Reality 2021: On Not Sipping Sam Adams

Jeff Rubard

unread,

Nov 17, 2021, 8:10:14 PM11/17/21

to

Another year almost gone by, another unfortunate opportunity to reckon against "Portland irrealism": the tendency to see sanguinary things through "rose-colored glasses", intellectual anti-gravity machines that are far more lethal than the unavoidable physical force. Most all the world, the United States included, figures "a fact's a fact": if it doesn't suit me that something is the case, well, too bad.

Not so the Portland elite, who view the French expression *fait accompli* ("it's over") as somehow a "dare" and Nietzsche as a solid guide to objective reality. Unfortunately, however, the stolid view that "facts known as of 11/16/2021 still hold good today" sits well with them, which shows you it is more about deception and misinforming the public than it is about "postmodernism". (Facts known as of 11/17/2020? Still worse the case of the direction of the year to date, as those would "obviously" be true and still suspicious characters begin to sidle towards you ominously.)

It helps these "gifted" individuals to have a case example, and unfortunately it can be said that we may have one in former Portland mayor Sam Adams. "May have one?" Another thing that does not go away in tiresome Portland "contestation" is the legal liability for libelous and slanderous utterances. If one aims to hurt an individual's personal reputation and future chances through disseminating something not readily known to be true as fact, it's libel; if one aims to "harrow" them through producing inflammatory pseudo-truths on the spot, it's slander.

Tricky, tricky things to navigate. Still, let's consider a "rumor" that once would not have been beneath the dignity of American media.

It is really perhaps the case -- certain individuals have heard as much -- that Sam Adams, in terms of his "gay persona", may fit within the heinous category of "gift-giver". (The term is not homophobic per se, as it is used primarily within the gay community.) That is to say, not only has Mr. Adams been infected with the HIV virus for many years -- though perhaps not his entire political career -- but he has, in many cases, intentionally skipped precautionary measures such that his partners (male partners? perhaps not only) have become infected with the disease.

("Oh, I thought that was me." Yeah, me too, then we went to Prism and got a negative result within the half hour. Stay focused, dummy.)

This is... shall we say... not cool, if it's true. In fact, it's as *uncool* as you "deeply conservative" people would think it was. We are not talking about merely "throwing caution to the wind" as per normal sexual thrill-seekers with bad judgment ("That's all of us." Again, about presumption...) but instead about systematically trapping partners such that they were unable to make good choices about their sexual behavior with Mr. Adams. "It's time, my pet" kind of stuff, and unfortunately I'm not kidding.

"It's true or it's not, I suppose."
Only most of the world supposes that way, guy. And yet organized city calisthenics leagues are not an appealing counter-objection to the suggestion, either.

Jeffrey Rubard

Jeff Rubard

unread,

Nov 18, 2021, 7:42:58 PM11/18/21

to

Update: In the day or so since I posted this item, do you suppose the factual status of the claims made within have changed?
No?
How about that.

Jeffrey Rubard

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Dec 5, 2021, 2:57:53 AM12/5/21

to

Follow-up:

Questions around the legal questions of libel and slander are very real ones to have, ones often skipped in an era of 'loose talk' entirely.
I do not happen to have the medical details of former Adams' life, or that of his partners who may contest his reputation as 'safe and responsible', to hand. They would, in his case as well as that of others (of any orientation), exist. Gay men who are highly responsible, in various ways, about the HIV issue exist. It may very well be that Sam Adams is not one of them.

What we *do* have to hand is the ability to not 'read in' to states of affairs and claims made about them. The ability to 'muddy waters' by a piece of rhetoric which, on the face of it, just not be that impressive is not one to cultivate, in my not-that-rare book. The facts of some issue of public concern about a public figure must not be 'misconstructed' just so by finger-on-the-nose games. No, really.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Dec 7, 2021, 11:20:42 AM12/7/21

to

Do you sometimes say "If it's so, it's so"? I rarely do, yet a "for-me-and-not-for-thee" attitude about the reality principle seems... stupid. Psychotically stupid.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jan 10, 2022, 9:30:12 PM1/10/22

to

2022 Update: Stay cool, stay you.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jan 15, 2022, 12:24:35 PM1/15/22

to

2021 Close-Out Sale, Final: Or, er, it isn't true? Is that how it is?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Feb 28, 2022, 7:10:26 PM2/28/22

to

"Um, yeah. Did Sam Adams give HIV to a bunch of people, or not? 'Cause if he didn't, I figure this guy here is in a lot of trouble, and if he did I'm a little mad..."

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Mar 27, 2022, 5:14:36 PM3/27/22

to

Any truth to that, people? (No, not in the sense of "I'm the truth".)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Mar 28, 2022, 8:13:15 PM3/28/22

to

Like, did Sam do this or not? (I'm dyin' here.)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Mar 29, 2022, 4:27:35 PM3/29/22

to

It's "unrelated" to a lot of other issues, sure. Still, do you not sometimes think about these things?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Mar 30, 2022, 2:05:25 PM3/30/22

to

Think about them, as opposed to doing "bee dances" related to them (or even perhaps not related to them)?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Apr 1, 2022, 5:20:02 PM4/1/22

to

Of course these statements could be "interpreted" as slanderous...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Apr 12, 2022, 3:17:47 PM4/12/22

to

Or maybe they're true, and they'd *stay* true whatever 'fancy footwork' we did?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Apr 13, 2022, 1:47:42 PM4/13/22

to

"So did he do it or not?"

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Apr 16, 2022, 4:33:07 PM4/16/22

to

I guess it wouldn't be especially my concern or job... but if you'd been affected by such behavior from Mr. Adams, *you* might care.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Apr 19, 2022, 1:57:49 PM4/19/22

to

And in terms of the "relevant facts", they're not things that change from hand-gesture to hand-gesture, or "handstand" to handstand.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Apr 30, 2022, 7:35:26 PM4/30/22

to

Scientific Fairness: Mr. Adams and, say, George W. Bush do not have the same HIV "subtype".
(You can't pin it all on one person, you know.)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 17, 2022, 4:23:25 PM5/17/22

to

"True if it's true", i.e. it's really a comment about the "supervenience" of a diagnosis upon infection with a particular strain.
"Sam, Dubya, or neither... including if it's not to be had from either?" Not a question we're asking per se, but you "see the idea".

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 17, 2022, 4:24:47 PM5/17/22

to

Also: Imitations, even ones that are *not* very good-natured, of Mike Myers moving his hands to indicate something like
the "powers of Lethe" don't quite handle the biological and medical realities of such issues (or realities in general).

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 22, 2022, 1:28:50 PM5/22/22

to

"Hey, slander boy..."
Well, is it true or isn't it?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 29, 2022, 8:35:40 PM6/29/22

to

"The quality of that vintage wouldn't change, either."
Thanks, guy!

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jul 21, 2022, 7:12:19 PM7/21/22

to

I guess maybe not. But people are just "heartbroken" to learn there is a *matter of the fact* yes/no today, no?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jul 24, 2022, 6:26:02 PM7/24/22

to

"Maybe."
That's not "tough talk", you know, right? "It may be after all that I have to have everything I want."
It's rather a certain "self-indulgence".

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 5, 2023, 5:50:52 PM5/5/23

to

Update: "So, wait, *that's* Sam Adams?"
"Yes."
"How'd he get to be a Texas Ranger, then?"
"You kid."
"Guy, I'm sorry, I don't."

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 6, 2023, 1:00:47 PM5/6/23

to

("What does Pennsylvania think of all this?", etc.)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 6, 2023, 4:50:40 PM5/6/23

to

"You don't live in Pennsylvania."
Its governor does, though?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 7, 2023, 11:31:46 AM5/7/23

to

(What does he think of, say, John Fetterman? Does anybody know?)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 7, 2023, 6:26:52 PM5/7/23

to

"He don't think nothing."
Not quite up to "public standard" for issues of consequence, are we?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 8, 2023, 11:45:29 AM5/8/23

to

"Oh, I'll get the PA governor on the line right away..."
Maybe not.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 9, 2023, 7:03:27 PM5/9/23

to

"No, really, I'll get the Pennsylvania governor on the line right away."
Perhaps Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Fetterman can arrange to speak separately, really.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 11, 2023, 4:04:22 PM5/11/23

to

Update: Nice weather, huh?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 16, 2023, 11:29:44 AM5/16/23

to

No, I don't think it's "too hot"!

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 18, 2023, 6:37:49 PM5/18/23

to

"You got it all wrong."
Okay, ask Mr. Adams what he thinks of "Mr. Fetterman", then.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

May 19, 2023, 4:09:02 PM5/19/23

to

"We can't."
Could Mr. Shapiro reach him, then?
"What kind of a name is that?"
What's that to you?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 9, 2023, 6:32:13 PM6/9/23

to

"Okay, I guess Mr. Shapiro could talk to Mr. Fetterman about how he's been doing."
Awesome.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 10, 2023, 3:59:55 PM6/10/23

to

Elsewhere: "So, is John Fetterman former Portland mayor Sam Adams or what?"

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 12, 2023, 11:35:24 AM6/12/23

to

"Maybe we should ask that talking-head Tom Fitton about it."
"I guess he's busy being interviewed by the FBI, though."

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 13, 2023, 11:39:11 AM6/13/23

to

Unformed: So does the FBI just interview your "avatar", or what?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 14, 2023, 5:05:45 PM6/14/23

to

"It doesn't."
So it "fits" to whomever else "Tom Fitton" is?
"Yes."

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 15, 2023, 5:27:54 PM6/15/23

to

"If they interviewed 'Tom Fitton', then, they interviewed..."
"You're a little dense and 'naive' yourself."
That 'could be'.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 15, 2023, 6:02:13 PM6/15/23

to

"Of course it 'could be', if you hear what I'm saying."
That's itself a kind of dreadful naivete, if you'll get the 'bigger picture'.
In German (and US English borrows this) the expression *Kann sein*,
"could be", permits the assignment of *any* probability metric to a
possibility under consideration. There's no "...but it's too unlikely,
or you don't know what it means" proviso.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 16, 2023, 11:26:34 AM6/16/23

to

"But sometimes things are 'not so'."
In the sense of the German *nicht so*, where the thing is a terrible faux pas: "don't do that", and yet still occurs?
"Um..."

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 16, 2023, 11:27:37 AM6/16/23

to

"No, I mean that..."
Oh, something is inconveniently an actual fact or reality, and you "really wish it wasn't", so we should all act like it's "not so"?
"Yes."
Something about that seems a little crazy...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 20, 2023, 4:29:33 PM6/20/23

to

"And then he gave testimony as 'Tom Fitton', too?"
Hey, let's not get out of our 'competency' level.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 21, 2023, 11:25:49 AM6/21/23

to

"What difference would that make?"
Some? Anyhow, I'm not a lawyer...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 21, 2023, 3:03:16 PM6/21/23

to

"Like, what would be the point?"
Giving testimony under an 'assumed name' in a matter in which you figure under another, better moniker?
I think I can see the problem...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jun 22, 2023, 12:21:58 PM6/22/23

to

"Maybe you're a little naive."
Wouldn't my giving testimony as 'Johannes Schmidt' in a legal matter in which I had an interest be some kind of conceivable difficulty?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jul 17, 2023, 11:50:50 AM7/17/23

to

"How many names does 'Sam Adams' use, then?"
I don't know, I don't know how to go about the question.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jul 17, 2023, 5:14:32 PM7/17/23

to

"Isn't 'Sam Adams' a good enough name to do business by?"
What if you're being presented with another aka, incl. at some serious occasion?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jul 17, 2023, 5:19:07 PM7/17/23

to

...and what's up with Texas governor Greg Abbott, anyway? Is he 'someone else', too?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jul 18, 2023, 11:45:26 AM7/18/23

to

"He's not Sam Adams."
Are they related though, or something?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Jul 19, 2023, 2:30:17 PM7/19/23

to

"None of your business, guy."
Could it be? Could it indeed be "none of my business"?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Aug 14, 2023, 4:23:45 PM8/14/23

to

"Anti-competitive practices"

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Aug 26, 2023, 11:34:59 AM8/26/23

to

"Oh, come on. You don't know anything about the commercial law of that."
That could be, I guess.