Report: Weiner Preparing For Another Political Campaign

There are news reports that Anthony Weiner has contacted former staffers to ask them to come back to work for him as he prepares to run again for office, including a possible run for mayor of New York or public advocate. Weiner left office after repeatedly lying to his constituents, colleagues, and the media about sending nude pictures of himself to women and accusing people of hacking into this phone. Women stated that they felt harassed by the photos that were sent without their solicitation or consent.

This moves has been expected given Weiner’s $4.5 million campaign war chest . . . and an obviously narcissistic personality. If he runs, the public would pay him an additional $1.5 million.

Weiner, 47, reportedly wants to run while there is the opportunity for public matching funds, which are due to expire after the 2013 election.

Besides mayor, Weiner is reportedly looking at public advocate office with a $165,000-a-year salary as a way of “cleansing” his career. It would be an odd choice for a man who just recently lied repeatedly to government officials, voters, and friends while engaging in conduct viewed as sexual harassment by women receiving these pictures.

Source: N.Y. Post

90 thoughts on “Report: Weiner Preparing For Another Political Campaign

  1. As a former New Yorker I have followed Anthony Weiner’s career from its beginnings. As far as politics goes he has always been on what I consider the good side of the issues and has been a strong advocate for the people. I am repelled by his actions, but I know for a fact that such behavior by politicians is more the norm, than the exception.

    Perceived political fame attracts groupies just as much as Rock Stars and unfortunately the ego’s of male politicians get stroked to such an extent that they get heady with their perceived sexual magnetism. That any such behavior towards women is disgusting in my opinion goes without saying. At what point though does someone get an opportunity to change, learn and grow from their stupidity? Also there are degrees of offensiveness when it comes to sexual misbehavior and to those who condone it.

    Sandusky’s actions were irredeemable, as was Paterno’s ignoring them. In my book Weiner, Spitzer and Clinton behaved badly and yes I wouln’t want my daughter to marry the first two even if they are Jewish. However, condemn me if you will but I would want both Weiner and Spitzer to return to political office.

  2. It is always about the money. Everything else is just whatever BS must be said in order to get the money.

  3. I sort of agree with Mike. The Weiner did seem to be on the right side of most issues. But that is irrelevant ultimately. What I demand is some consistency – had he constantly put himself out as a “moral family man” and a “keeper of morality in America” and behaved this way that would be the end. Had he been virulently anti-gay and then been arrested pick up men that would disqualify him. While this may appear to make it easier to forgive Dems then Repubs that is not my fault but the fault of the sanctimonious pricks that populate the GOP.

    I believe anyone can make a mistake and should have at least one shot at redemption, but they have to indicate that they would 1) provide the same for people they may not agree with and 2) not be holier than thou before or after.

  4. @Mike: At what point though does someone get an opportunity to change, learn and grow from their stupidity?

    That statement pre-supposes that the cause of the problem is “stupidity,” when clearly neither Weiner or Spitzer are stupid. Or do you mean, “stupid to get caught?”

    As a former manager of dozens, I think the answer to your question is just a weighing of the odds: I give somebody another chance if my odds of doing better with my typical choice of replacements are worse than the risk of giving a second chance to a person I KNOW has impulse control issues.

    Typically I am better off with the typical replacement I would get, it takes a great deal of skill or talent to warrant giving somebody a second chance. Weiner and Spitzer do not have that skill, in my opinion, and I would be better off with almost any true liberal than these guys.

    This is the intersection of personal life and political life; people that lack strong impulse control are not fit for office, because the opportunities for abuse of power and their office and official actions abound.

  5. On a scale of stoopid, his emailing snaps of his undies stuffed with facial tissues was about a 2. Lying about it is an 8. Average:5.5, or not much. He’ll be back.

  6. My second chance rule in management is not specific to impulse control issues; but any issues: accuracy, promptness, accepting responsibility, etc.

    It is true that minor problems like failing to meet a deadline or inattention to detail can be worked around, and second, third and fourth chances are warranted, but the rule is still statistical: What are my best odds going forward? Is this guy, even with his screw ups, still better than the best interviewee I am likely to get?

    In the case of people like Wiener and Spitzer with some kind of compulsive sexuality disorders, I would trust the best alternative, sight unseen, more than either one of them.

  7. “That statement pre-supposes that the cause of the problem is “stupidity,” when clearly neither Weiner or Spitzer are stupid. Or do you mean, “stupid to get caught?””

    Tony,

    Intelligence and stupidity are unrelated. You may or may not agree, but I am a very intelligent man. Beyond that I am a kind and empathetic person, who has been a “feminist” all my life. While not famous, or powerful, I’ve managed to have some attention from women in my life. While I’ve been scrupulously faithful to my marriage vows, prior to meeting my wife I led a sexually life.
    There are things about my sometimes cavalier treatment of women that haunt me to this day, not because they were akin to Weiner’s behavior, but because they were at times stupidly hurtful. As for Spitzer’s behavior, I’ve never used
    prostitution services, or even been to a strip club, so it is harder to judge. His actions though, to me at least, were the least egregious except in the sense of his marriage which is none of our business. He should not have resigned, when such a horror as David Vitter remains polluting the Senate. My point is that I’ve learned and grown from my past behavior and that Weiner should be given the opportunity to see if he has learned. He certainly will be under close scrutiny.

    Back, however, to the difference between intelligence and stupidity. To me they are unrelated. Intelligence is the ability to perceive much about the world, whereas stupidity takes in an inability to do introspection. Intelligent people can often do stupid things because they use their intelligence as rationalization for acts they refuse to self-examine. Genuinely stupid people lack any sense of introspection and among them those that think themselves intelligent are usually the most dangerous.

  8. @Mike: My point is that I’ve learned and grown from my past behavior and that Weiner should be given the opportunity to see if he has learned.

    You have learned and grown in private, and only the judgment of yourself and your intimate associates is what matters.

    I see no point in letting Weiner learn and grow IN PUBLIC, with the power of a public budget and office to wield. It is like having an alcoholic try to recover while working full-time as the owner of a liquor store.

    What you call “stupidity” I call a lack of self-control; stupidity is the inability to perceive the probable consequences of one’s actions; a lack of self control is letting a compulsion override the examination of consequences, even when such an examination is within one’s power.

    Weiner did not suffer from stupidity, he suffered from compulsions to which he surrendered, even though he undoubtedly knew he was risking his career. He is like an addict, not a dummy.

  9. He lacks embarrassibility. That, to me, is a major problem for a public person. You can’t trust a person who won’t believe himself covered in shame when he does something that is actually demeaning to the public image of responsible leadership. And do it to people who get put into a similarly embarrassing situation by your own actions? Ugh!

  10. I remember a line Clinton delivered in one of his interviews about the Lewinsky scandal. In regards to using the Oval Office he was asked why he did it. He thought for a moment and then responded, “Because I could.”

    That phrase reveals a destructive pattern of thinking that is his tragic character flaw. The scandal is now part of his legacy and will follow him down through history.

    Remembering that Greek drama had a communal function outside of just entertainment (Morality plays etc), Aristotle’s “Poetics” lays out the character flaws of a tragic hero.

    Clinton, Weiner, and Spitzer all fit the bill to a greater/lesser degree. Once revealed, there is no way I would want any of them working for me in any position of power because I would have to spend far too much time and money supervising them.

  11. IMO Clinton and Spitzer (and many, many republicans; I am not being partisan) have proven themselves unfit for power; and so has Weiner. Clinton, in particular, is directly responsible for signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act that has led to the current economic crisis and the transfer of trillions of dollars worth of wealth to the banksters. He has not “redeemed” himself, he has simply become less of a target with time, increased secrecy and reduced scrutiny, because he is no longer a public player or useful target.

    Clinton’s famous promiscuity throughout his life is unlikely to have changed. I do not expect Hillary’s studiously blind eye to it (except when politics demanded she feign shock, shock I say!) has changed either. What has changed is his level of exposure and level of financing, which has boosted his ability to be discreet about his sexual excursions both in this country and out of it. I would not mistake “no tabloid news” as “evidence that nothing is happening.”

    Remember the line Blouise provides above, Clinton did it “because he could.” Well, now he heads up a charity that throws millions around; he is a powerful player on a world stage and he no longer answers to anybody, he can go just about anywhere, at any time, with anyone, on a private jet, and stay in ultra-private hotels, without anybody knowing where he is or what he is doing, and his wife is guaranteed to be otherwise occupied with a public schedule 95% of the time.

    What do we think Bill does now, just because he can?

    As for Spitzer: Same deal. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, and Canada, and in many other first-world countries (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Australia, Japan), and where it is legal, discretion can be purchased.

    Spitzer is a private citizen now, making a lot of money as the host of a TV show. I would assume the lack of tabloid headlines is a combination of a lack of tabloid interest and an increase in the discretion he can now afford, not the sudden growth of a conscience.

  12. The only person who is morally pure is a newborn.

    Most interesting, intelligent people on both sides of political spectrum have some “interesting” history and mistakes.

    Lets safe the outrage for acts that impact the voters directly (like outsourcing their jobs), or acts that have caused real lasting permanent damage (Iraq war, afghan war).

    Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, I have become a little jade with the faux outrage that is applied disportionately to Democrats when compared to Republicans. Until the balance is restored, as far as I am concerned Democrats have a ‘bye’ on these minor peccadillos.

  13. Blouise,
    I think you are missing scores of Republicans who have the same character flaw. A certain Senator from Louisiana comes to mind, Newt Gingrich and the list goes on and on.

  14. @Pat: The only person who is morally pure is a newborn.

    Oh, okay, so I suppose that means only the newborns can criticize other people for, say, murder, rape, theft, fraud, or enforcing sexual slavery or dictatorship, right? Wouldn’t all of those be equally excusable under your logic?

    And by your logic, what right do you have to be outraged by the outsourcing of jobs or sending soldiers to die on a fool’s mission? After all, you aren’t morally pure, what right do you have to criticize a President for the moral indiscretion of overthrowing a government without just cause?

    Certainly in the terms of cheating on my wife, I am morally pure, I have been married for over two decades and I have never cheated in any way whatsoever, not a touch of any kind.

    Besides, you are wrong, it is not faux outrage. It is not outrage at all, on both sides of the political aisle, the sexual antics of politicians are indicative of their mindset and that directly impacts voters. If they are willing to lie and cheat on spouses to whom they are personally committed and in relationships where they have a significant stake, if they are willing to do that and endanger their careers for their own self-gratification, why in the WORLD would you trust them to make decisions that affect people they do not know, and have no personal relationship with whatsoever (their constituents)? If they are willing to treat their WIFE that way, imagining they are going to act honorably in their official capacity (instead of doing whatever it takes to get campaign contributions and personal power) is just laughably naive.

  15. Funny how the repubs had (have) no problem with David Vitter continuing to sit in the congress despite outright criminal behavior and Dick Morris, of prostitution use fame – also a crime, is now one of their main spokesmen and apologists.

  16. It would be an odd choice for a man who just recently lied repeatedly to government officials, voters, and friends while engaging in conduct viewed as sexual harassment by women receiving these pictures.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    So there are pictures. Where are the pictures..

    I’m not saying Weiner’s not a hot dog. Where are the pictures? Inquiring minds want to know..

    Do you know what pecker means? Go back to Buffalo, New York.

  17. Weiner seems to be just as opportunistic, cynical, and amoral as Bill Clinton. From his perspective, he CAN (run & count on the votes of cynical
    dyed-in-the-wool liberals) and gamble six million bones (thanks to “gifts” and taxpayers) – so, what’s there to lose?

  18. BillMcW,

    I know what you mean by cynical, dyed in the wool types like David Vitter, Gingrich, Romney, and and all the others. Isn’t amazing how certain types of people vote for them? What could be on their minds?

  19. Hey Bill, how bout those repubs?
    Mike, amazing isn’t it./ I have a friend from HS, went to Annapolis so not a dummy, and believes everything Fox, Beck, Limbaugh tells him.

  20. rafflaw

    Blouise,
    I think you are missing scores of Republicans who have the same character flaw. A certain Senator from Louisiana comes to mind, Newt Gingrich and the list goes on and on.

    ———————————————————————–

    I was jumping off of Mike and Tony C’s posts and restricting my remarks to Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner all who I consider to be able politicians who suffer from a serious character flaw that leads them to self-destruction in a tragic manner.

    I do not consider Vitter or Gingrich able or talented and their flaws are thus humdrum and not tragic in the classical sense of the tragic hero.

    Nixon on the other hand …

  21. Lee,

    I have a few smart friends also who are FOX’ed. I refuse to discuss politics with them because they have mo clue.

  22. We only “see” each other on facebook. Not worth tryinig to talk to him, sadly. He has lost the ability to think or reason for himself.

  23. Koch was mayor when I lived there. He got a little big for his britches and “we” (the electorate) decided he needed he some reining in, no one ever expected he would lose or that we would end up with Dickins. That was the downfall to Guiliani.

  24. Nixon on the other hand …
    ==================
    What about the lost tapes. Sounds like obstruction of justice.

  25. Mike Spindell:

    “Genuinely stupid people lack any sense of introspection and among them those that think themselves intelligent are usually the most dangerous.”

    We have plenty of intelligent politicians who would fit that bill.

    Personally I think it is people who think they are smarter than you are and so think they know what is good for you. Those are the truly dangerous but only if they are in government or influence government.

  26. LeeJ,

    I started working for NYC when Lindsay was Mayor, he wasn’t bad but his administration thought they were smarter than they were. Beame followed and the City had a fiscal crisis. Koch came in and was a blowhard, but got good press because the Permanent government” elite that really runs NYC liked that he took good care of them. Whenas you say the people got tired of Koch, in came poor Dinkins who took the blame for a fiscal crisis Koch caused. Dinkins was basically a “patsy”and his failure brought on Guilliani, who was a fraud and a thug. He had been reduced to the role of clown, but was saved by 9/11 and the idiot media which made him into a hero, which he wasn’t. The sad truth about NYC, which you probably know having lived there, is that it is run by the 1% and makes Chicago look pristine in its political machinations.

  27. How easily one falls for the Red Herring!…

    For a realistic assessment of crimes, see
    Charlie Chaplin’s film “Monsieur Verdux” – the trial scene.

  28. Weiner was the Congressman from a District in New York State. This very important position is designated as a “Representative”. That word has many meanings but in this context it directly means that the person speaks and acts for the people of that District. It is easy to characterize Weiner as a “politician”. Then we can say things like: “Oh politicians do such things.”
    If you live in his Congressional District then he stands for you. So, who are you if you live in his District? Are you some schmuck that takes quasi nude photos of yourself and sends them out to women you dont know. Are you some schmuck that posts nude or quasi nude photos of yourself on some international show and tell website which is misnamed Facebook? If you were dumbschmuck enought to vote for this guy before these acts are you dumbschmuck enough to make him your Representative again? THIS IS YOU? Go ahead. Make my day. My opinion of the know it all New Yorker is low but lower it again. Vote for a guy named Weiner. As in Oscar Meyer.

    I wish I was an Oscar Meyer Weiner…
    That is what I really wannnaa beeeeee.

    Two nuns just off the boat from Austria are living in teh convent on Long Island. They get Monday off and take a subway over to Coney Island. They put the nickels together that they stole out of the collection plate and go up to the Hot Dog stand and each order a basket of the dish of the day.
    They are walking away and the first nun unwraps the paper on the tasty Long Island delicacy and inquires of the other: “What part of the dog did you get?”

    Yes New York. Make my day. Vote in the Weiner to be your Representative once again. He speaks for you and represents all that you are.
    Damn dog eaters.

    BarkinDog.

  29. BarkinDog,

    You do seem to have a problem with NY and NY’ers. Do you really think that the values and intelligence of other parts of the country exceed NY, if you do you are mistaken. NY is certainly not perfect, but in difficult times I’d rather take my chances there more than in most other parts of the country, especially the South and the Midwest. I choose those two because of the memes their citizens use to comfort and exalt themselves.

    “Southern Hospitality” is a surface of gentillity masking an innate hostillity. “Midwestern Heartland Values” also disguises a culture where there is a false sense of moral superiority. NY’ers are far kinder to their fellows and to strangers than is thought or understood. Much of the negative press re: NY is envy.

  30. If Mr. Weiner had an ‘R’ behind his name he would still be in Congress. Just look to David Vitter, “R” from Louisana, clearly violated the law and there he sits with a halo over his head compliments of the republicans who covered for and lied for him.

  31. @Magginkat: I do not see how that makes a difference. If one person gets away with murder, we do not stop prosecuting murders. Heck, the majority of murders in this country that had no eyewitnesses go unsolved and unpunished, with nobody ever even charged. Shall we stop prosecuting murders? About 95% of shop-lifting cases are uncaught and unpunished. Shall we stop prosecuting theft?

    I am not sure what your argument is here; Vitter did not get away with his crimes because he was a Republican, it was not a decision entirely UP to Republicans. Vitter got away with his crimes because criminals on both sides of the aisle were willing to look the other way, and that wasn’t true for Weiner. Probably because there were no naked pictures of Vitter and his crime is considered victim-less by many in the country.

    The details in these cases matter; many a Republican has been brought down in sex scandals, and Democrats have kept office in spite of them (like Bill Clinton).

  32. “Southern Hospitality” is a surface of gentillity masking an innate hostillity. “Midwestern Heartland Values” also disguises a culture where there is a false sense of moral superiority. NY’ers are far kinder to their fellows and to strangers than is thought or understood. Much of the negative press re: NY is envy.
    ===========
    Midwestern work ethic. What about New York? Give me a Philly cheese steak.

  33. This was clearly a move by Viacom and Comedy Central to make sure The Daily Show and The Cobert Report have fodder for the next few years. Yet another side effect of Citizens United.

  34. Mike, you are absolutely right. NYC gets a bad rap. I am in Philly and the NYC’ers are so much more friendly and agreeable.
    Dinkins was a patsy, way over his head and a ridiculous choice.
    I have to say many of us really liked Koch. Despite the strikes, thats what I remember the most from when I was there (76 -91) many felt he was the embodiment of New York and then he got too big for his britches.
    Guiliani is another repub that has gotten a free pass, living in Gracie Mansion with his mistress and the media still loved him, even before 9/11 although 9/11 turned him into a hero and the media onlky framed him that way.
    I am trying to find a way to move back to NYC (although after all these years a 300 square ft apt may not be doable.) ((*_*))

  35. Barkindog he represented his district the way they anted, as their rep. His personal immoral behavior represented himself. Period.
    Does the good someone does get outweighed by stupid behavior?

  36. bARKING DOG:

    the few New Yorkers I know are very insulated, they think they are very worldly but are actually quite provincial.

    I have yet to see one smell another’s butt upon greeting or take a leak on a tree or fire hydrant. And you can forget about them chasing squirrels.

  37. leejcaroll:

    I dont think you can separate the good done from the person. The acts are from the same source. A bad person can do good acts but then one wonders why they did good acts. A bad person’s motivation could be power, personal advancement, image enhancement or any number of other reasons. Bad people are not motivated by love of humanity or of doing the right thing.

    So a bad person doing good acts is suspect and the act cannot be separated from the person.

    A good person doing bad acts can be forgiven because the bad acts may be a result of an error of judgement or of lack of knowledge or was done in haste.

    But a good person will not commit certain bad acts such as rape or murder and would not make an error of judgment of that magnitude.

  38. @Bron: A bad person can do good acts because their “badness” is constrained to something professional. For example, a cop can perform true acts of courage and self-sacrifice in protecting children from harm, while taking bribes and framing people he believes “deserve it.”

    An industrialist can take over a company and purposely run it into bankruptcy while bleeding a personal fortune from it, ruining people’s careers, pensions, 401Ks and health care, and think of that as “just business,” because it was all legal, and he figures somebody was going to do it sooner or later anyway. The same guy can donate the majority of his fortune to scholarships, truly believing in the support of higher education.

    People can be mixed.

  39. Bron said: “A good person doing bad acts can be forgiven because the bad acts may be a result of an error of judgement or of lack of knowledge or was done in haste.”
    I think for rep weiner it was done in haste and was a (gugantic) error in judgement. It does not negate that he was a good representative.
    Are you all good or bad? My family has done some terrible things (esp to me) but people think they are very good people. There is reality and perception. For Weiner the reality is that he did what his people elected him to do and he did something completely idiotic.

  40. @Matt Johnson: What difference does it make? My identity is irrelevant to whether I make sense or do not. Ignore the author and process the argument.

  41. leejcaroll,

    Perception is reality. What you think is, is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner

    Don’t draw attention. Do you remember a certain individual who went to Bimini. He dared the press to follow him, and they did.

    How about about John Edwards. Mark Everson. Bill Clinton. Now really, whose fault is it? At least the only thing Clinton did was leave a stain on the dress.

  42. I dont have depth perception. The reality is the step is not as far away as I think, and I have fallen misperceiving how far away the step is so my perception and reality definitely not the same.

  43. leejcarrol:

    I dont know the congressman so I have no idea if he is good or bad. My first pass is that he probably isnt that great of a human being. He really humiliated his wife on a number of levels and he “forced” himself on women. He also has an over inflated sense of himself, who in their right mind sends a picture like that to women they barely know?

    All in all I would say he is unfit for public service of any kind.

  44. @Bron: I am not that sure people have a core. Take somebody like the hypothetical cop; at his “core” he may believe pre-pubescent children are true innocents worth defending, and adults are on their own and inevitably corrupted by lust and sin.

    Or he may spring from the “macho” culture that believes women and children are inherently weak and men are morally obligated to protect and provide for them, but when it comes to adult males it is “every MAN for himself,” so life among males is “no holds barred” and that is entirely moral; all males are expendable warriors.

    I do not subscribe to those notions; but they are attitudes people have held in the past without being corrupt.

  45. Tony C:

    We arent talking about warriors but about someone who takes a bribe and frames people. No honor is no honor.

  46. @Matt: If you are talking about the “expendable male” hypothesis (detailed by Roy Baumeister) then males do not get to breed unless they earn it. That is also reflected in reality; even in today’s world a much larger percentage of females will leave descendants than the percentage of males that leave descendants; and in most cultures (including ours) males have to win females, not vice versa.

    As Baumeister points out, throughout history we have countless tales of MEN getting together to form an army, build a ship, or otherwise risk their lives to make their fortunes, but virtually no tales of WOMEN doing that. That is because women do not need a fortune to win a mate, their mates need fortunes to win them.

    Why is that? Because men are expendable in the creation of the next generation, and women are not. Consider this simple question: Given a village of 500 men and 500 women, what is the difference in size of the next generation if they lose 90% of the MEN in battle, versus 90% of the WOMEN in battle? The answer to that question is why most cultures throughout history have treated women so much differently than men; because (reproductively speaking) men are expendable and women are not.

    You do not necessarily get to breed; by DNA studies our female ancestors outnumber our male ancestors by two to one. That sounds counter-intuitive, but what it means is that (historically) maybe 80% of female adults reproduced, but their babies were fathered by only about 40% of the available male adults. The other male adults died without reproducing; probably while unsuccessfully competing for the resources that would have let them win a female.

  47. LeeK,
    The only reason I moved to Fla was the cost of housing. I’ve now arranged to live in the NY mountains for the summer.the minute I crossed the State Line I felt I was home.

  48. ‘Bring both Weiner and Spitzer back’ that sounds good to me. However, I would propose they first spend some time in rehabilitation and work on their ‘sexual urge’ outside their marriage; a tall order no doubt?

  49. @Bron: No we aren’t, we are talking about the original subject, which is whether a bad person can do something good out of a belief in humanity and kindness. A person that takes bribes and frames people he thinks are crooks is a bad guy; but that badness does not have to infuse him to the core, the same guy can think children are defenseless innocents. What if the people he is framing for crimes are people he believes harmed children? What if he donates half of the bribes he takes to a children’s shelter? What if he thinks the bribes he takes, for overlooking minor transgressions he does not believe caused any harm or should not be against the law in the first place (like, say, prostitution), are his rightful pay for risking his life protecting others — which he really does when children are in danger?

    People are not as simplistically parsed as you think.

  50. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts oh what a party we could have.

    People have rationalized all sorts of bad actions throughout history.

    Now maybe if the cop was shaking down the mafia to give to an orphanage you have a point. But if he is shaking down a person guilty of a traffic violation and gives half to an orphanage, he is rationalizing his actions.

  51. @Bron: Since it is MY hypothetical cop, he is doing whatever I SAY he is doing, and thinking whatever I SAY he is thinking. What I SAY he is doing is two pronged; he is accepting bribes to look the other way on crimes he cares nothing about, but will put himself in the line of fire to prevent children from coming to harm. What I SAY he is thinking is that he would frame or even invent an excuse to kill a pedophile or drug trafficker or sex slaver, BECAUSE he cares about children more than adults.

    As always, you are so fixated on your binary monotone thinking you have no clue as to how the human mind really works, even your own.

  52. Bron said: He also has an over inflated sense of himself, who in their right mind sends a picture like that to women they barely know?
    Politicians who have been given a sense of entitlement because theyre politicians.

  53. Tony C.

    Why is that? Because men are expendable in the creation of the next generation, and women are not. Consider this simple question: Given a village of 500 men and 500 women, what is the difference in size of the next generation if they lose 90% of the MEN in battle, versus 90% of the WOMEN in battle? The answer to that question is why most cultures throughout history have treated women so much differently than men; because (reproductively speaking) men are expendable and women are not.

    You do not necessarily get to breed; by DNA studies our female ancestors outnumber our male ancestors by two to one. That sounds counter-intuitive, but what it means is that (historically) maybe 80% of female adults reproduced, but their babies were fathered by only about 40% of the available male adults. The other male adults died without reproducing; probably while unsuccessfully competing for the resources that would have let them win a female.
    ==================
    Good point. One male can easily keep at least six females properly serviced. What happens when you become middle-aged, and really don’t care? Where are the girls going to get their resources then. They want to continue thinking it matters, but it doesn’t. After they’re forty, they have to work for it. After they’re thirty, they start worrying about it.

    Anthropology is what it is. The girls get it when they’re young. After that they don’t get it any more. Why do 24 year old girls hate 18 year old girls?

  54. @Matt: Actually, when one considers the likes of Chinese emperors, Genghis Khan and others, one man can have literally thousands of children by different wives; even a few hundred per year.

    Contemporaneous reports say Genghis Khan’s harem was about 3000 women, that it was still growing at the time of his death, and he serviced several wives on a typical day. At that rate, it is not surprising that about 1/2 of 1% of the world population is descended from Genghis; and about 8% of Chinese.

    As for this: What happens when you become middle-aged, and really don’t care?

    Speak for yourself. If your libido has declined to the point of lost interest, you have (IMO) health issues and/or mental stress issues that should be addressed.

  55. Tony C.

    Don’t talk to me about my supposed libido. You can speak for yourself. Genghis Khan was poisoned by one of his concubines.

  56. SwM,

    I think Bachman is the craziest person in mainstream politics. When you consider her competition that is quite an accomplishment.

  57. @Bron: I am really just channeling Roy Baumeister, the author of Is There Anything Good About Men? (How Cultures Flourish By Exploiting Men). So these are not my original ideas; although I have certainly adopted some of Roy’s ideas as better than my own. It is well worth reading.

    Roy is the head of the social psychology graduate program at Florida State University.

  58. @Matt: The historian I read quotes contemporaneous stories that Genghis Khan died when he was thrown from a horse; his horse stepped in a hole while on the run and broke its leg; in the subsequent rolling collapse of his horse, Genghis was killed. That may or may not have been in battle; legends differ, but I recall it sounded like the most plausible line to me. The stories of him being stabbed or poisoned by a concubine are almost certainly fiction; If I remember the history correctly their earliest recordings trace to a century or more after his death; and “historians” in the 1300s were not known for being scrupulous with the truth.

  59. @Matt: Then that is even more implausible; Genghis Khan was a brutal warrior leader, and although I have no evidence from his culture specifically, based on other warrior cultures I would not expect him to get naked for sex. It is too vulnerable a state. Warrior kings like Genghis Khan do not disarm themselves. They do not get naked for bathing, or sex, or sleep, if they did it would be the perfect time for an assassination.

    As a man that had sex with a new handful of women every day, probably without repeats, Genghis would not automatically trust his sexual partners, his skin-to-skin contact was probably minimal and limited to his hands and penis, and for the concubine it would be a one-shot suicide mission.

    The prospect of a horse-riding accident sounds far more plausible; we see that frequently (in fact, the actor Christopher Reeve suffered a similar one, and likely would have died quickly without modern medical care).

  60. Tony C, that Ghengis Khan principle? That’s why a whole TRIBE of good women could be perfectly viable with just a few men.

  61. @Malisha: Yes, that is the point. Men are 99% expendable in the reproductive equation, and to the winners go the women. The next generation of a tribe is determined by the number of women that get pregnant, and NOT the number of men that impregnate them. It is a fundamental disparity in our psychology; it is why men are warriors and women tend not to be, it is why men risk their lives and fortunes to win women and women do not do that to win men. It is probably why the average healthy male is built 50% larger than the average healthy woman: Men fight to mate and to defend women. Women do not have to fight to mate.

    Women do compete with each other for the best man they can get, but barring a health problem every woman is guaranteed she will be able to reproduce with SOME man. Historically that was just not true for men. Even if they did reproduce, the odds were stacked against males to the point that about 60% of all males that have ever lived have zero modern descendants.

    That is changing now due to cultural innovations (the middle class, true monogamy by males), but the reproductive imbalances still exist. You can even see it in our dating rituals: Men pay to show their generosity, the “better” dates are expensive to show their wealth and command of resources, the man shows deference, gentility, and strength to indicate his value as a mate, protector and provider. He is selling in a buyer’s market.

  62. Tony C.

    You’re correct from a historical, evolutionary perspective. What if reproduction isn’t an issue?

  63. @Matt: That depends. Some of us scientists (and I am not being coy and saying “some” when I mean “virtually all,” I really mean “some” and there is truly a lack of consensus) believe that much of human psychology is evolved. I believe there is real evidence of that; I suppose a few famous works are by Roy Baumeister and Steven Pinker, but there are many other indications in psychology and medicine. But of course it is difficult to trace attitudinal differences back to genes or prove they are the result of development spurred by gender-specific hormones or whatever.

    If psychology is evolved, it makes no difference if reproduction is an issue or not, the psychology remains in force as if it makes a difference. Men and women that are sterile still have the desire to mate, for example.

    However, our evolved psychology can usually be overridden by conscious choice. Males find fit, young, healthy women sexually attractive, it is built into their machinery so deep it is involuntary. But his reactions and actions ARE voluntary, finding some girl hot does not compel a man to talk to her or even turn his head to watch her go by.

    The same goes for women and their evolved psychology; feelings can be noted without becoming a priority. Reactions and actions are voluntary, and they too can make choices to not pursue a current feeling because doing so would sabotage or compromise a longer term good or goal.

    For both, the psychology is still there generating the impulses as if reproduction is paramount, but they can control or thwart those impulses (for example using birth control) for their own longer term emotional well being.

  64. Tony C.

    Are you a scientist? Do you spell that “shrink?” Perhaps you’re only an anthropologist?

    I don’t have any disagreement with your intuitive analysis.

Comments are closed.