In my view, politicians should be judged by their public service (or abysmal lack of it, as often is the case in Goa, regardless of party), their role in office, and how they take ahead the interest of the citizen ... or damage to it.
Their private lives isn't particularly relevant to the public debate. It can be misleading too if we are obsessed with this aspect. Good men can make terrible political leaders, and vice versa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I read in the *Inspirational Quote* magazine recently: Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have been associated with crooked politicians, consulted astrologers, had two mistresses, was a chain smoker and drank eight to ten martinis a day. Winston Churchill is known to have used opium in college. Adolf Hitler, on the other hand, was a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, didn't smoke, and hadn't have any extramarital affairs! External appearances can be deceptive. As for private citizens, their mothers, ex-husbands, brothers, etc... should they be discussed and debated at all? Should we have a public trial of their morals and ethics? Should we assume guilt because their sense of priorities (or sexual ethics) don't tally with ours? I think not... FN PS: For me, it would be more interesting to hear about the dubious politics played by political quarters -- and echoed in the media -- not excluding the case of a suicide victim. Mickky's sin wasn't his queer sense of morality (a quote attributed to him: "You prove that I am married twice and I will step down from the ministry. I am married only once, to Sara. I can have as many women as I want.") But the fact that he hought he could take on the powers that be, with "rape capital" headline-making comments, and what not. The beauty is that parties like the BJP will make use of the Micky to prop them up in power, and then cash in on the scandal with what-has-Goa-come-to comments. Meanwhile, the Congress, a party lacking in any common ideology whatsoever apart from equally inflated ambitions, will continue to settle scores with one another. The message is clear: you can get away with murder, as long as you don't rock the boat. So will we continue to have our agenda set by one political mafia exposing the other... one drug gang setting-up the other? YouTube, et al? On 7 June 2010 19:20, Valmiki Faleiro <valmikigoa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Frederick and doutorbab, > It sure takes two hands to clap, as Frederick needs to tell us. > So "denigrate" only one, because of his or her status. Easy target. > That's fair. Leave the other beyond question. > Or have I erred understanding Frederick's logic?