Sandusky, if guilty, needs to be executed. He enjoyed not just the peccadillo of oral intercourse, but actual sodomy, on 10 year old boys. A janitor, say, heard a rhythmic slapping sound coming out of the shower area. Jerry's man-sized dick fucking a little boy's asshole. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Between adults, I mean. The difference between an anus and a vagina after all is a matter of mere inches.
Jerry it seems adopted over the course of his family-man years some six children. Boys? He also had numerous foster children. Boys I'm guessing. Those who are bringing charges are not guessing. Either they are speaking the truth, or they are lying. In any case, reports had been made over the decades to the University authorities, who did nothing. I was a teacher for many years, and as such was a mandated reported, obligated by law to report suspected child abuse. Is it different in Pennsylvania? Psychologists are mandated reporters. Janitors, perhaps, are not -- but the janitor reported it. Why didn't the administrators who received such janitorial reports? They need to be ruined, the way these kids have been ruined.
But that would be sweet justice, which we find almost exclusively only in works of fiction.
The little fantasy I have is that some parent confronts Sandusky with a shotgun, and explosively castrates him. Maybe takes out his prostate and bladder too, and the terminus of his large intestine. Collateral damage. I don't have the stomach for such justice -- it's not hypocrisy, just a peccadillo, a kink in the wiring between my moral sensibility and my ability to act. Not everyone can eat meat. But we do need the swift bloody men to whom butchery comes easily. I'll write the soulful poetry -- they can wait in the shadows to cut the throats of creeping monsters.
So there's that. Then there's Herman Cain. Great speaker, attractive personality, down-home man of the people demeanor. Is he a ladies' man as well? I don't care. clinton disabused us of the fantasy that sexual fidelity matters. And clinton reeducated us so that we now understand that it's okay to lie and purger yourself about it. In any case, the worst I've heard about Cain is the accusation that he put his hand on a woman's thigh, and his hand on her head urging it to his crotch. And he stopped when told to stop. So maybe he misread the cues?
Not my sort of behavior, but I was just thinking how the phrase "living in sin" is as obsolete as "shine my shoes, boy", or, um, "sodomy". It's not my style, groping woman. Never have. During my unfortunate marriage, I can't say I was not approached by interested females, and I affirm that I understand the temptation. Opportunities present themselves. But even then, in my frustration and anger, I did not consider the option of betrayal. Some men are different than that. If Cain has an open marriage, so be it. If he lies about it, well, lies are common. Knowing men as I do, I expect it's not unlikely that he's a player. Attractive in his way, type A, confident, a traveling man ... do the math. It should be easy to test.
But isn't injustice an ugly thing? I do happen to know something about false accusations. Were I another sort of man, I would buy a shotgun. But I am mild in almost every way.
Who should the nominee be? Well, the one who can win, but maybe that's not such a small number. Romney is okay, I guess. Perry seems erratic. Bachman is a non-starter. Cain is a business man, but that means all he's ever risked is money. Cain is like Fred Thompson -- attractive and authoritative seeming, but it may be that there's less there than meets the eye.
Gingrich is the smartest guy in any room he's in, and profoundly experienced, and hugely capable, and not unwilling to, say, shut down the government. Very very hated though, as anyone who remembers the 90s will recall. He would make mincemeat of BO in a debate though. Please let that happen. I liked Guilliani. Notice a pattern? I want competence. Don't care so much anymore about peccadilloes.
Discuss.
J
No comments:
Post a Comment