Fin Fang Foom On The Tom Cruise Lawsuit

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

What a crock of shit.

 

There’s a difference between having the legal right to out someone and having the moral right. Don’t I and others also have a right to privacy? A person’s sexual orientation is a very personal and private issue. And there is no legitimate reason to be discussing someone else’s sexual orientation at work. There is nothing about someone’s sexual orientation that pertains to work (unless you’re an escort). And to discuss someone’s sexual orientation at work is just plain gossip; very petty gossip at that.

 

At my last assignment, I had a co-worker ask me if I were gay. I told her yes. This after we had worked together for over two years and went out to lunch at least three times per week. She said she suspected that I might be gay since after all this time, I never talked about dating girls or having a girlfriend. You see, I never ever “pretend” to be straight, pretend to be in to girls, or pretend I’m dating. But I do prefer to keep me personal business private. There’s a big difference between hiding the fact that I’m gay and choosing to keep a private issue just that —private.

 

I don’t feel fear or shame. Being gay is a small part of who I am. But it’s also a very personal part of who I am and don’t feel it is anyone else’s fucking business! Especially people I work with! Ironically, I think the guys who feel it necessary to out others are actually the ones who are filled with fear and shame. They have to out others to validate themselves, to show others, “See, I’m not the only one!” Seems to me they are a little weak at the knees and need reinforcement. If a gay man wants to be out to his co-workers, that’s great! That’s his choice. But why do some of you feel it’s OK to make that same decision for someone else? (I know, for the greater good of the gay community as a whole. See Line 1 of my post.)

[VaHawk]

The examples you cite relate to race and religion which are two of the protected minority groups under both the Fair Housing Act and the EEO acts. As such they are protected under federal law and can not be denied housing or employment or dismissed from employment based solely on their race or religion. Sexual orientation is not a protected minority under these laws or any other federal laws.

 

Protection for sexual orientation is on a local and sometimes state

level or an individual's company policy. As such, gays can be denied

housing and/or be evicted based solely on their sexual orientation. Also, if the local or state government does not have protections for sexual orientation and one's employer does not have protection a gay can be refused employment or dismissed just because he/she is gay.

There is no more glaring example of this than the U. S. government itself, in summarily dismissing men and women from military service for the sole reason that they are gay.

 

As such many gays would lose their employment, suffer harrassment, denied promotion or even dismissed if it became known to their employer that they are gay. If there are no local, state or employer protections provided, then the dismissed person will have no recourse, either thru the law or thru the employer.

 

This doesn't even include the physical danger that such a revelation could bring upon the "outed queer" from his community. After all, not every gay person lives in a large, mostly gay friendly area like NYC or LA!

 

As far as Tom Cruise is concerned, he makes a lot of his living as a "heterosexual" leading man in romantic roles. If he got a reputation as gay, don't you think those roles would disappear? After all, when was the last time you saw an openly gay actor such as Rupert Everett in such a role? I APPLAUD!!! Tom Cruise for vigiliantly pursuing those who accuse him of being gay, with nothing to back them up but their own words. By doing so, he prevents who knows how many untold others from such accusations, made only to make money for themselves using his name.

 

With today's modern technology we could bring back an updated and improved version of that oldie but goodie circa 1930's Germany and provide a national database of "known homosexuals". It shouldn't be too difficult to tie in the barcode from gay related merchandise to

the credit card number used to pay for it, thus automatically putting that person on the database. What the hell, with the new homeland security, they are probably already doing this using the ip addresses of people visiting gay oriented web sites. At this

point, we could all expect to get our very own velcro pink triangle, courtesy of Uncle Sam, to attach to our clothing so we can be easily identified. That ought to be visible enough, don't you think?

 

IMO, no one, but no one!! has the right to infringe upon the privacy of another individual and decide for that individual when, if ever, he/she should reveal his/her sexual orientation! In other words, mind your own damn business, and if you do that then you won't have time to mind the business of others, who don't owe you anything whatsoever!

http://jeeptalk.org/crack/smilies/ups/razor_wind/madani.gif http://64.207.13.28/mysmilies/contrib/lynx/grnmad.gif http://jeeptalk.org/crack/smilies/contrib/dvv/po.gif http://64.207.13.28/mysmilies/cwm/3dlil/mad.gif http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/ups/fireslash/mad1.gif http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/otn/angry/argue.gif

[phage]

>There’s a difference between having the legal right to out

>someone and having the moral right. Don’t I and others also

>have a right to privacy?

 

Then stay at home and keep it private. What you don’t have is a right to expect some kind of gentlemen’s agreement or secret society covenant from someone who sees you in a gay bar. You described the guys as VERY flamboyant and VERY obnoxious. I think it’s reasonable to assume that you weren’t particular kind or friendly towards them. Why would you be surprised that they weren’t keen to keep your little secret? Why would you have a right to expect it?

 

>A person’s sexual orientation is a

>very personal and private issue. And there is no legitimate

>reason to be discussing someone else’s sexual orientation at

>work.

 

That’s just naïve and wishful thinking. It is only a gay person’s sexual orientation that is considered sacrosanct. The breeders scream their orientation in a thousand different ways – wedding rings, pictures on their desk, water cooler chitchat, holiday parties, etc.

 

>I don’t feel fear or shame. Being gay is a small part of who

>I am. But it’s also a very personal part of who I am and

>don’t feel it is anyone else’s fucking business! Especially

>people I work with!

 

I wasn’t trying to psychoanalyze you. I was just making the point that I don’t feel any fear or shame so find it hard to understand why it is such a big deal to some people. You are the one that said that you were fucking furious and REALLY wanted to hurt them. That degree of rage, just because someone said they saw you at a gay bar, has got to come from somewhere.

 

>But why do some of you feel

>it’s OK to make that same decision for someone else? (I know,

>for the greater good of the gay community as a whole. See

>Line 1 of my post.)

 

I never said it was okay and was just trying to explain the reasons why I was not “fucking furious” when it happened to me. As a matter of fact, it isn’t something I would do, but I am able to see that there is another way of looking at it.

[woodlawn]

>That's a slightly different point. If an attorney has actual

>knowledge that a witness will perjure himself, he cannot let

>hi take the stand, or he must retire from the case. I did not

>suggest that Tom's lawyer hadactual knowledge but that in

>giving advice one weighs risks and rewards. I think the

>potential of recovery is so low, and risk of a "Mark Fuhrman"

>moment so great that most attorneys would advise a client

>against proceeding, but unlike in the situation you suggest,

>without actual knowledge, their would be no breach of any

>ethical duty to allow the client to proceed.

 

Technically you are correct, however I can't imagine any reputable attorney, especially someone like Fields, agreeing to take a case in which he believed, though he did not know for a fact, that his client could prevail only by giving false testimony. If you take a case under those circumstances you must believe that it is only a matter of time until your client is faced with a choice between lying and losing the case. Would you really take the case under those circumstances?

 

The point about the potential recovery means nothing. Cruise has an annual income in eight figures and even if he won millions in the suit it would mean very little to him. The purpose of filing such suits is not to get money from the defendants but to send the message to the media that they are taking a big risk by publishing stories like that.

[ad rian]

>The examples you cite relate to race and religion which are

>two of the protected minority groups under both the Fair

>Housing Act and the EEO acts. As such they are protected

>under federal law and can not be denied housing or employment

>or dismissed from employment based solely on their race or

>religion. Sexual orientation is not a protected minority under

>these laws or any other federal laws.

 

Yes, but good luck trying to prove discrimination under a "protected" ground. I bet most visible minorities would claim invisibility if they could too rather than place their faith in an ex post judicial or administrative remedy that may work at best for intentional overt acts, but probably rarely or never for covert or unintentional systemic acts. Face it, the claim to invisibility by some gays and Jews gives both groups a degree of protection that perhaps only Michael Jackson with millions of dollars of plastic surgery can hope to obtain. Unless invisibility can be given to every one, I for one don't have much sympathy for either Tom Cruise or Madelaine Albright!

[ad rian]

>Technically you are correct, however I can't imagine any

>reputable attorney, especially someone like Fields, agreeing

>to take a case in which he believed, though he did not know

>for a fact, that his client could prevail only by giving false

>testimony.

 

You are falling back in to the problem again when you say "in which he believed, though he did not know for a fact". In that case, there is no ethical bar from the attorney, and probably an ethical imperative that he continue for withdrawing could hurt his client's case.

 

>If you take a case under those circumstances you

>must believe that it is only a matter of time until your

>client is faced with a choice between lying and losing the

>case. Would you really take the case under those

>circumstances?

 

I think reputable attorneys do this all the time. They advise the clients of the risks and rewards, but short of actual knowledge most attorneys would continue to act especially if as with Tom the client has the ability and motivation to pay handsomely. And yes, you would consider any reputational downside in two ways: by extracting a premium bill from Tom; and/or a memo to Tom and to the file indicating that he voluntarilly assumed the risk.

 

As for the attorney, once Tom is told of the risks of the "Mark Fuhrman" moment, there is certainly no legal downside, and little reutational downside. But on top of all that as the initial post and some of my responses have pointed out, the actual complaint is not much of a denial. To repeat, there was no affidavit from Tom or anyone else, and there was no denial that he ever engaged in "homosexual acts" with any one other than his accuser. I think that is pretty dispositive that the attorney had a long, but polite and sensitive, chat with Mr. Cruise before filing the Complaint.

 

>The point about the potential recovery means nothing. Cruise

>has an annual income in eight figures and even if he won

>millions in the suit it would mean very little to him. The

>purpose of filing such suits is not to get money from the

>defendants but to send the message to the media that they are

>taking a big risk by publishing stories like that.

 

True enough, but the point is that still must be weighed against the Liberace mor Mark Fuhrman moment! As for the Media, I think Tom would have to go much further to put any fear into a first amendment lawyer for any media outlet. So he does not consider himself to be a "homosexual"? Big deal! (Recall, Madelaine Albright claimed she never knew she was Jewisjh until the Israelis told her after she became Secretary of State. Nobody believed her either.) The question is whether he ever engaged in, or engages in homosexual acts. For the record, Tom at least so far has not made that denial. Without that, he is fair game for innuendo as long as you don't name a particular partner under similar circumstances. Doesn't all of this have the air of Gary Hart's famous "Risky Business" dare to the media that backfired on him so tremndously?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Well, TommyBoy has been "awarded" $10M from Kyle "Me And My Big Mouth" Bradford. Here is the link for the pleading: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/chadslater1.shtml

 

I'm struck by Point 5: "Each and every part of Bradford's statement was unequivocally false. Tom Cruise is not and has never been a homosexual. He has never had a homosexual (or any other) relationship with Bradford, whom, he does not even know."

 

His attorney, Bertram Fields, is explicit in declaring to the Court that Cruise has never been a homosexual. However, Mr. Fields doesn't add the caveat that Tom has never had a homosexual relationship with someone OTHER THAN Kyle "Me And My Big Mouth" Bradford. I find that most telling. Tom may not be technically a homo, but I betcha there are a few skeletons in his closet.

 

Suspiciatedly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest scrtlovr]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thoughts

 

- Jews are not a race, but a people. After thousands of years of wandering the earth and intermarrying, there is no such thing as a Jewish race. There is a religion with its varied practices around the world and there is a country, but contrary to the Nazis' beliefs, there is no race.

 

- As for Tommy boy, whether he's gay or not, (and for whatever it's worth, I do think he is) his behavior to all the rumors simply reflect his character. We all know from interviews and articles that the guy is obsessed with image and perfection and what could be less perfect for his image than being perceived as gay? On the other hand, someone like Keanu Reeves (who, for whatever it's worth, I also think is gay, and one of the worst actors ever, although I wouldn't kick him out of bed, nor Tom for that matter, but I digress)) doesn't really care about his image, therefore didn't feel compelled to fight the rumors the way Mr. Cruise did.

 

- We're also forgetting that Tom is a scientologist and God knows what "advice" they give him on how to handle all this. I remember rumors about Travolta (also a scientologist) being gay and rumor had it that the cult arranged for him to marry another scientologist to quiet the rumors. They did the same, still according to rumor, (better be careful here, I don't have $10,000,000.-!) with Tom Cruise and Mimi Rogers (another scientologist) and then Nicole Kidman (also a member of the cult). Let's face it, if Tom is gay, his marriage to Nicole was a fair exchange he got to remain Mr. Sexy Straight Movie Star and she got a pretty damn good career out of it, which I'm not certain she would not have gotten without him (or the cult). That doesn't mean she doesn't deserve it, she is a good actress, with a little more soul than Cruise, but we all know that talent is only a small part in the recipe for success in Holywood. We'll see now what hanging around Tom will do for Penelope. Will she become a huge star? Will she join the cult? Inquiring minds want to know.

[ad rian]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thoughts

 

>- Jews are not a race, but a people. After thousands of years

>of wandering the earth and intermarrying, there is no such

>thing as a Jewish race. There is a religion with its varied

>practices around the world and there is a country, but

>contrary to the Nazis' beliefs, there is no race.

 

That's an interesting view, but this is a subject much debated in Jewish circles here and in Israel. Some say race. Some say religion. Some say people. Where any particular Jewish person comes down on this is probably a function of their own family heritage, degree/intensity of religiosity, and degree/intensity of assimilation. I have heard people called anti-semitics for using any one of those fomulations. (Wasn't it Hannah Arendt who famously asked "Who is a Jew?") The point is though whether in a multi-racial, multi-cultural heterogenous society claims of invisibility or anonymity should be priveleged for "invisible" minorities like Jews or Gays, but not for visible minorities. So I hope folks continue to out Tom and Madelaine!

[Guest scrtlovr]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thoughts

 

- I'm not an expert on Judaica and don't claim to have the ultimate answer, but as a Jew (however non practicing) I do take offense if someone refers to Jews as a race. No one refers to Catholics as race, they're also all over the world with various degrees of religiosity and practices (South American Catholics versus French or...) and although the Vatican is not a country, it still is a place that represents all Catholics . . .

 

- Personally I am AGAINST any kind of outing, it's just a fascist way of telling people how to live their lives even if, as gay men, we like the idea that some famous figure turns out to be gay, it should only be because he/she DECIDED to come out and not because of some righteous organization's picking on him/her, or because of some blackmailer forcing them out of the closet. There's a price to pay for everything and in this day and age, if Tom Cruise (if he's gay) wants to remain at the top of the box office and keep making millions of dollars, he'd better stay in the closet, at least til he's too old to be a sex symbol. Sure it would be very noble and helpful to gays everywhere in the world if someone like him came out, but it's a lot to ask - the poor boy may just not be ready for regional theatre or guest appearances on popular tv series just yet.

 

Cynically yours,

 

Scrtlovr

[ad rian]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thoughts

 

>- Personally I am AGAINST any kind of outing, it's just a

>fascist way of telling people how to live their lives even if,

>as gay men, we like the idea that some famous figure turns out

>to be gay, it should only be because he/she DECIDED to come

>out and not because of some righteous organization's picking

>on him/her, or because of some blackmailer forcing them out of

>the closet.

 

That's fine, as long as you acknowledge that the claim to anonymity and invisibility that you make either as a Jew or as a Gay man is a priveledge to avoid discrimination, and that priveledge is one that many other visible minorities simply do not have. Recognizing that priveledge has very radical implications for social equality and remedial measures. Where I lose patience is with those who want to claim that privelege without recognizing what flows logically from that recognition. Until then, I think outing both Tom and Madelaine is the moral thing to do!

[ad rian]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thoughts

 

>- I'm not an expert on Judaica and don't claim to have the

>ultimate answer, but as a Jew (however non practicing) I do

>take offense if someone refers to Jews as a race. No one

>refers to Catholics as race, they're also all over the world

>with various degrees of religiosity and practices (South

>American Catholics versus French or...) and although the

>Vatican is not a country, it still is a place that represents

>all Catholics . . .

 

I was going to let this go since for me the claim to invisibility is unjustified whether on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation unless it can some how be given to all. But, the problem I have with this part of your post is that isn't there a huge difference between a religion that is passed from the mother to child, as in Judaism, and one like Catholicism that openly proselytizes and baptizes to convert or gain for new adherents? It is true that more liberal or reform Jews might not be sticklers in this regard but that certainly is not the mainstream view here or in Israel.

 

BTW, the Vatican is a country, but I don't mean to quibble. If your point - stated more clearly in an earlier post - is that Israel is a country based on religion rather than race, that does not work either because of course, the test for the right of return is the ability to trace the Jewish lineage, not who shows up at the door claiming to be Jewish or wanting to convert. That's not to say that I agree with this in the case of the immigration of Russian or Ethiopian Jews, but at any rate as you can see this is much more complex than you suggest. A very good orthodox friend of mine who belongs to a sect that is actively seeking all the lost tribes of Israel to hasten the coming of the Messiah is fond of telling me on the use of DNA to link Jews in Peru, Indonesia etc to their European/Israeli counterparts.

 

As I said, it matters not to me how you characterize the group, I just find the claim to a priveledge of anonymity to be morally indefensible in a heterogenous world where some folks have no choice of invisibility and others do.

[Guest scrtlovr]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thought...

 

You're right about all the technical stuff re: Israel, Vatican, etc. I was just too lazy to expand - lol.

 

I understand your point of view and you are right: it is definitely a privilege to be part of a "not necessarily" recognizable minority and that makes it unfair to those who have no choice in the matter. I am fully aware that being able to "pass" as non Jew and/or straight (not that I try one way or the other) is a luxury that I wouldn't have if I were African American, Asian or... But still, in the words of Mommie Dearest: "Nobody said life was fair, Tina". It's a little like saying that since two thirds of the people on the planet are starving, no one should have any money.

 

Personally, I know that if I were a movie star of Cruise's caliber I would be incapable of living a lie, not because I'm noble, but I simply couldn't bare to hide all the time - I might be greedy enough to "play the game" until I reach financial security, but I would feel my life is wasted, if I can't live it as "me". But even that way of thinking is a privilege, I live in New York City. If I lived in 1930 Berlin, I would clearly do my best to be as Protestant and straight as possible, in order to save my life. Or if I lived today in certain Middle Eastern countries, I sure as hell would not be using this site and would hide in the deepest closet. The mere fact that you and I can communicate freely on this site and agree or disagree is a privilege known by few on this planet, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enjoy it out of respect for the ones who live in totalitarian regimes. But I digress...

 

How did we manage to turn this juicy gossipy thread into an intellectual disourse? Speaking of gossip, how much involvement, do you think, scientologists have in Tom's life? Do you even care? I'm fascinated (and appalled) by the power of some of these cults...

[phage]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thought...

 

>Speaking of gossip, how much

>involvement, do you think, scientologists have in Tom's life?

>Do you even care? I'm fascinated (and appalled) by the power

>of some of these cults...

 

This is an interesting tangent. I have a friend who is a Scientologist and suspect that it has a great deal to do with the lawsuits. Scientology has a long history of using the courts, and whether you think it is a load of crap or not, they have many intelligent professional people who know how to work the system.

 

I have tried to understand my friend’s beliefs without seeming overly curious. (I don’t want him to think I’m interested in attending classes.) It has really been good for him. He used to be a flighty, irresponsible mess and Scientology seems to have given him a more ordered and rational approach to life.

 

I checked them out a couple of years ago. I was impressed with the aspect of self-help and motivational philosophies that beginners are exposed to, but when you dig deeper and look at the stuff more “advanced” members are taught…it gets pretty wacky. I guess by the time you get that far, you’re ready to believe anything they spew out.

[Flower]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thought...

 

>That's fine, as long as you acknowledge that the claim to

>anonymity and invisibility that you make either as a Jew or as

>a Gay man is a priveledge to avoid discrimination, and that

>priveledge is one that many other visible minorities simply do

>not have. Recognizing that priveledge has very radical

>implications for social equality and remedial measures. Where

>I lose patience is with those who want to claim that privelege

>without recognizing what flows logically from that

>recognition. Until then, I think outing both Tom and

>Madelaine is the moral thing to do!

 

THAT IS SUCH A LOAD OF CRAP !!x(

By your statements here, you would therefore be OK with someone identifying you on this board by name and address?

 

Why not "out" yourself on this board to show us all you are not really the hypocrite we know you are.

[VaHawk]

RE: Tom Cruise Lawsuit and other totally random thought...

 

That is such a big, big load of crap, it would fill 10 outhouses!! Great point on outing himself if he so damn sanctimonious! Why do I get the feeling that he's still in the closet both to his family as well as his friends and co-workers. Really, people should just MIND THEIR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!! x(

[Guest feisty1]

>No, I didn't know. I have never heard Cruise or any other

>actor in his class say anything to indicate that they feel

>they benefit from having people gossip about their personal

>lives.

 

They don't have to indicate that they benefit from having people gossip about their personal lives -- they pay publicists big bucks to do it for them. I'd call that a pretty decisive indication that they do feel they benefit from it.

 

Why does Tom Cruise command such a whopping fee? Because he's such a brilliant actor? Hardly. Because he's a personality. Any studio with a Tom Cruise film on its slate knows that film is guaranteed big media coverage, because of him. His face on the cover of "People" or "Us" sells magazines. He and Nicole Kidman getting married, or he and Kidman getting divorced, or he and Penelope Cruz having a fling, etc., sells even more. He's practically a license to print money. Do you think all that happens by accident? Do you think Cruise would get the paychecks he gets if he wasn't willing to cultivate his public image and make the most of his appeal? Do you think he would be paid the same if people didn't like to gossip about his personal life? And could you possibly think that he and his handlers and lackeys don't know that?

 

The trade-off when you create and market a public image is that it no longer belongs to you -- it belongs, as the name implies, to the public, and you no longer have complete control over how it develops. There are some actors who've maintained a degree of privacy, skirted the limelight as much as possible, and still had successful careers -- Jack Nicholson comes to mind. But Nicholson never made $20 million per picture. Tom Cruise isn't one of those actors. When celebrities in his position claim "invasion of privacy," all they mean is "I wanted you to say this, not that." It's disingenuous, to say the least.

 

Michael

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Brilliant analysis.

 

Meryl Streep is another good example - she's the greatest actress of all time yet she has kept her private life private. Last week, I walked past her house on West 12th Street and there was her husband sweeping the stoop. I thought: "How bizarrely normal is THAT!" I remember her saying that she never allowed her children to be photographed or featured with her in articles because the moment you open them up to the press, all bets are off and they are fair game.

 

I love Meryl. She's going to get TWO Oscar nominations next month and will beat, by TWO, Bette Davis, making her the most nominated actress or actor ever.

 

Did I mention I loved her?

 

Cinematically yours,

 

FFF

[VaHawk]

Well, here goes my 3rd attempt at responding to this post, and if it goes to lala land again, then, what the hell, I tried.

 

Really FFF, Meryl Streep??? As Susan Lucci can tell you, the number of nominations doesn't mean crap! Except for Tom Hanks, I don't see anyone close to Katherine Hepburn, in the possibility of topping her 4 Oscar wins. Although I think Meryl is a good actress, I have always found her to be overly emotive in the "ham/hamette" sense. She is certainly no better and mostly not as good as, IMO, Glenn Close, Anjelica Houston and Jessica Lange (IMO the 3 greatest actresses in the modern age).

 

I find that the Oscars, like all award ceremonies, is based more on politics/popularity than merit. How else can you explain that Haing S. Noor has an Oscar and not Glenn Close??? Or likewise, in a different vein, that Henry Fonda wins an Oscar for his "last gasp" performance in On Golden Pond, but is not worthy for Grapes of Wrath, Mister Roberts, Jezebel or countless other roles??? Or like Henry Fonda, that Paul Newman (the epitome of the American actor ideal) did not win an Oscar for HUD, Hustler, Cool Hand Luke, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Sting or even Cat on a Hot Tin Roof????? :o

 

I won't even mention Cher, when Sharon Stone "so what if I made my name via a cunt shot in Basic Instinct" was passed over for Casino (IMO a good movie and a great performance), not to mention Nicole Kidman in To Die For (fabulous movie!! and once again a great performance) was passed over and last, but certainly not least, Tom (damn the controversy) Cruise was passed over for Magnolia, Born on the 4th of July or even Mission Impossible!!!!!!! :-(

[Guest feisty1]

>Last week, I walked past her house on West 12th Street and

>there was her husband sweeping the stoop. I thought: "How

>bizarrely normal is THAT!"

 

Since a townhouse on West 12th Street or similar is way out of most people's reach, I'd say, not very normal at all. :7

 

Michael