Watching the former governor of the state of New York dragging his wife along to his mea culpas, I was , yet again, reminded of how politicians behave in ways that seem alien to the rest of us humans. Who else but a politician would have his wife standing mutely by while he spilled his guts to the world about his sexual shenanigans, and that didn't involve her?

Is there some kind of mutated gene that makes for 'politicians'? Or is it the fact that so many of them start out as lawyers, most ( arguable) of whom pretty well accepting that they will have to leave their basic human morality at the door as they work on behalf of clients with their own questionable moral baggage?

All good 'politician' and 'lawyer' jokes accepted here. And serious comment too, of course.

I came into this with the intent of making a joke, but as I typed, I realized that as a serviceman, I have a deep hatred of politicians. So much in fact, that I even felt my body begin to heat up with anger, and just two minutes ago I was in a fairly good mood.
Considering politicians treat soldiers as if we're produced in a factory like little green army men, and our lives are completely worthless, I really don't care when bad things happen to them, and when it's something this ironic, I absolutely love it.
The guy in charge of catching internet predators, is himself an online pedophile
The former DA who championed "moral crimes" like prostitution, is himself such a dedicated John that a hooker went WAY out of her area to see him
The biggest opponent of gay rights, was having sex with the teen intern boys
The biggest opponent of alternative life styles and gay marriage, busted for soliciting sex from a male cop on the toilet
The guy who said america's 9-11 terror attack was an act of god as punishment for gays, drugs, and a perverted society, turned out to be a married preacher who was busted for doing drugs with his gay lover.

After thinking about how they treat us, I absolutely love it when something happens to one of them. 99 percent of the time, it will be something so poetic that it makes me want to touch myself.

I don't think subspecies would apply here. Subspecies would imply that they were born seperate, and cannot interbreed with humans (in this case). And his wife probably knew (or atleast suspected) it happening before any of us. And she's either had to listen to him practice the speach several times now, (which may lessen the pain) or may be more interested in how much she will be able to get from him once the devorce papers are put in. Since it was his fault, and he was governor (or something) at the time, that could be quite alot. Or maybe they wanted a devorce to begn with, and in that state (or within his religion) someone HAS to be found at fault with evidence for it to be approved. While losing your job would be an extreme casualty, it it's planned right, the damage can be lessened.

Woogie...I didn't mean for anybody to brought low by this thread, 'course hypertension will always be a by-product when discussing politicians. At least you seem to find reasons to be cheerful by the end of your piece. Perhaps that is why Nature allowed them to evolve along with the human race: it makes us humans feel so gooood when they are brought low.
Politicians everywhere seem content to wrap themselves in the battle honours of the troops which they send gaily off to war, even though they themselves rarely have the guts to do the duty.
At least some of your pols do resign. Ours rarely do, these days. They just get shifted to some other ministry, leaving their whoopsies behind for another of their spawn to try to clean up, or , more likely, avoid doing so while blaming someone else.

Vagrant... is there any actual proof that pols do breed with humans? I mean... look at the governor's wife's behaviour. Is that the behaviour of a normal human woman whose husband has done the dirty on her, and then expects her to stand by his slimy side on prime- time? Don't think so.
Or maybe that was part of her settlement. Though I do like the conspiracy theory aspects of them doing the whole thing just to get out of being married to each other. Yet another example of sub-human behaviour.
As to this particular chap getting away with it... I think the Fibbies might have other ideas about that.

They are of course a part of the human race - warts and all. They all have faults and maybe vices, they will have done things in their youth that they might wish they hadn't. Actually little of it ought to matter. Do we want a government made up of people who are NOT like the rest of the human race?

What always amazes me is how so many of them seem to be born arch-hypocrites. The examples Woogie gives emphasise the point but these are high profile. Routine taking of kick-backs in various forms while professing to stand against corruption. Believing that the law is for everyone except politicians. Finding everyway possible to 'milk' the system financially while proselytising the need to clamp down on fraud. It seems to be endemic. (There are I am sure honourable exceptions i.e. those who haven't been found out yet.)

As an actor I know that the best politicians have mastered many acting techniques. And one of these is of course pretending to be someone you are not very convincingly. The difference is that an actor knows he is playing a part, a politician can too easily forget it.

At the end of the day though is it entirely their fault? We should be able to accept people with faults provided they do not impact on their effectiveness and ability in the political arena. This need to have everybody 'squeaky clean' means they all have to lie and cover up reality. As the saying goes, every nation gets the politicians they deserve.

Malchik... it seems to me that you raise many points which tend to back up my question. No, of course they're not a subspecies. More of a subset, like a criminal class.
Think of generations of criminals being born to the same families. That kind of thing. A criminal mind set seems to be passed on as part of their cultural milieu. Politicians seem , with some few honourable exceptions, to be from the same mold. There seems to be a propensity for the activities you mention inbuilt into their make up.
Sure, we as normal humans are capable of all sorts of wrong doing and some of us give in to it. But I don't think that, other than in the professional criminal class I mentioned, the will to ... 'the wrong' ( I almost said 'sin' but that's too loaded with religious overtones) is quite so developed in people as much as it is in politicians.

Here is a personal example of what I'm trying, but probably failing, to get at. I was a Labour voter all my adult life. You could have called me white collar 'old Labour'. (I'm afraid this kind of minutae is going to leave our American friends scratching their heads...) I was, in effect, a gut lefty. (Fortunately, progressive hardening of the arteries has cured me of that 'affliction' and I'm as Right reactionary as almost anyone could desire, now.) I kept the 'faith' through out all the DARK TIME, believing what the left wing politicians , HM Opposition, were so eloquently telling me that they would do if only, if only....

One of my proudest boasts to myself is that I never voted for Blair. We'd decamped to Scotland by then, so I got to vote for another bunch who will also probably turn out to be charlattans in Office. I had begun to see through Blair and his new-labourites pretty early on. Not too hard to if one was paying attention. Tory lite at the time. Tory Heavy, when in office.

I'm getting to the point. Trust me.

Blair got his obscene majority. A goat could have had an obscene majority standing against the broken Tories, then. A goat would have had character. As it was, we got characterless, spineless sheep. Multitudes of Labour sheep. The same people who had made us believe that they would 'fight the good fight' for almost 20 years, that ' the New Jerusalem ' would dawn with a Labour victory, that most of the things that were so wrong with our Islands would be put right. All we had to do was ' trust' them. Believe that what they were telling us all those years was an approximation of the truth.

Sure, there were some labour rebels against Tony the Tory, Thatcher Lite, Bush's Poodle, The MegaCorp Board Room seat warmer... at least a dozen out of the hundreds who got in on the Lie. The rest, those battalions of sheep, just did what came naturally. They were politicians. They could call black, white. Up, down. A lie, the truth. Without batting an eye. And with never a blush. Over and over.

And this scenerio is repeated in every political party, in every country, in the world.

Do I care if a politician has a few personal blemishes? No. Does it matter as long as they do the job they were elected to do? No. Do we get the politicians we deserve? No.

No,we bloody well don't. For a start, they'd have to be human like the rest of us for us to deserve them.

Are politicians non-human? What a stupid question. Of course they're human! Humans have a certain biological makeup that we all share, and politicians have that same DNA. Being a moron/hypocrite/jerk/liar doesn't change one's DNA.

We know they are human; this is a metaphor. I find the comedy when people say, “Nooooo, that makes no sense look!” It’s almost the preverbal face slap and the “I KNOW, you dumbass!”

Oh wait we can’t say “dumbass”, it’s not ‘politically correct’. We’re becoming far too politically correct and far too afraid to step on other people’s toes. Conjoining, politicians loose sight of their intended purposes. Case and point: “I can’t do anyone any good if I’m not here.” A typical line used during reelections, though they spend most of their time trying to keep their job and not actually doing it.

I knew from the start when I had to read the constitution for American Government, that there was as problem. There is a term limit set for the President, but no term limit set for Congress. Reality check! Why the hell not? If one were to limit the term of a “House” member to six years and a Senate limit to twelve (three terms and two terms respectively), there would be less focus on keeping their job and more on actually accomplishing things. Old crusties who have been in the “business” for decades have lost vision and sight (power corrupts; it’s a plain and simple fact of human nature). But what do I know, yes? I’m just an analysis, a realist, and analytical.

Politicians..... Oh my. Of course, we've all heard the old joke. "Politics- Poli meaning many and Tics meaning bloodsucking creatures." I believe that the joke accurately describes the majority of politicians. I also believe, however, that there are a few people who honestly want to help. I can't really point them out at the moment, but I believe they exist. Or at least, I hope they do.

As for lawyers..... I aspire to be one. Hehehehehe.....

Yes. I think a sack of rabid chimps would do a better job. And it is not impossible to run a country well. What is impossible is to make everyone happy.

I apologize if you thought I was serious. I was, of course, exagerrating. Obviously, rabid chimps could not run a country. My point was that yes, we could do a better job.

I assure you, I have no problems with your people. I was unaware that chimp is a derogatory term. My apologies.

We're drifting from the topic here. I'm not sure that we were asked whether the country could be better run, just whether politicians were lacking certain basic human attributes. I think you have to be of a certain specific mind set to go into politics in the first place. Whether the propensity to being dishonest is part of it I don't know but to survive in politics it's something that has to be learned pretty quickly. Initially the odd bit of covering up here, or misinformation there may be unimportant. Sometimes a politician may have to cover up the truth for national security. After a while it becomes a habit. And sometimes I believe it is not even intentional. The latest round of scandals in the UK seem to involve the MP paying family members inflated salaries at the taxpayers expense for work they arguably didn't do or even needed to do. (The EU government is much much worse but since they have no higher level regulators they simply cover up all criticism.) These MPs seem to be surprised that others think it inappropriate.

But, as I said before, we do seem to want our MPs to be more than human. In most walks of life a married man having an affair with another woman would not cause him to lose his job. A man who used prostitutes or picked up men in gay bars might cause a raised eyebrow but again would probably not result in them being dismissed. (I'll except anything connected to religion.) Does it matter whether President Clinton smoked pot in his youth or Bush was an alcoholic? Of course not. So why do we try to make issues out of these things? That is where society (encouraged by the media), in claiming that public figures cannot have private lives, reinforces the need for dishonesty.

Any government member has to be FINANCIALLY scrupulous. Their sexual peccadilloes only matter when they publically adopt a position on an issue while conducting their lives in a manner contrary that position. But sadly such salacious information sells 'news'.

So, whatever genetic make up leads on into politics, in the matter of dishonesty, society helps to make them the way they are.

That may be your point but it is not what I have said. It's a different topic completely.

I am very well aware of what I said. You may draw whatever conclusion you like but it is NOT my conclusion and nor do I agree with it. Please do not put words into my mouth. And if you wish to debate the matter further let us do it in PM as it is irrelevant to the topic.

Well... I blame myself, really. I was, afterall, the first one to mention sheep on this thread. And what do I find when I log on this AM: sheep EVERYWHERE! Or rather , one particular sheep.

Are you for real Baah? I cannot believe that anyone, no matter where in the world they claim to be from, who attempts to write in the English language can get it as bollixed as you seem determined to do. And what's with all the posts on ALL the threads? Why do the words 'spam' and 'bot' immediately spring to mind? If you are real, and this is the only way that you can express yourself, my apologies, and sympathies.

I can't believe I'm doing this - having a conversation with someone whose reality I sincerely doubt - but here goes...

I can't fault your English, Baah. But your typing sucks. And I do cherish the fact that I have a place in your heart. Really. Really. Really. Really. ....
Oh! What's this!? I notice that ' someone ' has 'repotted' ( to quote Baah ) me. I tremble. I quake. I ... feel bored already.

But I'm definitely taking root.

Anyone want to help me get this thread back on the road? I'd try, but I might allude to livestock again... and look at the trouble that's caused already.

There is always one in every family, crowd, group of random people: a Black Sheep. I find it odd that the voice of this black sheep is very pronounced and emotional, though in context fails to deliver sustenance.

My points on this topic are already expressed on page one, but I post once more due to a compulsive and inexplicable urge to do this once more, as I have in one other thread:
(posts a sign: Don't feed the Trolls)
(bows respectfully)

Thanks for the kickstart, xen. Be wary of mentioning the colour of the livestock, though. 'Someone' has their cursor permanently on the report button. And if 'he' doesn't do you for racism, he'll do you for multiple posting. Of course the latter would be a perfect case of 'the pot calling the kettle...another colour'.

One thing is certain, though. 'He's' no politician. A pol would have finessed all of this so much better, and contrived to make all the rest of us feel guilty for pointing out the fact that the 'man' is a spamming fool.

Which brings me, neatly I think, to my original question. Are they a subspecies? The fact that pols spend so much time and energy in covering their own backsides, all the time professing to be doing everything in the ' interests' of the people, makes me want to put them in the same category as viruses.

They adapt to every new situation with an ease which is frightening. All the time maintaining that they haven't changed their position on such and such an issue at all. They show such contempt for their electorate's intelligence - quite rightly on occasion, unfortunately- that they BEHAVE as if they were detached from the humanity that they claim they represent. And with never an expression of shame until they get caught with their hands where they shouldn't be.

The concept of basic honour - you say a thing and I will believe you until you prove to me that you are not to be trusted - seems alien to politicians. They give every indication of having the visceral impulse to lie, rather than to tell the truth which seems to be humanity's natural impulse. We could not have survived as a species if the element of the giving and receiving of trust was not hardwired into our make up. Politicians seem not to have this. Ergo: they are not us.

Baah... why would you think that xen was referring to you? You, being 'new' to this forum, probably don't know that xen runs a Troll sanctuary. One of his main difficulties is convincing the general public of their, the Trolls, dietary needs. Well meaning folks leave tit bits out for the Trolls and , before you can whistle 'Dixie' you've got a Troll with a serious gastric problem. And , Baah, I'm afraid you've completely lost me on your last query. BTW, I like my new pot. Thanks.

But... as to the issue of this thread. Anything new and mindblowing you wish to share with us?

A millisecond of silence, please, as we remember our late, departed colleague Baah.... 'He' brought a few hectic moments of joy to those of us who live on the Dark Side. 'He' is gone. But not forgotten.

Where was I?

I forget.

Ahh yes. The topic of this thread....

NO! You weren't Xhosna!? Well... I never! You had me fooled, as you must have so many others.

I feel honoured that you should deign to visit my thread, again, and so soon after being 'disappeared'.
Of course, this time I've taken the trouble to include you in quotes because when you disappear again, probably before I get this post finished, I want some kind of context to remain vis a vis my replies to 'you'.

Now. Run along and play. This thread is for grownups, and any one over the age of ten. You'll only hurt yourself if you hang around.
And as much as I delight in your , purely unintentional, humourous value I think that I can get by without your company for a while. TTFN.

If you can find it, it's worth reading Murray Leinster's Plague. It appears that it was in the Feb 1944 issue of Astounding.

Of course, advocating banning specific personality types from politics would likely result in much hostile verbiage.

I'm guessing that that is a 'comic'. Would you mind, Abramul, giving just a short precis, in case I can't lay my hands on it? Or, is it anything more than what you have already provided?

It's a short story. The 1952 Omnibus of Science Fiction is the anthology in which I have it.

The plot is of an atypical lifeform capable of feeding on the life-force of females, able to travel through conductors (electron-based lifeform) being defeated through applied gadgetry. Fairly typical pulp, likely. However, the theme is of a galaxy in which one administrative service has gone unchallenged, and has taken 'red tape' to a new level.

An example:

P.S. Teh intarwebs teach typing skills!

You already know.

You know, of course, politicians possess those qualities identifying them as human. These include the ability to lie, to judge, to obfuscate, to conceal opprobriums. You also know that every human does this regardless of differences in race or class.

You're screwed no matter which way you lean, right? ...left?

Wrong. After years of the same policy, some brash, new face comes along straight up the middle with her wrecking ball threatening to "shake up the establishment" with new policy. She wants to change this and that and Nevermind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols and blah blah blah. How do we feel? We're afraid and we tread upon her and those foolish enough to follow. Americans may remember John Kerry, long teased for his, dare I say, realistic, outlook on politics. And nightly news teased him because he rode the middle, trying to understand the issues from both sides.

It's hardly a new story, but we complain about current world leaders, but fear any substantial change when the time comes to replace them. It's why I don't believe either Obama or Hilary (who aren't all that different) will win anything and we'll probably end up with McCain. Sure, we've got the opportunity to make history- and in so many ways: A first black president, a first female president, a first female vice president, a first black vice president- we could progress substantially as a nation. I don't think that'll happen though. In this light, I think it's right to say "we deserve the leaders we elect", especially in the States where we pride ourself on our political "freedom", but rarely exercise it.

Back on track, politicians do a job, which defines them. Not so foreign a concept. I say their ranks reek of salespeople trying to convince us why their brand name trumps the competition. The biggest difference?

Salespeople get to take a day off.

I for one have a policy when I see a politician.

Hang them by a wire out the window. Of a ten story building.

Muhahahahahaha!

Anyway, yup I do believe politicians are a subspecies of the human race. After all, who but a politician could figure out how to pu a country in debt and remain unimpeached? Plus, like woogie monster I have a deep hatred of politicians.

Actually, many politicians take stands on these very points to win votes, and then either ignore that stand when they win, or are found out to have done things to contradict their "stand". I could respect a person, and even a politician, if he or she said, "I think family is important. Yes I have made mistakes and am paying for it. I am learning my lesson. This is why I think this is important." Substitute family for any number of issues, and you get my point. Instead, these politicians act like they are the judge, jury, and executioner of anything that violates that stand. And yet, secretly, many of them either are, or have, violated that stand themselves. I can't respect a total liar like that. And since these people do VOLUNTEER to try to gain public office, the media playing upon findings about these people do NOT draw any sympathy from me. The average person that might make a mistake isn't trying to put themselves in the spotlight, and gain a measure of large power over others. Politicians do, therefore they should be subject to much more intense scrutiny.

I take your point, xen, but I think that limiting member's terms would just increase the frequency of malfeasence (SP?), not do away with it. The 'old lags' just take a more leisurely view of their potential for wrong doing, and spread the naughtiness over a longer period of time.

A lawyer, hey, Freddy? The study of Law is an exercise in idealism. The practice of it...? You might be morally strong enough to withstand the demands to park your personal ethics while you work on a client's behalf. I hope that you are.

Ab... the idea of the screening out undesirable personality types from the politcal sphere is an intriquing one. So deliciously Brave New World. Trouble is... who would set the parameters?
The people referred to in your 'comic' would seem to be bureaucrats, not politicians. Of course the only real difference between the two is that one enjoys fighting a battle to attain his/her position, whereas the other is content serve his/her time, patiently, inexorably working his/her way to a position of obscene, behind the scenes, influence.
Though they live in a symbiotic (sp?) relationship, just like a virus and its host, I suspect that pols rely on bureaucrats for their continued existence, whereas bureaucrats could probably get by without politicians, who they would see as a minor irritating hindrance to what really should be 'done'.

Doomjockey... the novelty of the first this or the first that would soon wear off. We had a 'first' woman PM. We had a 'first' former rocknroll lead singer PM. I've already expended enough bile on them, so I wont comment futher.
And I think that the race and/or sex of the prospective candidate soon becomes irrelevent once the smoke and mirrors period of 'The Election' is over and he/she gets their slippery legs under the head honcho's desk. They remain politicians.
BTW, salespeople have to show something for their efforts, pols merely have to try to convince us that they are making the effort. And look good doing it.

Newt C... why would you waste a perfectly good bit of wire? Just push, then close the window. Unless, of course, you get off on the rapidly diminishing scream. I know I did. ...oops.

Yes, the contrived novelty will wear off. I didn't mean to give the impression that I believe the situation would magically change for the better with a different race/sex in office. It would, however, be positive if we actually get to that point first. Having a long line of all white, all male, almost all Protestant Christian leaders speaks volumes for a nation flaunting tolerance. And at this point, to assume they'll flounder in office is just cynic doom-say. I don't even like the Democratic platform this year, but I'll be damned if I get behind McCain's "we'll stay in Iraq 100 years if we have to" nonsense. Or any staunch Republican, so said.



It's a matter of expectation, not obligation. The public still expects results even if the administration can't produce them. The real difference is it's harder to "fire" a politician when they don't, simply because the masses don't pay attention to the reasons why- unless they're sensational. Case in point, Clinton's impeachment for real crimes like "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" were largely overshadowed by some wanton acts of office grabass. And there are still Americans out there who don't even know the significance of something like Watergate.

Yeah. The Watergate. That's one brutalist mother of an hotel.

Will reply at length later. Wife insisting I watch French film with her so need to hunt out cokebottle specs to read subtitles.

Later...

There have been so many thoughtful posts to this, with many good points made. However... nothing I have read has convinced me not to believe that pols are almost a different species.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us accept that they ARE human. That what happens to a pol, who isn't bent from the git go out of the cradle, might be something to do with the onset of cynicism, skepticism, pessimism... all the negative isms... that come with getting old (er). That what ever ideals that might have motivated them when they were young enough to have unquestioning ideals became warped with the onset of time, and continued exposure to the former negative 'isms' held by their , supposedly, more mature political colleagues.

Here's a proposal, which should probably be another thread on its own. Have the upper cut off age for politicians to be ...let's say, 29, following Bobby Dylan's ( ascribed to...) dictum of never trusting anyone over the age of 30. ( Though, due to increased longevity in the west, that could be increased, a tad.) And let 'em run for office as soon as they're old enough to join the military, in which ever democratic country they happen to be in, if that isn't already the case,now.

BUT...

The guns , etc, stay in the hands of the old (er) farts.