![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rebelcoyote has pictures of a kitten on a tank. I dunno, there’s probably some big political significance to this, but all I can say is “awwwwww.”
Sep. 30th, 2003
Ed Gray, a sportswriter for the Boston Herald, came out today.
“I’m out because I no longer, in good conscience, choose to ignore the unabashed homophobia that is so cavalierly tolerated within the world of sports. I’m out, because the silence of a closeted gay man only serves to give his implicit approval to bigotry. I’m out, because I refuse to continue hiding from the truth that an openly gay man has as much right as a straight man to play sports or report on them.”
It’s not a superbly written article, and Ed Gray isn’t a top tier Boston sportswriter, but he’s a brave guy and I admire him. Come to think of it, the Herald also deserves some praise. They didn’t have to print that piece, and if you buy into stereotypes you might think that the conservative Boston paper formerly owned by Rupert Murdoch would be unlikely to print a pro-homosexuality piece. Goes to show that stereotypes are tricky things.
I found out about the story while listening to WEEI on my drive into work this morning; Dennis and Callahan gave him a call, and he agreed to do an interview. He doesn’t want to be a pioneer or a trailblazer. He just wants to be able to say “I’m gay” without people like Todd Jones, Garrison Hearst, and Jeremy Shockey insulting him. He was quiet, calm, and didn’t rant. He sounded a little worried. He sounded like he was utterly sure he made the right decision.
He also said, during the call, that he thinks a gay player could come out and survive. I hope he’s right. I do know this: whether or not he wants to be a pioneer, he just made it a little bit easier for the first gay player to make that decision.
Glenn Reynolds, once again, is confused.
THE REAL WILSON SCANDAL: Forget Valerie Plame, the big scandal is why anyone in the Bush Administration would ever have tasked a guy with Wilson’s views with an important mission.
If you follow the link, you’ll find Bill Hobbs ranting about a speech Joseph Wilson gave on June 14th, 2003. The very perceptive among us will notice that June 14th is somewhat later than the date on which Wilson went to Niger to look into the yellowcake assertions.
Let’s say you went to Niger to investigate claims that Niger sold yellowcake to Iraq, and you found out that the claims were false. You made a report to that effect. Despite your report, Bush kept claiming that Niger sold yellowcake to Iraq. It became an important component of his justification for war, and you knew it was a lie. It further became evident that the remainder of Bush’s allegations concerning WMD were inaccurate.
Might your views change?
What’s more likely: that Bush chose an investigator who was deeply and fundamentally biased, or that Joseph Wilson altered his opinions in light of the way his report was treated?
It kind of boggles me, in either case, that Reynolds could claim with a straight face that views Wilson expressed on June 16th, 2003 were a good reason to not send him to Niger in 2002.
Dear Brother #11 picks up after the PCs left Chicago and headed down to Mississippi. Chronologically speaking, these events occurred before those recorded in Dear Brother #10c, but we played them out after we played out the trip to Mexico. If I’d known we were going to do that I suppose I’d have held off on writing #10 until we’d finished playing the events leading up to it — but it doesn’t hurt the story at all, so no harm done.
On the other hand, we did wind up playing out the events described here after we played the events described in the upcoming Dear Brother #12. But this time I knew it was coming so I can write #11 and #12 in chronological order.
(None of this matters or impinges on the entertainment value one bit, so don’t worry. I’m just noting it so I’ll remember what happened years from now when I’m old and grey. And I’m not complaining, cause Rob makes it all work)
More...