Monday, November 23, 2009

The Best Defense Is To Be Offended

The Jessica speaks!
However, the saga of my relationship with Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn has hit the headlines again, so I suppose it’s time I say something about it. I’m a little sick of seeing my face on the TV news, and reading stuff about matters of profound privacy from people who know so little about it. In this column, I will confine myself to commenting on the media frenzy of last June, even though I suppose what everyone wants to know now is my take on the recent coverage. I’ve never written anything about this at all beyond a statement clearing up the media’s false timeline inferences.

I acknowledge that I am an imperfect human being. After the story broke in June, some people trashed me for not apologizing. Any apologies that I made (and I did make them) were made in private. I am not a public official; thus, I don’t see why I owed the public access to my apologies. The entire story felt like an invasion of privacy, and still does, right down to the “love letters” that were stolen and mailed anonymously to a newspaper which published excerpts without ever authenticating them.
McBride goes on to question why this is even a story. She points out that she is not a public official, and even though her paramour Flynn is a public official, he should be allowed a zone of privacy.

Well, it is a story because Flynn is a public official, and that he agreed to take on a job that requires him to be a pillar of the community. Adulterous affairs don't quite qualify. Neither does dishonesty, and there are some that question whether the allegations brought forth by Paul Bucher, McBride's current husband, could affect Flynn's ability to lead and to be used as a witness.

Secondly, if one wanted to be nit-picky about it, McBride is a public employee, who is being paid with tax dollars to teach journalism. If she doesn't follow the basic principles of journalistic ethics, are the taxpayers getting their money's worth?

But I do agree with McBride that any apologies she owes are private matters. She is only in the news because of who she had the affair with. If she had an affair with the plumber or someone else of less prominence, it probably would have stayed under the radar, or at worst, be the subject of some short lived giggles among her detractors.

But considering that she has been more than willing to publish personal, and even false, information about people, should she be complaining now?

Dan Bice has his coverage of it here. What is remarkable about it are some of the comments that they are allowing to stand. I wouldn't even allow them to stay up.

But the best line of McBride's column is this (emphasis mine):
Aren’t public officials entitled to a zone of privacy, especially appointed cops who are hired solely to reduce crime? Chief Flynn wasn’t the archbishop standing on a soap box spouting off about personal morality; as for me, I wrote a column supporting gay marriage.
What does gay marriage have to do with infidelity? Or is that just more evidence of the conservative mindset that all homosexual relations are nothing more than short-lived flings?


  1. Mcbride's column in favor of gay marriage ran in the Freeman just days before the scandal broke. In fact, it was so out of character that I found myself wondering for what act she was making atonement in her own twisted head.

    Days later, I got my answer.

    Her support for gay marriage is nothing more than her version of an eye for an eye. She knew what she had done, so she was looking to build up karma in advance by forgiving what she perceives to be another "sin".

    But her obvious attempt at a "make right" column doesn't forgive her own actions. How many more straight marriages will she end as a result of her "imperfections"?

  2. I wasn't going to comment on this story this time around...but since Ms. McBride has made a public statement I figure it's not out-of-line for me to comment.

    There is something really disturbing about this whole story. I question the timing and the players involved. Is it politically motivated? I heard today there is a group calling for not only Flynn's resignation but for Barrett's resignation. I don't know. I'm so cynical...maybe this was all a set up??

  3. Now...having read Ms. McBride's public statement I am astonished. She was doing so much better when she didn't comment.

  4. Let's see, McBride wants us to know that in this matter there are real people's hearts involved. What a revelation for an ultra-conservative.

    Is her mind fluent enough to make the leap that with respect to many social issues, there are real people's hearts involved?

    Might she then ponder that people other than her might be imperfect?

    Could that lead to the conclusion that we should treat those less fortunate and imperfect people with some compassion and assistance?

    NAWWWWWWWWWW, this is just a poor pitiful me Jessica event. She is the victim. Poor imperfect Jessica destroys one more marriage, one more set of children cry, all for Jessica's fetish for fetid power dalliance.

    As for her line, "what if it was with a Janitor?" I cracked up. Jessica wouldn't lower herself to love and "be completed" by a janitor. Janitors are only layoff and furlough fodder for the political no tax machine.

    Janitors do not have feelings and hearts and dare not be imperfect. What happens to a janitor's family is of no particular consequence to Jessica.

    Jessica and Ed (and Chuckles) care more about the heat of their loins than their vows, or their children, or their families.

    Does that make them pillars of the community, icons to be trusted, voices to lead?

    Give me a janitor (or a carpenter, like the guy they purport to worship) any day of the week.

  5. That gay column seemed strained and gratuitous at the time.
    But to have her bring it up again, in this context, invites speculation.

  6. Enough about me. Why is this always about me?