"He graduated from Hempstead High in 1971. Back in the day, he says, he smoked marijuana occasionally and, at 22 or 23, tried cocaine "a couple of times." At that point in his life, he'd have been a senior history major at Columbia - or perhaps a recent graduate. It would be a couple of years before he decided he wanted to go to law school."
Democratic "accidental governor" David pattterson of New York seems determined to use the people of New York as the equivalent of Catholic priests receiving confession (and presumably giving absolution--he hopes).
Patterson, of course, has also "confessed" to MULTIPLE affairs, as well as an "inadvertent" use of campaign funds for a tryst with at least one mistress.
Meanwhile, Chelsea Clinton answered "none of your business", when asked about her reaction to the Monica Lewisky matter and how it may reflect on her mother.
I prefer Chelsea Clinton. As I have said before, I truly wish that Governor Patterson had not found it necessary to publicly confess to all of his sins.
Yes, today's "journalists" continue to act like the public has a "right to know" these things. HOGWASH.
What we need are politicians who are not wimps--who are willing to stand up to ersatz "jornalists" (whose private life could almost universally not stand scrutiny) demanding to have these questions about a person's entrie life be "answered" (you are naive if you think you are likely to really get a complete answer, as distinguished from the "I did not inhale", Bill Clinton type answer).
Did we really even need to know that Barack Obama was more into drugs than Governor Patterson admits to when Obama was a young man? He says so in at least one of his books. What I find disturbing is that many people have treated Obama as a HERO for this. More "hreoic" than someone who has not done recreational drugs at all? Am I alone in not seeing a whole lot of "remorese" or "contrition" here?
I actually prefer President Bush's approach: "I had a wild youth, and did things I am not proud of". We don't NEED to know the details of everyone's personal sins--especially REMOTE personal sins.
Governor Spitzer was a problem because he patronized a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE while actually serving as Governor--a business he was obligated to turn in and prosecute. you just can't do that.
But this developing idea that politicians should "confess" to ALL of their personal sins, at the least excuse.
Nope. Chelsea Clinton is right. "None of your business" is the appropriate response to most of this stuff. If you are a governor, and think you can be simultaneously a client of an "escort service", I can't help you. Among other things, you are too stupid to be dogcatcher. Otherwise, I think "none of your business" is the right response.
As I have also said, there is a silver lining to this media onslaught on personal privacy. Maybe politicians, and would be politicians, will get the message: NON-MARITAL SEX IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR POLITICAL HEALTH. I have already shown in this blog that "sex, of the non-marital promiscuous kind, is hazardous to your physical and mental health." It would be ironic if this priggish attitude toward politicians, and wimpish failure of politicians to stand up to "journalists", led to an IMPROVEMENT in publich health because people correctly not only get the message that sex is dangerous on many levels, but see politicans set an example for them.
It is not, of course, just politicians. If you ever WANT to be a politican, or any other kind of prominet person, can you afford to have sex with ANYONE to whom you are not lawfully married? I think it is doubtful. We are now constantly getting nude photos appearing. The new wife of the President of France evidently is the subject of such photos, which are now for sale. "Tell all" stuff is going to get more and more common.
Nope. If you know what is good for you, you will stick to 1950's type morality. You will be healthier, and these things will not come back to haunt you.