Representative Chris Lee (R-N.Y.) resigned from the House of Representatives this week following an email flirtation with a woman he met after responding to an ad in the “Women Seeking Men” section of Craigslist. Sadly for him, the woman also knows how to use Google to look up people’s names, and how to send emails to Gawker.

See the Gawker reporter who broke the story.

And while it’s remarkable what 24 hours can do to damage the life of a politician with high libido, low impulse control and a camera phone, I want to – instead – look at one particular sentence that the Washington Post wrote in their article covering the incident:

“The familiar cycles of a Washington sex scandal were compressed into a blur of tweets and news alerts.”

This sentence is remarkable to me in so many ways.  Take the first part: “The familiar cycles of a Washington sex scandal…” Can you feel the fatigue in that sentence? The implied “here we go again” sigh? The list of scandals pepper the headlines of the past: The obvious Clinton-Lewinsky saga, Newt Gingrich’s affair with aide Callista Bisek, Elliot Spitzer’s foray into, well, whatever it was. And just recently, new allegations about Speaker John Boehner having multiple affairs (reported by The Enquirer, but possibly coming closer to being printed in a more reputable news source soon.)

But even the San Francisco Chronicle’s online version of Lee’s recent misbehaviors asks of the many scandals, “Is anyone keeping count?”  The answer is, yes. We are. The same way we keep track of celebs who are dragged to rehab time after time. There’s an equal mixture of distain and train-wreck-curiosity that simultaneously makes us want more juicy details (Are there more photos? More women?) while also claiming we’re above it all.

Let’s also take the second part of the Post’s sentence: “…compressed into a blur of tweets and news alerts.” Within hours, the man’s dalliances were posted on thousands of websites, and tweeted relentlessly (not without some humor, mind you: “cellphone camera is the worst thing to happen to men with bad impulse control”). The story broke at noon, and by 3pm, he had resigned. That is astounding to me. Pre-Internet news, this would have taken weeks to formulate and resolve itself. Now, a man’s career is over in 3 hours (barring any further revelations, which I have an inkling might be lurking somewhere in Rep. Lee’s email box.)

So, as another politician’s sex scandal flashes through the headlines, this time it’s not the weeks-long-affair (no pun intended) of news days gone by. Within hours, it’s published, denied and verified. Capitulations are made, leading to the astoundingly rapid resignation of a rising politician. The news cycle gets faster and faster, thanks to emailed photos, online news distribution, fast-forward Twittering, email tracking, Google, and Gawker. This was the 3-hour flash scandal. Do I hear 3 minutes?

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t over.  The former Rep. Lee will definitely write a book, possibly get a divorce, and may even be offered a talk show on a cable news network depending on his level of charisma. He may even make his lie come true and become – as he stated in his emails – a lobbyist.

Then again, maybe it’s better if he just disappears. The statement on his website,“I have made profound mistakes,” leaves me – and undoubtedly a thousand tabloid reporters – asking one question: Why is the word “mistakes” plural?

You can follow Beth on her blog and on Twitter.

I’m not talking about a debate about gun laws, though that’s important, too. I’m talking about exploring why guns are so important to so many Americans. It’s not enough to say, “Guns are a part of our culture.” Why are they and violence a part of our culture? In a country where there is a gun for nearly every person, why are some people resistant to reasonable restrictions for firearm purchases? Why do some people feel the need to carry guns on them all the time, like Texas Gov. Rick Perry who carries a handgun while jogging? What motivates these men in Northern Virginia, a relatively high income, low crime area, to think that a criminal with a gun is around every corner, and therefore feel they must openly carry guns on their hips?

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

I always got the feeling that machismo influences some of the more vocal and passionate guns rights supporters. Guns are powerful. They can extinguish lives. What better way to show strength than to hold that lethal power in one’s hands or strap it to one’s waist? The need to show that strength and power indicates a fear of something. Maybe it’s an insecurity about oneself. Maybe it’s fear of the government or fear of the guy down the block. Michael Moore explored the link between guns and the “fearful heart and soul of the United States” in his film Bowling For Columbine. Until we examine and confront that fear of the unknown, often fueled by imagination, guns will continue to be plentiful and there will be more shootings like the one in Tucson.

Lastly, a sad bit of irony: One of the first pieces of business for the new Congress this week was to vote on the repeal of healthcare reform. That, along with other House business, has been postponed because of the Tucson shooting. Many of the same congressmen who want to roll back healthcare reform support laws that allow the easy purchase of firearms. We have to re-evaluate our priorities. As a country, we need to figure out why so many feel that providing healthcare for every citizen is an American nightmare, but the reality of firearms for nearly every citizen is an American ideal.

“You vote in favor of something if you believe it’s the right thing. If you believe it’s the wrong thing, you vote no.” Sounds simple, right? Not in Congress, and sadly, not when it comes to giving additional healthcare to first responders and others affected from dust and debris due to the 9/11 attacks. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) passionately sets Congress straight.

Hef the activist? A documentary premieres this month that paints Playboy founder Hugh Hefner as a Civil Rights Activist. Skeptical? Check out this article and let me know what you think below. [The Root]

The Appleseed Project teaches participants how to shoot targets at 500 yards just in case the “revolution” comes. Where does this fear of Teotwawki (the end of the world as we know it) come from? [New York Times Magazine]

Cheerleading may be competitive, but it will never be a sport. [Double X]

Two weekends ago, Chris Brown tried to resurrect his career and redeem himself in the eyes of the public with a tribute to Michael Jackson at the BET Awards. The performance was almost a year to the day since Brown pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting his ex-girlfriend, pop singer Rihanna. The first half of Brown’s performance was a dance tribute to Jackson. The second half was Brown weeping to Jackson’s “Man In The Mirror.” He was supposed to sing the song, but Brown appeared as if he couldn’t hold back his tears. I say “appeared” because there are allegations that the tears weren’t real.

Another redemption story came to an end a few hours after Brown’s performance. Robert Byrd – the longest serving U.S Senator in history – died that Monday morning at age 92. Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940′s, voted against Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court and filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then in the late 1960′s, Byrd had a turnaround on race. He supported the creation of the Martin Luther King National Holiday and endorsed Barack Obama for president. How’s that for a switch? A former Klan member endorsing the man who would become the first black president.

Also that same weekend, the world mourned (again) over Michael Jackson’s death. One year after he died, the media and some of the public rehashed the King of Pop’s life, death and money. Though he was never convicted of anything, the allegations of child molestation followed him for over a decade. Those allegations along with the years of strange behavior  - we all know he did, so I won’t list the incidents here – made the Michael Jackson who died into someone different from the one who made hit records. There was one Michael Jackson who was a megastar performer in the 1970s and 1980s and became one of the most famous performers on the planet. Then from about 1993 until his death, he was another Michael Jackson: the guy who once a megastar, but did a lot of weird things and was accused of molesting kids.

I think one reason Jackson’s death was so traumatic to so many is that it could’ve been fantastic to see him perform in his “This Is It” tour. It had the potential to remind both devoted and casual fans why the world loved and admired him so many years ago. But Jackson never made a comeback. We’ll never know if he could have regained his former respect and reputation had he lived and been physically able to tour.

Sadly, I don’t think he could regain them. The abuse allegations and strange behavior were a big part of his image. A child molester label is nearly impossible to scrub from someone’s image. It would have taken a lot for him to completely separate himself from that second Michael Jackson.

Yet, people still love him. The crowd at the BET Awards was cheering both Brown and Jackson.

Which brings us back to the 21-year-old Chris Brown. He is young enough where he has time redeem himself. He has said he grew up in an abusive household, so he could speak out against domestic violence. As someone who knows where that anger comes from and has been on the receiving end of it, he could be a powerful voice against domestic abuse.

How long do you hold a grudge against public figures? Are some transgressions forgivable while others are not? You could hate Robert Byrd for being in the Klan back in the 1940′s and voting with segregationists in the 1960′s, but does being pro-Civil Rights since the late 1960′s – longer than I, and perhaps some of you, have been alive – redeem him? Byrd was constantly apologizing for being in the KKK, and he should have been. More than that, though, he tried to right some of those wrongs for more than 40 years.

Yet, even toward the end of his life and in death, some people couldn’t forget Byrd’s past – even if it might be to score political points. So, when Chris Brown is an old man, could he still be known as the singer who hit his girlfriend, even if he is an advocate against domestic violence? Jackson was never convicted of any of the child molestation allegations against him, but they still lingered along with his weirdness. Could he have ever broken away from the labels and caricatures to regain his Thiller-level cache.. and dollars?

When it comes to public figures, at what point do you forgive and can you ever forget?

Leave your comments below.

Sarah Palin’s and Barack Obama’s very different styles and appeal illustrate the contradiction Americans have about our leaders. Some people like Joe the Plumbers. Others like elites. Others like the two wrapped up into one.

Palin, who has said she’s thinking about running for president in 2012, blew away the Tea Party Convention crowd in Nashville for a price of $100,000. What unique brand of folksy does the Tea Party get for 100-grand? She delivers lines like, “How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for ya?” and writes on her hand. (You’d think with all that money, she could just remember the four concepts she scribbled on her palm.)

On the other hand (pun intended), Obama’s State of the Union speech last month was just the opposite of Palin’s folksy speech. There were the customary two introductions of the president and 91 ovations, including 58 that brought Congress – at least some of them – to their feet. Kings, queens and dictators get that type of adulation.

I realize I’m talking more about style here than substance. Intelligence, the ability to juggle multiple problems and motivate others to help with those problems are important skills for a president, but style is important, too. How politicians present themselves and their ideas can make or break a campaign or tenure in office.

The over-the-top ceremony we give to officeholders, particularly presidents, runs counter to the man-of-the-people quality we demand from the men and women who campaign to get elected to office. On the campaign trail, candidates do everything they can to show how “regular” they are. “Regular,” of course, means “not elite.” Ivy League educated Obama went to diners and had beers with voters. Hillary Clinton, who also went to an Ivy League school, downed shots on the campaign trail and Republican flavor-of-the-moment Senator Scott Brown made his GMC truck a part of his campaign.

Once in office, though, politicians, particularly in higher office, are given the accoutrements of political success: titles, adulation and ceremony. They are adorned as soon as the inauguration is over. Politicians aren’t addressed as Mr. McCain, Ms. Palin or Mr. Obama. It’s Senator, Governor and Mr. President. And they have these titles for the rest of their lives! After the inauguration, a huge parade and numerous balls welcome the First Couple to the White House. They’re like a royal couple moving into the American Presidential Palace.

It’s easy to see why we would want our politicians to seem down-to-earth and in-touch with our needs. We want them to know what we go through. We want them to feel our pain. They represent our interests and us – they’re supposed to, at least.

There’s another possible source for the reason why we want our politicians to be ordinary and extraordinary. We’re a country based on the premise of social and economic mobility. We tell our children they can be anything they want: an astronaut, a baseball player or president of the United States. So, when we see politicians of any level, we want to believe we can do that. We may not want the job, but I think Americans want to believe that anyone can achieve high office. It’s the notion that we have the opportunity to be chosen and elevated by our peers to our nation’s political aristocracy.

Of course, being president is huge job and an awesome responsibility. The president and the rest our leaders – federal, state and local – are trusted with everything from our roads and parks to our rights and freedom. The pressure, power and responsibility call for an extra-ordinary person. They don’t have to be aloof, but maybe they shouldn’t be just anybody.

Brace yourself for Question No. 9.

In case you haven’t heard, Question No. 9 on the 2010 U.S. Census, which will begin to be mailed on March 15, asks “What is Person 1′s Race?” One of the choices is “Black, African Am., or Negro.”

Negro?

The antiquated word “Negro” has apparently been on previous census forms. (I can’t remember the census form 10 years ago. Does anyone know if it was on the 2000 form?) Bureau spokesperson Shelly Lowe is quoted in theGrio saying census questions were tested and using Negro “outweighed the potential negatives.” Another Census Bureau spokesperson Jack Martin said in this New York Daily News article, “Many older African-Americans identified themselves that way, and many still do..Those who identify themselves as Negroes need to be included.”

Inclusion is a great sentiment, but Martin may have been overstating how many people prefer to be called Negro. This 1995 study (which was referenced in theGrio piece) found that 3.28% of blacks wanted to be called “Negro.” That seems like a small percentage of people to decide to use such a charged word.

An interesting tidbit from the Daily News piece is that it said the Census form was approved by Congress last year. I find it difficult to believe that the Democratic-controlled Congress, including those in the Congressional Black Caucus, approved “Negro” being on the Census. Either our representatives or their aides didn’t read the census closely enough, or they are way out of touch with a lot of Americans.

I’m not particularly offended that Negro is on the census form. I don’t think the folks at the U.S. Census Bureau are racist. It’s just strange that a Census Bureau official or a congressional staffer didn’t raise a hand and say, “Wait, this isn’t right.” What’s offensive is that the Bureau and Congress are out of touch.

It’s also a reminder of a race of people that don’t have a name. People of African descent who were stolen and enslaved had their cultures stripped away from them. Yes, we’re all American, but most Americans have a qualifier that denotes a place and culture of origin: Irish-American, Chinese-American, Mexican-American. Our locator isn’t a country. It’s a continent with hundreds of cultures. African-American, is one of many terms used to describe people of African descent here in the U.S.: black, Afro-American, Negro, Colored. There’s not even an agreement in the black community on when or how to use nigger or nigga.

African-Americans, blacks, Negroes – people of African descent – have had a long and tragic history in the country. Equality in law is recent relative to the founding of the country. Equality in practice is incomplete. I wonder if this journey (or search?) to name ourselves is an indication of a search for an identity and secure place in America.

CNN filed a report about the back room deals needed to get Democrats to pass a filibuster-proof health care bill in the Senate. Take Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He was the last senator to agree to vote for the bill. What did this Democrat get for his state? The Federal Government will pay 100% of Nebraska’s share of Medicaid funding for all low-income Americans.. indefinitely!

The CNN story goes into detail about several deals like this. When pressed on the issue of back room dealing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said about the bill, “If they don’t have something in it important to them, then it’s — [it] doesn’t speak well of them.”

It doesn’t? It doesn’t speak well of our representatives to vote for the bill solely because they believe in reforming healthcare? I’m definitely not a part of the Tea Party movement, but their line about corruption in Washington begins to ring true when the Senate Majority Leader says this at press conference. 

Government handouts to states or districts in exchange for votes shouldn’t be business as usual.