Radio Drama Hour
I kept thinking the whole time that the only thing worth saying while being questioned this way is "This is for you to prove, officer, not for me to disprove."
I mean, do judges routinely take the word of the police as fact in victimless / evidenceless cases? Not that I would die of shock if it's so, but where do you draw the line in a free society?
(link goes to article describing the incident being discussed in the audio)
4 comments:
YES. That's why I don't believe him. He is a lawyer. And even if a very bad one he MUST have known that the cop couldn't prove it. There wasn't a single overt sexual act. So why did the senator plead guilty? Because he probably was (intent) and his entire life has been one hypocrisy after another. He thought this time it would also work and keep his secret secret.
Question. Do all conservative vociferous anti-gays really are closet gays that hate themselves? It certainly seems that way.
It takes energy to be vociferous about anything (even things that are socially ENCOURAGED).
Thus, consider what might motivate somebody, i.e. give them the energy, to be vociferously homophobic.
(i.e., "YES", to your question).
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02macdonald.html
There's a basic irony here which is that the guy that is promoting such a great degree of intolerance is one of the ones largely responsible for an over-eager police force trying to catch these horrible criminals. The whole thing is a mess from top to bottom, really. Forgive the choice of words...
Thanks for the link (it is indeed a great article, although I cringed at the reference to Craig, by implication, as a "good citizen"; perhaps the sentence could have been phrased differently).
... and if you think that was good, you'll love this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2173112/
(while I'm sure Hitch had more important things to write about that week, I sure didn't mind much).
Post a Comment