Speaking of Weiner...
I feel we haven't discussed the Weiner sex scandal enough. For instance, has it occurred to anyone that when a guy named Weiner sends dirty pictures in a "tweet," there could be some good opportunities for hilarious puns and double meanings?
Okay, I'm kidding, but I'm also not quite ready to go the sophisticated, world-weary enough-already-it's-only-sex-for-goodness'-sake route either. While I understand that desire can make fools of us all and puritanism can all-too-easily redound on the puritan, there also comes a point where the pose of tolerance prevents us from holding public officials to the proper standards. Megan Mcardle of the Atlantic does an absolutely perfect job of dismantling a dishonest partisan argument by Andrew Sullivan that there's nothing to see here:
"I... don't think it works to say that it's nobody's business but the couple's whether people keep their marriage vows. Andrew has been a great proponent of gay marriage--not civil unions, but marriage. Why was it so important to call it marriage, if everything about it is entirely private? Why not stop with legal equality and leave marriage to the heterosexuals? If all the benefits are private, then a combination of legal visitation/property sharing rights, and whatever private arrangements the two parties choose to make, should be more than sufficient.
But it wasn't, because gay couples wanted public recognition of their commitment. And well they should. But the public recognition exists for a reason--marriage is a great deal more than just saying "We like to sleep together and pick out bathroom tile." Did she show up at his campaign events? If she did, they were both happy to have the marriage be part of a very public persona. You can't use your marriage to shore up your political position, and then complain when people get curious about your performance as a husband--particularly when you piqued their interest in such a public way."
Read the whole thing here. It's so good, I may tweet Megan photos of my mind. Chicks dig that!
H/T to the (nearly) almighty Glenn at Instapundit.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
I'm pretty sure Megan just made an argument for marriage which, among other things, relies on the various uses of shame in a public context in order to support the virtuous behavior (fidelity) of others.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that's (gasp)...social conservatism!
Jun '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
Remember, it's not about a US Congressman telling bald-faced lies to his wife, his family, his congressional colleagues, his staff, and his constituents for several days. It's just about internet sex, and therefore, private.
Aug '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
Yeah, but unless he lied under oath, or he violated any House rules, or he broke any laws, I still feel he should be tried in the court of public opinion and punished at the ballot box rather than being officially censured by the House.
Of course, that's a selfish position on my part, because it means the Dems would lose one more seat next election. If he resigns and they replace him with a better candidate, that means the Dems have an opportunity to keep the seat.
Still, in this particular case I think it's better to let the voters decide if what he did is worth losing his job over.
Aug '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
BTW: When I read the subject of Mr. Klavan's post, I was REALLY hoping that it was all just a set-up for him to write something about some awesome hot dog he had somewhere. Fo' real!
Jan '11
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
You know Andrew, Claire is really gonna kick you in the ding-ding for posting this.
Edited on Jun 9, 2011 at 8:04amJan '11
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
The bits about open marriage in Mcardle's piece make me throw up in my mouth a little. I really don't see how you defend the concept of marriage and the importance of social disapproval in keeping a decent moral order and then talk about how you think it's okay for people to define what marriage is for themselves. She talks out of both sides of her mouth, which she kind of admits to. But how about not admitting that your positions are logically and morally inconsistent, and instead picking a side and admitting that one of the positions you previously held was wrong.
Edited on Jun 9, 2011 at 8:25amAug '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
I agree that it's inconsistent to defend the marital package as a received institution while allowing couples to opt-out of core aspects of it. However given that McMegan is starting from a position of libertarianism I give her points whenever she makes moves in the direction of supporting tradition and institutions. Kind of a glass half-full thing.
May '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
But, as Megan implies, it shows that Sullivan's claims for gay marriage are in bad faith. It is precisely the difference in public standing that is the difference between California's civil unions, and marriage. If he really, truly believes what he argues here then he can have no argument with prop 8. He wants "marriage" to mean something other than our common understanding, and not just in terms of the mix of genders involved, and he wants to make his re-definition legally enforceable upon the rest of us.
Interestingly, the paper in Psychology Today "Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After" suggests the gay couples means something quite different by the word "monogamous" to other users of the English language.
This Humpty Dumpty approach to language has got to be stopped.
Dec '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
You know what's the big takeaway from this story?
Not the sex. Not the lying. Not the wife eagerly pushing for him to stay in office. Not the hypocrisy with his advocacy of aggressive sexual harassment prosecution. Not even (at the moment) any legal issues.
It's that he's so pathetic.
Really? Sending pics of Little Anthony and the Imperials to coeds young enough to be your daughter? Really? Talking about yourself as if you're some sort of guy who passed up a lucrative pornstar career? Talking about "tellin' some truth" and using that as an opportunity to get some from somebody he knows not just online but on 140-character Twitter?
What a loser.
Edited on Jun 9, 2011 at 9:28amFeb '11
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
One more bit of praise for Megan's column: she asks the logical question, if Wiener and his wife have a private "arrangement" as so many liberal commentators are assuming, why hasn't Weiner's wife said so, in his defense? That would shut up all the people shrieking about his cyber-cheating. And he wouldnt have had to tell some many absurd lies.
Hmmm. Curious...
Jun '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
AmishDude: You know what's the big takeaway from this story?
Not the sex. Not the lying. Not the wife eagerly pushing for him to stay in office. Not the hypocrisy with his advocacy of sexual harassment. Not even (at the moment) any legal issues.
It's that he's so pathetic.
Really? Sending pics of Little Anthony and the Imperials to coeds young enough to be your daughter? Really? Talking about yourself as if you're some sort of guy who passed up a lucrative pornstar career? Talking about "tellin' some truth" and using that as an opportunity to get some from somebody he knows not just online but on 140-character Twitter?
What a loser. · Jun 9 at 9:21am
Agree. Weiner is like a Rottweiler who struts down the street, gets attacked by a Dachshund (get it, a Weinerdog), and comes back with its tail between its legs (woops, didn't intend that pun).
When you set yourself up as an attack dog, don't act like a lap dog (especially no crying).
Dec '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
I just wanted to use "Little Anthony and the Imperials" in this context, that's all.
Dec '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
Ace of Ace of Spades HQ (warning, he lets his commenters curse a blue streak) made a point that fits into this. That is, the media hounds Republicans for such scandals because they're the "party of family values" and hence any deviation from perfect morality is "hypocrisy".
Ignore the fact that hypocrisy isn't having high standards and failing them but having one standard for others and a different one for yourself. It isn't like Democrats run on a libertine ticket. Except for Barney Frank, they all tout their families, none will run on open marriages or rejection of basic moral norms.
They all want to be seen as paragons of virtue...until they get caught. Then, everybody "knows" that they didn't really mean it.
Aug '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
I'm always glad to see it demonstrated but I take it for granted that Sullivan's claims are in bad faith, especially anything having to do with gay marriage. This is a guy who says both that gay marriage will promote monogamy among gay men AND that it will teach straight couples to "lighten up" about straying AND that it won't have any impact on straight couples.
More broadly, Sullivan is the sophist who defines the core conservative intuition as being "doubt," which is correct except that it's supposed to be doubt about rushing through social change whereas he completely inverts the meaning to be doubt about the ability of society to maintain traditional limitations on the individual. This is not Burke but Mills, which is fine if he believes that but he shouldn't insult my intelligence or degrade the English language by calling the position "conservative."
About the only thing he's sincere about are his tin-foil hat forays into forensic gynecology.
Oct '10
Re: Speaking of Weiner...
Sounds like the name of some early band with a short time on stage and then just became an unpopular noise...