Shots in the Dark

I guess he should resign, because it’s going to be hard to take Anthony Weiner seriously in the future. And yet—part of me does have mixed feelings about saying so. (No, not that part.)

So far as we know, Anthony Weiner has committed no crime. He’s shown some very poor judgment, he’s almost surely hurt his wife very deeply (I say almost surely because who can know what goes on between two people) and in particular, he’s lied. Bad, bad, bad.

On the other hand, members of Congress lie about things all the time, and they lie about things that are far more serious. They take campaign contributions and vote for the NRA, for money for Halliburton, for cutting off funds for health care and education and birth control. Anthony Weiner lied, but did he really hurt anyone but himself and his wife? Yes, his behavior was tawdry. But Weiner stood up for a lot of people who don’t have power in this society. Do we take him down now because he has a weird sexual outlet? I find it kind of gross, but hey, that’s an aesthetic judgment, not a moral one.

And as for the lying—well, I think it’s a big problem. I do. He should have just ‘fessed up, embarrassing as that was. But…look…he’s not lying about, say, the existence of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq. He’s not lying about something that will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. (Weiner is proof of Stalin’s definition of the difference between a lie and a statistic.) He lied about sending a picture of his groin to a woman. Are all lies of equal gravitas?

Lost in all the laughter and criticism is the question: Why did Weiner do what he did?

I think it’s too easy just to say that he was arrogant and horny, though both those things are probably true. Are they enough to explain why a man could so cavalierly jeopardize his reputation and career?

The Daily Beast has a good piece on “why men cybercheat,” which gets beyond the moralizing and posits some answers.

I thought these two were the most interesting sections:

Technology Is a Turn-On
Even before we think about sex, communicating online creates a continual adrenaline rush, says MIT psychologist Sherry Turkle: “We get a little shot of dopamine every time we make a connection.” Add to that the potential for a sexual reward, and, well, it’s easy to see how the technology itself can be seductive.

It’s Easy to Disassociate Online
There has been plenty of research to show that many of us lose our inhibitions when we log onto the Web; but, according to Turkle, we can also lose the sense that our actions are tied to “real” relationships and “real” consequences—occupying a kind of magical space between reality and fantasy. “This is true when we text, when we tweet, when we send an unconsidered email,” says Turkle.

I suspect that what we’re seeing is something new to the Internet age, a kind of clinical syndrome for which there will probably be a name within the next few years, if there isn’t already. People now have the means to live a kind of second life, to quote the name of a popular form of online interaction, and Weiner used it to indulge a form of sexual gratification. Could there be something addictive about the possibility/realization of this? Something we don’t understand because we don’t understand all the physiological and psychological effects of the technology we use constantly? Hell, we can’t even determine whether cell phones cause brain cancer. How can we really know what constant use of computers and the Internet does to us?

Anyone who knows kids, or has kids, can see this all the time. Sexting, sending semi-clothed or naked pictures to each other, relating with each other in a graphic way that we adults find shocking—those are widespread phenomena for kids. Maybe there is some sort of cognitive dissonance that electronic communication fosters that we don’t really understand yet. Maybe for Anthony Weiner, his behavior was just some weird, modern way of looking at pornography. I know guys whose wives are okay with them looking at pornography. But is everyone on the same page when it comes to defining that pornography? Do we still know it when we see it? Maybe sending your own graphic picture is just basically do-it-yourself pornography. Is swapping pictures of yourself with a woman whom you will only ever know electronically different than, say, watching a blue movie? I think it is…but I’m not sure, and I’m certainly not sure that everyone would agree with me.

Here’s the final reason the Daily Beast gives for men and cybercheating:

He Thought You’d Be OK With It
And maybe you are. A 2001 study on infidelity found that the vast majority—87 percent—of spouses don’t feel guilty about online erotic chat and flirtation, while 65 percent of women and 80 percent of men say they’d cheat if they knew they wouldn’t get caught. “I call this the ‘avatar affair,’ ” says Pamela Haag, the author of Marriage Confidential. “It’s all smoke, no fire, in the sense that bodies never touch.” And if they do? “The big romantic standard has always been one strike and our out, but I really think that’s opening up,” she says. We’ll see how Mrs. Weiner feels about that one.

Just for the record, I would not count myself in that 80 percent of men. Nor would I sanction erotic chat and flirtation with anyone besides one’s partner. But I’m fascinated by the fact that so many people don’t have issues with these things; Anthony Weiner is in the majority, not me.

We’re in a strange time where traditional lines of morality—and traditional ways of measuring morality—are swiftly changing under the onslaught of new technologies whose impact we don’t understand.

As we consider the Wiener matter, maybe that’s something to keep in mind to leaven our judgments while broadening our understanding.

No, not Anthony Weiner—Woody Allen.

It’s always inspiring to see a master return to form. Go see Allen’s Midnight in Paris—it’s charming, sweet, funny and smart. (The trailer below gives some hint, but really doesn’t do it justice.)

The kind of thing that reaffirms your faith in humanity.

Wish I were there to help.

Never has the title of this blog seemed as appropriate as when reflecting upon Sarah Palin’s attempt to recount Paul Revere’s midnight ride.

Riding his horse through town? Those warning shots and bells?

Say what?

Yesterday I had a conversation with two old friends, one of whom has young sons, about whether kids today really need to learn long division.

Today, the blog Worthwhile Canadian Initiative ponders whether the use of calculators is affecting young people’s math skills and if that might be damaging the economics profession.

Calculators became affordable in the mid- to late-1970s. Students in the 1980s were taught by teachers who had learned mathematics without calculators, and could do basic mental arithmetic. Students today might be taught by a teacher who is himself unable to work out 37+16 without help. The consequences are neatly described in an “Alex” cartoon I have on my fridge about a proposal to ban the use of calculators in school. “Faced with home work which requires him to work out simple sums in his head today’s lazy seven-year-old will instinctively turn to the quick and easy method of arriving at the answer… i.e. asking his dad, who, embarrassingly also wouldn’t have a clue without a calculator.”

Or—ahem—asking his mom.

Palin interrupted her bus fiasco trip to give a half-hour interview to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, who has basically pissed away any credibility she might have once had by becoming, essentially, Palin’s stenographer.

The Washington Post fact-checked Palin’s responses and found that she lied misspoke about virtually every claim she made.

It’s a great column, that Washington Post Fact-Checker.

By the way, you can see the full interview here, on Palin’s website. A small aside, but I was struck by this line from her travel “diary”:

Enjoyed some great NY pizza with Donald Trump and his wife last night in a nice quiet setting, Times Square.

Ha! Get it? Times Square isn’t actually quiet. That Sarah, she’s such a card.

But also: For a woman who talks a lot about she-bears and the power of women and blah-blah-blah (only because she’s so utterly disingenuous about it), wouldn’t it be nice to acknowledge that Donald Trump’s wife has a name?

(And a hilariously cheesy website.)

Or does Melania just sound too…you know…foreign?

As regular readers of SITD know, I’m no fan of Twitter, feeling that it does little but provide an easy means of distribution for morons, charlatans and chatterboxes to strut their stuff, and for all its other users to sell their stuff.

(WIth the significant exception of its use in the occasional pro-democracy revolution, of course.)

So you can imagine that, in the matter of Anthony Weiner and the mysterious picture, I have had to refrain from a perfectly pointless but potentially pleasant “I told you so.”

(I will say that his embarrassment has produced some memorable NY Post headlines, including yesterday’s “Battle of the Bulge” and today’s “Weiner Hung Out to Dry.” Weiner’s a stocking stuffer for headline writers!)

“I’ve done a bunch of interviews, including with you and others, and I’m going to get back to work today,” Weiner bristled to a Post reporter when asked how he could possibly be uncertain about whether the photo showed his aroused member.

He also balked when asked if he had taken many photos of his nether regions that might be dangling around cyberspace….

Weiner sent the picture—that much seems clear. Why else avoid calling in the police? Or stating that it’s not him in those boxers?

And Weiner’s married, so that’s not great.

On the other hand, the woman involved doesn’t seem to care, and if she doesn’t, should we?

As this Weiner constituent says in today’s Times, “Why not focus on the real stuff — joblessness, the economy, hunger, not whether he sent a Twitter or not.”

BusinessInsider analyzes a CNN story showing that, for college students looking for work, it’s all about the brand:

The report says elite law firms, investment banks, and consultancy firms are only looking for recruits from the “top 5,” Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Wharton.”