Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1116 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Wait a minute, Glenn...
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson, stalwart defender of sexual privacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...haven't we been hearing Obama and Clinton and all the other Democrats campaigning on "family values" too? I can't remember a Hillary Clinton press release, or a Dick Durbin soundbite, or a Nancy Pelosi photo-op, in which somebody wasn't crowing about what they were trying to do for "American families"?
Sure, they have different definitions of "families" and "familiy values." Barney Frank might have a very different view of a "family." Barney Frank might even think that sex for hire is okay, as long as it isn't conducted from his kitchen telephone. Or maybe he's okay with that, too, I don't know.
But the point is this; until the Democrats call for a full and formal national repeal of all laws relating to prostitution, it is hard to see how this kind of story doesn't cut both ways, right? I mean, wouldn't it be just as hypocritical if Edwards or Obama or Patrick Kennedy had been cought ho-ing around? If and when a Democrat's number shows up on the list, there won't be any differnce in the 'newsworthiness,' will there? Isn't engaging in illegal prostitution just as illegal, and just as immoral, and just as hypocrical if you are a 'family values' politician, whether or not you support or oppose DOMA and gay marriage?
Maybe that secanrio (Democrats getting caught (i)in flagrante) is not as likely, because there isn't any indication that the Republicans have a magazine publisher using the business' resources to go after members of this Congress. Meanwhile the Democrats have Larry Flynt doing that for them.
But no matter what, this story/non-story surely cuts both ways, irrespective of where someone stands on a host of specific policy issues or legisltative initiatives.
Really, people; does the party of Edwin Edwards, of Barney Frank, of James McGreevey, of Joe Kennedy and Jack Kennedy, of Ted Kennedy and William Kennedy Smith, of Bill Clinton and Wayne Hays and Gerry Studds and Mel Watt and Wilbur Mills and Bob Packwood and Brock Adams and Gary Hart REALLY want to get in a shooting war over sex scandals?
For the record, I think this Republican Senator from Louisiana is a bit of a turd. All the prostitutes seem to think he's a "nice guy, a normal guy." But let's stipulate that Senator Vitter is a turd. Well so, it would seem, is Sen. Daniel Inouye. So is Sen. Ted Kennedy. Actually, in the last analysis it might be nice to know that Senator is actually functional below his waist, unlike Sen. Robert Byrd or, of course, our old friend Larry Flynt.
Just asking, Glenn.
-
Here's the kicker: "Penland said she and her husband are thinking about filing a lawsuit. Mostly, she said, they just want an apology."
[Read the article: Flying the child-unfriendly skies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay. I think I get it. And mostly, the contingency-fee lawyer just wants a substantial monetary settlement. Apology, Schmopology.
But let's stipulate that the flight attendant was way, way out of line. And just for the fun of it, let's assume hypothetically that the flight attendant was, as someone commented below, "A young man who appeared to have no children." (Don't you love that delicacy?) But let's also assume that the flight attendant was never instructed to do anything like this, and did so in this case without any sort of sanction by the airline; that the flight crew supervisors were as surprised and dismayed by the whole incident as the passenger was.
The contingency-fee lawyers are not intersted in suing the flight attendant for everything he and his partner own, which is limited to their hairdryers, their complete Judy Garland discography and their tickets to see Rosie O'Donnell on Broadway.
No, they'll sue the airline. The airline that never wanted any of this to happen in the first place. (The airline might fire the flight attendant in question, and then get sued for that, too.)
This is where the great divide sets up between Republicans and Democrats. For Democrats, this kind of thing is business as usual. Trial lawyers are their great benefactors. For Republicans, this kind of thing is where we draw a line.
-
The irony of this is too good to miss.
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson, stalwart defender of sexual privacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Shooter explains the First Rule of GOP Club:
'* The easiest way to avoid predicaments of hypocrisy is to have low or no standards. Is that a good thing for leaders and citizens?'
-- shooter242"
But then, of course, we are all confronted with the fact that the guy who is apparently the driving force behind these and other distasteful disclosures is Larry Flynt. If there were to be a dictionary definition for "having low or no standards," it would be a picture of Democrat-supporting Larry Flynt, right?
What is it with Flynt? Is he filled with some sort of psychosocial rage because he's pararlyzed and his dick doesn't work anymore? That can't be it, because he was a pervert long before somebody popped a cap in his ass.
-
"Ruined" the "career" of Joe Wilson?
[Read the article: It's finally time for Bush to answer questions about Libby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What "career"? Joe Wilson's self-selected "career," starting with his error-filled, grandstanding op-ed piece in the NYT, seems to be "Professional gadfly Bush Administration critic." And President Bush "ruined" that "career"?
Valerie Wilson, mother of two, was commuting to a CIA job in the suburbs. She quit. Then posed in her jammies, and in sunglasses, and in a Jaguar, for Vanity Fair. And her career is ruined?
I'd be game for some open questioning of Libby after his pending appeals are exhausted. But only if we can also have open and aggressive questioning of Patrick Fitzgerald about the details of his investigation, wherein he knew how Plame's name got into the newspapers but he nevertheless went after his old nemesis, Scooter Libby.
Enquiring minds want to know, Joe!