JFK, FDR, Cain, The Cos and the Kama Sutra

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bill Cosby, long America's father figure, is being body slammed, again, by allegation of sexual misconduct. The Cos is presently ignoring attempts to get him to address this issue.

In the most recent NPR interview, The Cos kept his mouth shut despite repeated questioning from Scott Simon.

Yay Bill!

Yay for several reasons, enumerated here in whatever order they happen to fall out of my brain.

1) It's none of the media's business. Really. Cos is a public figure, but he does not make policy, create or pass laws or do pretty much anything that can directly affect any of us. So, his character and how he conducts himself is irrelevant. If you don't like his forms of entertainment, don't partake of it.

2) It's none of your business. Your prurient interest in him is only driven by the fact he's a celebrity. If he was a man living two cities away from  you, likely you'd not care one bit. If you don't like his forms of entertainment, don't partake of it.

3) If anything illegal happened, it's a matter for the courts. That does make it your business, but only after charges are filed. Someone showing up and making a claim is so much bullshit.

4) It's a matter between Bill and the accusers. You ain't got a dog in this fight, unless it goes to criminal court.

Why all this mass interest in what other people do to and with each other? It's not new (nor is it news as I just said). Ancient literature is packed with sex. Even the Bible has plenty of gossip about patriarchs making the beast with two backs. Yes. Gossip.

Attention to the sexual habits of other people, and turning that into news, got its modern start with Gary Hart when he took a cruise with on the aptly named Monkey Business with Donna Rice. I met and talked at length with the then-editor of The Miami Herald newspaper, the paper which broke this story. He told me the paper was swamped the next day with subscription cancellations. Most returned. Today, wouldn't be a whimper.

To me this was news. Hart, as he was running for president, displayed exactly what kind of character he had. Character is important in the people who choose as our leaders.

But, it's not always been news. Ted Kennedy got away with murder, nee' Chappaquiddick and the late Mary Jo Kopechne. Were a US sinator (no typo there) to do the same thing today, he'd be hounded out of office.

FDR, the nearly sainted president handicapped by polio, kept a spare bedroom for his mistress. The press cadre surrounding him knew of this, but said nothing. JFK was also well known for boot knocking outside the confines of his marriage to Jackie, but the press was again silent.

Now, it's news. Herman Cain's run for the presidency was derailed by allegations from women. So far as I know, those allegations remain allegations. I'm could be convinced their stories were faked and aimed at ending his run for president.

FDR, JFK and Hart are different than Cain. Hart was caught and called out. The MH editor talked about it at length and how Hart replied "I don't know" to the reporter's questions, despite the reporter having plenty evidence of what was going on. Cain was simply accused.

What two (or more) consenting adult people do to and with each other is none of your business, unless you're one of the consenting adults, the vast majority of the time. The only time it is your business is when one of those people is in a position to affect you directly, as in an elected official. Even then, it only becomes your business when one of those people lies, cheats or steals. That shows character. If the person is willing to lie, cheat and steal in their private life, they'll do so when in office.

Adding consternation to confusion ... or the other way 'round

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What is freedom of speech? Really.

Do you have the unfettered right to say any anything you want to, any time you want to, wherever you want to under any circumstances?

No. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. It is ok to yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse. You can't incite people to riot, agitate for the violent overthrow of the US government (which I have issues with) and a few more things.

A lot of people think they have the unfettered right, in the US anyway, to say whatever they want to in letters to the editor, posts on social media and so forth.

You don't.

Freedom of speech prevents the government from shutting your piehole, except in some very narrow circumstances.

It does not mean you get to have your say when someone else is footing the bill.

That, like much of what I right (that is not a typo), doesn't make sense.

Try this: Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press.

Let's make this practical, if a bit personal.

I run a newspaper. I publish letters to the editor. Am I obligated to print your letter to the editor?

No.

You disagree? Please show me in the Constitution, a state or federal law which requires a private company to let you have your say. I can show you many laws, including court decisions, which say you can't have your say on my time.

In short, if I'm paying for it, I decide what gets to be said. If you pay, you get to decide.

You don't like it? Start your own newspaper. Government can't stop you, nor can I use the law to stop you..

Free speech is a big issue on Facebook. Lots of people think they can say whatever they wish on FB and FB can't make them stop.

Not true.

FB is paying the bills and FB gets to decide what is said. If you don't like it, you can start your own social media and set the rules to please you. FB, being a private company, has no obligation to support or enable your right to free speech.

On the other side of this coin, and this is what confuses people the most, free speech is the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. You can't be forced to speak.

That's why FB can shut down discussion groups. That's why I don't have to publish your letter to the editor.

Free speech is a block on government, period.