardless of what the atmosphere’s CO2 levels have been.
As a matter of fact, the sea levels kept rising even through the mini ice age of the Middle Ages (approximately the 1200s to the 1800s (starting and ending dates vary a bit depending on which paleoclimatologists you talk to), when Greenland went from white to green (in spots) to white again.
I think it’s safe to say that certain lowland areas around the globe were going to eventually succumb to the sea anyway. History is littered with your so-called “ecological refugees.” The bottom of the English Channel, for example, used to be dry land sporting human settlements. In another example, not too long ago scientists discovered the remains of a very large city in the Gulf of Cambay off the coast of India that lies under 120 feet of water.
Thus, while I think it’s undeniable that sea levels are rising, I see no compelling evidence yet that links it to CO2 increases in the atmosphere over the past 50-100 years.
So give the media a break. They get enough stuff wrong as it is.
An aside: I am all for cleaning up our air and our water, but I refuse to side with reactionary scientists who are using a theory derived not from concrete evidence, but from computer models built from incomplete data. And of the data that WAS used, we are now finding out that some of it was intentionally manipulated. That isn’t science. That’s fear-mongering for research dollars.
Martha Thomases
February 7, 2010 - 9:16 am
@JohnnyC and R: I simply wish the media would cover the issues, no matter what they are. Cover the facts. While I consider myself an environmentalist (and have the compost on my terrace to prove it), that’s not my personal obsession. I mean, look at they way they covered the build-up to the Iraq war? Look at the way they obsessed about Gary Condit before 9/11. Look at the way they’re covering the wars in Africa right now. Oh, wait, they’re not. I have to find out about that on the BBC.
pennie
February 7, 2010 - 9:45 am
Not an original take in the least, but my obvious thought is that sex sells and interests many people and long-term ecological transitions do not.
People are going to screw up and around. As MOTU noted, morality can’t be legislated. Politicians…honesty…again MOTU noted: oxymoronic.
Actually, I’m waiting (not sitting by the phone)for the politico who doesn’t blast morality and family values as a foundation. The one who says, “Sure, I’ve done and do (fill in your favorite here)this and that–and hope you’re primarily looking at my voting and legislative history–we’ll that’s my gal/guy.
pennie
February 7, 2010 - 9:53 am
So are we outraged that Martha’s fine specimen examples did IT–or that they were so lame they got caught–thus revealing a decided lack of leadership skills?
Is anyone here going to tell me that all other politicos don’t cheat–in a bedroom, boardroom or backroom? Or is it that they just haven’t been caught yet?
Mike Gold
February 7, 2010 - 10:12 am
Pennie — Actually, it’s the pols who DON’T cheat that bother me. What are they in it for? Not the money, if they don’t cheat. Not the sex, if they don’t cheat. Just the power? Just that? Scary. Very scary. To further a political agenda that’s bigger than they are? Also scary. To further a religious agenda? Scariest of all.
If Richard Nixon screwed around a bit, at least it would have shown he had SOME emotions. Other than a passion for cottage cheese with barbecue sauce.
Eddie
February 7, 2010 - 10:27 am
One uncomfortable thing about politicians being humans is that they aren’t all-good or all-bad. John Edwards’s stupidity in managing his sexual escapades (you don’t know how to prevent pregnancy, John?) and his callous disregard for the predicament he could have put the Democratic Party in, doesn’t mean he wasn’t authentic in his concern about poverty. But it does tell me that he’s capable of the kind of intentional or unconscious denial that could have ruined his presidency — a presidency committed to addressing poverty — even if he had managed to get elected. How sad that would have been!
It isn’t easy for a politician to be public about his or her real beliefs about sex, let alone his or her practices. I know, because when I ran for office I had to be honest about my opposition to shutting down adult entertainment venues. Luckily, nobody ever questioned me on whether I went to those venues and what I did there. Would I have had the courage to answer that? Nor did anyone question me about marijuana use — about which I had been looking forward to saying, “I never exhaled.”
Isn’t Martha the greatest!
pennie
February 7, 2010 - 11:05 am
going backwards in true crab fashion: I’m on record–I agree Eddie, Martha is the greatest. She brought me into this room.
I know it isn’t easy for a politician to be honest about ANYTHING tinged with the slightest taint of controversy. But, in the end, aren’t those the people we respect the most? Eddie, I’m sure when you ran for office, standing up for adult entertainment venues would have been far riskier on the East Coast than in Vegas. But as MOTU asked rhetorically above, “Who rents porn? Everybody!”
Yeah, I know, we can qualify that. A few even own it. I’m positive there are a say they don’t–and they’re probably lying.
Finally (still working backwards), Mike, I so agree. Gimme shelter from these pretentious snobs who proclaim their righteous bounty. I agree wholeheartedly with you. Why are these people running? Tell me it isn’t the lifetime full pension with all the comps and bennies…
Ultimately, Edwards came off as a lying, hypocritical, uncaring,disloyal, foolish man. Put it all in one picture and that doesn’t exactly inspire a presidential image with inspirational leadership at the core.
For Obama, I was just hoping he could stem the tide of raging elephants for a bit and scatter some appleseeds along the beaten path. Musta got lost somewhere down the line…
Hoping he comes out roaring but as ever, he might still be seeking his own glory hole.
R. Maheras
February 7, 2010 - 11:15 am
Martha wrote: “Look at the way they’re covering the wars in Africa right now. Oh, wait, they’re not.”
You’re absolutely right. Which is why BBC’s is one of the news sites I visit on a regular basis.
Mike Gold
February 7, 2010 - 11:53 am
Whereas it, too, has its prejudices and blind spots, BBC World News is a breath of fresh air compared to what has become of the US network news organizations. This is not to say that the reporters aren’t good — many of them are. But what can they do in the seconds allotted to them?
Now CBS News is closing down their bureaus in Moscow and Tel Aviv. Hell, why not? NOTHING ever happens in Russia or Israel, right?
pennie
February 7, 2010 - 12:43 pm
Mike wrote, “Now CBS News is closing down their bureaus in Moscow and Tel Aviv. Hell, why not? NOTHING ever happens in Russia or Israel, right?”
Just as idiotic it the same network’s decision to accept an ad supporting the limitation of abortion rights for women by Focus on the Family but then reject one for a gay dating website on tonight’s Superbowl broadcast.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/06/the_double_standard_at_cbs/
Alan Coil
February 7, 2010 - 1:10 pm
I doubt any of us on this message board will live to see the full affects of global warming, but I suspect our grandchildren will not be thinking to kindly of us in 50 years.
Global warming is a fact. Those denying it may do so, of course, but hiding you head in the sand leaves your ass sticking up in the air for all to see (and possibly use).
R. Maheras
February 7, 2010 - 2:02 pm
If Global Warming advocates insist that the sea levels are rising because of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, then they are doing so without any proof. So far, the only “proof” is from computer models built with incomplete or manipulated data.
The only “fact” we really know at this point is that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. How it will affect anything in the future is pure speculation.
And in the past five years, the predictions of Global Warming advocates (who, because of the severe winters in the past couple of years have now shifted their GW monnicker to “Climate Change”) have been anything but accurate.
No, I’ll back those who advocate reducing pollution for health reasons, but I refuse to support fear-mongers who use junk science to scare people into throwing money down research ratholes.
Alan Coil
February 7, 2010 - 4:48 pm
It’s always ‘junk science’ if it’s something you don’t believe in, isn’t it Maheras.
99% or more of the world’s climatologists are in agreement that global warming is real. They are overwhelmingly in agreement that the rate is increasing every year. Yet one little to-do where a very small number of people have been found to be in a situation that probably isn’t very ethical, and it’s proof enough for the naysayers that global warming is a hoax.
How typical.
Any other conspiracy theories you want to share with us?
Mike Gold
February 7, 2010 - 5:05 pm
Pennie — Yeah, it’s not as if football isn’t the most obviously gay sport created since the Greeks.
Alan and Russ — So you agree that CO2 is rising. Doesn’t it make sense for us to limit that while we try to figure out what’s going on? Science is a progressive act: work builds upon the work before it. Sometimes things are negated, sometimes things are proven and that, in turn, leads to other questions and concerns. All of which are handled by humans, with human limitations. But if we all agree that CO2 is rising and we all agree that that isn’t a good thing, shouldn’t we take steps to slow that down as we figure it all out? I mean, I didn’t exactly go out and buy a Toyota this week.
R. Maheras
February 7, 2010 - 10:57 pm
As I said before, I have no problem with improving the quality of air and water for health reasons, but that isn’t what the most visible Global Warming advocates have latched onto as justification for spending billions.
They said the sea level will rise because of Global Warming — but that has not happened, and there is no evidence it will happen. As I pointed out, sea levels have risen in a linear fashion during the past 100 years, regardless of what CO2 levels are.
Second, Global Warming advocates state that if the global mean temperature increases by just a couple of degrees, we will experience world-wide famine, and we will be rent asunder by super hurricanes, super storms and other nasty weather extremes. What body oriface did they pull that conjecture out of? Where’s the proof? Scientists aren’t even sure how weather will unfold in various parts of the globe even a month down the road, yet you have people claiming they know how weather patterns will emerge under projected conditions years or even decades from now by using nothing more than imperfect computer models. That’s total, unmitigated bullshit of the highest order, yet there are people falling all over themselves defending it.
All I can say is P.T. Barnum was apparently a very, very smart man.
John Tebbel
February 8, 2010 - 6:53 am
Barnum was a very smart man.
He probably knew the difference between climate and weather, too.
R. Maheras
February 8, 2010 - 8:49 am
Semantics, John. Semantics.
Way to avoid discussing the overall point.
R. Maheras
February 8, 2010 - 9:15 am
In my view, there are four main criteria for determining the accuracy of a computer model:
1.) Are all the variables accounted for?
2.) Does the model accurately match the environment being examined?
3.) Is the input data accurate?
4.) When tested, has the model accurately predicted a result (or series of results), based on comparison with a real-world scenario?
When the answer to all four questions is yes, then, and only then, can the model be said to be accurate.
I know of no climate model to date that has answered yes to more than one of the above, and even THAT yes may be invalid because some climatologists were cooking the books.
Show me the scientific proof and I’ll shut the hell up. But don’t expect this independent to just roll over and become another parishioner in the Church of Global Warming.
R. Maheras
February 8, 2010 - 5:02 pm
These statements, by actual scientists, sum up why I am skeptical of the weight placed by so many on the IPCC’s climate model “evidence”:
— Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.”[10] “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.”[11][12]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: “The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.”[14]
— Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : “models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”.[15] He has also said, “It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it”[16]
The fact is, the modeling used by the IPCC, which is the basis of every single Global Warming argument (from rising sea levels to super hurricanes), is just fanciful conjecture.
It’s a wild freakin’ guess! It’s like a 1920s Hugo Gernsback SF mag story or “Scientific American” article that, when originally penned by forward-looking experts from that era, seemed perfectly plausible based on existing information. Looking back on all of those “best guesses,” what is the accuracy of their track records? Pretty bloody pitiful.
Alan Coil
February 8, 2010 - 9:02 pm
“Show me the scientific proof and I’ll shut the hell up.”
No, you won’t. But I will. I’m done with you.