Call me a cynic, but I tend to think that the only statement that is a clearer acknowledgement of your homosexuality than "I am gay" is to step up to a microphone and declare to the world that "I am not gay. I never have been gay." Show me 100 men who feel compelled to call a press conference to deny being gay and I'll show you at least 98 gay or bisexual men.
I also have a hard time believing that someone sophisticated enough to win election as one of only 100 U.S. Senators would be naive enough to plead guilty to a lewd conduct charge if he wasn't actually conducting himself lewdly. But I shouldn't judge Senator Larry Craig too harshly; I've never met the man (apparently because I don't spend enough time in airport bathrooms).
In fact, I'd never heard of Senator Craig until this week. I can't help but wonder why Nicole Ritchie spending a couple of hours in jail got ungodly media coverage, but the story about a U.S. Senator's lewd conduct arrest didn't hit the press for more than two months, and even his guilty plea didn't get any coverage for almost three weeks. Check out his booking photo. You can almost read his mind, can't you? He's thinking "I hope no one finds out about this, or I am totally f*cked."
I'm glad Alberto R. Gonzales is stepping down as attorney general. That position requires coconut balls and Gonzales lacks them. He should have stepped down the moment he realized that he lacked the huevos to tell Congress it was none of their business why he sacked a handful of political appointees. When Congress wanted to know why he fired that handful of U.S. Attorneys, his answers shouldn't have "I don't recall." They should have been "I made those decisions for reasons that I don't have to explain to you. They were political appointments, and for each of those appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the president, there were political or performance reasons why we wanted them replaced, and we have no duty to even formulate what those reasons were, much less tell you."
The NAACP sure does pick lousy heroes. In the Duke Lacrosse rape case, they led the rush to judgment, supporting an obvious liar who had set out to ruin the reputations and lives of innocent men. In the Michael Vick case, they urged against the rush to judgment, even though a large number of (black) witnesses were fingering Vick as the ringleader of a racketeering organization.
Like OJ Simpson, a guilty but wealthy man who could afford the top quality legal defense that most Americans of any skin color can only dream of, Vick didn't need the NAACP's help. He got more than his fair share of due process.
Vick has now admitted to being "immature," and said he's sorry and that he has now found Jesus. I'd like to believe him, but he's the same lying liar that denied any involvement just a couple of weeks ago. I do believe he is sorry that he's going to lose at least $70 million, short term, and maybe another $50-70 million more long term.
Personally, I think Vick is a bad guy, but the NFL is full of bad guys. Once he does his time, he should be allowed back into the league. Any organization that keeps Ray Lewis should be willing to accept Michael Vick once he does his time. Ask a Bruin fan, however, and you'd probably be told that Vick should never be allowed to touch a football, or hold a football-related job again in his life. Why would I say that?
USC running backs coach and former NFL running back Todd McNair is now getting questions about his 14 year old conviction for animal neglect stemming from a case where police believed, but could not prove, that he was raising dogs to fight. BruinsNation.com, which is apparently still stinging from the fact that one of UCLA's coaches was involved in an alleged burglary earlier this summer (charges were dismissed because no witness would testify against him), "broke" the 11 year old story. Their latest headline reads "Southern Cal Now Engulfed In An Ugly Dog Cruelty Scandal." Not exactly. The scandal barely scored a blip on the screen 11 years ago, and the fact that he later paid his debt to society and got a series of football jobs doesn't make this a new scandal simply because another NFL player is in trouble for a better-documented case of dogfighting.
But the Bruins need something to get them going. The well-worn "13-9" line has lost most of its steam now that USC is entering the 2007 season ranked number one.
If you are talking about the sacking of the US attorneys, you don't know what you are talking about. The US attorneys office is a political appointment, and it has always been partisan for more than two centuries. If that is why you hated Alberto, you should have hated every AG in your lifetime.
Posted by: Darlene | September 03, 2007 at 08:23
You are dead wrong. Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Dept has engaged in illegal and egregiously immoral activity.
It speaks volumes about the state of modern conservatism that conservatives have no problem with a White House turning our Justice Dept into a partisan Republican hit squad. Banana republic, here we come.
Posted by: ace | September 02, 2007 at 22:03
Actually, Cow, I agree with you only for the same reasons you agree. I never liked him, and I'm not a fan of the Bush administration. I'm only a half-Republican. My party mates would call me a RINO (Republican in Name Only.)
Posted by: lex icon | August 31, 2007 at 15:58
> He should have stepped down the moment he realized that he lacked the huevos to tell Congress it was none of their business why he sacked a handful of political appointees. When Congress wanted to know why he fired that handful of U.S. Attorneys, his answers shouldn't have "I don't recall." They should have been "I made those decisions for reasons that I don't have to explain to you. They were political appointments, and for each of those appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the president, there were political or performance reasons why we wanted them replaced, and we have no duty to even formulate what those reasons were, much less tell you."
Even as someone who mostly leans liberal, I agree with you. If he, or anyone in the administration, had had the cajones to respond in such a manner, I'd respect them a lot more. And then Congress could have gone, "Oh,....right, you're right. We'll go off and fight a battle *actually worth fighting, and within our jurisdiction*," and maybe the country would have been better off on both sides.
But...no. *sigh*
Posted by: Cow | August 30, 2007 at 20:01