Turns out Jake has been a naughty boy behind the scenes. The newspaper articles have been scathing and `tabloid like'.
When I see these articles, I shouldn't read them... but I do. Our newspapers shouldn't publish them... but they do.
Should Jake's infidelity affect the way we look at him as a rugby coach?
Should Bill Clinton's shenanigans affect the way we looked at him as a president?
I would wager a good deal of our countries people have a similar `internal' outlook on relationships as our likely future president... but they wouldn't admit to it publicly. Maybe that is why he took his shenanigans in his stride. If Bill Clinton had said, `Yes, I shagged my intern... and I have never been faithful to my wife, and she doesn't expect it'... I doubt he would have got a pat on the back.
People like lies. People like living behind fascades.
Could the world really live in a society where we all knew each others dirty secrets?
5 comments:
It shouldn't affect how we look at Jake as a coach, and I don't think we should care much.
I also don't really think the situation is comparable with Mr Clintons. The Lewinski thing was just the tip of a very large iceberg. There are a string of women who were intimidated into shutting up by some thugs of his, including one who had accused him of raping her.
Anyway, I think his shenanigans, combined with other parsonality traits to make him the kinda guy who probably shouldn't have been president.
If we knew each others dirty secrets maybe we'd get over pretending to be to outraged over all of them.
It does leave you wandering what we should have a right to know about leaders/public figures and what should be left alone.
I am a little disheartened by newspapers/media in general as you realise it is as commercial as anything else. Rather unrealistically, it would be nice to read balanced, well-written, insightful stuff that isn't trying to shock...
then again, I did click on the Jake White article to read more.
As for Mr Clinton... yes, I have heard he wasn't the greatest guy. But by all accounts he was also a pretty good/effective president.
Do you think in a world where he didn't have to hide his sexual shenanigans, and was voted in purely as an administrator, he would lie as much as he obviously had to to get where he got?
Clearly the rape thing if true is another story altogether.
hmmm...
Assessing the clinton presidency is pretty difficult, but basically, its only by some accounts that he was good at his job.
People, even democrats, hated clinton a lot of the time.
Maybe he wouldn't have needed to lie as much in this alternative world, but he knew the rules and i think his behaviour revealed a lot of his character. he didn't just shag and lie. he intimidated people, he perjured himself, was entirely cynical and manipulative and gave every indcation that he would be the same way in other aspects of his politcal life.
In fact, I think a better case can be made that clinton should be regarded as a war criminal than bush, and lewinsky probably had something to do with it.
but hey, I don't deny than I'm probably pretty biased.
I don't understand the reason for the bias?
... and I don't understand the justification fro Clinton being a war criminal?
I do understand why he was disliked by some.
I don't really think I'm biased.
I think the Clinton nostalgia is a bit weird, so I might be a little too eager to make a case against him. There were things he did that I liked, but I'm not really sure how much credit I'd give him personally, though he surely deserves some.
I have one incident in mind, his attack on a pharmacutical and pesticide factory in Sudan. it was very neatly timed to happen while lewinsky was appearing before the jury, and was as close to a unilateral decision as is possible for this kind of thing.
Here' the story.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19981005/hitchens
Post a Comment