It’s media day, or watchdog day, or, the day to ask a few questions about ourselves.
When can a politician just make such a claim? Quotes lifted directly from the article, in context:
Reporter: “Is Miss Salinas pregnant?”
Mayor: “I can tell you emphatically that that question is outrageous, and the answer is no, she is not pregnant.”
Villaraigosa continued, because he always continues: “And that’s why-the fact that you would ask a question like that-that’s precisely why I said that the details of this relationship are a personal matter. I’ve acknowledged the relationship. I’ve acknowledged the divorce. But more than that is frankly not a public matter.”
The back story is that the mayor of LA was involved with a reporter, insert appropriately crude references here, and that the mayor was married, just not to that reporter. And the story about his divorce was delivered by the reporter, only, it neglected to mention that she was the third party.
It’s a crime of conscience. I suppose, and one I’ve seen – been involved with – on more than one occasion. Nice way to put it. Been on both sides of that fence. All three sides, really, with my clients, too. Which is why, despite the protests, I do live like a monk. More or less. Less than more, but who’s counting and who’s courting? This isn’t about me, it’s about the mayor of LA and the member of the fourth estate that the mayor was probing with his member. While he was still married. Which, as near as I can tell, is an ethical violation. Not so much a legal violation, but the ethical point should be clear, married to one, and until that divorce is done, he’s still beholden unto his wife. I suppose, there could be some fine print, or an understanding, but since it wasn’t duly noted?
Maybe they broke up, maybe they drifted apart, but it’s bad timing, if you ask me. Besides, what made the mayor so attractive to that reporter was probably two main elements, and this is pure common sense, one, he’s a political figure, and that carries the aura of power. Two, he’s married; therefore, he is officially off-limits. Not even catch and release, that’s a “no fishing” sign. I’ve found, and documented the facts myself, about the allure of the wedding ring.
When do our public officials get fact-checked? What’s proper etiquette for public officials’ private lives? And do we get to hammer this guy for doing something, suggested act of sexual congress, with an icon that, apparently, a lot of guys would like to do?
But it’s not about that, not really, it’s about sticky personal issues that are flaunted in front of the public’s view. Prodded and plodded out for all to see; for all to make prurient and prudish remarks.
Is it okay to invade the mayor’s private life? The problem is, it’s only an ethical question and the question is about behavior. The point it brings up, in my mind, has more to do with the nature of the crime. While it was only some aspect of of his personal life, he was wiling to act against conventional morals. Which is the question, as the guy at the helm for the local government, begs the question, what else would he be willing compromise?
Additional coverage: SF Gate, Times UK and
Mercury News. City of Angles (sick).
I can’t find attribution or source, but what I understood, the European minds didn’t find anything wrong with the public officials having affairs. Almost like it was expected. I’ve heard similar tales from other cultures as well. This isn’t a real quote from a real client, but it could’ve been, “He told me he was hispanic, and therefore, it was in his culture to cheat. He was supposed to.”
Cultural imperative. I don’t see that argument working for the mayor of LA. Matter of fact, I don’t see that argument working at all. Not for anyone.
Two Meat Tuesday (the book)
(cure for the common horoscope)
Enough pontification:
Onto big foot. Texas Bigfoot, but not the 4X4 Bigfoot.