Chokegate or Whiner-gate?

More details emerge about the Prosser/Bradley WI SC debacle.

Long story short, Prosser was acting in self-defense, and other justices agree that no "choking" occurred. What is also becoming obvious is that Wisconsin's Supreme Court is embroiled with more dysfunction than Homer Simpson at a vegetarian picnic.

Perhaps that is the reason that this story broke at the same time that the press was announcing Walker's signing of the Budget Bill which curtailed public sector unions' ability to collectively bargain.  That way, when people read about Wisconsin, they will also read about the dysfunctional Supreme Court which is responsible* for pushing the law forward.

*Note.  The Supreme Court had nothing to do with the publication of the law.  The court case regarded the meetings rules in which the legislature voted to pass the bill.  The court had no authority at that point to make claims about the bill/law's legality, and they made that clear in their ruling.  Regardless, presumed conservative Justice Prosser wanted to wait to announce the ruling.  This would not only relate to partisan perceptions, as the article notes -- doing so would have meant the Wisconsin legislature would have put the bill back up for vote in the Senate and Assembly, essentially re-passing it and taking the Supreme Court entirely out of public perception regarding the law.  Honestly, of everything that's emerging about the WI SC, waiting to announce their decision would have been a good decision.  Even if its intention was solely to give the perception of non-partisan whatevers, it also would have given the protesters and Dems a second chance to get their representatives to rule against the law...

Arnold vs. Weiner

I'm sick of thinking about Weiner, but I haven't heard anyone talk about this angle.  Sigh.

There's been comparisons of Weiner and Arnold.  One tweeted (etc) while another had an affair and a love child with an employee.  Which is worse.

On a bland scale, I can't say either is worse.  I can't say either is ruin-worthy.  Your life, your business, whatever.  Yet, we're still preoccupied with one more than the other.  What gives?

I say that it all comes down to this one moment:

Weiner: Keepin' 'Em Guessing

We all know the story.  Congressman (and Jon Stewart bestie) Anthony Weiner is in hot water.  All because of this pic.

One thing that's got people's panties in a bunch is that he will neither confirm nor deny that that picture is him.  Many people's hypotheses rest on whether or not the picture is actually him, and people in general are weirded out that he won't say -- as if he doesn't know.

Now, I'm not a guy.  I don't know how much one knows about one's penis.  I would think there would be things that are clues (for example, leaning to the left), in addition to the style of underwear being a clue.  So why the hell won't he just tell us?

Well, why should he?  If that picture is him and if he was pranked, then he has had a major privacy violation.  No one should have pictures of their junk (covered by underwear or naked) circulated without permission.

Whether or not he was pranked, I doubt he intended to have the nation staring at a picture of his underwear-clad erect penis.  I can't imagine how uncomfortable that would be.  This guy knows that everyone who looks at him is imagining that photo and wondering what's under Weiner's pants.  He could be denying information about ownership of the photo for self-preservation.

If he says yes, it's him, then everyone's seen him with his pants down.  If he says no, then everyone's wondering is it bigger, is it smaller, does it lean to the right...  There is no reason for gossip-column journalists to need to know this information.  Police/investigators?  Yes.  Perez Hilton?  No.

As for more legitimate journalists, it's their job to investigate.  Subjects of investigation do not have to be compliant.

As for the American public, I don't know that it matters if the picture is him or not.  If he sent the girl a photo of someone else's erection, that's just as bad so much worse.  It's not like knowing the owner of the erection changes anything in the guilt/innocence hypotheses.


Note: wouldn't that be something -- if Weiner won't say it's his because he sent a photo of someone else!  He was having some gay sex and tweeting to the girl about it... He took a picture of someone else off the internet because, as Jon Stewart put it, he's got more Anthony than Weiner...  hmm...