Fritz:

I can’t believe that after were discussing how politicians and political servants need to be above and beyond all suspicion (in context of the Kennedy death—and how you believe he should have resigned regardless of the verdict of his constituents and I questioned this because of the affective consequences of his subsequent actions) we get Spitzer back.

Now comes Elliot Sptizer—after the failing of engaging prostitutes and hiding the funds to do so in private accounts—reconsidering running for public office.

Which raises the larger conversation we ought to have: specifically—need Caesar’s wife, or indeed, Caesar himself be above even the appearance of impropriety or have we changed?

I remember years ago with my father driving back from Buffalo to Rochester after a Bill’s game when he expressed his immense disappointment in Clinton for ‘throwing it all away’ (his chances at really changing things) because of his own moral failings.

I responded that truthfully, I wasn’t looking for virtue, or a role model in a President, but a competent CEO. That I wanted the right results and that those talents infrequently coincided with personal virtue and I couldn’t give a damn about his personal life—just get the job done right. And further that I thought we were nuts for confusing and melding the jobs of personal virtue with political effectiveness (though I dearly wish they overlapped and applaud when they do).

So—what say you about Spitzer eying a comeback to politics in any number of capacities from Senator to AG to Assemblyman to Representative? Does his personal failing disqualify him? Does it continue to do so even though New York enjoys the single most incompetent state government in the Union (excepting Texas, of course) with the majority of our key officials being unelected? Spitzer made a decent AG. If the people of NY were to say ‘we can’t care who you screw or who you pay to do it’ would you gainsay them for proprieties’ sake—even after there’s no chance for corruption of duty once it’s public knowledge?

At what point do we become like our European brethren and leave our dicks out of this?

What do you think?

in the room, i.e., when Spitzer dallied with prostitutes, no one died as a consequence. This strikes me as a non-trivial distinction.

I can't believe he has a serious chance of being elected dogcatcher, though that would be a step up from Slate columnist. Delusional, though that's apparently nothing new.

His whole schtick was the tough-as-nails persecutor, valiantly fighting against corruption even if it didn't exist, just because people needed to be kept honest. Or put in jail. Or something. Because, dammit, they were not the paragons of virtue exemplified by Eliot Spitzer.

I would think that aura is now lost.

He's not Marion Berry, with the race thing to fall back on. He has nothing on which to fall back. A tarnished Javert is not loved by anyone. There's a great exchange in I, Claudius (though not in the book). "Everyone's loved after they're dead," jokes Sejanus. Livia shoots back "I wouldn't count on that if I were you." Apt in this case.

My favorite part was his comment on Mark Sanford. Disdainfully sneering, "at least I never fell in love with any of them." A true gentleman!

Worthless, shameless, over.

But the issue raised is fitness after any appearance of impropriety. Where do we draw that line?

And the death was (in my opinion) unavoidable.

But it doesn’t answer the question. At what point do we draw the line on impropriety? (I suggest hot southern cousin lust).

And I’ll stop calling you Shirley.

As long as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and a few others remain at large instead of behind bars, we don't really draw that line anywhere.

Sorry, focused on the trees.

I guess the lesson to be learned from Spitzer is that his scandal directly undermined his greatest and perhaps only selling point. He can't therefore recover from it. There was no reservoir of goodwill from any other source than his virtuous law-abideyness.

Geithner is a serial and intentional tax-dodger, which would ordinarily be problematic for a Treasury Secretary, but was confirmed because he had the Obama halo. Ted Kennedy had the Kennedy name and the tragedies of his brothers.

So as to a larger theory, you'd need a scandal that rips away your image, rendering your main asset a running joke. And have nothing else to fall back on.

And that's as deep as I get, as the Ghost will affirm.

where did you read his comment about Mark Sanford? I haven't seen that anywhere.

There is every reason to believe Spitzer will make a roaringly successful political comeback; he's loaded and has family connections, much like Kennedy. Perhaps he should put aside his Jewish faith for a moment and also try writing a letter to the Pope. Seems to have worked swell for Teddy, word is he went straight to heaven.

You know… living with buildings getting knocked down and shit (with two attempts on the same target) the most dysfunctional state legislature in the union and 8 million people on an island (recognizing their vulnerability) they tend not to care much whether one adheres to their own beliefs as much as they care whether someone can get things done. It’s not a bad standard but as Fritz points out it definitely has its downside.

Nonetheless, playing hide the salami on the side hardly seems to be the best litmus test for incompetence (or competence for that matter).

That said—the keeping the socks on thing—that’s just creepy and should disqualify you for anything because, hey… that’s just wrong. Get naked or don’t, but if you can share bodily fluids socks seems like an odd sort of armor… unless, of course, you’re Donny Osmond and they’re purple. (Bonus points to anyone in the thread that gets that reference).

Marvel is wayyy better than DC at both superheroes and the hot babes. DC superheroes are powerful with one or two slight weaknesses. Marvel heroes are neurotic wrecks (as all truly powerful people are) and the Marvel women are way hotter. Certainly better than Harley (take that you cretin—Pow! Bam! Ziippf!)

Disney…. I’m not worried. They didn’t take it to make it lesser—they needed a lead in to the male demographic and they’ll exploit it and leave it alone just as they stratify their other entertainment studios by demographic. Iron Man’s still a drunk, Spider Man’s still an unlucky bastard, Wolverine’s still a wreck, Punisher’s still a bastard, Emma Frost is still ridiculously a playmate pinup, Hulk is still psychotic, Johnny Storm is still an immature womanizer and Jean Grey is still a redheaded monster waiting to be unleashed.

Business as usual.

athletes foot fungus. That, or he had really long toenails and forgot his toenail clipper. Either way it's still wrong.

Do you know that not once but on two different occasions, I was on a bus to NYC and someone sitting up front was clipping their toenails? Unbelievable.

Oooohh….. gross! Make that image stop!!

Damnit people, get naked, or don’t get down! Jesus! What is wrong with these people? A little hygiene please?!

My theory—he’s a mutant elf and those feet give him away. I mean… look at his face… and those ears… elf I tell you, ELF! Bet those damn socks had bells.

Is the Mary Anne vs Ginger of our age.

I don't really have any interest in the Marvel-DC rivalry. Aside from some Alan Moore stuff, I'm exclusively a Batman fan. First, there aren't any superpowers, which is a plus. The grim, rain-drenched granite facings of Gotham are right up my aesthetic alley. And the villains are without parallel in any comic book universe. Ever since Paradise Lost, I've gravitated more toward villains. They always get the best lines. Or, in opere, the best songs. They are the driving force behind the Batman stories, because their characters are so varied and well-developed. Batman's sort of a deus ex machina, or vengeful Fury that swoops in at the end. But the stories revolve around the villain.

Be of good cheer, though! Your gal Poison Ivy will be this weekend's special guest villain.

And of course, be sure to reserve your tickets for the upcoming movies featuring Marvel heroes Captain America and (snicker, snort) Thor. Yup. A fine franchise.

That's the real question for those studios.

No Superpowers…

What makes superheroes unique? Superman is Superman—not someone with another identity that becomes a superhero—his secret identity is Clark Kent (as famously noted in the ‘Kill Bill’ movie). Marvel equivalents exist—Hercules, and other.

But the interesting ones are those with no inherent super powers. Batman has no superpowers—other than his own mind and strength. Marvel equivalent? IronMan. Like Bruce Wayne, his powers come from his brain and expertise.

Movie blockbusters—involve those who are unique thus far. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, IronMan. Not coincidental. Revealing of what people identify with.

And yeah, well, Ivy’s a redhead. I mean… C’mon. Oh—and interestingly the above characters stories all revolve around the villains. The interesting other narratives are the ‘esprit de corps’ types plots (Green Lantern coming to a theater near you) and the vengeance tales (Ghost Rider, Punisher, etc.).

Now, what would be cool is a LSH movie. Think of all the different possibilities in plot lines and agendas. Plus time travel.

Oh--and Captain America--also no super powers. Not a bad 'zine. Thor? Ridiculous, but they were thinking what's the difference between powers and (primitive) godlike powers? Kinda brave to take the risk given the possibility of blowback from using a mythology that employs divinity. (not that Harley and Ivy aren't divine... but c'mon... redheads win).

Demo:

with Spitzer thrashing W$?