Gavin Newsom’s PC Sex Scandal
by Marc H. RudovPolitical Compartmentalization
If you haven’t yet heard about the sex scandal of Gavin Newsom, flamboyant mayor of left-wing, politically correct San Francisco, you’ve been living under a rock. The news is everywhere. People in his quirky administration are shocked. Local TV anchors are shocked. The editors of local newspapers are shocked. I, on the other hand, expected it.
There is an oft-heard rationalization in our shallow, superficial, narcissistic, libertine culture that one can justifiably comport himself in one way at the office and in another way outside the office — as if to bifurcate, or compartmentalize, himself ethically. In other words, one can be honest in his profession while a liar in his personal dealings. Or, putting it another way, he can be politically compartmentalized, or PC. Really? Two words come to mind: Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton, our illustrious former president, had a sexual relationship with an intern, right in the Oval Office. Had any of the military officers in Clinton’s command done likewise, they would have been summarily dishonorably discharged. Any corporate CEO caught in an affair with an employee is almost always fired or forced to resign. When Clinton dallied with Monica, however, it was considered “private” behavior — even though it occurred in a taxpayer-funded office. It matters not that Clinton perjured himself, leading to an impeachment and an Arkansas disbarment: today, he is a rock-star.
Yesterday, I called into the popular Armstrong & Getty radio show, on which I had once been a guest, to enter the heated debate about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s duplicitous behavior. Underscoring and reinforcing the unprincipled and masochistic nature of many people, the caller ahead of me in the queue admitted that, while she is hopelessly in love with her husband — a man in law enforcement, by the way — she knows he would cheat on her in a heartbeat. Yet, she stays with him. Go figure.
When I got my turn on the air, I made the following points: Gavin Newsom gave the finger to California law when he permitted illegal gay marriages in San Francisco — all of them since nullified. Gavin Newsom gave the finger to United States laws when he refused publicly to assist the feds with prosecuting illegal aliens. So, why should anyone be surprised when Gavin Newsom gave the finger to the laws of friendship by choosing to fornicate with the wife of his good friend and campaign manager? Surprisingly and naively, people are stunned.
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty believe in political compartmentalization. They expressed on the air that, in matters of the heart, the rules of behavior are just different; people can’t be faulted for their foibles and transgressions — and, in no way can philandering be a harbinger of poor job performance. So, after hearing me make my points, they dismissed me and terminated the call. No debate. No thought. Just dismissal.
Many in America agree with Armstrong & Getty, as I’ve heard this raging debate on numerous other talkshows. We also heard it, ad nauseam, during the Clinton era, and we heard it years after the death of John F. Kennedy, another philandering president. The critical question, in my opinion, is: Does integrity matter?
San Francisco Values
Integrity is the polar opposite of political compartmentalization. Integrity connotes honesty and is “the quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.” Someone with integrity is honest, trustworthy, and dependable — 24/7. But, in a city saturated with “San Francisco Values,” to quote Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, anything goes at any time.
This city is a mess, and so is its leader. That is why I was not shocked when hearing the news that he hubristically betrayed his friend and created an uncomfortable work environment, to say the least. A guy with Newsom’s looks, charisma, brains, money, and power could have made so many wiser choices. Why didn’t he?
Newsom’s arrogance led him to ignore the inevitability that his affair with an employee and wife of a trusting friend would become public. But, as I asserted above, his professional track record of disrespecting rules and boundaries led him to make this inexcusable choice. I do not believe people can separate their professional and private behaviors: they either have integrity or they don’t.
At some point, the lines between appropriate and inappropriate become blurred; people either respect boundaries or they don’t. It matters not whether these boundaries exist on the job or off the job. Now, Mayor Newsom, who, in humiliation, had to explain himself in front of cameras, realizes that boundaries and the law of unintended consequences DO matter.
The woman in this saga is now blaming the affair on substance abuse (I am disappointed: I was hoping for the usual bipolar-disorder excuse), the campaign manager has resigned, Newsom’s reputation is in tatters, and employees, friends, and families are in pain.
NoNonsense Bottom Line
Gavin Newsom’s saga reminds me of the ending of Ocean’s Eleven, starring George Clooney (Danny Ocean), Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict), and Julia Roberts (Tess Ocean). Danny Ocean, estranged from wife Tess, is a professional thief who was just caught in a major heist of Terry Benedict’s Las Vegas casinos. Terry has been living with and, allegedly, madly in love with Tess. Before being taken to jail, Danny asked Terry the $150M question: would he give up Tess if he could get all of his money back? Without hesitation, Terry replied in the affirmative. Through a closed-circuit cable system, Tess witnessed this confession and immediately left Terry to rejoin Danny. Apparently, integrity is relative.
If you believe that dishonesty in love in no way translates to job performance, then, as a consistent, logical man, you have to believe also that dishonesty at work does not translate into the relationship domain, right? Integrity has symmetry. So, please ponder the following hypothetical situation.
Imagine that you meet a woman in a professional encounter and are very attracted to her. You two don’t work for the same company, so becoming romantically involved is “safe.” One day, though, you observe her doing something unethical or illegal in her job. Your initial desire for her was beyond a one-night stand. Now that you know what kind of person she is, given her behavior and value system, do you still want her in your life?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I can only imagine how much nicer life would be if everyone was as conscious as you, Marc.
Thanks for always making so much sense!
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
‘Boy’ dont people get themselves hot under the collar about this one.
Strange isn’t it that all the attention is focused on the male behaviour.
Nobody seems to notice that there is a woman involved who consciously made the choice to cheat on her husband, she made the choice about as Esther Villar puts it “use her vagina”.
One day ages ago I had an old man explain to me that if a woman wants to really hurt her husband/boyfriend, she sleeps with his best friend.
Effectively destroying a relationship between two blokes forever. Blokes are seen as real villians if they sleep with the wifes/girlfriends, best friend.
Politicizing the Personal
Daphne Patai
“Mistresses and girl friends may also benefit from the new dispensation, since they now control a man’s fate far more than in the past.
But the harsh light of exposure doesn’t usually stay put; it has a way of running amok, which in the long run can only mean that both men and women find their most private sexual impulses under assault. The attack on the private sphere in fact threatens everyone_except perhaps those bland folk who, devoid of personal habits that could ever be used against them, might rise to high public office on a platform of personal purity. This sort of rectitude may or may not be accompanied by any political talent_but if, indeed, “the personal is political,” does it matter? Surely absence of political ideas and skills is of little consequence once we know that our politicians lead unblemished private lives, or perhaps have no private lives at all. But should we really assume that the best political leaders are those whose personal record is blameless, and who therefore have nothing to fear from the politicization of the most private and vulnerable arena of all_that of sexual desire?
Yet another group of beneficiaries of sexual policing are those feminists whose antagonism to men, and in particular to male sexuality, is generalized into an attack on all males and on women’s relationships with them. For such heterophobes ever on the look-out for a suspicious word or gesture, sexual harassment law and the climate it has created are powerful new weapons to wield in their effort to place obstacles in the personal relations between men and women. Yet it cannot serve most adult women’s interests to have men be afraid of involvement with them.
Ironically, it seems most improbable that the current demands for personal probity on the part of public figures will lead to a better world. Why? Because the type of vigilance necessary to ensure a life entirely free from reproach will create a social climate so unpleasant, and ultimately so repressive, that the cure will be much worse than the disease. Signs of precisely such a climate are everywhere around us, as politicians, employers, and even college presidents mouth platitudes about “power differentials,” as if the new orthodoxy were beyond question.
This vigilantism should worry us all. When the private becomes public and the personal is seen as political, anyone can be targeted. As for the realms of actual politics and public life, these deteriorate into prurient squabbles and competition over moral one-upmanship. Just read any newspaper. “
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I focus on the male’s behavior because the mayor, about whom I wrote, is a male. The woman cheated on her husband, and that is her problem to deal with. If I were her husband, I would divorce her instantly.
But, the woman in this story is NOT the mayor — the leader, the one in charge. So, she is NOT the focus of my story.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
JamesH made good points Marc, and never suggested you change the focus of your piece. It would fit your MO to perhaos work in an entitlement angle for her, or at least compliment the mayor on his peek under the hood. Since the last thread here where a handful of men went round with you, it would seriously not surprise me if you balmed the husband for choosing such a woman and/or for not keeping her panting for more of him through the ubersex you advocate.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
My article specifically addresses Newsom’s poor professional and personal behavior, and it is not about anything else.
I see no entitlement angle here — the woman cheated on her husband, plain and simple. My article is not about infidelity, a worn topic.
Also, I don’t compliment the mayor for his peek under the hood. That’s insane. He had the option to peek under the hoods of many women who were not his appointments secretary and not the wife of his friend and campaign manager.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I know, Marc, I just wanted to say something provocative since I’ve been involved in the Steven Guess debate so long. Who do you suppose pays when he goes on a date? Now thats a multifaceted question…
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Incidentally, what the hell is an appointments secretary? Has admin. become so busy we have a secretary for each micro task?
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Date? Are you kidding? There were no dates. He was banging her out of public view. I know he was stupid but not stupid enough to appear in public with her.
Every public official, whose life is consumed with public appearances, has an appointments secretary. It’s an absolute necessity.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
By the way, KateM, thank you for the compliments. It’s nice to be appreciated. I try to make sense, and I’m glad that I have made your life nicer.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Sorry Marc, Im not a public official, nor a guy w/ a media following…I have no appointments secretary.
Who said date? You lost me in the thread.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Marc,
Great job for standing up to the sock jocks of SF!! Ethical high ground is what goes hand in hand with working uner the hood…evidently far too many men of leadership caliber have yet to grasp this tiny detail!
thanks from another man making change day to day..
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Truth, integrity, honesty, used to mean something. No longer. They have been deconstructed to death.
All the points you make Marc are on the button. No one expects perfection from any human, public official or not, but the rampant disregard of civilised standards and the ludicrous efforts that people go to to excuse such egregious defects of character are the deconstruction of us all.
You also comment: “If I were her husband, I would divorce her instantly.”
Sure. And be disposessed, denied access to your children, be a slave for many a year ahead, suffer the same character deconstruction at the hands of biased Judges (if Mayor, the one’s you engineered into office - there’s irony for you), risk summary jail sentences for no crime, etc, etc. There are less expensive options costing just pennies.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 am
I don’t get this article - when the whole country lacks integrity why is a mayor of san fran worthy of debate? Torture is endemic in US jails and now has spread to the military, sanctioned by sexually scandal-spotless politicians. Gee, he refused to help round up illegal aliens so they could be locked away without trial in solitary confinement? The author really should have a holiday and get over it.
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:43 am
The author of this article goes on about “left-wing, politically correct San Francisco”, and yet people want to live here. So many people want to live here that our property values are among the highest in the country and are NOT dropping as they are elsewhere.
The author doesn’t talk about the fact that a straight woman violated her marriage vows, nor that a straight man (Newsom) violated his marriage vow (he was not yet divorced). No, like most jerks, he went right for the gay marriage issue.
What stupidity.
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 am
Marc,
I know the article was about this bloke and thats the problem.
These stories focus on the high profile male.
To give you an example when Captain James Hewitt split the beans on his affair with Princes Di, the public and the media turned on him!
Here in Australia we had a high profile footballer Wayne Carey banging his best mate’s wife.
We had Rex Hunt who had secret affairs exposed, mind you Rex was caught in a blokes worst nightmare.
If and when, women are caught out having affairs, the public and especially the media are sympathetic to them.
A real double standard exists.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 am
flash and hal…
where in the hell did you two come up with the “torture in prison”? and “gay marriage”? shit?
Newsome is as Newtered does…he has chosen his path and will have plenty of people hurling rocks at his glass palace! There is a world of attractive people and yet this morabund idiot chooses/elects to bang the spouse of the person who has done the most in helping him achieve the status he now enjoys! This country is run by a bunch of immature kids who want to be like the rulers of ancient Rome who could call and have anyone’s wife come and service their lustful rage…what a picture of “entitled” living by the “me first” crowd…
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
In a city where homosexuals have been preying on children for decades, this comes as a relief to know that the good mayor didn’t molest this fool’s son. One must remember that the majority of loving folks in the city by bay think the male anus is a sex organ and is a matter of personal preference.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:01 am
JamesH,
It is not a problem that I focused on the high-profile male. My article is not part of “these stories.” Apparently, you are not at all familiar with anything I’ve written. Apparently, you are not aware that, when on the radio, I call entitled women whores.
I write about bad behavior, and I don’t care who is behind it — man or woman. Gavin Newsom is the mayor, the person in charge, the leader. He behaved badly, and I wrote about him. End of story.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
HalCall,
SF has become a toilet. The streets are filthy and filled with defecating homeless. Marijuana is smoked openly. Gay Pride parades constantly insult families with public nudity and sex acts. The Board of Stupidvisors want illegals to vote. Property values are NOT holding, as you claim — they are falling.
My article didn’t go after the gay issue. My article went after Newsom. Newsom is the leader of the executive branch. He swore to uphold the city, state, and federal constitutions. Gay marriage is illegal; Newsom didn’t care. He violated state law and should have been thrown in jail for doing so.
By the way, when two people are legally separated and not yet divorced, they are free to pursue other paramours. Why didn’t you know that?
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Marc,
I have read some of the articles that you write and as to radio. I do not have a radio capable of picking up signals from the States.
Besides I am deaf as well.
It is good that you write about bad behaviour regardless of gender. which makes a change from the usual media hype of men bad and women good, even when they are bad.
End of story.
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Gavin Newsom is mayor of San Francisco because the voters of that city chose him. He will likely stay mayor of that city until either:
- the voters feel that he did not perform the duties of his office properly or……
- he commits an illegal action significant enough to warrant prosecution, conviction, and some significant prison sentence.
By screwing the wife of a friend and a co-worker, he made a PERSONAL decision that is questionable at best, and downright idiotic to boot.
Bros before hos, as it were……..
He could have chosen from quite a few other women, given his looks and political power, after all.
Yet he has STILL not acted illegally in having sex with the wife of a now-former friend and co-worker. There’s no indication that he was guilty of breaking the law.
I would be far more concerned if his lack of PERSONAL ethics (and common sense) were to extend to his PROFESSIONAL actions.
I don’t particularly care who our politicians are having sex with.
I do care whether our politician have their fingers in the taxpayers’ cookie jar, and whether they are performing their duties to the satisfaction of the taxpayers/voters.
And as for the wife of his former campaign manager and former friend……. she’s looking to blame substance abuse - just another woman who heard the term “personal responsibility” and wants nothing to do with it.
When the voters of San Francisco have had enough of Gavin Newsom, they will vote him out of office - when he fails to perform according to their collective wishes……..
…… unless he makes an error in judgement resulting in a felony conviction,of course.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
fourthwire,
We are usually on the same page, but, in this case, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Frankly, I don’t give a crap about the voters in SF, because they are subversive anarchists. They are anti-military. They celebrate illegal aliens and want them to be able to vote. They have no respect for traditional values.
The US Navy recently told SF to pound sand and never expect any more events in that city — because the city government is so anti-military. SF people care nothing about laws and normal people.
So, when SF voters elect an anarchist, it hurts the rest of California, and that bothers me. Technically, Newsom didn’t break any laws by porking his subordinate and wife of his other subordinate. But, just because he didn’t break any laws doesn’t mean he did nothing wrong.
You say you care when an elected official’s personal ethics extend to his professional actions. The whole point of my article is that Newsom’s professional ethics — which stink — have extended to his personal behavior. In this particular case, his personal behavior also involved people on his professional staff.
My point, which you missed, is that there is NO difference between personal and professional behavior.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
She was his subordinate.
He had all the power.
I thought there were laws against this in California…..
Every major corporation in America provides special training (I believe this is the ’sexual harassment sensitivity’ training) to avoid this very scenario. Huge sums of money are spent on the training, all to avoid the lawsuits that can come from it.
All she has to do is say he coerced her and he’s cooked with a ’sexual harrassment’ charge.
He was very, very stupid for many, many reasons.
I sure wouldn’t vote to re-elect this guy.
He can’t be trusted.
February 4th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“fourthwire,
We are usually on the same page, but, in this case, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Frankly, I don’t give a crap about the voters in SF, because they are subversive anarchists. They are anti-military. They celebrate illegal aliens and want them to be able to vote. They have no respect for traditional values.”
Marc, perhaps I was being a bit too subtle for you. I separate my distaste for the voters of SF from my disdain for puritanical values. In fact we agree completely about the nature of most SF voters, given your first paragraph!
“The US Navy recently told SF to pound sand and never expect any more events in that city  because the city government is so anti-military. SF people care nothing about laws and normal people.”
And a good thing, too! There’s no reason why the U.S. Navy ought to give SF the time of day, IMO.
“So, when SF voters elect an anarchist, it hurts the rest of California, and that bothers me.”
It bothers me too, but other than hoping for the odd meteor strike on SF, what’s there to do about the nature of the denizens of that city?
“Technically, Newsom didn’t break any laws by porking his subordinate and wife of his other subordinate.”
Which was my point, Marc. If he had broken laws in his thoughtless, idiotic act, that would have been another matter entirely, IMO.
“But, just because he didn’t break any laws doesn’t mean he did nothing wrong.”
Of course he did something morally “wrong”. And he has earned many guys’ disgust and disdain for doing so. But until he breaks a law or the voters of SF decide that he’s not doing a good enough job, he will likely remain in office.
“You say you care when an elected official’s personal ethics extend to his professional actions. The whole point of my article is that Newsom’s professional ethics  which stink  have extended to his personal behavior.”
Since I am no fan of either Newsom nor SF, don’t look for me to defend either…… but I don’t care about who politicians have sex with as much as whether they are breaking laws or not, fulfilling their official duties or not, and embezzling, stealing, or grossly misusing taxpayers’ money or not.
“In this particular case, his personal behavior also involved people on his professional staff.”
Correct. And the wife of a friend.
“My point, which you missed, is that there is NO difference between personal and professional behavior.”
I didn’t MISS your point, Marc. I simply disagreed with it. There ARE differences between individuals personal and professional lives.
For example, the skilled surgeon that may save your life someday may be a chronic philanderer.
Do his personal weaknesses prevent him from performing emergency surgery to remove an appendix that’s about to burst? SHOULD IT?
February 4th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Fourthwire said: “For example, the skilled surgeon that may save your life someday may be a chronic philanderer.
Do his personal weaknesses prevent him from performing emergency surgery to remove an appendix that’s about to burst? SHOULD IT?”
Absolutely not. In an emergency, it would make no difference to me. Would I hire him as an internest to take care of me over the long term? NFW!
February 4th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Fourthwire
Perhaps you should care whether the surgeon is a chronic philanderer…why? Those who choose when and where they will act responsively invariably put others at risk, and at times that often are not in their control. In the example you selected, the behavior often involves other extraneous ventures that lead to infections that are viral(body fluid and airborne) and not easily contained. Our existence in this country is threatened by those who seek to seperate profession vs personal. Why?
In my view, most people would seek to keep the government out of their personal life and I wholeheartedly agree. However, people are predictable and that predictability via persoanl action is what we have been subtly conditioned to ignore via a whole slew of laws doles out over the last twenty plus years…I would rethink your conclusion…
February 4th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I do not require an impending emergency situation in order to disregard someone’s personal shortcomings, at least with respect to his professional function.
By some of today’s standards for behavior, even noteworthy great men such as Thomas Jefferson would be considered to be unethical or immoral individuals.
And no…… Gavin Newsom is no Thomas Jefferson of course.
Newsom failed to behave with that level of integrity that I expect of a man by his placing hos before bros, and having sex with the wife of a friend. And her level of integrity is no better, either.
The people of New Orleans were idiots (IMO) to re-elect Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin as the mayor of New Orleans………
…… in spite of the fact that his administration was ineffective in the face of Hurricane Katrina…….
………in spite of the fact that some of his comments were openly racist…..
……..yet he broke no laws.
Newsom has broken no laws. So he is free to continue as mayor until the people of SF throw him out of office.
Newsom will pay for his stupidity, in a small way when he notices that his male friends don’t quite trust him in the company of their wives as much as they did in the past…… if they ever trusted him at all.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“Perhaps you should care whether the surgeon is a chronic philanderer…why? Those who choose when and where they will act responsively invariably put others at risk, and at times that often are not in their control.”
Oneshef, a skilled and competent surgeon can easily separate his professional behavior and competency from his personal life decisions. However irresponsible he may be with his sex life, he (or she) is not necessarily any less of surgeon.
As for those “infections that are viral(body fluid and airborne)”, any first-year medical student understands more about avoiding contaminating their patients during surgery than you or I will ever know.
Surgeons are dangerous when their PROFESSIONAL conduct and integrity lapses. Who they have sex with, how many times they have sex, and when they have sex (assuming that it’s NOT in the operating theater) is of no importance.
“In my view, most people would seek to keep the government out of their personal life and I wholeheartedly agree.”
Great!
“However, people are predictable and that predictability via persoanl action is what we have been subtly conditioned to ignore via a whole slew of laws doles out over the last twenty plus years…
Are you suggesting that professionals and/or politicians be judged against actions that are merely predicted? Now there’s a slippery slope if I ever read one!………;-)
“I would rethink your conclusion…”
Done. And without affecting my previous perspective one bit (mind you, I am typically amused by many Americans’ puritanical nature).
February 4th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Sorry for the typo: However irresponsible he may be with his sex life, he (or she) is not necessarily any less of a surgeon.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Fourth,
My father is a surgeon, and learned beyond your years! He, like many in our country, understands that not all that is taught..or not taught..is the final verdict to stand on. Medical schools have failed in basic education with topics such as “fungal infections”. In his youth, it was widely known and commonly practiced to treat people with a host of medical problems for fungal infections first and in greater than 90% of the cases, the patients no longer displayed the initial symptoms or any residual display. Big Pharma has made it’s mark on dumbing down the graduates. Big Money has made it’s mark on doctors who operate with the paycheck in mind, thus they high rate of serious infections introduced inside of hospitals. He has seen more BS prior to and taken into a surgical sterile area than you can broadcast on NPR! No kidding…
As for puritanical beliefs…is it too much to expect one person to respect another? Marc writes frequently about the root of this issue and men are no exception. And yes, the philandering dr should be examined. You could have but did not use an example of an alcoholic dr. The same principle should be used. Sypholis, gono, herpes, clamidia, HIV are all virals that can and do make it into places where they “should” not have been discovered. You discount the incidents that Big Pharma and others site as “miniscule” occurences within surveys and studies. My fascination with my health precludes me from giving in to a genious doctor that may not, for the sake of his genious, be fastidious about all personell in the surgical suite following strict sterile guidelines. Being puritanical has little to do with seeing through a veil of arrogant behavior by those who believe themselves to be great at their profession…the arrogance is the first and largest crack hiding other fatal flaws in men with this mentality. Sir Billary showed us that…
February 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Oneshef, from your post:
“Medical schools have failed in basic education with topics such as “fungal infectionsâ€Â.”
Certainly our nation’s medical schools have their share of shortcomings.
I agree with your point about Big Money having made its mark on the health care system in America. Mind you, I can see it from the perspective of an expatriate, with past residency in several nations where their health care systems were not driven by the profit motive.
Doctors’ and hospital owners’ greed for $$$ is one of the factors driving infant male genital mutilation in America (besides many Americans’ ignorance, not to mention a fair share of institutionalized misandry!).
But I digress: We agree about the fundamental nature of the profit motive in U.S. health care…… which helps to explain why in California, girls as young as 15 are getting breast implants, yet many doctors aren’t proficient as they could be with respect to fighting fungal infections.
“As for puritanical beliefs…is it too much to expect one person to respect another?”
I commented on many Americans’ puritanical beliefs without any reference to the concept of respect whatsoever. In fact, the two concepts have no direct correlation, and even vary from nation to nation.
For example, in Scandinavian nations, people are generally more comfortable with their bodies than people living in many parts of the U.S. Scandinvavians are generally speaking, far less puritanical about sex, yet they are perfectly capable of respect (and often more so… but that’s a different discussion!).
“Marc writes frequently about the root of this issue and men are no exception.”
This issue? Are you referring to “puritanical beliefs” or “respect”? The two concepts are not equivalent!
“And yes, the philandering dr should be examined.”
Examined? By whom? And for what? Aren’t doctors already required to take physicals when they are employed at hospitals?
“You could have but did not use an example of an alcoholic dr.”
I could have used an example of an alcoholic doctor, except in that case I would have used an irrelevant example, since philandering does not necessarily impair one’s motor skills or debilitate the liver, to name just a few of the PHYSICAL consequences of alcoholism.
“Sypholis, gono, herpes, clamidia, HIV are all virals that can and do make it into places where they “should†not have been discovered.”
Well thanks for the newsflash, but even monogamous men can contract any or all of those microbes through their unfaithful partners.
In fact, philandering doctors can practice safe(er) sex and avoid those nasty beasties, just as anyone else can.
“My fascination with my health precludes me from giving in to a genious doctor that may not, for the sake of his genious, be fastidious about all personell in the surgical suite following strict sterile guidelines.”
Oneshef, EVERY doctor, whether or not he or she is the philandering type or not risks their patients’ health when they do not follow standard procedures to avoid infection. Hell, a VIRGIN doctor could infect you with a fair number of nasty little pathogens if he or she was sloppy or careless in his or professional behavior.
“Being puritanical has little to do with seeing through a veil of arrogant behavior by those who believe themselves to be great at their profession…”
Correct. Puritanical behavior would be more commonly associated with concern about who our doctors, politicians, and other members of society are having sex with.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Because someone “gives the finger” to the law means that they have no integrity? For those of us who believe that denying gay people the right to marry is a violation of their civil rights, not to mention unconstitional, defying the unjust law shows great integrity. To me, it makes no difference is this is done by an elected official or a private citizen. Was Rosa Parks lacking in integrity because she gave the finger to the law by refusing to move to the back of the bus? Was Martin Luther King lacking in integrity because he gave the finger to the law by participating in sit-ins at lunch counters? Were the participants in the Boston Tea Party lacking in integrity because they gave the finger to the law? I’m not a huge fan of Gavin Newsom, but attacking someone’s integrity because they “gave the finger to the law” seems like faulty reasoning to me. Attack his integrity for sleeping with friend’s/campaign manager’s wife, not because he gave the finger to the law in your opinion.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Brizz,
Gay marriage is against the law, period. You cannot equate gay marriage with the civil rights of blacks. Our society is based on heterosexual marriage — or was until state and federal governments began destroying it, making it a joke. But, joke or not, it is legal.
Gavin Newsom didn’t face what Rosa Parks faced, not what MLK faced. You insult these people by drawing the specious comparison.
Gavin Newsom is the head of the executive branch of San Francisco. He is supposed to execute — not break — the law. If Newsom wants to change the marriage laws of California, it is his duty to do so through legal channels: the court system.
Let’s be clear: Gavin Newsom doesn’t care about gay marriage. If you think he does, you’re naive. Gavin Newsom is no more the gay mayor than Bill Clinton was the black president.
Gavin Newsom cares about Gavin Newsom. All the gays in SF believed he was their savior — he was engaging in an illegal, egotistical publicity stunt.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Riding in the front of the bus for black people was against the law in many states, period. A black man marrying a white woman was against the law in many states, period. And as far as executing the law, there were a few brave politicians in the South that violated these laws and moved forward the cause of civil rights.
How is our society based on heterosexual marriage? I must have missed that in the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence, or the Magna Carta. Of course you can equate civil marriage with the civil rights of blacks. That’s exactly what it is.
Gay people are denied numerous rights that straight people have. If their long term partner dies, property they purchased together can be seized and sold by blood relatives of the dead partner. They can be denied visitation rights to their children in event of separation. If their partners are arrested, they can be compelled to testify agains them. They can be denied the right to visit their partner in prison.
Marriage gives people numerous rights, all of which are denied to gay people. Denying rights to a group of people is illegal, period. It’s in the 14th Amendment.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Marriage is not a right; it is a privilege, requiring a license — like driving, practicing medicine, etc. States have the right to regulate marriage. The foundation of the USA is heterosexual marriage. Marriage is not in the constitution per se because the right to regulate it is left up to the states.
Denying rights to people — those delineated in the Constitution — is illegal. Denying licenses is not illegal.
My article is about Gavin Newsom, not about gay issues. If you want to address this subject, please write your own article.