It Really Was Weiner’s Weiner

by Katherine Scardino

In May I wrote about the seemingly overload of male "pigs” - defined as men who had too much power and not enough common sense. I asked you at the end of that post in Women in Crime to “stay tuned. I’m sure there’s more!” And, sure enough, along comes this weirdo Congressman from New York, Anthony Weiner. I admit that I did look at the tweeted photo of his covered weiner and was totally unimpressed. But, what makes Mr. Weiner interesting to me now is that he was sexting, which I also wrote about last February, asking how did we, as a nation, get to the point that having sex via satellite was, well, sexy?

Early on, when the scandal first became news for almost all breathing Americans over the last several weeks, I felt that he should stick it out (no pun intended...) and keep his job. He was elected to Congress by the citizens of New York, and I did not see that anything he had done was really any of my business - taking into account that sexting has become somewhat routine for a large portion of the population of the United States. I believed that if the citizens of New York wanted him out of office, they should do so by their vote.

Then, things got a little more serious. As I understand there were several tweets to various women that were more than a little suggestive. I have not read them, but I would love to read the words and form my own judgment as to whether they are truly offensive to the general public, and really, whether the general public has any business reading them or, for that matter, looking at any private photograph that he has tweeted to “friends." Do these stupid, irresponsible, personal acts interfere with his job? Did we all think the tweets were so offensive because he is a married man? And, married less than a year to a very beautiful, successful woman. Does that fact change anything for us?

I noted that his wife was not “standing by her man” in any of his comments to the press, and especially during Mr. Weiner’s press conference when he officially resigned his position. I read in an article recently that women today are not like the women of ten years ago or longer. Women no longer feel the need to suffer embarrassment and ridicule just because they are the “loyal wife.” Strong, successful women today look at these men and can actually make individual judgments about the stupidity of their husbands and decide they do not wish to play the game. I give you Maria Schriver Schwarzenegger as a perfect example. Granted, her husband, the Governator, committed acts that were a bit more serious than Mr. Weiner and his weiner. But, nevertheless, she did not even make an attempt at excusing him or standing with him at any public announcement. I, personally, commend these women. Sometimes, spouses do such irresponsible, illogical and basically dumb things that it overcomes any thought of loyalty.

But, I want to talk a little more about sexting. Would someone out there please tell me why sexting is a happening thing now and especially why is it occurring among our young people? Can they not find a bed? Or the back seat of a car, as I recall... (no more about that!) But, at least my transgression with a high school football star was in person and not via satellite. Is it because the younger generation has grown up with social media: emails, text messaging, IM’s, Facebook, Twitter and now Skype, and that all emotions in any kind of relationship are relayed via these non-personal methods? Is there anyone out there who still believes that a personal conversation is better when  it is actually personal? That sex is really better when it is done in a prone position of some kind on some sort of flat surface - and in the privacy of someone’s home, car, kitchen, back yard, pool, hot tub, floor, etc...

If we are all involved in the computer relationships, how much do you learn about being social and about interacting in society with another student, teacher, parent, employer? Can these kids even talk? I know a young man, now age 25, who grew up in his room in front of a computer. And no, it is not one of my sons! For years, he could not speak in person except for an occasional grunt. We had to learn which sound was a positive sound and which was a negative sound. Over the last few years, he has matured and gotten a little better, but it is still definitely troublesome for him to speak aloud to another human.

But, back to Anthony Weiner. For people in public office, I would imagine that satellite communications of all kinds are a godsend to politicians. Think how many people they can reach via email and other methods of communication - all without leaving their desk. The idea of sending a photograph of a private part was not envisioned by the creators of these new methods of communication, but it became too easy.

So now, ex-Congressman Weiner, you have lost your job and perhaps your pregnant wife as well. But, why was he railed on so hard? Dare I even mention John Kennedy? He had sex with any person with the appropriate equipment, and some even in the White House, his home where Jackie and the children also lived. No one said anything about any of that activity until after his death. Or, Franklin Roosevelt, whose true love was not really Eleanor, but instead her one time social secretary Lucy Mercer, with whom he carried on a 30 plus year affair. The list goes on and on: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gengrich, Eliot Spitzer.  And, I have not heard any news reports for weeks now about Arnold Schwarzenegger. And, who - or where - is Mark Sanford these days? So, why the big deal about Anthony Weiner? What do you think?

Tweet

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