I don't know about you, but after the astonishing parade of Republican sexual misadventures over the past year or so I'd been starting to think the Democrats were off their game. But finally someone's put the Democrats back in the sexual spotlight.
Matthew Barrett, a young Democratic state representative in Ohio was giving some high school kids a civics lecture when he decided to branch out and make it an anatomy lecture. You see, what he apparently didn't know is that Windows PCs can be set to automatically display images on a USB drive as a slideshow when such a drive is inserted.
That's the sort of thing you really should know if your going to store nude photos on the same drive as your PowerPoint presentation on how a bill becomes law. So the high school kids saw a more lively slideshow than they were expecting when an image of a topless woman appeared onscreen.
I wouldn't even be joking about this if he had traumatised the kids with something appalling like goatse, but it's nothing they can't find in a mass circulation tabloid. Still, a politician showing school kids a nude picture is a pretty big fuck-up. And he's using the classic "I have no idea how that got there - somebody gave this drive to me" defence. Yeah, and Larry Craig has a "wide stance".
Actually, I really hope the guy is lying. If he really didn't know about the porn then he's an idiot and almost criminally negligent. Here's a tip for ANYONE giving computer based presentations to kids: check first and MAKE SURE there is no porn on the same drive as your presentation. This is not something you want to leave to chance.
I wonder what Republican will be the first to trumpet this as an example of the moral laxity of Democrats? I think it's almost inevitable that somebody will and to be honest, that makes me sick. There are few things I hate more than a hypocrite. One thing I hate more is a hypocrite who uses their public office to persecute people for sexual preferences that they themselves share but won't admit to.
Why the fuck can conservatives not simply admit that sexual differences like homosexuality are normal? To cling to the insane notion that homosexuality (for instance) is abnormal and/or a sin against god is (a) to villify a huge section of the population and (b) to ignore a massive presence in their own ranks.
If you follow this link you'll find a site detailing an astonishing compendium of conservative misdeeds. To be fair, the site is shamelessly partisan, sometimes to an absurd degree. To repeat the claims of crazy people and strippers who say they've had sex with President Bush is pretty ordinary. I'm not saying Bush categorically hasn't had sex with strippers and crazy people but given people's propensity to vilify public figures, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
And speaking of Presidents, why the fuck can conservatives not leave the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing alone? So he let an adult female who wanted to suck his dick actually suck his dick. Deal with it. Personally, I think he was wrong to do it. Regardless of the consensual nature of the episode, it was still an abuse of power. Plus, it was an appalling insult to his wife. And yes, I think it cheapened the office of the President.
Also, if you read the details, it shows he has some really creepy issues with power and control. And feel free to call me conservative but I think people actually have the right to expect that their leaders don't exploit their position to score booty.
Mind you, this isn't quite as serious a breach of trust as lying to the public so you plunge the country into an illegal war, squandering untold thousands of lives and billions of dollars, eviscerating what had been a thriving economy and crushing what the population sees as their basic (i.e. consitutional) rights.
But hey, never forget: Clinton had his dick sucked.