By Cliff Montgomery – June 7th, 2011
The corporate media may not be able to ask the tough questions about things like Iraq, the so-called ‘War onTerror’, or why not one major banker or stock peddler has gone to jail for the economic meltdown of 2008. Butwhen the issue is tawdry sex, you better believe you’re going to get spoon-fed every juicy detail.
“A day after admitting a ‘hugely regrettable mistake,’ Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) faced a battle for hispolitical survival on two fronts,” crowed The Washington Post today. The paper proudly proclaimed that Rep.Weiner faces questions on his political future both from “within his Democratic caucus and inside the Houseethics committee.”
“With the House out of session till Monday, Weiner is likely to spend the rest of this week in his Brooklyn-Queens district,” the Post continued, “following Monday’s admission that for the past three years he hasengaged in sexually explicit communications with women in various online settings.
“Weiner announced Monday that he would not resign and intends to run for an eighth term in 2012,” statedthe paper.
The biggest issue here is why anyone would waste time discussing such a silly matter.
America is in the third year of the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Thiscountry is engaged in two wildly expensive military misadventures, only one of which may have been necessary.Its government is running a huge deficit, and practically no one in politics has the strength of character toproperly tax the few people with all the money.
But politicians and the corporate media can immediately join to yell and scream about Weiner’s weiner.
Perhaps all the yelling boils down to the one advantage it provides for those in power: Such displays of falseoutrage keep ordinary Americans preoccupied as the world crumbles around them.
Therefore we may expect more of these charges and counter-charges in the future. The 1950s had the ‘Redscare’, where every person in power was accused of being a Bolshevik. These days, every one in power will beaccused of some apparent perversion.
And like the ’50s ‘Red scare’, the charge doesn’t have to be true. It only has to be plausible, and damning toone’s public persona.
This afternoon, we performed a bit of honest research on what big sexual witch hunt might soon come fromthose with no answers for our very real problems. The charge would have to be something which could beclaimed about nearly any politician, even those with wonderful marriages. And it would have to be somethingwhich simultaneously captures the interest or secret fascination of many Americans, while still being a publicly”taboo” subject.
We at The American Spark sincerely believe it won’t be long before someone on Capitol Hill is accused ofcuckoldry.
A cuckold is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a man whose wife has sex with someone else.”
It’s a phrase not used much these days by the general public, but it seems to have captured the heatedimaginations of a raging subculture. A quick Google search on the word ‘cuckold’ produces “about 31,500,000results,” and there appears to be numerous web sites, blogs, and a host of captioned pictures on this bizarrematter.
But why?
A more modern–and more damning–definition of cuckoldry may be found at Wikipedia, of all places:
A cuckold can also be a male who gains sexual gratification out of watching his partner have intercourse with other people. Participation can range from simply watching, to being forced to join in or even forced to give sexual gratification to the other male also.
Wikipedia is not a proper source for most things, but it appears to have gotten this one right.
Now can you imagine the field day the corporate press would have if a lawmaker is accused of being a moderncuckold? Can you imagine the pretense of disgust its talking heads would offer, even as they feel compelled togive us every horrible detail of every acted-out fantasy?
Oh, and our quick little search discovered another gem. Many who practice the cuckold lifestyle have addedsome extra spice to their kink: The other man is often a well-endowed Black Man.
Think of how that would play in the Deep South…
And again, the charge doesn’t have to be true. It only has to be sufficiently plausible to destroy a politician’s reputation.
There’s a historical rumor that President Lyndon B. Johnson was running a fierce campaign against a politicalopponent, and made a number of personal charges against the man. It’s said that finally an aide felthe had to correct Johnson on those statements.
“Sir, there’s really no evidence that any of these things you’re saying about your opponent are true,” the aide issupposed to have said.
Rumor has it that Johnson let out a huge laugh and replied, “Hell boy, I don’t care if the charges are true–I justwant to make the sonofabitch deny ’em!”
Which is why we’re betting on some smear artist to eventually accuse a lawmaker of being a cuckold in themodern sense. Such a powerful, yet hard-to-disprove smear would be bliss for political groups more interestedin tearing down others than in coming up with real answers to America’s actual problems.
And these days, it appears that smears are all our political groups have to offer.
