I’ve posted enough times (three, as the case may be) to suggest a simple bit of friction in my mind regarding Sam Adams.\u00c2\u00a0 I don’t much like Mr. Adams, but my sense of outrage starts way too late in the proceedings to much care for your — what is it?, www.samadamspleasegooffyourself.com and www.predatorareyousam.com ?<\/p>\n
There’s this thing where I don’t quite understand Randy Leonard.\u00c2\u00a0 Sam Adams met with him privately, Leonard asked him if anything more was going to come out, Adams said “no”, the Oregonian published the interview with Beau Breedlove, Leonard muttered\u00c2\u00a0on the lie from Adams has\u00c2\u00a0new damaging information had come out.\u00c2\u00a0 It may be that I’m too far out of the orbit and Leonard is too close to Adams and works with him every day, but I didn’t see too much new information in that interview that significantly altered my view:\u00c2\u00a0 I had pretty well inferred sexual advances at the age of 17; it seems implausible to imagine just out of the blue two weeks after the 18th birthday — Sex, with\u00c2\u00a0nothing unsordid before then.\u00c2\u00a0 Mind you, Mr. Breedlove denies actual sex, but acknowledges prolonged kissing in a public restroom (the detail of setting I wave away as neither here nor there).\u00c2\u00a0 But, mind you, I cannot accept even here the cries out of a pedophile (or, rather whatever the term is to “phile” for pubescent teenagers) “grooming” for, like three weeks.<\/p>\n
Dissecting some issues of concern, coming to conclusions based in the minituae of details further than some would come to conclusions, and just what damaging details Breedlove revealed, Adams comes off badly for two reasons:\u00c2\u00a0 #1:\u00c2\u00a0 He initiated it.\u00c2\u00a0 Ergo:\u00c2\u00a0 Predator, such as it is.\u00c2\u00a0 As a means of comparison, the 22 year old Monica Lewinsky that the 17 going on 18 yeard olf Breedlove is being compared to was the one who flashed her thong at President Clinton.\u00c2\u00a0 #2:\u00c2\u00a0 Another difference between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clinton in their Major Age Gulf Affair, a dent in Dan Savage’s g-danged “Rules of the Game”<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 Clinton, in his recollections, in his wary “I just screwed up” reflection, collected the thoughts that Lewinsky is a smart good young woman — worthy of giving a collection of Walt Whitman to, it would appear.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0Mr. Adams to Breedlove after this ill-advised fling:\u00c2\u00a0 see panel two in this cartoon:\u00c2\u00a0 “I didn’t find it compelling.”<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0Logical enough –\u00c2\u00a0Adams is\u00c2\u00a0in his 40s, and\u00c2\u00a0Beau is\u00c2\u00a0bouncing from the age of minority to the age of majority — not much in common there except an active Libido.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0But Beau named his dog “Lolita”, couldn’t Adams at least give him a Nabokov book and put in a good word for him?\u00c2\u00a0 (The latter one just suggests a matter of sleaziness, the former one suggests a matter of criminality.)<\/p>\n Back to Randy Leonard and the sense of not having “anything new come out”.\u00c2\u00a0 I sort of feel the same way with the Willamette Week.\u00c2\u00a0 Mark Zusman came on KPOJ the day of Obama’s Inauguration and relayed the story.\u00c2\u00a0 And relayed the story of confronting Sam Adams with the story, and Adams’s reaction — shaken to the core, denial, fidgeting nervously — then having to accept its reality.\u00c2\u00a0 At any rate, an understandable reaction.\u00c2\u00a0 Zusman left out an important detail which I wished I knew — its omission\u00c2\u00a0allowed me to\u00c2\u00a0at least take the\u00c2\u00a0Adams result as\u00c2\u00a0“understandable reaction”.\u00c2\u00a0 I understand why this had to be omitted with journalistic practices of sourcing, but its omission throws a chink in the story of Adams’s reaction and my ability to at least understand Adams.\u00c2\u00a0 Here<\/a>:<\/p>\n During the Jan. 15 interview, WW asked Adams why Vezina would say something that Adams\u00e2\u20ac\u201dat the time\u00e2\u20ac\u201dwas contending was a lie. Adams suggested it was because Vezina had an ulterior motive. Adams said it was because \u00e2\u20ac\u0153I accused him of trying to rape Beau.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/em><\/p>\n Wait.\u00c2\u00a0 What?\u00c2\u00a0 Adams accused his accuser of rape?\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>\n Seriously, everything — including the character assassination of Mr. Ball, makes some type of semi-respectible sense.\u00c2\u00a0 But — um — you don’t falsely accuse people of committing rape.\u00c2\u00a0 That’s a… no-no…. significantly shifting my impression of Mr. Adams.<\/p>\n And its omission contradicts the impression left by Zusman when first hearing the story.\u00c2\u00a0 I suppose a dripping of information allows the Willamette Week to prolong its import on the story, a by-product of the more assured import in having to handle your sources, and there was probably no way for Mr. Zusman to relay this withoug biting his tongue.\u00c2\u00a0 But, beyond that, I do have a bit of a problem with this:<\/p>\n There is no evidence that Adams\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 claim has any factual basis. WW waited to publish this story until it could get responses from Vezina and Breedlove. But Breedlove did not return more than 15 messages asking about the alleged rape attempt.<\/em><\/p>\n “More than 15 messages”?\u00c2\u00a0 Couldn’t it have stopped at, like, reach attempt number 10?<\/p>\n As for Adams, Bang #2 here comes with:<\/p>\n Contacted on Friday, Jan. 23, Adams backed away from his earlier explanation of Vezina\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s actions and offered a new one. He acknowledged that Vezina was telling the truth about Adams\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 having had sex with Breedlove. But the mayor still insisted that Vezina\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s motives weren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t pure.<\/em><\/p>\n Okay.\u00c2\u00a0 The “Rape” allegation wasn’t floating here — is there another equally contemptible thing Adams could float?\u00c2\u00a0 He’ll have to sit on that one, until he comes up with something to fill in the vague “motives weren’t pure”.<\/p>\n Instead, he said Vezina was angry because he learned that Adams lied to him about his whereabouts on July 9, 2005.<\/em><\/p>\n Hm.\u00c2\u00a0 A bit of defense comes in the comments section, which I don’t quite buy because at this point Mr. Adams should know he’s speaking to a broader crowd:<\/p>\n