History and technology... hysterics and trysts

It has been an interesting week or so in politics, hasn't it? I really do like politics. Just as I like a real messy car wreck, train wreck, or divorce. On the Left, we have Rep. Anthony Weiner dalliances in phone sex and sexting. On the Right, we have Sarah Palin's view of Paul Revere.

The question I have is which one, if any, is all that important to we the voters? Possibly one of the above. But they are attention getters, aren't they?

Mr. Weiner is annoying little man, in my view. And now I see him as even worse. An annoying little man who has no respect for his wife. I feel sorry for his wife but do not feel sorry for him. It's a pity that people succumb to urges because the ones who suffer most have little or nothing to do with it. Although I did hear/read that some moronic pundit questioned whether some fault might lay with Mrs Weiner I find that idea to be disgusting. I have been married before and I was the last in that marriage to stray. I did not stray because of what she did, I strayed because I gave into an opportunity. What my ex did had no real bearing on that other than to provide me with a rationalization if I chose to delude myself in order to deny responsibility. My cheating did not end the marriage, her cheating didn't either. The fact that we could cheat was what ended it.

Mr. Weiner is not resigning his seat in the House. In a typical display of arrogance by those in powerful positions, he is denying any "legal" wrongdoing and saying his constituents can decide if his judgment is poor enough to warrant his losing the next election. This is called "clinging to power" and chutzpah. I don't have a lot of faith that his constituents will actually make a reasoned decision. After all, Barney Frank still has his seat years after his boyfriend was caught running a male prostitution ring out of Franks' basement and Ted Kennedy got through that pesky Chappaquiddick thing. I won't mention Charlie Rangel.

So let's go to the Right now. Sarah Palin made some offhand remarks in response to a question about Paul Revere. Ms Palin has a problem with off the cuff remarks. Her detractors jump on each and every one as proof that she is unworthy of the attention she gets. Thus adding to that attention. And, of course, this one incident has triggered a firestorm from the Left's blogs. I ran into a "discussion" about this incident and made the remark that it didn't really matter about the facts being right or wrong, that I considered that she was offering an opinion more than a history lesson, and that what I saw in the comments (I think there were a few hundred at the time) was the result of "ideological perspective and perception."

Apparently, some historians have taken a similar stance. They say she wasn't entirely wrong but that her view was a bit twisted. I would say misleading or misunderstood. Let's review what I know about Revere's ride...

He was not the only rider. There were two others. He was tasked to ride to Lexington and warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that the British troops were coming (By sea, if I recall) to arrest them. As he rode, he raised the alarm at various villages along the way. He was arrested at some point and, during that arrest, allegedly told the Bri9tish that they will be met by resistance from the Colonialists.

You can say that Ms Palin might be well advised to not make off the cuff remarks. But she is desirous of attention and will not likely heed such sage advice.

The economy continues to defy the efforts of the administration to turn it around and the usual spin is offered to explain how the horrible numbers are not what they seem.

A fun week or two all around, I'd say. Here's a couple of things to look at and muse on...

The U.S. Debt in real time.

Dirty Spending Secrets of the government.