In case you didn't read the New York Times today, there was an article ("A Mayor's Lie Throws a City Into Turmoil") in which the reporter quotes Christopher Stowell at the very end. The article discusses the scandal surrounding the new mayor -- whether he did/did not have sex with an underage intern and then induced said intern to lie about the whole thing.

-->Here.

I have been wincing since I first read about this situation, but I do think it's interesting that the NYT is quoting the director of the local ballet company.

Stowell used to date the mayor, which has been noted in a number of published articles. He's been quoted about Adams before.

Really? Juicy!

Weird that the NYT doesn't state that, for non-OR readers--seems a rather arbitrary choice of interviewee otherwise.

And I didn't know he was out. 'Bout time.

But the proposed remedy has at least the advantage of uniqueness. Who can picture a public official given a public-interest entourage of "pushers" (after the fashion of old-time sweatshops), all going "Hurry up! Hurry up!" "Ah, ah, ah, naughty, naughty!" or "Is this trip to the bathroom really necessary? I'm timing you!"?

Why should this even be a topic of conversation?

It is the sort of thing we try to avoid at BT, but Stowell’s affair with the mayor has been noted in print and the fact is relevant to the statements Stowell is making for publication regarding the mayor. If Stowell was publicity-shy about it he could always say, “No comment.”

I was amused by Stowell’s suggestion about “forcing” the mayor to stay in office when from all indications it would take a SWAT team to get him out.

I think the thread started very innocently as a, "Look! The NYTimes quoted an artistic director in a political context" and that's fine to discuss (and to mention the reasons) but we'll need to keep the discussion to that topic and not romp off to "I wonder how many other dance people have had affairs with major political figures?"