Thursday, August 11, 2005
Skeletons in Roberts' Closet?
Thought it was only a metaphorical term, dealing with the potential "surprises" due to the inherent vagueness of the Supreme Court nominee's background?
Think again!
Last week's revelations that Roberts was a registered lobbyist for a cosmetics company AND did pro-bono work in support of the landmark Romer v. Evans gay-rights housing case put the phrase in a new light! As the saying goes: "Once is a fluke; twice is a coincidence; three times is a trend."
That adage has been restated by others in a saucier, yet perhaps more oddly apt manner, as the Once-is-Cool-Twice-is-Queer (OICTIQ) principle: "In the realm of human behavior a single event can be dismissed as sporadic, but you have to take it seriously when you find a pattern repeated twice or more, especially within a short space of time."
Well, then, let's now add this almost-overlooked human-interest nugget from the week after Roberts' nomination was announced:
Not mean and duplicitous like Lucy, Patty is a pioneer or icon.
So, like the Romer case, John Roberts' stage role invites interesting questions: How much choice did Roberts have in the decision? Did it actually reflect his given preference or was the decision imposed from the outside? Natural inclination? Peer pressure? Did it "feel right"?
And, did his his childhood drag experience play a factor in his decision to go on the "down low" when it came to his cosmetics company/gay rights work? (Roberts neglected to mention either work in the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire following his 2001 nomination to the district court.) Did putting on a dress unconsciously drive him to pursue a professional career that would inevitably require him to wear robes? Did he, even then, realize how good he would look in black?
So who should really take the lead in questioning John Roberts? Jeff Sessions? Chuck Schumer?
Or Carson Kressly?
|
Think again!
Last week's revelations that Roberts was a registered lobbyist for a cosmetics company AND did pro-bono work in support of the landmark Romer v. Evans gay-rights housing case put the phrase in a new light! As the saying goes: "Once is a fluke; twice is a coincidence; three times is a trend."
That adage has been restated by others in a saucier, yet perhaps more oddly apt manner, as the Once-is-Cool-Twice-is-Queer (OICTIQ) principle: "In the realm of human behavior a single event can be dismissed as sporadic, but you have to take it seriously when you find a pattern repeated twice or more, especially within a short space of time."
Well, then, let's now add this almost-overlooked human-interest nugget from the week after Roberts' nomination was announced:
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts doesn't mention acting talent on his resume, but his role as Peppermint Patty in a high school play may say as much about him as his other achievements.Obviously, putting on a dress should not create an inference about one's private, ahem, leanings. However, there are females in the "Charlie Brown" universe -- and then there are females! He didn't play Lucy or Sally. Peppermint Patty is, shall we say, somewhat unique and a never-ending fountain of cultural speculation.
Friends said Roberts was one of the few students at his all-boys Roman Catholic boarding school who had the self-confidence to withstand the razzing from classmates after standing onstage in a dress.
Not mean and duplicitous like Lucy, Patty is a pioneer or icon.
So, like the Romer case, John Roberts' stage role invites interesting questions: How much choice did Roberts have in the decision? Did it actually reflect his given preference or was the decision imposed from the outside? Natural inclination? Peer pressure? Did it "feel right"?
And, did his his childhood drag experience play a factor in his decision to go on the "down low" when it came to his cosmetics company/gay rights work? (Roberts neglected to mention either work in the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire following his 2001 nomination to the district court.) Did putting on a dress unconsciously drive him to pursue a professional career that would inevitably require him to wear robes? Did he, even then, realize how good he would look in black?
So who should really take the lead in questioning John Roberts? Jeff Sessions? Chuck Schumer?
Or Carson Kressly?
