And even arguendo, I strenuously disagree that the Ethics committee of either house should investigate when someone lies about sex.

I disagree. I think that it doesn't matter what you lied about, but that you lied.

But, as I recall, the ethics committee isn't investigating him because he lied, but because he has been convicted of a crime, as well as made an attempt to use his status as a senator to get out of it. It remains to be seen if these allegations reflect on his fitness as a US Senator.

The thing is, having a personal life at odds with your political position is not a firable/resignable offense-- it's a reason for voting against someone, or even shaming them and their party, but it shouldn't trigger an ethics or criminal investigation, hearings, or any of those other distractions.

I don't see anyone calling for hearings or a criminal investigation. It's been his own party that are telling him to go.

(Well, he did sign DOMA.) And Clinton did lie, and he did cheat, and he did make happy families while doing gross things.

Eh. That's really stretching. Let's take sex out of it. If Clinton and the Dems decided that obesity was such a problem, they were going to outlaw fatty foods, all the while he's sneaking hamhocks and butterbeans-that, in my view would be the same thing.

I guess the people after Clinton could spin it as hypocrisy on his part--I just think it's a much muddier argument than this one.

What ita said.

More to the point, as a Democrat, I'm not looking for a Republican sexual witch hunt. I'm saying, "Dudes! This is why we don't need to be legislating what happens between consenting adults!" We're all for keeping our noses out of the bedroom. But we're not above appreciating someone being hoist by his own petard.

I dislike the hypocracy, but it isn't illegal. My problem is with the secrecy about breaking the law. If he had pled guilty to shoplifting and told no one, it would still be an issue for me. The man is a lawmaker, fergawd'ssake.

My problem is with the secrecy about breaking the law. If he had pled guilty to shoplifting and told no one, it would still be an issue for me. The man is a lawmaker, fergawd'ssake

exactly.

It looks like the current strand of the argument is that Craig should either be investigated for, or resign because of, pleading guilty to disorderly conduct. Failing that, he should be investigated for, or resign because he did not issue a press release about it. I can't say I agree. I don't recall Patrick Kennedy being investigated when he pled guilty to DUI, and this is arguably a lesser charge. Nor do I see why his office should have pre-emptively announced it. But minds may differ about the latter. Not sure it's related to Senate Ethics though.

Is it "issue a press release" or is it "report to the committee"?

I honestly don't know. Is there something you're supposed to do senitorially when you eff up legally?

They say booties are in for the fall. I swear, I hate booties. They confuse my eye when I'm consuming an outfit. But there's a part of me that wants these so bad, or these based on a teenaged trauma over what my mother wouldn't let me wear, even if I spent my own money.

I know it's not a sensible way to covet shoes, and I'd never spend that much money on them. But dude. Wicked ugly.

In less bizarre shoe news, on my way into my building just now, my heel got caught in something, and I both wrenched my foot and lost the little rubber part off the heel. The thing is, I don't like the shoes that much anyway, so I'll probably never get it fixed. Hmph.

In the back of my closet, coated in a decade's worth of dust and cathair, I have a pair of black suede shoes shaped like the second shoe.

I've had 'em since high school. I need to get rid of them, I think. Not sure why I still have them. I've had shoe purges.

Congratulations, meara!