So the press will have us believe that sex and drugs are somehow scandalous or amoral and affect a person?s ability to hold a post of office. In my experience it is completely normal for most people to indulge in at least one and preferably both at some time in their lives. So what about this? We will consider someone a suitable candidate for office if they are at the top of their profession as say, a barrister (i.e. fighting for the highest bidder regardless of the morality involved) or in the military (i.e. killing people to order regardless of the morality involved) or as a career politician (i.e. backstabbing, taking bribes, cutting corners etc regardless of the morality involved). The activities that they engage in as part of their careers are morally reprehensible but accepted as what needs to be done. We somehow gloss over the fact that it takes a person who is a bit of a bastard to do these things. This is why, thankfully, we aren?t all at it. But do we want to be ruled by bastards? So why, if someone?s idea of a good time is taking a peyote suppository, being strapped naked to a tomb stone covered in quince jelly and beef drippings while punters in gorilla suits arm-wrestle each other to have a go, is it an issue? I can?t see how that could give me any evidence from which to make a judgment on what type of person they are or how they feel towards their fellow man. Actually, fuck it. If people are stupid enough to eat the shit that is fed to them by the newspapers they deserve to be ruled by bastards.