It’s always sad, and especially sad because me and my wife were at fault hooking her up with him and we probably thought he is a better guy than he is…He’s lost all my respect, I mean, all the respect I had for the guy is gone, that’s pretty much all I can say.

Amen, Jesper.

The media’s handling of celebrity affairs is absurd, but I think it derives almost exclusively from a mentality that developed out of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. In that particular case, roughly half of our country risked being epically disenfranchised if they damned their political hero. The result wasn’t a defense of Clinton’s actions, but instead a deferment of responsibility – “What he does privately is his own business.” Of course that isn’t true when you are a public leader and role model, but the claim offered some shallow sense of safety for Democrats, liberals, and some moderates.

The media, however, has taken that mentality and extracted the unspoken and untrue element – that people weren’t ready to criticize Clinton’s actions. As such, with each affair uncovered since, the media digs as deep as possible but does not criticize. It will push headline’s like, “John Doe apologizes” and follow-up with, “Does this hurt his image?” or “Should this affect his stature?”

But the media – and nearly every individual voice in it – lacks the tenacity that Jesper Parnevik displays. It won’t launch an attack on bad behavior. It won’t speak on the public’s behalf to say “We don’t trust you anymore,” and “You have done a terrible thing.”

It is essential for the health of our society – for the preservation of relationships, the sanctity of family, and even more basic human-to-human trust – for the media to tear Tiger Woods apart. It is of the utmost importance to send a clear message that when a celebrity – grown to success and riches through the trust and money of common people – sets a terrible example, the public will not tolerate it. We must demand more of our role models, and we must scrutinize their images if they are to represent us to the rest of the world. To simply chalk Woods’ behavior up to another in a long line of celebrity scandals is unacceptable.

To err is human, but to abuse the trust of the public is simply wrong. Parnevik hits it on the head: “[W]hen you’re a world-class athlete you probably should think a bit more before you do stuff.”

Tea Party rallies on the steps of the Capitol are one thing.  Altering images of President Obama so that he looks like Hitler, and holding up images of Nazi concentration camps is another.  And hanging an burning effigies of political leaders is a whole new level.  Frankly, it is not only abhorrent, but scary.

The biggest concern, perhaps, about these protests is that they are growing increasingly violent.  There is a trend of passionate protest at all of them.  But the level of anger at each of them appears to mount with each successive event.  How far will these organizers go?  Furthermore, the image of effigies hanging and being burned is frighteningly analogous to racist acts performed by white supremacists and other biased groups against African-Americans.  The fact that Pelosi and Perriello are white does not mitigate the offensiveness of this act.  The act itself symbolizes hate, and to whomever it is applied, it suggests violence.  Finally, such acts are not helpful to political discourse.  They inflame passion and hate and perhaps even incite violence.  However, they do nothing to add to the debate.

The venemous hate these protestors have, as demonstrated by these intended acts, should be condemned not only by Democrats, but their colleagues across the aisle as well.  When protestors resort to acts that are such an iconic symbol of hate, nobody can justify it in the name of freedom of speech.  This is not speech.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has liberalized the First Amendment to such an extent that it likely would be difficult to proscribe these acts.  But perhaps a claim could be brought to proscribe such speech in the name of preventing an incitement to violence.  In Feiner v. N.Y. (1951), the Supreme Court noted: “It is one thing to say that the police cannot be used as an instrument for the suppression of unpopular views, and another to say that, when as here the speaker passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot, they are powerless to prevent a breach of the peace.”  In other words, the Court took the position that while the State cannot let hostile audiences silence the speaker – given the speaker’s right to speak - there is a line that can be crossed (i.e., when violence and riots are imminent); and that is where the State may step in.  I think a legitimate claim could be made that burning effigies of political figures gives rise to a breach of the peace, such that those acts may be proscribed.  In any event, both Democrats and Republicans should condemn such acts as not only unhelpful to political discourse, but also dangerous to public debate because of the hatred such acts engender.

These Tea Party protests should raise eyebrows, as the acts at such events appear to be growing increasingly violent.  One cringes to think what the organizers intend to do at the next protest after this one in Danville transpires.

Within one year, this country has now seen two traditionally blue states reject a referendum that would have legalized same-sex marriage.  Last November, California voters rejected such a referendum, and the same thing happened yesterday 3,000 miles away in Maine.  What is significant about these two votes is that they were in States that traditionally have leaned Democrat, at least within recent elections.  This indicates a disconnect between the views of legislators and judges, on the one hand, and the American public on the other.

Indeed, there is a growing trend toward validating same-sex marriage.  After yesterday’s vote, there are now five states that have legalized same-sex marriage, either legisatively or judically: Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont.  Moreover, civil unions with spousal-like rights are recognized in California and New Jersey.  Furthermore, similar rights for domestic partners are recognized in D.C., Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.  However, benefits under federal law continue to be denied to same-sex married couples.  Dukeminier, Jesse, et al.  Thus, there appears to be a growing trend around the country toward legalizing same-sex marriage.

Although the election results in California and Maine are not a very large sample of public sentiment toward same-sex marriage, the results are indeed suggestive, especially considering that these are democratic-leaning states.  Clearly, a significant number of Americans disfavor same-sex marriage and do not believe it is an inherent right, nor believe that it is protected by the Equal Protection Clause.  As a result, hopefully legislators will use these two election results, if they are confronted with the issue of same-sex marriage, to inform their views on the subject.  Personally, I don’t think that same-sex marriage is protected under the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, or any other Amendment of the Federal Constitution.  There is nothing in the wording of the Amendments, in the ratification history, nor in the Supreme Court’s precedents that suggest same-sex marriage needs to be protected.  Accordingly, to close the gap between the obvious disconnect between the views of judges and legislators, and a large segment of the American public, I would favor an amendment to the federal Constitution, defining marriage in the traditional sense.  Doing so will reflect the will of a large segment of the American public, as reflected by the votes in California and Maine; will prevent any further disconnect between legislators and voters; and, most importantly, preserve the way the family unit should be conceived.

No doubt much of that was true when Columbus landed in the East Indies in 1492.  That said, however, the man still deserves to have a day set aside in his memory.  Columbus’ expedition was the beginning of a wave of globalization that, in many ways, continues through today.  It also marked the point from which we as a country, nation and hemisphere can trace our heritage and identity.  The Northern Agrarian has more.

Thanks to his charisma and relatable personality, David Letterman was appointed by the all-powerful cabal of television network executives as an ambassador. In the populist ranks of people like Steve Allen, Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, and his own contemporary, Jay Leno, Letterman’s job is to serve as a bridge between the common citizen and the famous archetypes who represent the greatest possibilities of the American dream. His touch reduces the barriers between the audience and celebrities making Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Tom Cruise seem like real people.

Letterman’s show masquerades as entertainment, but it actually serves a very important social function. And in order for Letterman and his rare peers to maintain the bond of trust between both the American people and the most successful members of society, they must maintain a constant and thorough state of neutrality. They are not advocates or politicians, nor are they analysts or critics. Their tone of engagement must flow gently with the mood of the people, and so must their behavior.

For the masses, infidelity and promiscuity are not tolerated. Despite the best efforts of the sexual revolution, a simple fact of smoothly functioning society is that monogamy is strictly necessary. Even in the most liberal circles – the kind willing to forgive politicians and celebrities for their indiscretions – relationships are still pursued as the standard. In violating this notion, or at least challenging it, Letterman loses his neutrality. He becomes either another sleazy celebrity or a disgraced common man. In doing so, David Letterman loses the trust of the people. Consequently he no longer holds value to the other side of the spectrum. He can’t function as a conduit and he becomes obsolete.

The Bible passage rings loudest here: “To whom much is given, much is expected.”

What happens now is unclear. Broken trust can be earned again. But in show business, a damaged image is frequently a career ender.

And keep the technology away from…

In DC, eight people have killed themselves this year by jumping in front of Metro trains – more than normal, which is why this is getting attention. Of course suicide-by-train is nothing new, nor is the method unique to the District. I’ve actually been on an Amtrak train when it killed somebody and in a Metro station when the same thing happened. The passenger mentality is equally one of sympathy and inconvenience. The latter is a vain, perhaps even embarrassing, reaction to such a tragedy, but it does open the door to a conversation about ethics of suicide.

There are three degrees of public suicide-relation, in my estimation. The third is a tangential relationship like the one I just described. A suicide acts as a disruption but doesn’t necessarily make an emotional connection. The second is that of a witness to the event – an otherwise uninvolved bystander made instantly, painfully, and permanently aware of the gruesome possibilities of death.

The first is that of the unwilling participant – in this case the train driver. The Post articulates the point:

[I]nches from each of those horrific scenes, barely mentioned in the news, sits a traumatized driver who will be forever entangled with a stranger’s demise. It is an intimacy none of them sought.

It is hard to discuss the ethics of suicide without sounding either crass or cold-hearted, and it is difficult to expect a reasoned approach from a human being who has chosen to throw away his or her own life. But the consequences of public suicide represent a dangerous breach of morality. In the first degree, using another human being as a means to an end is akin to spiritual rape.

The problem, of course, is that the guilty party (if successful) doesn’t survive to bear responsibility and we are thus stuck with a Catch-22 scenario. Suicide might be the ultimate expression of unregulated freedom. A terrifying thought.

Written by the recently deceased William Safire, the language of the speech is intriguing. It leans heavily on spirituality, but only specifically references religion in a side instruction involving the Lord’s Prayer. It does, however, explicitly state that Mother Earth will mourn the death of two of “her sons.”

In the wake of so many NASA tragedies following the agency’s early successes, it is easy enough to read this speech and believe it.

“As melodrama, it’s thumping good stuff. But as politics, it’s sort of a train wreck — at once powerful, spellbinding and uncontrolled. Like William Jennings Bryan whipping up populist Democrats over moneyed interests or the John Birch Society brooding over fluoride, Beck mines the timeless theme of the corrupt Them thwarting a virtuous Us. This flexible narrative often contains genuinely uncomfortable truths. Some days “they” are the unconfirmed policy “czars” whom Beck fears Obama is using to subvert constitutional government — and he has some radical-sounding sound bites to back it up. Some days “they” are the network of leftist community organizers known as ACORN — and his indictment of the group is looking stronger every day. But he also spins yarns of less substance. He tells his viewers that Obama’s volunteerism efforts are really an attempt to create a “civilian national-security force that is just as strong, just as powerful as the military.” . . . In his recent instabook — Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, a huge best seller, with more than 1 million copies moved in less than four months — he wrote, “Most Americans remain convinced that the country is on the wrong track. They know that SOMETHING JUST DOESN’T FEEL RIGHT but they don’t know how to describe it or, more importantly, how to stop it.” The book’s pox-on-both-parties populism evokes the quixotic campaigns of Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, but with an eerie sound track.

Nevertheless, my question remains: Should we care what Beck is doing?  Putting aside the obvious First Amendment arguments, I contend that people who immediately attack commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as being bad for America are failing to see another major factor - that is, the public itself.  In my view, the public is equally at fault for listening and believing every word these pundits say.  Without a doubt Beck is feeding off of the public’s fears at his own benefit by making a high monetary profit, as Drehle criticizes; without a doubt Beck is basing his arguments on little to no substance; and without a doubt people like Beck add nothing of value to legitimate policy debates that are going on.  But why should this end the debate?  The public is equally at fault not only for making Beck profitable by tuning in to his broadcasts, but also by serving as the source of his fear-mongering.

To be clear, I denounce people like Beck.  To the extent that their ranting is without merit and baseless, and that it capitalizes on people’s fears, I think there is something morally repugnant about that.  But I think when people like Drehle immediately criticize the commentators themselves, they are failing to see that an equal problem is the public itself.  The anger to which Beck is appealing and from which he is profiting didn’t start with Beck.  It is a creation of the public itself; Beck merely feeds off of it.  For instance, when Tea Party protestors are raving that they’re “Mad as Hell,” the issue should shift from Beck to whether people have a valid reason to be this mad, which only creates opportunities for people like Beck.  Indeed, the public allows and enables people like Beck to become popular, because the public itself is the very source of the fear and emotions that open the door for the Glenn Becks of the world.