Is all the froth about some staffer in Jerry Brown’s staff calling Meg Whitman a “whore†really necessary? I mean, apart from the Whitman campaigns eagerness to have something, anything, on the news apart from her own shortcomings? Okay, it’s not very polite to call someone a whore, but then, Whitman’s own staff—and family—and self—are not exactly the gold standard of polite intercourse, and name-calling on the campaign trail has become tediously common. More to the point, the time spent arguing over who called whom a whore is time wasted in the public discourse.
Especially since she is clearly not a whore. (A very unpleasant person, yes. But that’s something else again.) Whores sell sexual favors for money, or at least things of value primarily for their monetary worth. Metaphorically, whores sell their principles for monetary gain. A lot of Congress could be called metaphorical whores. But Whitman isn’t selling her principles; she’s campaigning on promises to improve the lot of millionaires and cut everyone else loose. Besides, it’s hard to imagine how she’ll recoup the money she’s sunk into the governor’s race even if she takes office and immediately sells it to the highest bidder(s), short of an impeachable offense like trying to sell the state to China or something. No, Whitman isn’t a whore.
She’s a john.
Really. She’s not the seller in this sordid affair, she’s the buyer. Unable to form healthy personal relationships with the people of California, she seeks instead to buy with cash money the favors that are supposed to be earned through devotion and respect. The real question is whether California is a whore. And I’m afraid we might not like the answer.
Post a Comment