Laws of Nature

by Lisa R. Cohen

Sometimes I think that males are taught the Ten Commandments in a separate room from us girls. Like maybe the day we're shuffled off to the auditorium in the fifth grade to see "that" film, and learn about the joys of being a woman. (Do they still do that?) In another room, the boys are being handed the tablet, each commandment starred almost imperceptibly. At the bottom of the engraved granite, an asterisk explains the tiny caveat: "*...except if it can get you laid."

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness*

Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery*

Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife*

You get the picture.

I intended to write this column about Johnny Reid Edwards and his inability to follow all three of the above laws of God. He failed so miserably that federal prosecutors charged him Friday with violating the laws of man - six counts of them. But before I could weigh in on this seemingly fresh and fertile ground of male doggery -- it was superseded by even fresher meat.

Yesterday, after days of kerfuffling about inappropriate online messages, New York Representative Anthony Weiner tearfully admitted that yes, he did send the – um – package in question. And that that was the least of his inappropriate conduct. More risque photos, salacious texts, and online canoodling with sexy young constituents.

But unless there is much more to come, really, this is not politics' finest hour; it's also not its worst. Most (but not all) of Weiner's randy texts and tweets and emails took place before his recent marriage. To quote another politician, in Weiner's case he really did not "have sex with (those) women."

Weiner's biggest misdemeanors, in my humble opinion, were poor impulse control, arrogance, and the more heinous crime of hijacking the public conversation.

Now, Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi has announced she will call for an investigation into whether Weiner misused government resources. That will waste more government resources. We'll have as many news cycles as possible to wring out every last detail of these embarrassing revelations, yet more time sucking and agenda fogging.

The only Democrat who might be thrilled with all this Johnny Reid Edwards.

Last Friday, federal prosecutors handed down the indictment against Edwards. The onetime presidential hopeful was charged with four counts of illegal campaign contributions, one count of false statements, and one count of conspiracy. Edwards immediately pleaded not guilty, acknowledging he'd done wrong, but claiming he hadn't broken any laws.

Over the next few days, pundits and legal experts alike agreed it was a highly unusual case. It's unclear whether the government will be able to convince a jury that almost a million dollars funneled to pay the expenses of Edwards' paramour Rielle Hunter could be considered campaign funds. If so, it should have been reported as campaign funds, (which would have been problematic, handily topping the $2,300.00 legally allowed individual limits). If not, the money was just a friendly gift, maybe designed to keep the damaging details from Edwards' sick wife.

That's certainly the position Edwards' lawyer takes.

"No one has ever been charged, either civilly or criminally, with the claims that have been brought against Sen. Edwards today. This is an unprecedented prosecution," said attorney Gregory Craig. "No one would have known, or should have known, or could have been expected to know, that these payments would be treated or should be considered as campaign contributions. And there was no way Sen. Edwards knew that fact either."

Here's the tricky part. It's a no brainer that John Edwards, through his flunkies, took fistfuls of cash from rich folks - specifically 100 year old heiress Bunny Mellon and Texas lawyer Fred Baron, and used the money to conceal Edwards' affair, and its resulting child. At issue is whether that money qualifies as campaign funds.

It comes down to intent. Prosecutors will argue that of course the money was politically motivated, thus qualifies as campaign donations. Bunny Mellon started passing the dough to Edwards' aide Andrew Young (the man tasked with pretending he was Rielle Hunter's baby-daddy – shouldn't there be a law against that?) after Edwards was excoriated in the press for his $400.00 haircuts. Mellon sent her money with a note, now touted as a smoking gun for the prosecution, one that provides evidence Mellon thought she was supporting the campaign.

"From now on, all haircuts, etc..., that are necessary and important for his campaign – please send the bills to me," wrote Mellon. "... It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."

If $400 haircuts could negatively impact a presidential shot, think of what a torrid affair under the nose of one's cancer ridden wife, and an out-of-wedlock baby, would do to it?

"A centerpiece of Edwards' candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man," Friday's indictment read. "Edwards knew that public revelation of the affair and the pregnancy would destroy his candidacy."

So Listerine heiress Mellon eventually spent upwards of $725,000 to keep Hunter quietly tucked away. That's a lot of mouthwash. In fact, some of it was being passed off as home furnishings, funneled through Mellon's decorator, pricey antiques – chairs, a "Charleston" table. Meanwhile the checks were really going to fund private jets for Hunter, hotels and baby expenses.

Edwards faces up to five years in prison. So even if yet more crazy, self-imploding politicians eclipse him in the weeks and months to come, he's not off the hook.

And there will undoubtedly be more. As sure as the asterisk lurks at the bottom of the male ten commandments, male politicians will implode. That seems to be a law of nature. You can bet, though, that the Democrats are hoping for another John Ensign (R-Nev) the next time around.

Tweet

2009 - SEX, SEX AND MORE SEX

   
by Katherine Scardino


I thought I'd get your attention with the title to my post this week. What a year! How about that Tiger Woods, eh? What a man! I read a comment by Donald Trump, the icon of faithfulness, who said “Tiger Woods is going to be hotter than ever before.” Well, perhaps so. Being a married man and having an extramarital affair does seem to be de riguer this year. We've read the statistics about the large number of women in the United States who have been raped. One statistic from 2004, its reliability subsequently questioned, was one in four women. Even if it were one in 10 women, that's still a horrifying number -- especially if you are a woman in the United States. Each of you have 10 female friends. Look around you. Statistically, either you or one of your 10 friends will be raped in your lifetimes. Not a pretty picture.

But let’s be realistic. Are we, as a nation and a society, telling the male population that taking advantage of a woman, whether the extreme act of violence against a woman, or having a lustful, consensual relationship that makes your skin tingle -- while married -- is acceptable in our world? Do men not think they're taking advantage of a wife when they have sex with another woman? My comment to men who come to my office and start complaining about their married life is: you got yourself into this situation. If you're not happy, take action. Talk to her. Do something about it -- and that doesn't include having sex on the side. That’s the wimpy way of handling an unhappy marital relationship.

This year, we had a lot of men -- bad boys -- to talk about. Tiger Woods, of course, but then he's turned out to be a total jerk. But since my job is generally to look at both sides of a situation; didn't his wife know what was going on? For whatever reason (maybe 300 million or so of them), she must have decided she preferred to stay where she was. But for that impulsive drive down the driveway into a tree, we probably still wouldn't  know what all he'd  been up to. I still think there was a logical reason why Elin had that golf club in her hand. (Heh, heh...) Bad, bad boy!

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford gets my vote for the whiniest bad boy. Oh goodness, he flies to Argentina (on taxpayer dollars) to see his long-time mistress while telling his staff, and presumably his wife, that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. Now, really -- what governor’s staff is going to let their boss go hiking mountain trails by himself, and who would really believe that anyway? What politician doesn't relish the security detail? The whiniest politicians are most likely to see an assassin behind every corner just waiting to knock off his attractive butt. As you can tell, I wasn't impressed with the Sanford story. If he wants to go see his mistress and leave his wife at home, go for it -- but have the cajones to tell Ms. Sanford. She is, after all, his legal partner and the mother of his children. Not nice.

John Edwards. Oh my gawd! Mister Nice Guy; Mister Good Husband and Father; Mister Religious Person; Mister Husband Who Stands Beside His Cancerous Wife: he's a fraud in every way. Actually, he's  scary. If he could convince so many people to believe they might  vote for him in a presidential election, just imagine what he could do with international politics. No, not much to say about John Edwards. He is bad to the core.

Then we had David Letterman. Okay, I admit it -- I like David Letterman, and frankly, I thought he handled the entire “expose” fairly well. He admitted his affair, and he joked about the scandal and about himself to his national audience. I'm sure his wife didn't find it amusing and told him so in an appropriate manner. However, I felt that he handled the indiscretion with a little style and hopefully, those two will work things out. I'm rooting for them.

And, now, a local scandal. One of our Harris County, Texas, county court-at-law judges was accused of official oppression. He didn't actually have sex with another woman, but career-wise, he might as well have had mad, lustful sex in the middle of the courtroom on a Monday morning at 10:00 a.m.  Sitting on the bench one day, he saw an attractive woman  -- a defendant in his courtroom. The judge got her telephone number, called her, and asked her out for dinner. She went. Then she alleged that he'd told her that he would get her a better lawyer if she didn't like her own and, she alleged, he said he wanted a long-term relationship with her. I suppose he gets some credit for not wanting a one-night stand. The District Attorney’s Office sent an investigator to interview the judge in his chambers. The judge talked to the investigator without knowing he was being secretly recorded. The defense tried to attack the credibility and  reputation of the woman. It didn't work. A jury found him guilty.

These are just a few of the many sexual incidents in the news during 2009. Not one was charged with an offense, except the judge in my jurisdiction.  He was tried and found guilty, but only on charges of “official oppression”. The other examples might elicit sympathy for the wife, or in some cases, even the bad boy. You may complain that I've only relayed sexually imprudent incidents committed by the male half of our population. Well, I thought about that -- and other than stupid, young Hollywood bimbos, I can't recall any significant news story involving a woman running off with another man and getting caught. Did I miss something? Hollywood gave us Roman Polanski, again, this year. Sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Really. Was that before or after Woody Allen? Who have I missed??

Tweet