General Chat

I feel like singing, sorry hope this is ok??

They call her Connie
they call her kim
They call her Mystic (viz)
They call her Dame........

that's not her name
that's not her name

(or is it?)

Sorry, Janey - I didn't intend to distort anything you said.

I don't think I was being disingeneous - I think we just have a different take on things.

Just as well we're all blessed with the ability of free thought - where-ever that may lead us.

Sue x

Suzian, I've boycotted all sorts of things because of non-business related activities by business owners.

The former owner of the Domino's pizza chain was a member of Opus Dei and gave loads of money to anti-choice organizations. No Domino's pizza in my household.

The Curves fitness chain owner also donates heavily to similar outfits. I'll get my fitness at the Y, ta.

I boycotted South African wine before I was old enough to drink.

And so on and on.

My money, my preference my choice!


And sorry, but I find your characterization of my preference as relating to "monogamy" disingenuous. I characterized it as "integrity", and I'd be happy if you'd not distort that.

Your definition of integrity may differ from mine. And that's fine.

haha, Teresa. Of course not!

But that's the free market. ;) It applies to information and communications too.

If the media actually lie, then there are recourses. If they tell us all about Politician X's pecadillos but cover up Politician Y's, well same thing, free market. Them what owns the medium controls the message.

But let's, uh, assume perfect competition.

If what the media report is actually true -- if Politician X actually did do something I find demonstrates a lack of integrity, by my own personal standards -- I want to know about it.

So the same has to apply to other people and their standards. If someone would not vote for a politician who had done anything at all that they disapprove of, then they're entitled to know, I think.

At least they're entitled to ask. Politicians, like anyone else, can decline to answer, and people can draw whatever conclusions they like.

I just do not think that a person who asks the public to elect them to a position of power gets to decide what questions they may or should be asked. That's up to the public.

And of course it is entirely proper to debate what the public should and should not ask!

Right enough, Janey - the market will, indeed, decide. And if Tiger Woods stops selling whatever, no doubt he'll be dropped by that very same market.

Everything comes from private money eventually - should we be worried if the CX of Walmart isn't quite the family man? Or his chief accountant? Or his book-keeper? Or one of his check-out staff?

I'd suggest that a politician's job requires intelligence and political savvy, much more than it requires monogamy.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this one

Sue x

But Janey, do you trust the integrity of the media?

Well ... I couldn't care less about Tiger Woods, for instance. Rich boys playing around. bfd.

John Terry? There is a certain public aspect though, no? He is representing the country in a way. Although it's still all private money, isn't it, these football club things?

But that private money comes from all the people who pay for tickets and gear, and the products that advertise and sponsor the teams. The consumers. I can't think of any reason why consumers' voices shouldn't be heard! And if they aren't happy which who is representing them, then advertisers and sponsors might want to take notice.

That's the free market at work! ;)

Politicians? Once again, that's personal -- personal to the voter.

A politician's job requires integrity. Someone who cheats on a spouse is usually lacking in integrity, as well as opening themself up to blackmail and other pressure.

So I do get to have my personal preference, which is not to vote for someone who doesn't meet my standards for integrity.

And how am I to know whether the person meets that standard if the media don't tell me??

It may not matter to Person X (especially if they are French) that their head of government is a dog (at least in France the blackmail risk would be lower). If it matters to me, that's my business! ;)

I do sometimes wonder if someone who cheats in his personal life is also then capable of cheating in his professional career?? Thoughts?






(By the way Janey, I really disappointed my mother. Her dearest wish was to see me wearing an Army bonnet............oooops I became an Anglican!)


Cx.

Hi All

I'm going to put my ten pennyworth in....

John Terry allegedly had an affair. Did it affect his ability as a footballer? No. Did it affect his ability to be captain of Chelsea or England? Only the rest of the team can decide. Is it anything to do with us? No

xyz politician had an affair. Does it affect his ability to be a politician per se ? No. Does it affect his ability to do his job? Only if he was set up. Is it anything to do with us? No

The sooner we stop reading/watching/listening to this rubbish in the media, the sooner the media will stop publicising it and the better for us all.

Sue x

So *she* was the one committing adultery (or at least cheating), and he (the Premier) was merely the accomplice?

And the wronged partner (her partner, I gather? you're being cryptic) got stroppy. Or, I wonder, pretend to?

Well, at least it wasn't in the US. Somebody mighta got shot. ;)

I am having a giggle.

While we are debating this very deep and meaningful subject of whether a politicians private life should be a meal for the media, there is an advertisement on the left side of my screen. This completely naked man with his hands definitely not placed on his head, is accompanied by the message, "cover yourself from just $1.65 a day".

The word is she did not seek any payment for "her story". Whether that changed as the plot thickened, I am not sure.

You have the facts correct as reported. It all came out, as I said, when the partner decided to hit the politician over the head with a magazine.

From Auntys post

However she felt it was her beholden duty to come clean on the matter.


Nothing to do with making money out of her story maybe then ??

Just her duty as a "good "citizen ?

So I've just been reading up a bit on it all. ;)

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2820434.htm

He wasn't married. She wasn't married?

So ... normally ... no wrongdoing, nobody's business.

The thing is that there's no way to *prevent* the media publishing such a story -- if it is true. If it's false, sue 'em, which he did.

But -- she was a government employee, low on the totem pole: a server in the parliamentary restaurant?

But -- somebody in that position isn't really under the authority of a Premier. Although maybe he could get a server fired if he complained about bad service.

So it all came out just because she decided to go tell the media about it?

Puts him in a bad position either way, if it's true. ;)

Deny it, even if it's true.
Acknowledge it, and admit to messing around with such an obviously crappy person, which doesn't reflect well on him, just in terms of being a good judge of character / not being a total sleaze himself.

So what's the deal? Diddee or didntee?

The TV station that broke the "story" seems to be admitting he didn't?

You cant talk about my Uncle Nick like that!

He's a lovely bloke when you get to know him!


xxxxx mick

The point you make exactly mirrors the media's take on this subject.

There is another tangent to pursue. Apart from the fact her partner took to giving the pollie a biff over the head in a public place. If she had not opened her mouth on the subject to the media no-one would ever have known. What was private, would have remained so. However she felt it was her beholden duty to come clean on the matter.

A bit of forethought on his part might have saved him lots of angst. Using the brain to work out, now if this goes wrong, how will it affect my public standing and my very high profile career. But obviously not happening in the brain area.

By the way not my cup of tea in the ten top politicians I would have govern me. Will be very interested to see the results in the election next month.

Ah, AuntyS, but that is a different kettle of fish ... and blackened pot. ;)

The principle in the libertarian/authoritarian divide is that people should not be prohibited from doing, or punished for doing, things that are nobody's business. By laws that criminalize conduct, or by public policy that discriminates against people who do or don't do things that are purely private matters. (Like make some private behaviours, if you'll forgive me for weasel words, illegal. Or like give tax breaks to married or opposite-sex couples, but not to common-law or same-sex couples.)

The question of whether the public has a "right to know" about someone's private behaviour -- that's a whole nother thing.

Voting against somebody isn't the same as putting somebody in jail, or denying them a tax break.

If I want to vote against somebody who commits adultery, that's purely *my* private business. ;) Same as if I want to vote against somebody because of their skin colour or religion or sex or age or occupation.

Am I entitled to know whether somebody has committed adultery, so I can decide whether to vote for or against them? (I'm saying "commit adultery" but we can read it to cover a variety of private behaviours.)

That's the question, eh?

And there are different questions.

Did the person commit adultery with an employee or subordinate?
That might really might make it a matter of public interest, in the case of a politician.

Did the person claim to be devoted to "family values" and try to pass laws to punish other people for committing adultery, or deny tax breaks to adulterers?
That too might make it a matter of public interest.

"There will be voters who will decide this proves he is not to be trusted. If you can't trust a politician why vote for him."

Exactly. Don't we have a "right to know" things that tell us facts that are generally considered to be important about a politician -- like whether they're honest??

Elliott Spitzer, the former Governor of New York, was a huge personal disappointment to me. I'd followed his career from when he was Attorney General and did things I found brave and honourable and progressive and I had high hopes for him. And then what? Caught in a sting, carrying on at great length with a prostitute. One of the things I admired him for was his defence of women's rights. Kind of a disconnect there. I would never have trusted him again. So he didn't just shoot himself in the foot, he shot the public in the foot. He removed himself from public life, and that's bad for everybody.

Would I vote for somebody who uses prostitutes? Not on your nelly. Ever. Not unless I had to, to try to prevent something horrible happening. And I would resent that in the extreme.

It's really simple. You want my/our vote, you behave like a minimally decent human being. You don't commit adultery with people under your authority, you don't put your lovers on the payroll, you don't use prostitutes. You don't use your position to make a profit on stock deals. Just the really easy stuff. How hard is it *not* to do those things??

There are aspects beyond the "moral" to them, too. Because committing adultery with subordinates is kind of universally frowned on (not just the adultery part, but the abuse of power part), people who do it want to hide it. And that makes them vulnerable to blackmail. And that is bad for everybody. If you're gonna do it, do it in the open.


I can beat your story. ;) A recent (Conservative) Foreign Affairs Minister of ours had a liaison with a woman whose previous boyfriends were biker gang associates. He flaunted her around town in low-cut outfits. And he left a top secret file at her house and didn't bother retrieving it. The PM called the opposition leaders "gossipy old busybodies" for raising questions!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/08/bernier-couillard.html

Me, I think I was entitled to know that a Cabinet minister was dating somebody associated with the criminals who had terrorized Quebec for a decade, and not keeping, er, his files in his briefcase. ;)

The principle that a person's private life should be their own concern, providing they are not harming anyone else is brilliantly illustrated in this little scandal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2810025.htm

That I am perpetuating the rumour mongering causes me concern. However the media have been in a feeding frenzy over these tasty tidbits for the last few months.

Don't ask me who is telling the truth. The media wish me to decide whether a man's action in someone elses bedroom stops him from being a "good policitian". Now that in itself is an oxymoron. There will be voters who will decide this proves he is not to be trusted. If you can't trust a politician why vote for him. Is this something new?? Are politicians on the whole trustworthy? Where is the line drawn between the public and private life.

JC, we need more Stanley Knowles

x

Ha - that's the train guy?!

It all does tend to go hand in hand, doesn't it?

One of our political icons is Stanley Knowles (now deceased), a founding member of my party, the NDP (the one in the green square). He was a tireless, selfless politician working for ordinary people.

And the story goes that although he had access to the posh and cheap Parliamentary Restaurant like every other MP, and did dine there to meet with constituents and other MPs, no one ever saw him consume anything but soda crackers and water. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Knowles
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=132&art=848

All the time he was an MP he boarded with a family in Ottawa.

We can't expect every politician to be a Stanley Knowles, but a little restraint is not unreasonable.

Yep, and why are people being killed in Afghanistan...oh is it caus we care about the Afghans!

Nope, it's because of corrupt politicians and money grabbing, narcissistic, prejudice d#cks like 'Sir' Winterton

His wife is a 'racist' and he slaps female colleague’s bottoms for a laugh..... where does he get his money from.....corruption I guess, but then I could be being cynical!

Ginny
x