The lovely adulterous Affair
Being from Minnesota I felt quite compelled to write about this next topic. First let me ask you this, can you think of any term in American history that isn’t tainted by at least one sex scandal? Wish I could say that for the land of tater-tot hot dish, but I guess that simply isn’t the case.
To give you a little background the story goes that former State Senate staffer Michael Brodkorb claims he was unfairly targeted and thus fired because of a fling he had with Senate Majority leader Amy Koch (who is married by the way), while there have allegedly been other other instances of public staffers and their superiors knockin’ boots, but have still kept their jobs. Knowing the giant oxymoron that is local & national politics, I’d say there’s probably a grain of truth to that. Here’s what Brodkorb’s lawyer had to say:
“He intends to depose all of the female legislative staff employees who participated in intimate relationships, as well as the legislators who were party to those intimate relationships, in support of his claims of gender discrimination,” his attorney said in the document setting up Brodkorb’s reason for a possible wrongful dismissal lawsuit.
Even though Koch was let go a day before Brodkorb was fired at a local restaurant downtown St. Paul in December he still plans on exposing and bringing down any staffers that have had certain “trysts” in the past. This should get interesting. Very quickly. However, Koch is taking the exact opposite route. Here is an excerpt from the full notice of claims:
In the months that followed her resignation, she has not spoken of the relationship and on Wednesday she said she would not speak of anything related to the legal matter, including refusing to confirm the Brodkorb as the identity of the staffer with whom she had an affair.
And do not fret readers of Political Profanity, I will be there to publish and further embarrass these two when more details come forward. Put your helmets on and strap up your boots everybody. The truth is a cold-hearted bitch with a 14 inch strap on. And I shall be there to provide the lube.
South Park: "No more Blue Balls" Episode
I’ll try to keep this one slightly brief and to the point since I think we all know how far this would go if this man God forbid were to become elected. Apparently, GOP hopeful Rick Santorum vows to crackdown on internet porn in order to make it become a thing of the past. He literally wants to catch you with your pants down, sorry I had to. This shall redefine those slightly awkward times of your parents possibly catching you in the act that one infamous day.
Though stated the main goal of his plan would be to take it down via the internet, there is however, one small hitch to his plan that stands in the way of pornographic domination. The constitution. If I were a betting man, I’d say that most would fight this tooth and nail citing the first amendment to freely express oneself which they’re right for doing so. Here’s what Santorum’s camp had to say on the matter:
“The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”
Obscenity laws? My guess is that these were created a few decades ago making them slightly out-of-date? Even though “pornography” itself has been around for hundreds of years in some form. If I’m not mistaken I think the ideals/attitudes on sexuality as a whole have changed to a less “lock-step” viewpoint. Rick’s own ideologies might slowly be alienating himself in the same regard to what’s happening to Ron Paul for his foreign policy views on Iran. Among some other things. Though probably with Santorum’s luck if elected, I’m sure we’d be seeing him pull an Anthony Wiener of some fashion down the line.
However, from the other side UCLA Law professor, Eugene Volokh explained:
“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,” noted Volokh. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he explained.
This may be true, but ultimately boils down to no more than wishful thinking. Like prohibition for Alcohol by self-absorbed ideologues, “cracking down” on internet porn would do absolutely nothing to curb demand, but merely drive it underground. Why do these hopefuls & elected officials love repeating the bad parts of history? Not to mention that I think there are some other far worse things out there that need our attention besides Brazilian fart porn. Ugh. If the powers that be received such an outcry from the SOPA & PIPA blackout than can you imagine the hell to pay if our porn was taken away from us? Oh, the fun possibilities of underground/black market porn. I can see it now.