Affairs in the News before Tiger

As I am sure everyone knows by now, John Edwards had an affair. When I first heard it I thought they were speaking of the physic on television. My question is this; is the fact that some politician had an affair relevant enough to be on every network television news show and in every paper? I bet that everyone knows someone who had an extramarital affair; it may even have been you but in the grand scheme of things is it or was it relevant enough to be front page news? Are there not more pressing problems in this country than whether some former presidential want to be had an affair? And speaking of wanting to be or even being president; are they not still human or are the two mutually exclusive? Yes it is morally wrong but humans are flawed; they make mistakes, they don’t always think before they act. If humans were not flawed our world would not be in the mess it is in and greed would never be a factor. I am sure there are more interesting topics CNN, Fox and the other news organizations could cover but then those topics may not be as salacious therefore would not draw such high ratings.
Last week’s column by Charlie Britt was interesting and for the most part I agree with his assessment that there is not enough supervision of college athletes or college students in general, but one must take into account that without a strong upbringing these things are bound to happen. If a child is not taught right from wrong or the basic principals of respect or work ethic, then that child will grow into a narcissistic young person and adult. Athletes are especially vulnerable. They are put on a pedestal from high school on; they are given what they want; they make more money than they have ever dreamed of and without guidance, they will falter. Yes, there are many that make the news for the antics they perform or the illegal acts they get caught doing, but for every Michael Vick there is an Emmitt Smith, a Troy Aikman, or a Joe Montana. For every Dennis Rodman there is a Shaquille O’Neal. In all honesty how can you expect a child to be thrust into the lime light, given everything he/she desires, make untold amounts of money, have no one to tell them no and not get into some kind of trouble unless they have been given the basics at home as they were growing up?
The front page article of last week’s Star concerning the lawsuit got the curiosity going. If you watch television and have ever seen an internal affairs investigation you come away thinking that every person subject to this scrutiny has the right to representation during the questioning; that peaked my curiosity. The article stated that the officer in question did not have the right to representation during questioning and the article was absolutely correct. As often as a bill has been submitted to Congress to make it illegal to question an officer without representation present, it has never passed both houses. At present there are only a handful of states that require the offering of a union representative or an attorney and if the officer requests either all questions must stop until the rep or attorney is present. If an officer refuses to answer questions then he can be suspended or fired, however, if he does answer without a rep, his answers can not be used against him in a criminal investigation. There are bills pending that include the state of South Carolina to make it illegal to continue internal affairs questioning of an officer without representation, but so far none have made it to vote.