According to The Washington Post, while people were dressing up as Sarah Palin in 2008 or Christine O’Donnell last year, this year, a year when the American political climate grew more divisive, less people want to be reminded of politics this Halloween season and just go as their favorite pop culture icon.

In this grim year, satirical minds recoil at all the touchy subjects. “A few people asked for Arnold Schwarzenegger masks,” said [DC emporium manager Sandra] Duraes, wanly, since the Governator’s travails summon thoughts of his wife’s heartache. Charlie Sheen’s excesses have been drained of their mirth, like a hangover…

Scanning the world headlines is hardly fruitful. Anything related to Japan’s cascading catastrophes is as funny as cesium-induced organ failure. Dictators had a bad year, but could anyone draw laughs as Hosni Mubarak, wheeled around in a bed-cage? Duraes has seen a run on black curly wigs and mustaches, in service to Moammar Gaddafi get-ups, but the Libyan despot was hard to look at in his last cruel hours, and Duraes said that customers have amended the look to make it more pop-culty: “They’re doing zombie Gaddafi.”

Too soon, perhaps?

RELATED: Ohio University Group Speaks Out Against Racially Offensive Halloween Costumes On CNN

The WaPo article also contains some advice for those who do want to go as political figures, specifically the GOP candidates, even old favorite Richard Nixon, because his iconic face mask is “always a seller for some reason.”

h/t WaPo

Seemingly incensed that Andrea Tantaros had labeled the site as “left-wing,” Bob Beckel was the most vocal in his attacks. After Greg Gutfeld claimed that everyone he knew who worked there was “miserable,” Beckel said he wasn’t surprised, asking how they could “sleep at night.”

He wasn’t just defending his network, but his co-host as well. Beckel pointed out that the website had once posted information about Kimberly Guilfoyle’s residence. For her part, Guilfoyle wasn’t thrilled he even brought it up, prompting Beckel to quickly add that she had since moved.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Wrong first impressions: “Both are unsympathetic defendants, both have been targets of the kind of rush to judgment so common in sensational cases, and both, surprisingly, are going to escape severe punishment, says a USA Today editorial. We judge people wrong sometimes. “Public perceptions should be irrelevant. It remains better to let guilty people go free than to convict one person who is innocent.”

It’s not the public’s fault: “The most important part of criminal law,” says Jeffrey Toobin at CNN, is “the concept of prosecutorial discretion, and it is at the heart of our justice system — as the pursuers of Casey Anthony and Dominique Strauss-Kahn have discovered.” In both cases, “mistakes by prosecutors — overcharging in the Anthony case, rushing to judgment in Strauss-Kahn — were apparent even at the time. Prosecutorial misjudgments can deprive the victims of crime, and society at large, of the punishment and incarceration of those who broke the law.”

Proof the legal system works:  “In high-profile trials as well as in trials the public never hears about – and that’s the majority of them – the jury’s job is never to prejudge The court of public opinion, in contrast, almost always prejudges,” says Jac Wilder VerSteeg in The Palm Beach Post. “So verdicts will shock from time to time. Agree with these outcomes or not, it is a good thing that our legal system still can overrule the court of public opinion.” Paul Campos at The New Republic agrees: “The unsatisfactory nature of these outcomes is the price we are supposed to be willing to pay to avoid travesties.”

It’s our narcissism at work: Reality TV and social media are fueled by “people who have an inflated sense of their own importance.” Now the news is following: Both Strauss-Kahn and Anthony have been described this way. “We all know and are drawn to narcissists — at least at first, until their dark side emerges. And, psychologists maintain, deep within we all have a healthy dose of narcissism in our blood, reports the Houston Chronicle.

The California ban, proposed and advocated by former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was designed to protect children from seeing violent or graphic material that might make them more prone to aggressive behavior. It was passed in 2005 after a bill was introduced by State Senator Leland Yee, but it was struck down by both the U.S. District Court for Northern California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The definition of a “violent video game” appears as follows in the bill:

[A] video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being…

The Supreme Court took up the case after Schwarzenegger (and current governor Jerry Brown) appealed the lower courts’ earlier decisions last year. The law was perceived as a violation of the First Amendment by justices of different political persuasions, leading to today’s overwhelming vote against the ban.

In the decision, the court cited clear historical precedent for protecting speech seen as objectionable. The majority opinion points out that comic books of the 40s and 50s were blamed for “fostering a ‘preoccupation with violence and horror’ among the young, leading to a rising juvenile crime rate.”

One of the arguments put forth by the defense was that video games are interactive, and therefore should be seen as different in the eyes of the law because of the active participation. However, the Supreme Court points out that interactive entertainment dates as far back as those Choose Your Own Adventure books, and to a certain extent, literature can be interactive. The opinion also disputes studies suggesting that violent video games cause kids to act aggressively, saying that the effects of such games “are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.”

Not all of the children who are forbidden to purchase violent video games on their own have parents who care whether they purchase violent video games. While some of the legislation’s effect may indeed be in support of what some parents of the restricted children actually want, its entire effect is only in support of what the State thinks parents ought to want.

In fact, Dr. Craig Anderson, a psychologist whose studies are referenced and cited in the opinion, concedes that the results of children being exposed to violent video games “are ‘about the same’ as that produced by their exposure to violence on television.” The extrapolation continues:

And he admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner…, or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated “E” (appropriate for all ages)…, or even when they “vie[w] a picture of a gun.”

Well, then the answer is simple: Bugs Bunny must die. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas argues a more limited view of the First Amendment than the majority of his colleagues.

In my view, the “practices and beliefs held by the Founders” reveal another category of excluded speech: speech to minor children bypassing their parents… The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their children. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood “the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents.

However, the best part of the majority opinion is this little gem explaining how the First Amendment must be consistently applied to all aspects of our culture, and not as Thomas would have it applied.

Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny.

Ladies and gentlemen, the day has finally come when a clear line of comparison has been drawn between the epic poetry of Dante Aligheri and all-out virtual fights between Sub Zero and Johnny Cage. Let this mark the day in our culture when the right to kick someone repeatedly in the chest with a joystick was officially granted protection under the Constitution.

The Parents Television Council issued a press release today expressing disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

When an industry trade group files a federal lawsuit to defend a child’s constitutional rights, the alarm bells should be deafening. It is hard to imagine a more cynical proposition. Sadly, today’s ruling proves the United States Supreme Court heard the video game industry loud and clear, but turned a deaf ear to concerned parents. The Court has provided children with a Constitutionally-protected end-run on parental authority.

The PTC cited its “unwavering support” of Sen. Yee’s “leadership and and legislative efforts to protect children.” In a press conference delivered earlier today, Yee stated that the Supreme Court “put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children.” Yee’s argument is more centered around corporations profiting off selling violent games to minors rather than an issue of Constitutional authority.

“As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”

You can read the text of the Supreme Court’s opinion here.

Already, the decision to name and publish photographs of former Schwarzenegger family housekeeper Mildred “Patty” Baena has inspired its fair share of controversy. TMZ founder Harvey Levin, for instance, publicly took CNN to task for, as Levin saw it, holding a hypocritical, shifting stance on naming Baena. Gawker also faced criticism (chronicled in this blog post from The LA Times – the publication which originally broke news of the affair) for having initially named another, unrelated woman as Schwarzenegger’s “baby mama.” Gawker has since issued a retraction for that story, admitting and explaining its mistake.

But the debate surrounding Baena was relatively mild and short-lived. After all, this was a grown woman, and a willing accomplice in something upon which society generally frowns – sleeping with a married man. The public and certain big names within the media – like, say, the shy and withdrawing Glenn Beck – can choose to insult her, either based on her actions or her physical appearance, but, at the end of the day, no matter how unwarranted, irrelevant, mean-spirited or misguided the attacks on Baena, she’s an adult, and is likely equipped to cope with the criticism. Besides, by willfully engaging in an affair with an extremely famous married man (while keeping in mind the extremely disproportionate balance of power at play in this affair) and agreeing to keep the affair and resulting child a secret from the man’s wife while remaining in the couple’s employ and family home for over a decade effectively, as I see it, renders Baena a public figure. She’s fair game for news reports, and there’s no compelling reason that would convince me, as a media blogger, to shield her identity or her actions from the public.

Then there’s the matter of her child, who remains unnamed by the media.

…Which is not to say that certain outlets haven’t found their own creative nicknames for the suddenly famous preteen. The Daily, for instance, published a story today – titled “Conan Jr. the beer-barian” – about the boy’s MySpace profile, immediately inspiring questions like “Why?” and also “MySpace?” The post shows the boy as an aggressively normal American teen, albeit with one with an apparent aversion to spellcheck.

“I have the gayest picture ever and I dont know how to chang [sic] it,” writes the boy. And that picture, showing the boy holding up a can of the world’s finest beer, is very much included in the post. Sure, the kid’s face is blurred out, but his identity is shielded in the same manner Lil’ Kim’s famous purple pasty can be said to have covered her breast. (Look, we’re talking about MySpace here. I’m feeling retro.) Which is to say: Not really very much at all.

The post’s author, Hunter Walker, shared additional information from the boy’s MySpace profile on his personal Tumblr, adding the following:

I’m pretty different from others, but when you get to know me i’m a pretty chill kid. I can’t say i’m good at skating but i like to ride. Don’t judge me by how i look, learn me then you’ll see im not so bad.

Neither post linked back to the boy’s MySpace profile.

I reached out to Hunter for some insight into what went into publishing these posts, but didn’t receive a response in time for publication.

The question here isn’t whether or not news organizations should reveal the identity of children related to a major news story – I’ll leave that for individual bloggers and journalists to figure out for themselves, and I don’t have anything near the bloated self of self-importance required to issue a mandate for all publications to follow. Nor is this a hit piece on Hunter, whom I admire. He’s done a lot of great reporting on a wide range of topics completely unrelated to the extracurricular activities of Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Like, this, for example!) The focus here is on wondering, personally, what the thought process and the rationalization might be behind deciding whether or not to publish identifying information about people, particularly minors, tangentially related to a major headline.

What irked me about Hunter’s posts wasn’t the fact that, you know. They exist. So The Daily considers the online profile and childish (Because, you know. He’s a child) posturing of Arnold’s love child newsworthy. That’s for them to determine and, hey, their headline did get me to click. What bothered me, rather, was that the framing of the story seemed… hesitant. You want to post a photo of the kid that many people are likely trying to find? Go for it. But blurring his face so that only his exact eye color remains a mystery reads, to me, as trying to straddle the fence.

I wouldn’t, personally, have posted that story. I don’t care whether Arnold’s kid is an angel or a holy terror, and I don’t consider it newsworthy. However, if his child, say, stole a car and drove it through his local neighborhood combination Taco Bell / Pizza Hut, or appeared on CNN talking about Christmases spent without his biological dad, a single tear rolling down one cheek, I’d probably write about it, and I’d include a picture or seventy-two.

While, as a media blogger, I consider anything you post on a public profile across any social media platform fair game, I also understand that there is a time and a place for including it. Here are my rules (for now!) on linking to maybe possibly newsworthy people’s social media accounts, particularly if these people happen to be under the age of 18:

If your guidelines differ from mine, cool. Just make it consistent, make your editorial decisions transparent, and be able to defend those decisions to your critics.

TMZ, for instance, reported early this morning that the existence of Schwarzenegger’s “love child” was leaked by people representing none other than the former governor’s estranged wife, Maria Shriver. Does this add an interesting – if not relevant and newsworthy – wrinkle to a very sensational story? Yes, indeed. And it’s not something that would likely have been reported to a source like Reuters or, say, CNN.

From TMZ:

TMZ has new information from sources connected to Maria. We’re told when Maria found out that Arnold was the father of Mildred Patty Baena’s son, she was “hysterical” and wanted to hold a news conference blowing the lid off the scandal.

We’re told Maria’s friends talked her off a ledge and a plan was eventually hatched to leak the details to the L.A. Times and TMZ.

And we have new information about when Maria found out about the baby. Now we’re told Maria learned about Arnold’s love child in late April or very early May.

The timeline further supports the story TMZ broke earlier — that Maria was miserable in her marriage and wanted out for a long time. As we first reported, Maria was looking at pricey L.A. condos back in January with a Beverly Hills realtor.

h/t TMZ

They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” (Rev 6:10)

We have just a little over 24 hours left, if you believe Christian radio broadcaster Harold Camping, owner of Family Radio. Camping’s theory is based on his own rather unique take on Biblical calendar interpretation, and while we’re still scratching our heads on the rationale of his math, we’re inclined to agree that humanity is fairly well screwed.

In case you have any doubts about our impending doom, we’d like to remind you that every cast member The Jersey Shore probably makes more money than you, bored college kids are pouring vodka directly into their eyeballs, and Oprah has said her final farewell. In fact, we have 50 Reasons Why The World Is Definitely Ending.

BuzzFeed Founder and CEO Jonah Peretti even sent out this memo to the entire staff outlining our plans to keep the company afloat after he and other key members of staff are in heaven.

Many of us will be attending Rapture parties this weekend, and boy do we have playlists!

We have so much rapture material to get through before the rapture so we’ve put together a dedicated Rapture Feed, bringing together all of the best blasphemy in one handy page.

In other news, ">Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to fathering a child with a former member of his house staff, ">Mildred Baena.

The seven-year old internet meme known as The Lying Down Game went viral in a big way in Australia last week where it has come to be known as Planking. Some lazier news agencies have tried to construe it as a deadly overnight sensation because one careless participant lost his life. I reiterate: the only thing new about planking is the name, but the activity has existed internationally for the better part of a decade.

Other stories on our radar:

20 Pornos They Found In Osama Bin Laden’s Compound
Botox Mom Made It All Up
Bias Alert! Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women
20 Extreme Weddings
Ex-NFL Player Jared Lorenzon Resurfaces Bigger Than Ever In Ultimate Indoor Football League
Lebron James’ $1000 Las Vegas Night Club Receipt

While not a tempestuous debate by cable news standards, Van Susteren struck at a core of Palin’s anti-media philosophy that caught her flat-footed. The specific types of stories at issue were, as Palin described them, “hoarded emails by a disgruntled former employee,” family gossip, and other “petty stupid things” Palin tried to command Van Susteren to not “come after us with.” After initially asking Palin why it seemed she was so sensitive after years in the spotlight (“that kind of stuff sticks at the beginning, but after a while it’s like, ‘really?’”), Van Susteren then simply told her not to take the bait when prompted. Palin replied that it was “impossible” to not nab the bait when emailed about “something or another about the kids” and “the story is going to go to print anyway.”

Palin did cede that she believed the personal lives of politicians are fair game, so long as they illuminate how that person would govern. But she had a problem with this, too: “It’s only conservatives,” she noted, who are subjected to the private scrutiny (apparently Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey, and the entire Kennedy family don’t count). “Some of the stuff stings and hurts, but that’s part of the process,” Van Susteren retorted, adding that she saw it as more of a gender issue than an ideological one and noting that some of the most vicious criticism she had seen had been against Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

The segment via Fox News below:

There were no calls for Baena’s defense. No one was saying Beck should apologize. Not only were they not offended, they were joining him in his derision. All over TV, radio, and the Internet, people were deriding Schwarzenegger for having an affair with someone they thought was so unattractive. And this includes the people on supposedly serious news shows.

On Fox News, Martha MacCallum brought on Dr. Keith Ablow (he of Glenn Beck co-author fame) and dedicated a full segment to figuring out why Schwarzenegger would cheat with a woman like Baena. MacCallum quoted Paul Newman’s famous line, “Why go out for a hamburger when you have steak at home?” But, whereas Newman was probably talking about all of his wife’s qualities, the Fox News segment seemed to be purely about looks. Arnold “could have any woman in the world!” MacCallum declared, saying she expected a “Cindy Crawford-type.”

Watch the segment below. The relevant section begins at the 2:30 point.

Obviously, as much as we try to deny it, physical appearance in incredibly important to our society. In fact, one of the biggest hits currently on television is a singing contest show that defines itself by promising to not judge the singers by their looks. Hell, they seem to think this is so unique that it deserves to be referenced in the title. And, in Fox News and MacCallum’s defense, one of the first things people think whenever they hear that a public figure or friend has left or cheated on a longtime partner with someone is “What does the paramour look like?”

However, it was striking just how much Baena was mocked and insulted these past few days. And it made me wonder why that was. People defended McCain even though she had the power (in the form of her own column) to defend herself. They defended her even though she has powerful parents able to defend her. All the while, a woman with no power receives no defense. Why did McCain get so much support and Baena received absolutely none.

Was it because people know and like McCain? Was it because she was so much younger than Beck or just young in general? Was it that she has admitted to having “fluctuating weight” and people hated seeing someone be mocked for something they’ve publicly struggled with? Was it because she actually is very pretty and everyone just disagreed with Beck?

All of these things probably contributed to the outpouring of support that McCain received. However, it seems to me that there’s another reason no one’s sticking up for Baena; people think she deserved it.

Mildred Baena broke the rules. She cheated on her husband and she slept with another woman’s man. Therefore there’s an enormous lack of sympathy for her in the public and reflected in the media. And it’s not just about her appearance, (although that was the easiest thing to latch onto, just look at the way The New York Daily News eagerly quotes the section of her MySpace where she describes herself as having a body with “some extra baggage”). Her whole identity is fair game. Read the fascinating and depressing story TMZ’s Harvey Levin tells where he accuses CNN of going back on their own standards of not releasing her name.

And, what’s interesting, is that everyone seems to have forgotten that Baena may very well be a victim here. While Dr. Ablow was explaining how Schwarzenegger’s impressive physique may have made him the “apple of [Baena's] eye,” people forget to point out that he was the employer. There’s a possible predatory nature to that with the chance that Schwarzenegger coerced Baena into a sexual relationship by taking advantage of his position of power. Obviously, we don’t know that this is how it went down, but we don’t know that it’s not. (Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher goes into this fully in his column here) Is there perhaps a gender component to this? When a wife cheats on the help, do people blame her or the poolboy?

Whatever the case, people seem to think, maybe just subconsciously, that Baena is merely getting what she had coming.

To bring things back to Beck, I’d like to remind people of his ongoing crusade against America’s involvement with the “Arab Spring” going on in the Middle East. One of the main points he continuously brings up (besides the Nazi comparison stuff) is Arab nations’ treatment of those whom they deem have done wrong. Repeatedly, he reminds viewers that these cultures stone women to death when they’re accused of adultery. How can we side with people, Beck asks, who are so cruel? So different?

At this point, no one has lobbed any rocks at Baena’s head that I know of, but doesn’t it seem clear that we in America have our own way of punishing women that have broken society’s rules?

Now, I’m not really writing this to judge anyone, more as just an analysis of a cultural thing I find interesting. It just seems weird to me that you can be condemned and ostracized for pretending to vomit at seeing one woman, but, if you do the same thing to another woman, you’ll just end up another voice in the mob.

Below is the video of Beck mocking McCain and below that him mocking Baena:

Take a look at a few of his Tweets:

The woman at the center of the controversy is, we now know, former Schwarzenegger family housekeeper Mildred “Patty” Baena, a divorcée who was let go from her position recently. TMZ, for the record, insists that she remains unwavering in her support of her former employer.

Begala couldn’t contain his enjoyment over Newt’s recent comments:

“How great is this? And believe me, we have this on tape. He says that the Republican plan which would essentially end Medicare is too radical even for him. And I want to have a contest . . . it’s like Charlie Sheen saying ‘man that party’s a little too wild for me, I’m not going in there.’ Like Paris Hilton saying ‘well you know she’s nice, but she’s a little too slutty for me.’”

Imus however tried to bring Begala back to reality and claimed that no matter how much Democrats want Newt to be the candidate, he’s a “joke” that won’t be taken seriously. Instead Imus warns that it’s going to be “my boy” Mitt Romney.

Regarding Schwarzenegger, Begala urged that the former Governor find a new job to put his marital strife behind him, and even offered a humorous suggestion for his next career:

“He needs to run the CIA. If he can keep that secret for ten years, and we can’t keep the operational details of the Bin Laden mission secret for ten minutes? Put him in charge of the CIA.”

Given that Begala helped steer former President Bill Clinton away from scandal towards high public approval numbers, maybe Schwarzenegger actually should reach out to him for advice.

Watch the clip from Fox Business below:

The revelations have rocked Shriver and the couple’s children, along with friends of the family:

The revelation that Schwarzenegger fathered a child outside his marriage came a week after Schwarzenegger and Shriver jointly announced they were “amicably separating.” No reason for their split was given at the time.

The developments have been “very hard” for Schwarzenegger, and the actor “is doing everything he can to take full responsibility to take all of the spotlight off his children and wife,” a source close to Schwarzenegger told CNN.

“He realizes the terrible mistake he made and has a lot of work to do to repair his relationship with his family,” the source said, adding that Schwarzenegger has asked people around him to not talk about his relationship with his wife and children.

“He’s in touch with his family and talked to them last night and apologized to them,” the source said Tuesday, noting that Schwarzenegger also spoke with Maria Shriver, his wife of 25 years.

Watch the story, from CNN:

Palin returned to the airwaves today on both Fox News and Fox Business after quite the busy week for the Republican 2012 presidential field, and after once again asserting that she wasn’t going to make a decision on running for president anytime soon on Hannity returned an hour later to the airwaves to talk health care with Follow the Money‘s Eric Bolling (Palin, not shockingly, was more than a little dismayed at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi). Bolling and Palin didn’t exclusively talk shop, however, and, before a goodbye where Palin thanked Bolling for his commentary on energy policy, the latter asked a curious if not out-of-left-field question: any comments on Schwarzenegger?

It’s a particularly interesting question because it seems impossible that anyone would publicly fall on Schwarzenegger’s side of the conflict given the public information, and because somehow, despite there being no palpable reason for anyone to want to know other than the second nature of following celebrity, it seems impossible that someone wouldn’t have asked Palin about it at some point within the week. The news cycle is a melting pot and every celebrity assimilates. That’s why Barack Obama name-drops Justin Bieber, Fabio can weigh in on Michelle Obama‘s health initiatives, and Palin reprimands Schwarzenegger for his personal shortcomings.

Anyway, Palin gave a fair reaction, lamenting that the children are put into the spotlight, but calling his acts “irresponsible and pretty disgusting” as well as an indication of true character. Her blurb on that via Fox Business below:

Beck’s radio sidekick humorously warned Beck, “are you criticizing someone’s looks, uh-oh!” Beck proceeded full speed ahead regardless:

“May I just say Arnold, that doesn’t make any sense. . . . When I see her, well I think about touching myself – right here at the back of my throat.”

Whereas last time’s Beck’s puking happened to coincide with the mention of Meghan McCain’s name and thus left listeners with the mere implication that Beck was repulsed by McCain’s shoulders, this time Beck makes it pretty clear that the sight of Arnold’s mistress makes him want to gag. Ultimately though, Beck’s willingness to use some shocking comedy does give voice to something many might be secretly thinking: why would Arnold cheat on Maria Shriver for “Patty?”

Listen to clip below from The Glenn Beck Program and see a picture of the soon to be famous mistress below:

(h/t)

The Los Angeles Times, who broke the story, reports that the woman involved has financial considerations, beyond keeping keeping her job, to think of:

In an interview Monday before Schwarzenegger issued his statement, the former staffer said another man — her then-husband — was the child’s father.

She said she voluntarily left her position with the couple earlier this year after reaching a longstanding goal of working for them for two decades. “I wanted to achieve my 20 years, then I asked to retire,” she said, adding she received a severance payment and “left on good terms with them.”

Later Monday, The Times informed the woman of the governor’s statement and she declined to comment further.

Schwarzenegger took financial responsibility for the child from the start and continued to provide support, according to a source who declined to be identified because of the former governor’s request for privacy.

Fair enough, she’s got to do what she thinks is best for her family, but as such, we may never know the circumstances surrounding the beginning of their relationship. What we do know is that Schwarzenegger was in a position of financial and authoritative power over her, and whether he explicitly exerted his authority, its existence makes complete, ungrudging consent a near impossibility. Whatever went on, she would have been acutely aware that her job, and financial future, could have been on the line.

That’s why we have sexual harassment laws, not just so that people can’t be fired for refusing sex, but also so they can’t be coerced into it. This is the reason I never gave Bill Clinton the pass that many other liberals did, because moral issues aside (I’m no prude/saint), he abused his authority over Monica Lewinsky in a way that compromised both of them, and it was his duty not to do so.

The same could be said of David Letterman, whose exploitation of his own staff for sex was passed off as a “personal matter,” and who was almost portrayed heroically for standing up to an extortionist.

Part of the problem is that ignorance of that dynamic is written right into the law, which defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome” sexual advances. If such an advance is made in private (as most surely are), with no method of proof beyond the recipient’s word, how do you determine if the advance was “welcome,” or simply tolerated as a means to maintain employment? In our culture, women in particular are constantly reminded that they will not be believed, so an unwitnessed, un-filmed shoulder rub is a tough thing to stake your job on at a moment’s notice.

Given Schwarzenegger’s history of “groping” allegations (the more evocative term is “sexual assault“), the assumption that the coercion was merely implicit is, itself, a shaky one. According to CBS News, Schwarzenegger didn’t deny the allegations, just that the women involved didn’t protest hard enough:

He stopped short of denying all the women’s accounts, but said none of the women told him at the time that, “You went over the line now.”

It ought to go without saying that there are obvious things you don’t grab upon making an acquaintance (the set that does not include “the right hand”), and that the violator of such boundaries is the culpable party, not the violatee, who risks her entire livelihood by enforcing them.

This has nothing to do with politics. The country would be in much better shape if every Republican were as moderate as Schwarzenegger. This is about belying the notion that Arnold (or Clinton, or Letterman) were just “boys being boys.” They are all guilty, to some degree, of abusing naturally coercive relationships, and to ignore that fact is to codify their actions. To put it in Bill Maher’s terms, you shouldn’t have to “get a yes,” and a “yes” obtained through coercion (explicit or implicit) is no “yes” at all.

Enjoy, from TBS:

O’Donnell kicked things off by saying he “doesn’t know” what Trump is like as a person:

I don’t know the person his children know as their father. I don’t know the man his wives have known as their husband. I have no idea how kind and good-hearted and indeed lovable he may be to the people closest to him and to the people most important to him. I know only what I see in the fictional version of himself he delivers on TV screens. As I’ve said here before, the people you see inside this glowing box you’re watching right now, including me, all present a television version of ourselves.

Things are getting mad meta!

No matter how often you watch me read this teleprompter, you will never get to know the real me. The real me lives outside this box. And doesn’t wear makeup. Well, ok, doesn’t wear as much makeup as I do now.

So we can never get to know the real Donald Trump by watching him on TV.

O’Donnell then discussed Trump’s “fake reality show” (as if there is any other kind) for some length, prompting the question, “What is the point of all this?” Trump is no longer trying to convince anyone that he may run for president, or any other political office, and, as such, does not pose a threat from which O’Donnell must single-handedly protect America’s poor confused masses.

The segment segued into discussions on former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, painting both men as “braggarts” whose bravado and ego far outshine their political know-how and ability to govern. But, again, what is the point? That some people who run for office are in it for the glory? That actors are egomaniacs? That egomaniacs make poor leaders? That bad actors should refrain from running for office and save that sort of thing for better, more liberal performers, like Al Franken or Jerry Springer?

Maybe O’Donnell’s obsession with Trump could have been painted as a noble and heartfelt means of informing the American public about the racism or ignorance embodied by a man whom he thought would never actually officially run for president in the first place. But, at this point, bringing up “scandals” like Trump’s 2007 diss of Rosie O’Donnell makes O’Donnell, not Trump, look out of touch. But never some sort of braggart.

As much as I disagree with most things O’Donnell says – even as I find myself absolutely delighted by his wry sense of humor and his unintentional comedy – I concede that he’s a bright man, a funny man. A man out for ratings, sure, and a man who is no stranger to crafting drama for the entertainment world. But he is better than this. Talking about Trump as if the man is some parasite in a flashy suit only works to bring O’Donnell down to his level.

We are, after all, what interests us.

Watch the segment for yourselves, via MSNBC:

Maher was sad to see Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee leave as candidates because Trump’s ego needed the White House and since there were so many more comedic opportunities possible. Now Maher guesses the Republicans will nominate an “empty suit” like Tim Pawlenty for the top of the ticket and most likely a “frothing loon” like Michele Bachmann to be his running mate. Yet Maher continues to be amazed how Republican candidates have to say the craziest things to win the Iowa primary and then spend the rest of their campaign trying to backpedal from such nonsense.

In the next segment, Maher didn’t seem too troubled by Arnold Schwarzenegger’s love child, since unlike the IMF Chief who is charged with sexual assault, at least Arnold got a “yes” first before he went after the household help. Instead, he suggested America is a “childish country” for spending so much time obsessing over sex scandals when they have no relation, in Maher’s opinion, to a politician’s effectiveness in doing his job.

Returning to Newt, Maher wanted to let everyone in on a secret about Newt that not many people want to say publicly: “he’s ugly inside” and “he’s ugly [on the] outside.” Matthews got in on the “fun” too, suggesting that although he thinks Newt might be the devil, he’s probably wrong since Newt already looks like the devil and the devil would probably want to be better disguised. Overall, Maher isn’t worried about Obama’s re-election, not only because the competition is weak, but because Obama finally won over middle America and the white people by successfully shooting someone in the face.

Watch the clip from MSNBC below:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Schwarzenegger’s “love child” is the product of an affair he had ten years ago with a member of his household staff and is the impetus behind Shriver’s decision to separate from her husband.

Joy Behar noted that “these guys are out of control,” while Elisabeth Hasselbeck wondered why Shriver was moving out of the family home when her husband is the party at fault.

Barbara Walters, who has known Shriver and her family for many years, echoed Behar’s question, asking what is wrong with men who “can’t keep their zippers up” before wondering why the former governor chose this moment, ten years after the fact, to reveal his affair and child to his wife. Behar pointed out that he had no choice, really, given the Los Angeles Times decided to publish the story.

Watch the clip, via ABC:

h/t HuffPost

From People:

“‘This is a painful and heartbreaking time,’ said Shriver, 55. ‘As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal. I will have no further comment.’”

As the story goes, the Shriver separated from Schwarzenegger after she learned that he had fathered a son 10 years ago with a member of their household staff.

The reports that Schwarzenegger fathered a child with a member of the family’s household staff has led to an even more intense battle to land a Shriver interview, even, TMZ reports–citing unnamed sources–at NBC, which “we’re told was lukewarm on the idea of bringing Maria back a few months ago, but the network’s interested has intensified in the last week.”

MSNBC’s Chris Jansing has reported that, at this time Shriver, will not be commenting on this story. Given how the intrigue surrounding this story could likely grow, perhaps Shriver will have a change of heart regarding her comments.

Writing for the LA Times, Mark Z. Barabak and Victoria Kim report:

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, separated after she learned he had fathered a child more than a decade ago — before his first run for office — with a longtime member of their household staff.

Shriver moved out of the family’s Brentwood mansion earlier this year, after Schwarzenegger acknowledged the paternity. The staff member worked for the family for 20 years, retiring in January.

“After leaving the governor’s office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago,” Schwarzenegger said Monday night in a statement issued to The Times in response to questions. “I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry.

Read the full story here.

California’s former first couple, Arnold Shwarzenegger and Maria Shriver, have announced their separation–releasing a statement Monday night that said the couple will live apart and “decide on the future of their relationship.”

The couple–introduced to each other by NBC’s Tom Brokaw–have been together 25 years and have four children. Those close to the family say they have been living somewhat separate lives in recent years, with Schwarzenegger focused on politics and Shriver devoted to charity work:

“This has been a time of great personal and professional transition for each of us. After a great deal of thought, reflection, discussion, and prayer, we came to this decision together,” Shriver and Schwarzenegger said in the statement.

Watch the story here, from ABC’s Good Morning America:

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to answer the questions of a Los Angeles television reporter, at one point saying “don’t ask me the same question, okay, because otherwise you’re boring the hell out of me.”

The reporter, KCAL-TV’s Dave Bryan, has been attempting to get Schwarzenegger to comment on his decision–on his last day in office–to reduce the prison sentence for the son of a former California Assembly Speaker.

When Bryan followed Schwarzenegger out of a speaking engagement–ambushing him at the back door as the former governor walked out–Schwarzenegger responded to questions about the case by making mock snoring sounds.

Watch it here, from KCAL:

Welcome to the world of The Governator, perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s coolest project since The Terminator. “The word Governator combined two worlds: the world of politics and the movie world. And [this cartoon] brings everything together. It combines the governor, the Terminator, the bodybuilding world, the True Lies,” Schwarzenegger told Entertainment Weekly, which features the comic book art on the magazine’s cover. “When I ran for governor back in 2003 and I started hearing people talking about ‘the Governator,’ I thought the word was so cool.”

Lee, the creator of Spiderman and other epic comic book characters, said this one will draw from real life:

We’re using all the personal elements of Arnold’s life. We’re using his wife [Maria Shriver]. We’re using his kids. We’re using the fact that he used to be governor. Only after he leaves the governor’s office, Arnold decides to become a crime fighter and builds a secret high-tech crime-fighting center under his house in Brentwood.”

Here’s the cover, from Entertainment Weekly:

In October of 2008, 24-year-old Ryan Jett, a friend of Nuñez’s, stabbed 22-year-old Luis Dos Santos to death after the young men became embroiled in an argument near San Diego State University. Nuñez stabbed another young man – a friend of Dos Santos’ – who survived the attack. Nuñez and Jett both pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and received sentences of equal length. Schwarzenegger’s commutation, The Sacramento Bee reports, has now deemed Nuñez’s original sentence “excessive.” Wrote the Governor:

I do not discount the gravity of the offense,” the governor’s statement said. “But given Nuñez’s limited role in Santos’ death, and considering that … Nuñez had no criminal record prior to this offense, I believe Nuñez’s sentence is excessive.”

Dos Santos’ family is less than thrilled, to put it quite mildly, with the Governor’s decision, accusing him of waiting until the end of his term to reduce Nuñez’s sentence so that he would be less likely to deal with the consequences and any resulting backlash. The Dos Santos family is also pointing to other big names who voiced their support in favor of reducing Nuñez’s sentence, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The San Jose Mercury News brought the issue before various law professors, some of whom agreed that, Nuñez’s connections aside, the Governor’s decision to trim the young man’s sentence is valid. One noted that “disparity of sentence when you’ve got a divergence of responsibility is an entirely reasonable basis for a commutation of this sort.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean that Nuñez’s father – and his powerful friends – didn’t play some sort of role in Schwarzenegger taking a look at Nuñez’s case in the first place. According to another professor “it’s clearly a political act,” given the facts surrounding Nuñez’s sentence didn’t “boggle the mind” in terms of its perceived injustice.

Nuñez’s was one of ten commutations made by Schwarzenegger throughout his term.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide if he was joking or not. He says he’s serious at the beginning but does eventually get around to jokes (“Eight years I run. By that time, the Latino population of Los Angeles will be about 96.4%”). Still, he seemed to put some genuine thought into it when first asked when he’d run and seemed to have an answer prepared so, you never know. We’ll have to watch Lopez Tonight to keep up.

Again, is the Beverly Hills Chihuahua any worse a choice than the Kindergarten Cop?

Check out the clip from Good Day L.A. below:

(Deadline Hollywood via Splitsider)

The best part of the Governator’s chat with Leno came when the comedian asked why Schwarzenegger failed to endorse either Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown for Governor of California. After thinking for a few seconds, Schwarzenegger gave this deadpan quip as his answer: “I think that the first reason is probably [that] I couldn’t understand their accents.”

Video is below. You can also find more clips from Ahhnold’s interview at NBC.com.

Through some nifty editing it appears that many of Whitman’s statements have merely been taken verbatim from ones Schwarzenegger has made previously. Of course most of what both of them are quoted as saying are mostly bland political bromides, perhaps proving less that Whitman is a redux of Ahnold than that the more candidates change the more election soundbites stay the same. Or in Brown’s case, 25 years of elections will merely give you back the same candidate for the same office. Watch below.

Aside from the official business under his belt– including speaking on entrepreneurship, business and technology at various round tables with the president– Schwarzenegger has been chronicling his leisure time on Twitter, including taking drives, doing touristy trips around the city, and, yes, lifting weights with Medvedev. Sure, that latter picture was a retweet from Medvedev, but still: refreshing to see how exhaustive Schwarzenegger’s vacation diaries have been since leaving to Russia.

There’s also the fact that, in general, Schwarzenegger has been much more active on Twitter lately. He first made a splash on the social networking site with a menacing video promising to fix the budget with a gigantic knife. His other major Twitter action before his Russia trip was also Russia-related: namely, he joked he couldn’t see Russia from Alaska, no matter what certain other Republican governors might say. Let’s hope that, after November, when he has even more free time, Governor Schwarzenegger will keep the 140-word wit and hilarious Twitpics coming.