Skip to main content

huma huma

ok, i just need to get something out of my system...

weiner roast
we have a weiner
everybody loves a weiner

i could go on, especially since i haven't even started to imagine the possibilities of "carlos danger", but really, this guy makes it too easy.

yes, anthony "look at my" weiner is making news again for the exact same reason he last made news, which was by flashing bits of himself at pretty young things over the internet, this time using the aforementioned pseudonym "carlos danger", because, clearly, there was no chance that that could ever be turned into a joke. [actually, there really isn't much need to turn it at all. calling yourself carlos danger is a joke that requires no further embellishment.]

this time, however, more prominence is being given to his wife- his beautiful, smart, successful wife- huma abedin. she remained fairly quiet the last time her husband got caught shaking a tail feather at a 20-something twitterer and was pretty classy even when notable nutjob michele bachmann accused her of being an agent of the muslim brotherhood. i can't say that i'd have her patience or grace in the public spotlight.

of course, abedin has been able to learn stoicism in the face of public humiliation from the master as a long-time friend, aide and ally to hilary clinton. no woman has ever had to endure the sort of scrutiny of her husband's extra-pants activities as hilary did and, ultimately, she came through it well. but does that make it a good plan of action?

abedin apparently considered leaving the wayward weiner when she first found out about his "relapse", but reconsidered because she believed that he was a good father to their son. that's entirely possible, but i'd argue that part of being a good father is being a good example. there is no way that this poor kid isn't going to find out about all this and then he'll be left to figure out the lessons he's supposed to take from it. anthony weiner has repeatedly used a social media platform to solicit thrills outside of his marriage. not only does he not have enough respect for his wife to be monogamous, but he doesn't even care enough about her feelings to take steps to ensure that his dalliances stay out of the public view. if you ask me, that makes him not only a crappy husband, but also a crappy father, being willfully ignorant of the affects his actions will have on the people closest to him.

although i feel lousy piling on abedin when she's down, i can't help feeling that there's something very wrong with the logic of staying with a repeat offender [a repeat public offender] for the child. for starters, it implies that the child will somehow be deprived of the parent in the event of a divorce. i was eight when my parents divorced and i assure you, that isn't the case.

second, it comes uncomfortably close to assigning blame to the child. huma abedin may have her own reasons for deciding to stay with her husband. very possibly she loves him and wants things to work out between them. that's fine if that's the way that she feels, but it has precisely nothing to do with their son. saying that you decided to stay together because of him implies that if he weren't in the picture, you would have made a different decision, that perhaps you wanted to make a different decision.

louis ck likens continuing with a marriage "for the sake of the kids" to holding in a bowel movement for the rest of your life and i'll admit that i agree with him. sooner or later the backed up fury that consumes you is just going to become part of your personality and your relationships will be tainted by it. i hope that huma abedin is able to avoid that fate, for both herself and her child. her husband is making it... wait, i need to rethink my phrasing here... her husband isn't making it easy.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …