Showing posts with label Weinergate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Weinergate. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Will You Listen To Yourself?

Latest Column- The Pilot Newspaper: 


It’s often said that a big part of our problems these days is that we don’t listen to one another. This is undeniably true. However, a big part of our problems also comes from people not listening to themselves.

If people could really hear, objectively, some of the stuff that comes out of them, they might reconsider ever speaking again. Take, for example, former Democratic Congress-man Anthony Weiner, now running a campaign for mayor of New York that’s an absolute train wreck.


Mr. Weiner’s sexy tweets and pictures of his manly part, sent over text and Twitter, have already been documented in nauseating and depressing detail. But then it was revealed that in some of his communiques, he called himself “Carlos Danger.” Really? Anthony. Dude. Step back for a moment and take a good look at yourself, and not through the viewfinder of your camera phone.

It’s true that New Yorkers are a tolerant bunch. After all, the last mayor’s wife had to get a restraining order to keep him from bringing his mistress into the mayor’s mansion. The denizens of the Big Apple can handle a womanizer. But if the latest plunge in your poll numbers is any indication, they draw the line at a cheesy and lame one.

Then there’s Weiner’s communications director, Barbara Morgan. Morgan recently responded to an unflattering online tell-all article written by a former intern with a blistering and profane tirade against said intern that I’d love to reproduce for you here, except that not one word in three could be printed in a family newspaper.

Her excuse? She didn’t know she was on the record. Babs, sweetie, listen to yourself for a minute. You’re the communications director. Isn’t it part of your job to know when you’re on and when you’re off the record?

Another person who should probably have listened to what’s coming out of his mouth is Kentucky Sen. and probable GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul. Speaking at a fundraiser in Tennessee, Paul directed a slam at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (also a likely presidential candidate) and New York Congressman Peter King: “They are precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending. They are ‘gimme, gimme, gimme all my Sandy money now.’”

Oh, Randy, no. Are you listening to the sounds that come out of the front of your head? There’s plenty of spending you could have chosen to mention. But spending on victims of Hurricane Sandy? That’s what you’ve chosen to demonize? Do you hear what you’re saying?

Christie, never one to sit still for an insult, responded quickly, noting that Paul’s state gets back $1.51 from the federal government for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, while New Jersey gets back only 61 cents. He sarcastically praised Paul for his skill in “bringing home the bacon.”

Paul then fired back a zinger of his own, describing the portly Christie as “the king of bacon.” Because when you’re having a serious debate on spending priorities, the best way to get your point across is with a fat joke. Stay classy, Senator Paul.

But for sheer “do you even hear yourself?” effrontery, it’s hard to beat San Diego Mayor Bob Filner.

Filner, as of this writing, has been accused of sexual harassment by no fewer than eight women. Apparently, Hizzoner’s preferred seduction technique was to put his intended paramour in a headlock and/or tell her that she should come to work without underwear on. It worked about as well as you’d expect.

What qualifies Filner for the Chutzpah Hall of Fame, however, is his request that the city pay his legal bills for the defense of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by one of his victims, in part because — get this — the city failed to provide him with sexual harassment training.

“It is my understanding,” Filner’s lawyer wrote, “that such training was scheduled, but the trainer for the city unilaterally canceled. … Therefore, if there is any liability at all, the city will almost certainly be liable for ‘failing to prevent harassment.’” The city declined to chip in, probably because they’re suing him too.

Back many years ago, when I was working in radio, we had what was called a “seven-second delay” — a tape gizmo that allowed us to cut off the transmission if, for example, someone dropped an F-bomb or said something otherwise inappropriate. With all of modern technology, you’d think we could design something similar to strap to politicians so they can think, however fleetingly, about how what they say is going to sound.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

The BBRP: A New Scandal-Rating System

Latest Newspaper Column:

[Note: This column illustrates some of the perils of an early in the week deadline. Feel free to add your adjustments to the ratings in light of the new stuff that comes out seemingly every day.]

I confess, I really hadn’t been paying too much attention to the troubles of New York Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, who was accused of sending risqué messages to women via the online messaging service Twitter.

For one thing, the story was being promulgated by online muckraker Andrew Breitbart, who’d already been caught pushing supposedly scandalous videotapes of ACORN officials that turned out to have been “heavily edited,” according to the Brooklyn DA’s office and the attorney generals’ offices of both California and Massachusetts.

None of those offices found any basis for the allegations of criminal activity alleged in the videos, but by then the damage was done and ACORN was out of business.

Breitbart also was the dude who was pushing the video excerpt that got USDA official Shirley Sherrod fired for allegedly racist comments — until the entire video was played and the USDA offered Sherrod her job back, with apologies.

At this point, Breitbart’s credibility with me is such that if he tried to pay me in cash, I’d still ask for two forms of ID.

But lo and behold, it appeared that even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then, even if the swine in question is Andrew Breitbart.

Weiner broke down and tearfully confessed to sending “inappropriate” Internet messages to a variety of women over the Net. By Tuesday, he’d officially advanced to “disgraced” status, as news organizations began attaching the d-word to the title “Congressman” at all times.

Inevitably, people began comparing the burgeoning scandal to other congressional peccadillos, such as the story of Republican Congressman Christopher Lee, who resigned after sending a shirtless photo of himself to a woman he’d met on Craigslist, or Democrat Eric Massa, who resigned after a male staff member accused the congressman of “groping and tickling” him.

But how does that compare with former Democratic VP candidate John Edwards and his “love child,” or former Republican Sen. John Ensign and his affair with a staffer who was the wife of another staffer?

It occurred to me that maybe what we need is a ratings system for these things. Therefore, I’m working on a Bad Behavior Rating Protocol, or BBRP. The BBRP assesses points for various factors. The higher the total score, the worse the scandal. It’s still a work in progress, so feel free to make suggestions. I’ve broken the points assigned down into various categories.

*The act itself:

Flirtatious e-mails, 2 points. Slightly risqué e-mails, 3 points. Slightly risqué e-mails with pictures, 4 points. Sexually explicit e-mails, 5 points. Sexually explicit e-mails with explicit pictures, 10 points. Groping, 15 points. One-night stand, 20 points. Long-term affair, 25 points. Long-term affair resulting in child, 50 points.

*If the acts were unwelcome or unsolicited: Add 25 points.

*Marital status of the perpetrator:

Single, 1 point. Married, 25 points. Married to spouse suffering from terminal or debilitating illness, 50 points.

*Age of other party:

Underage, 50 points. Of legal age but young enough to be daughter or son, 25 points.

*Gender of other party:

Opposite sex, 5 points. Same sex, 5 points. Opposite sex, but politician blathers a lot about “traditional values,” 50 points. Same sex, and politician has anti-gay-rights voting record, 50 points.

*Reaction when story breaks:

Immediate mea culpa, minus 5 points. Immediate tearful mea culpa, minus 10 points. Evasion until confronted with irrefutable evidence, 10 points. Lame excuse, 15 points. Excuse so ridiculous it’s mocked by two or more late-night comedians, 25 points. Excuse so ridiculous it passes into common usage (e.g. “wide stance,” “hiking the Appalachian Trail”), 50 points.

So Weinergate, as it’s inevitably been dubbed, has a BBRP score of 59, to wit: Slightly risqué e-mails, 4 points. Multiply that times 6 different women for 24 points. (There’s some talk of more explicit e-mails and pics, but at the time of this writing, they’re still just rumors).

He’s married, so add 25 points. His wife’s a major babe, so I feel like there should be some added points there, but I’m trying to keep things scientific. He did do the tearful mea culpa, but he started by denying everything, so 10 points there.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called for an ethics investigation to see if Weiner used government computers or facilities to send his raunchy Tweets. The investigation will probably cost millions, which raises the question: Will Eric Cantor and John Boehner demand deep cuts in Medicare to pay for it before the Republicans will agree? Stay tuned.