Schwarzenegger admits he had secret child

[AndyC]

It's not just Hollywood!  Very, very few people in the public eye are suitable as all-round role models.  Unless they are celebrated for being role models.   Unfortunately you are dealing with a culture that idolizes success as defined by wealth and celebrity.  Success is all that counts: not how one behaves or how one got there.  Sports stars, entertainers of any kind, business tycoons, people whose only claim to fame is being rich, many politicians (aren't they really just successful businessmen - and actors - of a sort?), even (gasp!) some so-called religious leaders and so on do NOT merit emulation in all aspects and unqualified adulation.  They just don't.

It is foolish (and ultimately unfair) to assume that because a person is famous and successful in their field, they must have 'earned' it by being an all-round good person as well.  That is a very antiquated notion: that great rewards result only from being a 'good guy'. Not everyone has it in them to live up to high standards in all aspects of their lives.  The obvious fact is that precious few do.  The best most of us can do is to continue to try.

The problem with Arnold is that he is a good role model in so many other ways. A kid from small-town Austria rises to the top of his sport of bodybuilding, and plays a big part in making it a mainstream phenomenon. He shows up in America, where he not only competes in bodybuilding, he gets a university education, succeeds at several entrepreneurial ventures and starts investing in real estate, becoming a millionaire before he was a movie star. In spite of having no acting ability, he becomes the biggest movie star of the late 80s. He marries into the Kennedy family while promoting fitness for the Republican president. He goes on to be governor of a state larger and wealthier than many countries, and if the constitution allowed it, he might have had a good chance at the White House. And he did all of this with intelligence, shrewdness, charisma, and a lot of hard work.

The guy should be a role model, except that he also has quite a bit of narcissism, arrogance and desire to have what he wants. Unfortunately, that's probably what took him so far. You look at Arnold as a young bodybuilder in the hedonistic 70s, and the news that he's been fooling around is no great surprise. The only difference is that back then he didn't care what anyone thought, and got a kick out of showing off. He quickly learned the value of maintaining a respectable public image, and became a master of public relations, so the public stopped seeing that side of him.

I don't think we should necessarily rule out people like Arnold as role models. People just need to start separating what they admire about a successful person from all the other irrelevant stuff. The problem is celebrity worship to the point of idolizing people unconditionally, as if everything about them is worthy of admiration and emulation. We generalize too much. We tend to either idolize or vilify people, when we should admire them for the things they do extremely well, criticize them for what they do wrong, and always bear in mind that they are people, with strengths and weaknesses like everyone else. Being a great action star, athlete, businessman or politician cannot excuse Arnold's extramarital activities, but by the same token, those activities should not overshadow everything else he's done.

You'd be hard-pressed to find an idol who doesn't have feet of clay. The answer might be that we shouldn't be admiring people who have done great deeds as much as we should admire the deeds themselves.

[Newt]

People just need to start separating what they admire about a successful person from all the other irrelevant stuff. The problem is celebrity worship to the point of idolizing people unconditionally, as if everything about them is worthy of admiration and emulation.

eta: Upon further thought, I have to add that I feel it speaks to character.  When a person shows they are self-indulgent, lacking self-control, deceitful and utterly lacking in integrity in aspects of their life that are (for most of us) highly important on a personal level, I do think it is reasonable to consider that the same person might not be worthy of trust in their other pursuits that call for strength of character.  Politics, for example.   

[indianasmith]

A person who cannot keep the most important promise he ever makes in his life cannot be trusted to keep any promise.  period.  Call me a Puritan, but that's how I feel about it.

[Newt]

A person who cannot keep the most important promise he ever makes in his life cannot be trusted to keep any promise.  period.  Call me a Puritan, but that's how I feel about it.

Bingo.

[Allhallowsday]

Just call him the 'Gropinator': Arnold's baby-mama reportedly boasted he was grabby

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2011/05/21/2011-05-21_just_call_him_the_gropinator.html#ixzz1N2XtsCQO

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

It's about SCHWARZENEGGER cheating on his wife, having unprotected sex in the age of AIDS, fathering a child and hiding it for 10 years including financial support.  Meanwhile the woman continued to work for the family until January of this year (that's 20 years she worked for them at least 10 of which in a deceptive role).  It's disgusting and I don't think MARIA SCHRIVER deserves any potshots. 

That sort of behaviour IS disgusting.

First off, before the both of you go off half cocked with the usual indignance, let me explain:   I was not attacking Maria Schriver, or taking pot-shots. 

I was simply saying that, as a Kennedy, she comes from a background where this sort of behavior (JFK\Bobby and Marilyn Monroe) and general infidelity and dysfunctional behavior is no great suprise.

And given this (and her lasting endurance in the political limelight) she is a very strong woman who, by all accounts, can and most likely WILL weather this storm (though not w\o it's lumps and bruises). 

I was not attacking her or her family. but rather alluding to the potential strength she has no doubt developed over the years from politics and the drunk-with-power behavior it encourages in general.  THAT's what I was saying. 


Now that that's settled, on to my next question:

Now...since Arnold is a Republican (and the two of you are apparently not) my question to you is this:  do you see the infidelity of Democrats Bill Clinton and John Edwards as equally wrong as that of Arnold's?   Especially in light of the fact that Edwards cheated on a DYING woman and fathered an illegitimiate child while she lay dying?

I'd like to know, since most people seem to feel that what THEY did was THEIR business, while feeling perfectly comfy with throwing people of opposite party lines under the bus for the same thing.  Again, just asking.   

Peace 

[Allhallowsday]

It's about SCHWARZENEGGER cheating on his wife, having unprotected sex in the age of AIDS, fathering a child and hiding it for 10 years including financial support.  Meanwhile the woman continued to work for the family until January of this year (that's 20 years she worked for them at least 10 of which in a deceptive role).  It's disgusting and I don't think MARIA SCHRIVER deserves any potshots. 

That sort of behaviour IS disgusting.

First off, before the both of you go off half cocked with the usual indignance, let me explain:   I was not attacking Maria Schriver, or taking pot-shots. 
I was simply saying that, as a Kennedy, she comes from a background where this sort of behavior (JFK\Bobby and Marilyn Monroe) and general infidelity and dysfunctional behavior is no great suprise.
And given this (and her lasting endurance in the political limelight) she is a very strong woman who, by all accounts, can and most likely WILL weather this storm (though not w\o it's lumps and bruises). 
I was not attacking her or her family. but rather alluding to the potential strength she has no doubt developed over the years from politics and the drunk-with-power behavior it encourages in general.  THAT's what I was saying. 
Now that that's settled, on to my next question:
Now...since Arnold is a Republican (and the two of you are apparently not) my question to you is this:  do you see the infidelity of Democrats Bill Clinton and John Edwards as equally wrong as that of Arnold's?   Especially in light of the fact that Edwards cheated on a DYING woman and fathered an illegitimiate child while she lay dying?
I'd like to know, since most people seem to feel that what THEY did was THEIR business, while feeling perfectly comfy with throwing people of opposite party lines under the bus for the same thing.  Again, just asking.   
Peace 

Okay, let's not forget what you wrote: 

Well, not to say that the Governator was right in his dealings, but being that Maria is a member of the Kennedys'  (and the follies in that family) you'd think nothing would suprise her anymore...

First of all, MARIA SHRIVER is not a KENNEDY.  She's a SHRIVER.  Of course I know her mother is a KENNEDY. 
Second, this is not a political issue, so if we're "indignant" in our "usual" fashion, it's because you too-often politicize discussions.  You don't think a woman should be "surprised" by her husband's infidelity? 
Third, I think JOHN EDWARDS is a PIG. 
Fourth, I am an admirer of BILL CLINTON but have always readily admitted my own disgust with his behavior and indiscretion in that Lewinsky matter. 
Good now?

[Jim H]

I'd like to know, since most people seem to feel that what THEY did was THEIR business, while feeling perfectly comfy with throwing people of opposite party lines under the bus for the same thing.  Again, just asking.   

No one on this forum has done this, so I'm not seeing the relevance to bringing it up here.

[Newt]

Umaril, as usual you make a lot of assumptions and then run with them.

I am Canadian.  We don't have 'Republicans'.  We don't have 'Democrats'.  So I cannot 'be' either. 

Anyone who cheats on a marriage is a low life.  I don't see where their political affiliation enters into it.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

I'd like to know, since most people seem to feel that what THEY did was THEIR business, while feeling perfectly comfy with throwing people of opposite party lines under the bus for the same thing.  Again, just asking.   

No one on this forum has done this, so I'm not seeing the relevance to bringing it up here.

I was just asking, not saying anyone here did it. No harm in asking.

Umaril, as usual you make a lot of assumptions and then run with them.

I am Canadian.  We don't have 'Republicans'.  We don't have 'Democrats'.  So I cannot 'be' either. 

Anyone who cheats on a marriage is a low life.  I don't see where their political affiliation enters into it.

First, a big thanks to you for defending the bond of marriage. And to you too, Indy. A drink for both of you. Good to see and good to hear.   

Now, with regard to Canada. I know you have no Dem or Repub party labels, but your reminder is welcome nonetheless.  However, in moral terms,  you also have a Left and a Right and a Center like anyone else, regardless of party lines.

It's not a 4 or 8 way controller that allows for diagonal directions.

Basd on that, I feel my question is a valid one as it covers my American peers as well as general moral attitudes. So while you are exempt from part A, you do indeed, fall under part B of the question.  I'm sorry of that offends you in any way.

[Allhallowsday]

...I'd like to know, since most people seem to feel that what THEY did was THEIR business, while feeling perfectly comfy with throwing people of opposite party lines under the bus for the same thing.  Again, just asking.  

No one on this forum has done this, so I'm not seeing the relevance to bringing it up here.

I was just asking, not saying anyone here did it. No harm in asking.

You wrote "most people" after assuming that both myself and Newt weren't "republicans".  How else might one construe that?  

Umaril, as usual you make a lot of assumptions and then run with them.
I am Canadian.  We don't have 'Republicans'.  We don't have 'Democrats'.  So I cannot 'be' either.  
Anyone who cheats on a marriage is a low life.  I don't see where their political affiliation enters into it.

First, a big thanks to you for defending the bond of marriage. And to you too, Indy. A drink for both of you. Good to see and good to hear.  
Now, with regard to Canada. I know you have no Dem or Repub party labels, but your reminder is welcome nonetheless.  However, in moral terms,  you also have a Left and a Right and a Center like anyone else, regardless of party lines.
It's not a 4 or 8 way controller that allows for diagonal directions.
Basd on that, I feel my question is a valid one as it covers my American peers as well as general moral attitudes. So while you are exempt from part A, you do indeed, fall under part B of the question.  I'm sorry of that offends you in any way.

Newt is "exempt" from part A, but "falls under part B".    You are huge on rationalizing.  Our beloved Newt has clearly expressed her point of view.  Reread the thread if you missed it.  You have made this discussion so murky, no one wants to discuss it further.  

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

People just need to start separating what they admire about a successful person from all the other irrelevant stuff. The problem is celebrity worship to the point of idolizing people unconditionally, as if everything about them is worthy of admiration and emulation.

eta: Upon further thought, I have to add that I feel it speaks to character.  When a person shows they are self-indulgent, lacking self-control, deceitful and utterly lacking in integrity in aspects of their life that are (for most of us) highly important on a personal level, I do think it is reasonable to consider that the same person might not be worthy of trust in their other pursuits that call for strength of character.  Politics, for example.   

I have some other things to say here, first and foremost,  KUDOS to both AndyC, for a well though out opinion and to Newt for a very nice follow-up.  Cheers to both of you 

AndyC said it plainly:

The unconditional worship of our lawmakers and idols in the Entertainment industry (and the Media supporting them thru constantly lying and covering for them) is the whole reason we have this partisan atmosphere in any\all facets of daily life.

Look at how the Media (and their supporters on The Hill and in Hollywood) deliberately used race to create the falsehood that anyone who disagrees with Obama, or criticizes him and\or his supporters, is prejudiced, or a full-blown racist or an extremist.

And look at how they used the Media to garner sympathy for Randy Quaid and his wife Evi after their felony destruction rampage, and Wynona Ryder for her theft charges.

They are promoting this behavior, and it's dividing us as a nation as there are simply those who don't want to live by our laws, using their wealth and position in our society as the excuse to get their asses out of the breeze.

The same hypocrites who, I might add, would have no problem throwing US under the bus if it were US who did the same thing. Is it really that hard to see?

The power of the Media is totally unchecked, unbalanced, and they are in a position where they use the collective power of the lawmakers and the entertainment industry
to make an uphill battle for anyone who dares address their current or potential wrongdoings, attacking the integrity of those who dare do so.

They accuse their opponents of lying, cheating, and everything else and scream for justice, all the while they beg for justice and mercy when it's THEIR turn in the barrel.

Above all else, be it political, moral, or philosophical, THIS is what most of us are truly tired of.  Can you blame us?

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

You are huge on rationalizing.  Our beloved Newt has clearly expressed her point of view.  Reread the thread if you missed it.  You have made this discussion so murky, no one wants to discuss it further.  

And I harmonize with Newt on one part of it, thus my apology for offending her.

What good is an opinion w\o rationale to back it up, regardless of how that rationale is recieved?  I never said you had to agree with it, any more than I have to agree with yours.  No biggie.

And furthermore, my rationalization was that while Americans have cemented their polarized thinking to party lines, there too, must also be the realization that Left-Right-Center exists outside of American party lines as well. 

Be it Americans and Party Lines, OR good world folk who see themselves NOT as Dems or Repubs, or Mods but as Left-Right-Center instead, you and she either fell under part A or B of the question as I was addressing both.

No biggie. It wasn't meant to offend.

[Newt]

Now, with regard to Canada. I know you have no Dem or Repub party labels, but your reminder is welcome nonetheless.  However, in moral terms,  you also have a Left and a Right and a Center like anyone else, regardless of party lines.

It's not a 4 or 8 way controller that allows for diagonal directions.

Basd on that, I feel my question is a valid one as it covers my American peers as well as general moral attitudes. So while you are exempt from part A, you do indeed, fall under part B of the question.  I'm sorry of that offends you in any way.

I read this and was indeed disturbed by the possibility that you were suggesting that any particular 'party' or political orientation inherently posesses a quality of moral superiority.     I should think that would be offensive to anyone.

And furthermore, my rationalization was that while Americans have cemented their polarized thinking to party lines, there too, must also be the realization that Left-Right-Center exists outside of American party lines as well. 

Be it Americans and Party Lines, OR good world folk who see themselves NOT as Dems or Repubs, or Mods but as Left-Right-Center instead, you and she either fell under part A or B of the question as I was addressing both.

This would seem to confirm that, in your view, one particular political orientation has a 'lock' on the moral high ground.    

I said it before:

I don't see where their political affiliation enters into it.

I am not inclined to see a direct connection between party affiliations and 'general moral atitude', regardless of the country of origin.

And two things just for the record: I am one of the LAST people you ever will see to

go off half cocked with the usual indignance

...and secondly: the politics in my country have been very much 'of the centre' for decades.  Your apparent assumptions about where I stand could not be more mistaken: I am quite right-of-centre and considerably farther to the right than many. 

For the purpose of clarity I will re-iterate: I will criticise any misbehaviour, regardless of the origins, affiliations or inclinations of the perpetrators.  Which includes anyone on the 'right'.  Suggesting that I would be partisan in my morals IS highly offensive and I fail to see how anyone would find it otherwise.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

Now, with regard to Canada. I know you have no Dem or Repub party labels, but your reminder is welcome nonetheless.  However, in moral terms,  you also have a Left and a Right and a Center like anyone else, regardless of party lines.

It's not a 4 or 8 way controller that allows for diagonal directions.

Basd on that, I feel my question is a valid one as it covers my American peers as well as general moral attitudes. So while you are exempt from part A, you do indeed, fall under part B of the question.  I'm sorry of that offends you in any way.

I read this and was indeed disturbed by the possibility that you were suggesting that any particular 'party' or political orientation inherently posesses a quality of moral superiority.     I should think that would be offensive to anyone..

No, no. I apologize if it came off as such. And in contrast to your assumption that I feel that any party or political sphere infers moral superiority, I do NOT. 

I was inferring the contrary, which is why I asked how Leftists would view the infidelity of a Republican as opposed to a Democrat, in view of the polarity our nation is under at this time, mostly out of curiosity.  That was all I meant.

And furthermore, my rationalization was that while Americans have cemented their polarized thinking to party lines, there too, must also be the realization that Left-Right-Center exists outside of American party lines as well. 

Be it Americans and Party Lines, OR good world folk who see themselves NOT as Dems or Repubs, or Mods but as Left-Right-Center instead, you and she either fell under part A or B of the question as I was addressing both.

This would seem to confirm that, in your view, one particular political orientation has a 'lock' on the moral high ground.    

No...I simply meant that since you don't have Repub or Dem in Canada, that instead, Left, Right and Center must be the system you base your views on (aka moral lines).  And in this way, I was posing the question of lawmakers' infidelity to those who use morality as their guideline, as well as those who rely on Party alignment for the same, thus my A and B division of Party liners and Moralists.

Hope that helps 

I am not inclined to see a direct connection between party affiliations and 'general moral atitude', regardless of the country of origin.

And that's why I posed the question, to find out if such was so. Thank you for your answer.   

the politics in my country have been very much 'of the centre' for decades.  Your apparent assumptions about where I stand could not be more mistaken: I am quite right-of-centre and considerably farther to the right than many. 

For the purpose of clarity I will re-iterate: I will criticise any misbehaviour, regardless of the origins, affiliations or inclinations of the perpetrators.  Which includes anyone on the 'right'.  Suggesting that I would be partisan in my morals IS highly offensive and I fail to see how anyone would find it otherwise.

Very good. Again, I felt I had the right to ask in a roundabout way, and again, apologies if it offended you.  Sometimes you have to dig deep and take different roads to get to the truth of things, as there's no black and white roadmap to the truth.

However, I am satisified that you have anwered me in a respectful, honest and timely way, and I hope that my replies have been equally satisfactory as we sort this out.

Contrary to what some may think, I've no problem making up and discussing things rationally. However, sometimes someone has to think outside the box to get the answers they need.

Yes I am quite unorthodox by my own admission, but not aboive discussing issues rationally once the smoke has cleared. And again, thank you for clearing things up.

Have another one on me