Well, better late than ever, I guess. It's time to review the candidates, and crown a new idiot with the "WTF was he thinking?" award.
Our first candidate was the moron who called for the overthrow of the Bush Regime (remember, Bush=Hitler.) He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)
At any rate, we can't give this jackass the award. He of course believes this inherently. In his pathetic, ignorant view of the world, it makes perfect sense. Again, we have to bow to the insanity of the Left. While a normal person (i.e. Me) can sit here and scratch his head and think "WTF??", it seems logical to the leftists. Sad but true.
Sorry, pal. You're a fool, but you're acting completely logically. For a fool. No award for you.
Our second candidate was HBO, for their new hardcore sex series "Tell me you love me". A hardcore show during prime time. Really good idea.
But I guess they can't win either. Handjobs are something that men like, especially if the woman giving it is attractive. And the woman (I guess she qualifies as an actress, though I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a documentary or not) in question appears to be hot. So while most men would prefer the real thing, and from an honest-to-God-woman-who-looks-like-an-attractive-woman-they-might-know-rather-than-a- silicone-inflated-porn-star, doing the deed will likely get some audience. It might not last too long, but at least initially, the audience will be there.
And besides, they got a couple seasons out of Deadwood, which seemed to exist only for the reason of using the F word every sentence. I'm an ex-infantryman with a potty-mouth, and even I found it to be too much.
So again, sorry. HBO might be kinda dense, but they don't quite rise to the level we require.
Our third nominee was Nebraska Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, for refusing to allow an alleged rape victim to use the word "rape" in court. Ditto for any other witness. Kinda hard to prove a crime if you can't describe it.
Reminds me of the tale I once read of a woman testifying on the witness stand that the accused had made an inappropriate comment to her. Since it was so awful, to protect her virtue she was allowed to write the comment down, and then it was passed to the jury to read. When it reached an attractive woman there, she read it and passed it to her neighbor. Unfortunately, he had been dozing while the witness talked, so he missed the basic story. When he got the note from the woman next to him, he winked at her and then pocketed the note, refusing to give it up, since he said it was "personal".
But onward.... The judge in this case would ordinarily rise to the level of stupidity that would earn him the award, but there are circumstances which prevent it. First off, this is the second trial of the accused, Pamir Safi. The first one couldn't return a verdict.
This kinda set off some alarm bells in my mind, but not strongly enough.
It turns out that, as far as I can piece the story together, it's too much a matter of "he said/she said". I gather that the "victim" Tory Bowen, admitted to meeting the accused at a party, getting drunk and then finding a flat surface (or not) and doing the thing that drunken coeds often do with men they meet at parties. And doesn't deny that this first time was consensual.
The problem arises from the apparent fact that, after they had consummated their new relationship, they apparently went back to the party, where Tory did some more drinking. Later, they apparently left together, and Pamir assumed that her earlier... cooperation... meant he still had a green light, despite her alleged inability to consent to the second time.
This is a toughie. If she was drunk and he had sex with her when she was passed out, that would seem adequate to satisfy me that it was rape. However, if she consented a couple hours earlier, and was still hanging out with him and drinking afterward, then that would seem to be a matter of Tory having a guilty conscience. I.E. The old "I don't usually do this, but...." problem.
The first time she could shrug off as being drunk and horny. The second time? Well she's either a slut, or she was raped!
Guess which one the average woman would choose?
So I can't award the judge the prize. I still don't think it was a good call on his part, but it's impossible to decide if she was raped or not- if she had sex with him a few hours earlier, and it was consensual, then how can one "prove" via normal investigations that the second time was rape?
Which I guess is why the first trial ended with no real verdict.
So now we come to our final candidate. Michael Vick. Let's see.... you're a multi-millionaire when you're 20, due to your incredibly physical gifts. One of the faces of the most popular sporting league in the US. Besides millions of dollars in salary, you earn millions more in endorsements. And you decide to gamble some pocket change on dog-fighting, which is illegal.
And not just that. According to the charges against you, when a dog doesn't meet your standards, i.e. isn't willing to fight to the death for your entertainment, you slaughter it on the spot. Through such humane methods as electrocution and (still my own personal "favorite") slamming it to the ground over and over.
I question whether Vick and his cronies rise to the level of "human", after acts like that.
So.... for risking his entire career, his millions of dollars, his future, his (relatively) good name, the image of the entire NFL, and possibly his freedom, in order to watch Man's Best Friend kill another animal, Michael Vick gets this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.
Congratulations, Mikey. Now I hope you burn in Hell.