Wednesday, June 1, 2011

'I Can't Say with Certitude if it's My Crotch'

Nine words I thought I'd never hear together: 'I can't say with certitude if it's my crotch'

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Weiner Twitter follower Ginger Lee

What a strange thing to say. I think, if I were to take a picture of my crotch, wearing only my underwear, I'd think that would be memorable enough to take note of. If he was in the habit of having someone else take pictures of him, close up, in his underwear (particularly when Mr. Happy was "happy"), I'd think that would be pretty memorable as well.

How does one not know whether or not an alleged picture of you, taken in your underwear, is you or not? Are not the possibilities that it was taken by you, (Memorable) or it was taken by someone else, close up with your consent? (Also memorable) Or, it was taken by someone else, close up without your consent? (Memorable and perhaps actionable!)

Do you not recognize the underwear, Congressman Weiner? Could you be in the habit of wearing someone else's underwear and that's why you don't recognize it?

Could the picture have been taken by someone whom you presume to take a lot of pictures of different men's crotches, close up, when they are "happy"? Is the uncertainty caused by the unreliable nature of someone you allowed to photograph your crotch, not knowing if this shot in particular was yours? Or do you simply not remember the incident because drugs and/or alcohol may have been involved?

Somehow, in most of the alternatives, Congressman Weiner, you don't come across as a sympathetic victim. Maybe you should just quit while you're behind? (Of course, it wasn't your behind that got you into trouble in the first place!)

Update: In order to be perfectly fair with Mr. Weiner, in the age of photoshop, he may have been thinking, I don't know if that's me, I don't remember it being that big! Our apologies for not including every possibility!

H/T Memeorandum

More at The Other McCain


  1. Look at that disastrous news conference, the clenched jaw, the shifty eyes...

    The twittery wiener is guilty.

  2. He needs to at least get his story straight!
    "I was hacked!"
    "It was a prank!"
    "The Secretary disavows all knowledge of your actions"

  3. He did say that "photographs can be manipulated". Apparently, someone Photoshopped his pants off. I've got to go and look for that tutorial.

  4. "photographs can be manipulated" So, he goes to the men's room, drops trou and verifies either it is or it isn't! Case closed.

  5. It does make me wonder why these guys in positions of power often seem to find themselves in some kind of trouble because of their crotch. I have gone from doubting that the photo in question was Weiner's wiener to being pretty sure it is indeed Weiner's wiener that is on display. Not that I am crying in my beer. Weiner is a wiener and should know better than to tweet his wiener. Of course it still is not proven to be his wiener but the truth will probably poke its ugly head out soon.
    It likely will cost him his "job." Couldn't happen to a nicer wiener.

    Sorry for the rather immature rant but it was kinda fun.

  6. Henry Kissinger said that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac", BC. I think he had a point.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. Anonymous said...

    The important point is this: The anomaly in the header indicates that the image was not sent by Weiner. It had to have been sent by someone else.

    Not only that. Believe it or not, when an outsider sends a pic to someone else's Yfrog account in this fashion, the action creates a message in the "twitterstream." The message seems to originate with the Twitter account holder -- but it doesn't. It comes from somewhere else -- from someone mailing a picture to the account holder.

    This is a serious security flaw in the design of Yfrog and Twitter. It allows a malicious outsider to "spoof" a tweet that seems to come from someone else.

    "anonymous" then went on to list thirteen Republicans and charges against them that may or may not be true. The highly selective nature of the fact that all thirteen were Republicans would cause me to ask this partisan if he/she/it thought that no Democrats were guilty of sex crimes? Perversion crosses party lines. I could just as easily post a list of Democrat sex offenders.

    Tell you what, anonymous partisan. If you want to post a list of Republicans and their crimes, and document them, knock yourself out. I'll post it here. But convince me that it's not just another drive by libel first. Post some links. I frankly don't have time to search out dozens of names to see if you are libeling them on this forum or not and I won't be used to spread libels. The onus is on you as their accuser to come up with more than just what could amount to a drive by libel.

    But, as I said, you can post a list of Republicans and I can post a list of Democrats. It proves nothing, other than your extreme partisanship.

  9. He may have been framed, LCR. But regardless of being framed, hacked or pranked, Weiner's was the most obfuscating, lamest denial in the history of denials.

  10. FEH, Obviously the root cause of his transgression is jealousy over the nickname our liberal friends have for the Speaker of the House. Why else would he send a picture of himself pitching a pup tent other than penis envy? The only question is "how much alcohol was involved?".

  11. spartacus: I can't say I've ever consumed enough alcohol to not remember whether I or someone else had photographed my junk or not.

  12. So you're saying you remember it? So much for plausible deniability!

  13. I did mine in Technicolor and Cinemascope. Weren't you invited to the opening?

  14. Pass the brain bleach, please!