We were shown how they looked at the start, and then the "new" person was unveiled at the end of the show.
A similar, though not entirely positive transformation, seems to have taken place with Dennis Hastert, who was the Republican Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007. Back in his Congressional days, he exuded a staid respectability:
He seemed at once kindly grandfather and responsible legislator, a man who bore his weighty responsibilities with the seriousness and sense of duty they called for.
Of course, that image evaporated as soon as we found out that he had once molested a bunch of high school wrestlers.
Still, it was a shock to see the picture that accompanied an article this morning about the conditions of his release from jail:
It could just be the lighting of the photo, but it almost looks as if his hair has been dyed blond. His haggard look indicates that jail apparently didn't agree with him.
The picture reminded me of one I'd seen of Richard Speck when he was in jail:
(Speck had dyed his hair while in prison, though it's not apparent from this photo. He also took estrogen so he could grow breasts; you might say he was a transgender pioneer.)
Note to older guys: don't grow your hair long and dye it blond, it's not a good look.
Oh, and don't do anything which will land you in the clink.
Now that he's out of prison, I wonder if he'll live with his wife.
ReplyDelete- birdie
Are you sure his hair was dyed blond? It doesn't look like dye - more like a trick of the lighting.
ReplyDeleteAnd Speck couldn't have been a trans pioneer when there were trans people taking oestrogen in the 1920s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Elbe
- Gethin
Gethin --
ReplyDeleteNo, not sure at all -- take another look at my sentence:
"It could just be the lighting of the photo, but it almost looks as if his hair has been dyed blond."
And I was just joking about Speck being a transgender pioneer; he's obviously not someone the trans community would want to claim as one of their own.
In fairness, your looking at pictures of him when there was probably, at least, a ten year age difference. He is 75. He had a horrifying fall from grace which probably did more damage to his psyche then his time in prison, although that was no picnic either. When he became speaker, people believed based on his personality and appearance that he would be free of sex scandals. I wonder if he got into politics in part, to play a role, solid citizen, that would discourage anyone from ever making charges against him or seeing him such a sordid light. Strange and sad.
ReplyDeleteMark --
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the age difference always makes people look more haggard. And when I was looking at pictures of him during his prime as Speaker and then at his trial, he was already starting to lose weight and have a much grimmer expression after the scandal broke.
And yes, strange and sad, though you have to wonder if the type of person who wold do something like that is the same type who is drawn to politics, in general. (Meaning, not in every case, but DC does seem to be a magnet for power hungry sociopaths.)
Gringott12 --
ReplyDeleteI've heard the same theory, that "they" don't let anyone succeed whom they can't blackmail. I"m not sure what to make of it; it's certainly possible there's something to it. And I agree that Roberts' ruling on Obamacare was awfully suspicious. In fact, when it happened, I heard similar speculation, that maybe they were going to "out" him as a homosexual or something like that.
Certainly Barack Obama would have been blackmail able on those grounds; it's actually amazing to me that his homosexuality isn't general public knowledge at this point. And, after all, he did have sex with quite a few members of his staff, which in this @Metoo moment in history is a particularly egregious crime.
I'm also not sure who "they" would be.
Gringott12 --
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're aware that we both sound like paranoid "conspiracy theorists" having this discussion, but I'm sure you're right about a lot going on behind the scenes that we never fid out about, and a lot of it having to do with the threat of blackmail, maybe secret payoffs, maybe even physical threats, in some cases.
So, yes, the question then becomes, who is behind it? It could be a combination of interests, each operating independently. And there's also no underestimating the power of campaign contributions, which are made openly. I'm always amazed how well these can pay off. A corporation can give, say, 50 thousand a year to a Congressman or Senator for 10 years, and in return get steered a government contract worth, say, 100 million or more. This happens all the time, in plain sight, and people rarely complain about it. And to abolish it, Congress would have to vote campaign contributions out, and which Congressmen exactly are going to vote for that?
But back to your point, I wouldn't be surprised if there are Deep State operatives in places like the CIA and NSA who are privy to all sorts of information that can then be used to pressure Congressmen to bend a certain way. It would explain a lot. I also wouldn't discount the power of someone like Soros, who's willing to use his money to fund a lot of shady organizations (think ACORN) that promote electoral fraud, etc.
When you think about it, practically everyone has a shady past, or at least something in his closet which could be potentially embarrassing. How many heterosexual guys age 40 and above do you know who haven't been guilty of, by today's definition, "sexual harassment?"
No one ever went broke overestimating corruption in our government.
Gringott12 --
ReplyDeleteI hadn't even realized that withdrawals of 20k are subject to government scrutiny. I knew that deposits of more than 10k would be reported, but not withdrawals. I suppose that makes sense, in a way. Large cash transactions often signal either money laundering or drug profits. (Why else would people want to move around that kind of money in cash?) So, frankly, that doesn't bother me too much.
In the summer of '13 I came back from London with 13k in cash (gambling profits, which would have been a lot more if the London bookies had allowed me to bet the amounts I had wanted to), and I had to report that at Customs. But nothing came of it that I know of. But, honestly, I have no problem with that: money launderers and drug dealers SHOULD be exposed.
This is sort of the opposite of what we were talking about before: we both want more openness and transparency with what goes on in government, not less. But what Congress wants is transparency for the common citizen and a thick cloak around themselves.
Interesting comments. Truly wish I could look into them. Don't have time. Too busy working to pay off debt because I am constantly bombarded with messages that if I don't buy "this item" then I won't be happy.
ReplyDeleteHannah
Hannah --
ReplyDeleteWell, ARE you happy?
(My advice: ignore all advertisements.)
Gringott12 --
ReplyDeleteI basically went the same route as you, which is what allows me to speak my mind freely these days. I haven't quite reached SS age yet, but am not far away. (I'm guessing that Hannah is considerably younger than us; I'm also guessing she was being facetious about having to buy stuff because of ads.)
Yes, I see ads everywhere, all the time, too. In a way, the benefit of that is that that constant barrage has a numbing effect; they barely register with me these days. I don't buy that much stuff, feel no need to. I suppose that's just a way of justifying cheapness, but I honestly feel almost no desire to have stuff. The older I get, the more simple I want my life to be.
John and Gringott12
ReplyDeleteYes, I was being facetious. I don't have debt. But I do think debt plays a role in some kind of "powers that be". It's funny that Gringott12 uses the word "hamster wheel". I have often used that terminology when my friends complain about their lack of money due to their debt. Yes, I'm younger than you and not as wise...but I'm working on it. Thanks for the tip on the book.
Hannah
Hannah --
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere, once, that the essence of wisdom is knowing how you don't know. by which definition, you've already achieved it (and I'm the one who's still working on it).
Gringott12 --
ReplyDeleteThanks, but trust me, I'm more clever than smart. No one who is truly smart could have done and said as many dumb things as I have in my life.
Gringott12
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no reason for me to be offended. Preach on.
Hannah