But I am doing a disservice to whores, they actually work and contribute to society.
You can change the photos and names and fill in all of the SE Queens political hacks and whores from Katz to Meeks to Wills and all the other shit in between, including dumbBlasio.
The Honorable, my fucking ass.
Myself and community activist Pamela Hazel have done more public service with our community in a few years than any of these fucking clowns have done in their lifetime……………………..and we don’t get a hefty salary, benefits, a pension or perks, in fact we get nothing, we just do because we are sick of our community being a ghetto while over paid political whores fuck the people over and Democrat political whores to boot.
Politicians of all stripes are universally hated these days — and I have a theory why: Whenever they want to get elected, they use the term “public service” to describe their job of walking the corridors of power and maneuvering the levers of government.
“Public service” — as if they’re doing us a favor. They’re not. We’re the ones doing them the favor.
Hillary Clinton is the latest offender. She uses the term frequently. Google “Hillary-Clinton public-service” and one of the top results is her own website touting her “commitment to public service.”
“When I started my life in public service four decades ago … ” were the first 11 words of an op-ed she wrote for Ebony last year.
They all do it. Jeb Bush’s bio talked about his “interest in public service at an early age.” Ted Cruz’s website said his “calling to public service” was (I’m not making this up) motivated by wanting to help everyone get rich. It’s no mere coincidence that one of the only politicians who doesn’t use the term is Donald Trump, who offers no illusion that his run for the presidency has anything to do with being anyone’s servant.
Of course, it’s not only the politicians who make the mistake of equating their lucrative and ego-stroking work as “public service.” In the Times on Tuesday, David Brooks used the term in a column that raised the question, “Why is Hillary Clinton so disliked?”
“Agree with her or not,” Brooks wrote, “she’s dedicated herself to public service.” She certainly started out that way in 1977 when she founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. A year later, she became the first first female leader of the Legal Services Corporation. And the next year, she made partner at Rose Law Firm. So that pretty much tells you what “public service” adds up to these days.
By all measures, Clinton has had a good run: Her life in “public service” has made her a world-wide celebrity. She’s been allowed to champion issues that are important to her. She has wielded power. She will be remembered in the history of our nation. Oh, and Forbes estimates that she and her husband are worth about $45 million — almost all of it generated since she and Bill left the White House in 2001.
A few years back, two economists studied how to improve Congress and strengthen the notion of “public service.” The academics — Michael Kane and Antonio Merlo — decided the best way to get rid of “non-achievers” (yes, that was their term!) would be to make Congress as useless to them as they are to Congress by eliminating seniority as a way to gain power and by restricting their ability to profit on their years in “public service” after leaving Congress. No more revolving door from government to K Street.
“Career politicians” like Hillary Clinton don’t do it for money, but for ego and the “benefits from influencing policy,” they wrote. Meanwhile, those political careerists — the non-achievers — “enter the political sector in order to increase their market wages” or enhance their “future wages in other occupations.”
Of course, people have been thinking about this for millennia. In 1918, philosopher Max Weber pointed out that there are two types of politicians: Those who live “for” politics and those who live “off” politics: “Either he enjoys the naked possession of the power he exerts, or he nourishes his inner balance … by the consciousness that his life has meaning in the service of a ’cause.'”
To me, both are objectionable — and it could explain why the term “public service” bothers me so much. It’s like everyone in office is wrapping him or herself in John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not … ” cloak — yet ignoring that JFK was as power mad as the rest of them.
To see if I was onto something, I naturally called former Congressman Anthony Weiner, whose personal failings not only ended his career, but also make him one of the few political people who can be honest. He begrudgingly admitted that I’m sniffing the right dog.
“The words ‘public service’ do have a sense of entitlement, given all the perks like special license plates and getting paid for speeches later,” Weiner said. “But look at the other side: If you use the words ‘public service,’ you are reminding the public that governing is an important job so let’s make sure it gets done by qualified people.”
I reminded Weiner that every day I get press releases from “public servants” who praise themselves for “securing” millions of dollars for some public project — even though the millions come from us in the first place. He agreed that such things bother him, too, but only to a point.
“You’re getting hung up on the term, ‘public service,'” he said. “You might want politicians to dial down the language, but the right instinct is to elevate the work they do. Why is the only time someone gets uplifted about politics is when he or she sees ‘Hamilton’ “?
Bad metaphor: How did Joe Biden, Mayor de Blasio, President Obama, Bernie Sanders and every other “public servant” get tickets for “Hamilton” in the first place? It’s a perk of “public service.”