73 posts from August 2007
UPDATE: Larry Craig's arrest interview (audio and transcript) are now available. The officers sound completely believable and like they are not interested in being lied to. It's a disgrace that this deluded individual would have so little trouble saying he didn't do what anyone with a brain (in their head, not in their pants) knows very well he did. It's shocking that a tough-on-crime Republican would whine entrapment in a situation like that. And as for being gay or not, you can't be entrapped into anything you didn't want to do in the first place. So it looks like he did what he was accused of doing, and he's gay whether or not he wants to be gay. There's no fuckin' way he will not resign. Probably over the Labor Day weekend, to avoid even more attention.
Meanwhile, Fred Thompson's an idiot to be announcing just after Labor Day weekend—fewer will pay attention. I expect him to run a nasty campaign for supremacy. Good luck, buddy, because this is one unpleasant man who will out-unpleasant Giuliani to Republicans in the intended way...but will out-unpleasant Hillary Clinton to Republicans in an unintended and consequential way.
Required listening—what Larry Craig should have said at his amazingly defiant
press conference swan song. (Does anyone else think he might wind up blowing his brains out? If so, tap three times with your right foot.)
Perhaps it's just a rule—Republican or Democratic—that the higher one is on one's horse, the distance from saddle to field causes a fall to be that much greater a shock to the system.
But lately, it seems easier to boil down embarrassingly hypocritical, pathologically untruthful behavior to something endemic to being Republican.
You've got pro-"family"/anti-gay Vitter frequenting prostitutes (he got off relatively unscathed with the 'I don't do that...anymore' defense); anti-gay Allen escaping menacing black men by seeking refuge at the end of (black) cop cock while in a park late at night; and President Bush defending his indefensible crony Gonzales by claiming his departure from office was little more than partisan mud-slinging. Now add to that Ida-ho' Larry Craig, who's anti-gay even as he goes down in history as one of the highest-seated pole-seeking pols ever to be exposed against his will.
The Republican aspect...is it the hypocrisy? The sexual drive? No. It's not even the simple lying. Dems are good at all of that, too, from time to time. The real thread there, and Bush's legacy, is the ability to face down reality and disallow it from intruding on one's own private Idaho. Think of it:
Vitter was a family-values freak who'd long been rumored to be having long-standing affairs with prostitutes. He was caught using a massage agency that was later exposed to be an escort service, and his response is not to resign in shame, but to refute every aspect of the story that was still refutable, copping only to having made mistakes in the past, and to soldier on. Deny, deny, deny.
Allen was an anti-gay paper-pusher who was out wandering in the middle of the night at a popular gay cruising park and who was arrested for offering an undercover cop $20 for the privilege of blowing him. Instead of admitting he was caught red-handed (and with the red hand wrapped around a brown penis), he vehemently denied the charges and continues to fight them, even claiming he'll seek higher office. Deny, deny, deny.
Even Republicans are cheered by Gonzales's long-overdue exit, and no one seriously doubts that history will judge him a corrupt figure. Yet instead of graciously accepting his resignation and moving on, Bush angrily claims it was all a personal political attack. Deny, deny, deny.
And Craig's arrest leaves ZERO room for doubt—he was out of state in an airport men's room that had enough issues with public sex that the police trolled there, he tapped his foot on the floor to get the (cute!) undercover cop's attention, moved his foot onto the cop's foot and then ran his hand under the stall. He later attempted to trade on his status as a senator. All of this comes YEARS after rumors insinuating he was gay AND that he frequently engaged in bathroom sex. How many coincidences do you need? On top of it all, he pled guilty and then went home...never telling anyone, not even his own enabling family and friends. Today, he's saying adamantly he is not gay and never has been (as if you can go in and out of gay like membership in the Communist party), despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that it's not his homosexuality that is even the thing to be "defending" himself against, it's his predilection—as an elected official—for cruising men's rooms to solicit public sex. Kids are walking around in there and some old man is looking to go down on an anonymous penis a few feet away and Larry Craig claims he has more family values than openly gay people? Deny, deny, deny.
There is a trend here among Republicans at the very top that is one everyday Republicans need to address, and it has nothing to do with smaller government, fewer taxes and a strong national defense. There is a serious flaw in too many of their leaders' collective morality, one that allows them to be absolutely unmoved by human nature vs. the restrictions we randomly place on ourselves based on religion, and yet one that allows them to disregard all of those same restrictions as it suits their own personal conduct.
The Republican party is dragging themselves down and the rest of us with them.
P.S. Yes, I'm gay and I'm not sympathetic to tearoom sex. Sue me—it's not 1959 anymore. Get a fuckin' room! Literally.
Wentworth Miller was convincingly outed by Perez Hilton and others after pictures showed him too-casually strolling with Luke MacFarlane, an ex-boyfriend of T.R. Knight's. (Is there a shortage of gay boyfriends in Hollywood? Why do all the famous gays recycle?) I noticed Cool Hand Luke's closed expression during their Closet Break (it's said they attempted not to be shot together at first), but a friend pointed out his open zipper. It could have been from a Bathroom Break, or it could have been they were widening their stances in the john. Or it just slipped down. I choose B. It'd be great if Wentworth Miller would follow T.R. Knight in other ways and come out.
Well, Michael Vick has apologized and found Jesus. While I don't believe people change overnight or find Jesus overnight so much as they have their faces shoved into Jesus like a dog into his mess during housebreaking, I think he said the right thing, came off well and did not use his race as an excuse. (I don't think engaging in dog-fighting is about "immaturity," though, so much as it's about barbarism, but there's no need to gnaw all the meat off the bone.) I'm fine with him receiving whatever punishment he gets, and moving on—you don't lock someone up and throw away the key and never allow them to work again over a crime. But I wouldn't want him in my social circle and I wouldn't ask him to be my dog-walker.
I was having a conversation today about the whole thing and the question came up: Why, if people are so interested in sports, don't paparazzi trail famous players and why aren't they as prevalent in our everyday news as actors and musicians are, until something huge like Vick's dog-fighting scandal blows up? I think the answer lies in accurate generalizations:
(1) Men tend to be the bigger sports buffs, and men, for whatever reason, tend to focus on the game much more intently than the distractions of the athletes' personal lives. There are exceptions—some guys are interested in finding out where Jeter gets his suits, or hearing if an awesome player is bangin' a famous pornstar while some guys couldn't care less about sports. Some women (especially but not exclusively lesbians) are interested in sports.
Therefore, sports buffs have little interest in seeing pictures of A-Rod leaving a club, and so magazine publishers and bloggers have little interest in publishing those pictures...and the paparazzi have bigger fish to fry.
(2) Women tend to be the bigger celebrity buffs, and women, for whatever reason, tend to focus on the personal lives of their favorite actors and musicians far more than on the distractions of their artistic output. There are exceptions—some women are interested in how Angelina Jolie prepared for her role in A Mighty Heart, or hearing about the creative process behind John Mayer's latest CD while some women couldn't care less about celebrity culture. Some men (especially but not exclusively gay men) are interested in celebrity culture.
Therefore, celebrity buffs have major interest in seeing pictures of Cameron Diaz leaving a club, and so magazine publishers and bloggers have major interest in publishing those pictures...and the paparazzi have all the reason in the world to fry those fish first. (CONTINUED...)
Mike Rogers was pretty fuckin' right about this one. Jesus...how do you serve as a United States senator and get arrested and plead guilty to something like this and: (A) Not admit it happened until months later, (B) not have to immediately resign? I'm not stupid—Democrats crave inappropriate and appropriate sex as much as Republicans. But why does it seem like a never-ending stream of Republicans who are acting out in this way of late?
Via Towleroad: #1 Mario Lopez should not be allowed near teen hotties. #2 Wow...just...wow. I feel for the girl, but this is not a trick question.
I don't like Cindy Adams. She's truly obnoxious and faux-fabulous in a way that seems to attract the appreciation of some gay men who don't know any better than to embrace all Type A females instead of just the Grade-A Type As. Like Joan Rivers. Not a fan. OK? And that book about her pup Jazzy? A real dog.
Adams also has a reputation as a defender of the rich and indefensible, including Imelda Marcos and, famously, Leona Helmsley. The Queen Of Mean deserved her title by all accounts, but Adams was a major apologist for her, claiming she was being sent to prison for "having flunked math" (couldn't this be said of all white-collar thieves?) and suggesting that instead of jailing Helmsley, the government should take some of her millions to help cure AIDS 'n' stuff. Because if you're rich, you should be able to buy your way out of prison. Makes sense, no? No.
I overheard on TV today a story that I later discovered Adams had written about earlier this week. It almost made me like her. Almost. But not quite.
Apparently, to thank Adams for having defended her good name, Helmsley invited her ailing mother with "Alzheimer's" (Cindy keeps calling it that, but has previously said it was dementia) to use her Palm Beach pool. It was actually an inconvenience because her mother needed to be carefully transported. Once there, Helmsley's handlers phoned her to let her know that the mother's aides were gay—and Helmsley called in marshals to escort everyone off the premises.
For this, Cindy Adams never spoke to Leona Helmsley again. She says.
Why do I still like Cindy Adams not? Probably more than ever? Because along with apparently being every female fascist's best girlfriend, she knew she'd been wrong about Helmsley once her own mother was mistreated. But instead of writing about it, she kept silent until Helmsley died, when the story was good for nothing but juicy gossip. She could have volunteered that story earlier on to heap more shame on a woman who was clearly—read the laundry list of offenses in Cindy's own posthumous column—pure poison. But she didn't. I say it's because while she claims she never spoke to Helmsley again, she still didn't want to cross the powerbroker in case she needed her in the future.
To hide her cowardice, Cindy tries to cloak the whole story in some bullshit pro-gay mist, as if the offensive part of the Helmsley incident was that she tossed gay people out simply for being gay when in reality she was just pissed that her fragile mother was mistreated.
If Cindy Adams were sooo concerned about the gay community, why didn't she volunteer her story about Helmsley's rank homophobia at the time that the bitch was sued by Charles Bell? Bell was fired simply for being gay and went on to win his suit and an eventual $554,000—peanuts. Only the little people don't round down to the nearest half-mill. Wouldn't Cindy have made a great witness? After all, witnesses (still employed by Helmsley, cough-cough) testified that Bell's quarters were strewn with condoms and Adams is all about curing AIDS.
Lookit, Cindy's mother died in 2001 and had suffered dementia for "20 years," Helmsley was convicted in 1989 and served 21 months from 1992 to 1994. Bell's suit occurred in 2002, long after the "Alzheimer's" pool incident.
So, thanks for nothing, Cindy Adams—but I didn't flunk math.