This year's Clinton award for sexual misconduct by a senior public official goes to . . . . .
Fernando Lugo, President of Paraguay.
While the alleged misdeeds (notice the plural) took place before he was President, he maintains eligibility for the award because they occurred when he was the Catholic Bishop of San Pedro and technically still bound by his vow of chastity - he is now released from that vow and is allowed to sleep with and impregnate any number of women - interns or not.
The first incident occurred after his election as President. A woman claimed he fathered a baby and he acknowledged paternity. Another woman came forward and then another. I suppose if you're going to break the vow of chastity you may as well go all the way. On the plus side he clearly followed the Catholic guidelines precluding the use of birth control. One wonders if this is an indication of the order of importance on these rules?
It is reported that the Church knew of the allegations as early as 2004 but chose to keep quiet. One wonders if Bishop Lugo went to confession and uttered "Forgive me father for I had twins" and it was misunderstood to be just "Forgive me father for I have sinned?"
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A warped sense of entitlement - screwing constituents
I find it unremarkable that a bunch of politicians around the world have gotten caught fudging expenses. I do find extremely remarkable that they seem to feel absolutely no shame about it.
A city councilor in Toronto expensed public speaking lessons - she had been told she sounded shrill. While the training might have been necessary, it is not clear that her constituents and the rest of Toronto taxpayers should pay for the training.
Two or three Toronto councilors went to a strip joint for lunch (at the invitation of the exotic dancing lobby) . They made a big deal that a) they didn't watch (I'm sure) b) they were interested in the facilities available for the women (i.e. the types of laps provided for dances? the privacy of back rooms?) c) they paid for their own lunch. The strip club didn't give them free lunch they just charged Toronto taxpayers to go for lunch at the peelers.
The Home Secretary in England was fudging her living expenses and got caught (she said she lived with her sister so that she could claim her primary residence as a secondary residence as required for serving in Parliament). Further investigation showed that among other things, she had expensed several pay per view movies that her husband watched - including some porn. Might it be irony that her husband was screwing the British people by watching two Brits screw? There was even larger outcry the he rented Oceans 13 - twice. No only bad choices but bad taste too.
I could go on. And on. But you get the point. This is unbelievable.
A city councilor in Toronto expensed public speaking lessons - she had been told she sounded shrill. While the training might have been necessary, it is not clear that her constituents and the rest of Toronto taxpayers should pay for the training.
Two or three Toronto councilors went to a strip joint for lunch (at the invitation of the exotic dancing lobby) . They made a big deal that a) they didn't watch (I'm sure) b) they were interested in the facilities available for the women (i.e. the types of laps provided for dances? the privacy of back rooms?) c) they paid for their own lunch. The strip club didn't give them free lunch they just charged Toronto taxpayers to go for lunch at the peelers.
The Home Secretary in England was fudging her living expenses and got caught (she said she lived with her sister so that she could claim her primary residence as a secondary residence as required for serving in Parliament). Further investigation showed that among other things, she had expensed several pay per view movies that her husband watched - including some porn. Might it be irony that her husband was screwing the British people by watching two Brits screw? There was even larger outcry the he rented Oceans 13 - twice. No only bad choices but bad taste too.
I could go on. And on. But you get the point. This is unbelievable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
