Gay governor? Who the hell cares?

Gay governor in Jersey. That, to me, is absolutely awesome. The best thing about it? No one is outwardly denouncing the guy for being gay. Awesome. That tells me that our society is showing signs of honest acceptance of the fact that not everyone will fit into the hetero mold. Not that I am patting us on the back for finally recognizing the historical facts surrounding sexual preference. But, better late than never.

They are, however, denouncing the guy for being what I consider a "standard case" politician. He is a philanderer. Seriously? No. Say it ain't so! A politician? Immoral? No fucking way!

Of course he was an adulterer. I believe it stands to reason that many who get involved in politics do so because they have control issues, not because they believe that they will fight the good fight. They enjoy competition, they enjoy the squabble, they enjoy the scratch and claw of debate, they revel in the destruction of their opponent, and they typically love - above most other things - admiring their trophy cabinet. You may disagree, but I believe it would be to your detriment to ignore the simplicity of the thing. Public offices are not won by those who are most capable of doing the duties as assigned (voters rarely understand the nature of these duties anyway, so how could they judge intelligently on that basis?), they are won by those who are most capable of winning, whatever basis that may require.

That being the unfortunate state of affairs (term carefully selected), it definitely stands to reason that most public offices will be held by those most capable of winning (some exceptions and statistical outliers to this rule, I am sure). This would, more than likely, be comprised almost entirely by: Lawyers, the most successful sales people, and those born into huge sums of money and "turn-key" political connections. To expect a governing body made up of such substance to refrain from taking liberties borders on the idiotically absurd. I don't believe it fair to require the winners of such competitions (public office) be held to the same moral constraints as you and me. After all, they typically come from backgrounds where ethics and morality are only studied for purposes of "work-arounds", "loop-holes", and harness/control. Within their lines of work, morality and ethics are a severe handicap rather than a strict behavioral guideline. To ask them to suddenly change gears might be downright cruel. If you hire a wolf to guard the chicken house to protect against other wolves, then you have to hire the biggest wolf, and the biggest wolf didn't come to be the biggest by being a vegetarian. You will lose some chickens. More than likely, you will lose all your chickens. But honestly, it would be your fault for considering the problem (wolf) as a potential solution (wolf) to begin with. “We" elect them because they are winners, not because they are capable or good people. Winners take all. That includes extra-marital sexual encounters (highly coveted, even amongst the most staunch moralist), bribes, land-grabs, kick-back schemes, and every ounce of your support. All gratis.

Quick counter-point: to avoid being suckered into believing the above load of caca, push to actually educate yourself before voting. Figure out who is up for what office, what that office entails, what the proper qualities are, and what qualities the candidates have. And after any election, always continue to judge the judgment of whoever was elected (regardless of who you voted for), and if they (or their supporters) don't like it: fuck 'em. They're un-American for allowing what would be a perfect system of checks and balances to fritter away by lack of use. Questioning authority is no longer the mark of a revolutionary, it is the mark of responsibility (understanding that ultimately YOU are responsible for what your elected leaders do and do not do).
As for me? Hell, I might even vote in this upcoming election. But I won't be voting for anyone. Think about it...