Anthony Wiener has resigned from Congress because of the "scandal" about him flashing his male member in a tweet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this scandal went something like this:
Respected member of Congress used his cell phone to take pictures of himself, including at least one of his possibly erect penis, then sent the pictures through some sort of cell phone-based technology to more than one woman, none of whom were his wife. It's a juvenile thing to do, something more than one junior high kid has done (I have a nephew who, when he was twelve, faked a gigantic erection in his boxers and posted the photos on Facebook. I thought it was hilarious. I was alone in that thinking; his poor mother clutched her pearls so tightly she nearly strangled herself.)
As usual, of course, the resignation isn't over the original act but over the lying that came afterward. When confronted by somebody with less work to do than their salary justifies (I think it was a member of the media, most of whom should be boxing groceries in supermarkets in Michigan, to be honest with you) Wiener did what every kid does. He denied it. "Nope, that wasn't me. Must'a been some other guy."
Even at that point, he's still not on very thin ice. I mean, who among us, caught with our pants around our ankles, hasn't assumed the mask of innocence and denied the offense? It is the nature of the human animal: "Oops, you think that's wrong ... why no, I didn't do that. Or, at least, I wish I hadn't done it." But, of course, as grownups we quickly realize that a child's response is the fastest way to lose credibility, friends, spouses, summer homes, and everything else that makes life worth living, so in a trice we sheepishly admit, "Yeah, I did that, I'm sorry, it won't happen again, or if it does I'll make damn sure I don't get caught."
And that's exactly what Anthony Wiener should have done. Instead of making up some wild-ass story about hackers and how he was the victim, yadda, yadda, yadda, he should have just said, "Dick? What dick? Oh, that dick! Well, yeah, it was a private joke that got away from me, I'm sorry, it won't happen again. Say, how 'bout those Republicans running for president, huh? Will the craziness ever end?"
At that point, it doesn't matter how much he gets hammered by the press, all he has to do is glare at the offending reporter and ask belligerently, "Do you really want to talk about my dick? Do you?" Man or woman, I guarandamntee you, nobody really wants to talk about the congressman's dick. A man with Wiener's build and physique is going to be able to shame very guy in the room. And women just don't want to talk about that, end of discussion. It's bad enough that he waved it around in the digital world, but nobody wants him to whip it out during a press conference, and that is surely the image that would go through everyone's mind if he challenged the media on the point.
But Wiener didn't do that. Instead of taking the Alpha Male route, which even in the 21st century will back down everybody but Chuck Norris and Rachel Maddow, he made up some cock-and-bull (snerk! I said "cock") story about somebody else hacking his account and pretending to be him. Yeah, he was probably embarrassed about it, and he should have been, but there is no reason for him to be so ashamed of his boyish streak that he denies it altogether. Nobody should be that ashamed over a harmless twitterprank.
In fact, all of this shame over being human really needs to stop. Let the little old ladies in society (of both sexes) cackle and tut-tut all they want about "inappropriate" actions; they are in a very small but vocal minority and don't matter to anyone but the media, who also don't matter any more. I'd like to suggest that members of Congress adopt a WWLBJD (What would LBJ do?) default when confronted by an indignant public. Suppose cell phone technology and Twitter and all that other social networking crapola existed in 1968, what would LBJ have done if he'd been caught sending tweets of the presidential pecker to Washington women? What, you don't think Johnson would have snapped a photo and sent it to, say, Eunice Shriver? ("I don't know about Massafuckinchusetts, but this is how big we grow 'em in Texas!") Would LBJ have apologized abjectly for his "indiscretion" and walked away from office? Aw, hell no! Johnson never even apologized for Vietnam, the mistake that actually did drive him out of office. And he didn't quit because he thought he was wrong, he quit because he thought he couldn't be re-elected.
No, LBJ was a man to pull up his shirt and show his gall bladder surgery scar to photographers. He was a man who freely discussed his genitals with his tailor on an Oval Office telephone that was being recorded. Lyndon Johnson was a man with power and he didn't give a good goddamn what people thought, as long as they voted the way he wanted when the roll was called. So, at the risk of sounding apologetic, let me just say, "I'm sorry." No, not about that. I'm sorry Anthony Wiener resigned. He should have manned up at the first hint of scandal and dared anyone to talk about it. The only thing he should have been sorry about was that he didn't include Barbara Walters in the tweet.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Sherrod sues Breitbart: I told you so!
Oh, ye of little faith!
Some of you Doubting Thomases out there scoffed (scoffed, I say!) when I suggested last August that Shirley Sherrod had a bona fide libel case against Andrew Breitbart. Well, scoff no more, you doubters! Last week, Sherrod filed a defamation lawsuit against Breitbart, and damned if she didn't have the claws to have him served right in the middle of the ultra-right's mental mass-turbation frenzy, aka the Conservative Political Action Conference in WashDC.
For those who don't remember, or choose to forget, Breitbart is the frat boy punk who deliberately re-spliced a videotape of Sherrod addressing an NAACP conference in March 2010 in which Sherrod told a story on herself as a cautionary tale about how anyone can be susceptible to bigotry. The purpose of her comments was to reaffirm her dedication to equal rights of all Americans, regardless of color, and to admonish her audience that reverse discrimination is as bad as the original bigotry that it seeks to avenge. Being the calculating character assassin he is, Breitbart deliberately edited the video to make it appear that Sherrod was boasting that she'd denied a white tobacco farmer assistance from the federal agency she represented -- just the opposite of Sherrod's real message. I opined at the time that Sherrod had a great case for libel, and now it appears that she's going to file that case.
Of course, Sherrod has no easy task ahead of her. It would take the extensive labors of some very sharp defamation lawyers to make Sherrod's claim stick. It makes sense that, six months having passed since the original slander, Sherrod and her lawyers have been busy pouring foundations for their case. They're no doubt prepared for the dirtiest of legal tricks Breitbart's lawyers can pull -- and with a client like Breitbart, dirty tricks is about all they have. I hope Sherrod's counsel has rented a warehouse for the trainloads of documents they're going to be given during the discovery process.
Sherrod's task, while monumental, is not hopeless. Salon.com's Teresa Cotsirilos interviewed none other than Floyd Abrams, perhaps the foremost First Amendment lawyer in the country. Now, bear in mind that Abrams earns his meat and potatoes by representing the top media outlets in the country in their quest to hang onto their First Amendment rights. He represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, and that alone places him prominently in the pantheon of free press gods. In the Salon interview Abrams affirmed, as I wrote back in August, that if Sherrod can prove "actual malice," she may have a proveable case. "She has to demonstrate not just that he did it, but that he knew what he was doing was false [or] would leave a false impression about what she had said," Abrams said. "If ... she can show that for his political reasons, his ideological reasons, his desire to make a name for himself, or whatever, that he purposely distorted what she said in a way that damaged her, then she might have a serious claim." Abrram's comment begs the question: How could Breitbart possibly edit the video the way he did and not know it was wrong? Of course he knew it. To plead otherwise is to admit that he lacks the critical thinking skills of a sixth-grader.
Breitbart did what he did because he thought he was "bullet-proof" and that he could do whatever he wanted to do in the name of right-wingnut ideology and get away with it. He was trying to out-Beck Glen Beck and, like an irresponsible frat boy tyring to make a name for himself, he ended up actually hurting an innocent person. He deserves the lawsuit Sherrod has filed.
Of course, it's a long way from filing an action against Breitbart and getting anything remotely resembling justice for Shirley Sherrod. Probably the best Sherrod can hope for is that a jury will find in her favor with a pentalty so onerous that Breitbart's media keepers will turn him out, cutting him off from any traditional print forum. But that probably won't happen. What will probably happen is that Breitbart's lawyers will talk him into settling a monetary claim while admitting no wrongdoing, Sherrod will contribute the funds to some dot-org she thinks will work to make bloggers more responsible for what they post (good luck with that!) and the whole episode will fade away.
Whatever happens, don't expect any punditry from the mainstream media. Although they should be publicly and forcefully proclaiming their disdain for and abhorrence of Breitbart, those who rely on the First Amendment for their profits aren't about to damn him for what he's done. This is Shirley Sherrod's fight, and hers alone. I am just grateful that she has more courage than all of my erstwhile colleagues put together.
Update: Andrew Breitbart had the poor taste to die March 1, 2012, thus nullifying Sherrod's lawsuit. I'm sure his family mourns his loss. I do not.
Some of you Doubting Thomases out there scoffed (scoffed, I say!) when I suggested last August that Shirley Sherrod had a bona fide libel case against Andrew Breitbart. Well, scoff no more, you doubters! Last week, Sherrod filed a defamation lawsuit against Breitbart, and damned if she didn't have the claws to have him served right in the middle of the ultra-right's mental mass-turbation frenzy, aka the Conservative Political Action Conference in WashDC.
For those who don't remember, or choose to forget, Breitbart is the frat boy punk who deliberately re-spliced a videotape of Sherrod addressing an NAACP conference in March 2010 in which Sherrod told a story on herself as a cautionary tale about how anyone can be susceptible to bigotry. The purpose of her comments was to reaffirm her dedication to equal rights of all Americans, regardless of color, and to admonish her audience that reverse discrimination is as bad as the original bigotry that it seeks to avenge. Being the calculating character assassin he is, Breitbart deliberately edited the video to make it appear that Sherrod was boasting that she'd denied a white tobacco farmer assistance from the federal agency she represented -- just the opposite of Sherrod's real message. I opined at the time that Sherrod had a great case for libel, and now it appears that she's going to file that case.
Of course, Sherrod has no easy task ahead of her. It would take the extensive labors of some very sharp defamation lawyers to make Sherrod's claim stick. It makes sense that, six months having passed since the original slander, Sherrod and her lawyers have been busy pouring foundations for their case. They're no doubt prepared for the dirtiest of legal tricks Breitbart's lawyers can pull -- and with a client like Breitbart, dirty tricks is about all they have. I hope Sherrod's counsel has rented a warehouse for the trainloads of documents they're going to be given during the discovery process.
Sherrod's task, while monumental, is not hopeless. Salon.com's Teresa Cotsirilos interviewed none other than Floyd Abrams, perhaps the foremost First Amendment lawyer in the country. Now, bear in mind that Abrams earns his meat and potatoes by representing the top media outlets in the country in their quest to hang onto their First Amendment rights. He represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, and that alone places him prominently in the pantheon of free press gods. In the Salon interview Abrams affirmed, as I wrote back in August, that if Sherrod can prove "actual malice," she may have a proveable case. "She has to demonstrate not just that he did it, but that he knew what he was doing was false [or] would leave a false impression about what she had said," Abrams said. "If ... she can show that for his political reasons, his ideological reasons, his desire to make a name for himself, or whatever, that he purposely distorted what she said in a way that damaged her, then she might have a serious claim." Abrram's comment begs the question: How could Breitbart possibly edit the video the way he did and not know it was wrong? Of course he knew it. To plead otherwise is to admit that he lacks the critical thinking skills of a sixth-grader.
Breitbart did what he did because he thought he was "bullet-proof" and that he could do whatever he wanted to do in the name of right-wingnut ideology and get away with it. He was trying to out-Beck Glen Beck and, like an irresponsible frat boy tyring to make a name for himself, he ended up actually hurting an innocent person. He deserves the lawsuit Sherrod has filed.
Of course, it's a long way from filing an action against Breitbart and getting anything remotely resembling justice for Shirley Sherrod. Probably the best Sherrod can hope for is that a jury will find in her favor with a pentalty so onerous that Breitbart's media keepers will turn him out, cutting him off from any traditional print forum. But that probably won't happen. What will probably happen is that Breitbart's lawyers will talk him into settling a monetary claim while admitting no wrongdoing, Sherrod will contribute the funds to some dot-org she thinks will work to make bloggers more responsible for what they post (good luck with that!) and the whole episode will fade away.
Whatever happens, don't expect any punditry from the mainstream media. Although they should be publicly and forcefully proclaiming their disdain for and abhorrence of Breitbart, those who rely on the First Amendment for their profits aren't about to damn him for what he's done. This is Shirley Sherrod's fight, and hers alone. I am just grateful that she has more courage than all of my erstwhile colleagues put together.
Update: Andrew Breitbart had the poor taste to die March 1, 2012, thus nullifying Sherrod's lawsuit. I'm sure his family mourns his loss. I do not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
