Sunday, April 15, 2012


<<< Don't look at that.

What's wrong with this country when a woman receives an "Atta Girl" from the President for issues concerning her recreational sex life yet when a guy has his own fun it's a scandal to the administration?
"War On Men", anyone?

This is not news.
Access to any White House is a direct correlation to how much one can help it's political ambitions.
The news is that it is the New York Times reporting this while a Democrat occupies the residence.

^^^ Why are you still looking at that? I told you not to.

When he was 5, my Gramps was sent to live in an orphanage for several months after a tornado visited his town of Beaverville, IL. His family's home was destroyed while they took refuge in a neighbor's cellar. I have a pic of the town's aftermath, somewhere.
He always spoke fondly of the orphanage period. Lot's to eat, plenty of playtime, and the nuns were full of love. He referenced it often.
I've never experienced a tornado. Sometimes I wonder what's like after seeing the coverage on TV.
Gramps always told me it's scary, something I could do without.
I know all about earthquakes though. I generally sleep through them.

News Flash:Holding a gun makes you appear stronger and more powerful. Yeah, they needed a study for that.

Just because a babe has made millions modeling cosmetics, designer gowns, high-end jewelry, and stripping naked in movies doesn't give anybody the right to notice her appearance.
Everybody: just stop looking at Ashley Judd. She don't like it.


Brian said...

If the biggest scandal in the history of the Secret Service is a couple of hookers, I'd say that's a pretty stellar record on balance. Though I do understand the potential for officers being compromised as a security concern.

kr said...

Ashley Judd doesn't object to being looked at. I don't even think she objects to people noticing the real and concrete signs of aging (but then, her lifestyle has permitted her to avoid many of those). She objects to being exaggeratedly denigrated.

I agree with her overall arguments and assertions, but also recognize your implicit counter-assertion, which is that a person who has exaggeratedly benefitted from being "good looking" kinda needs to expect to ride the wave down, too. 'Hard to be taken entirely seriously "objecting," when she is using those same societal prejudices to cash in.

Even if her objection is valid.

(Not that so many human beings manage to be entirely consistent with their ideals ;). Ideals are still worth having, aiming for, and arguing about.)

Brian said...

I don't think that making a living (in part) on your looks obligates you to eat shit and smile when said looks are denigrated, publicly and nastily.

Gino said...

Brian: goes with the territory. i liken it to a pro athlete on the wrong side of 30. get off the stage gracefully when your game diminishes, or be prepared for the commentary.
and dont complain about the standards when you used them to your advantage to take work from others when you had 'it'.

Bike Bubba said...

Brian; I think that the most egregious scandal in the history of the Secret Service was the guy who left Ford's Theater to go to the bar, don't you?

That said, one of the oldest tricks in the book for getting information you're not entitled to is to get a man in bed with a woman not his wife, so this really is a big deal. Kennedy was nearly court martialed for sleeping with a German spy, for example--it's why he was on the PT boat afterwards.

The question is how long it's been going on--if 21 guys thought they could get away with it, somebody may have been looking the other way for a while.

(kinda like the cop busted in DC for soliciting a prostitute while in uniform--OK, so we know DC hookers know the thin blue line's opinion there, don't we?)

Brian said...

Actually, the bill the created the Secret Service was on Lincoln's desk the night he was shot. (Irony!)

But they weren't responsible for presidential protection until after the McKinley assassination, anyway. Before that, it was all about chasing counterfeiters.

Seriously, I do get the whole compromised agent thing. I'm just genuinely surprised that given the stakes and opportunities for corruption (arguably more so with their treasury duties than with their protective ones) and the length of its existence (147 years), that there hasn't been a bigger scandal.

Bike Bubba said...

Bob Tyrrell's column this week indicates that his view--having dealt with the Secret Service back during the Reagan days--was that they used to take sexual dalliances and such very seriously, and that the current laxity may be the result of the Clinton administration.