Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter

OFF THE GRID
May 29, 09 | 8:50 AM

Is Sonia Sotomayor Gay?

Share
Well there, I asked the question. It might as well be asked. It is being asked. It’s the question mark about every single public person without a spouse or children or a big time social life.

This is partly for a very good reason: A great number of public people are gay. A great number of public people are obviously gay and for so long we’ve been complicit in pretending that they’re not. And, indeed, it may not matter that they are. Except for the dark and dismal air of dishonesty and subterfuge—which, of course, in politics is business as usual, gay or not.

I have no idea what Sonia Sotomayor’s sexual tastes might be—if any. (Though asexual, once an acceptable status, is now pretty much understood to be a cover.) The evidence is wish-washy. No children. Vagueness about an early marriage. A lot of pictures with nieces and nephews—a standard cover. Yes, apparently, a present relationship. But then there’s you-know-who in Chicago, with her unconvincing escort. We have become very savvy and sophisticated and doubtful about this stuff.

But should we know?


(Sotomayor and her niece; AP Photo)

One effect of not knowing about all the people in politics who are gay is that we now assume everyone who isn’t obviously hetero is gay. So the reason to know is, well, to know—and then not to assume that everybody is dissembling. Though they probably are.

I don’t know, for instance, if Condi Rice is gay, though I don’t know anyone who doesn’t assume she isn’t not gay.

Does it matter if she is—Condi or Sonia? Does it matter if we assume they are when they aren’t?

Obviously, at this point in time, there are policy reasons for wanting to know which team a person is on. It is hard to escape the fact that in political life one’s loyalties, on this issue, are going to be in demand, or, severely tried. Indeed, as to the latter, it has been an open secret for a long time that the Republican Party, especially its operatives and consultants, seems to be disproportionately gay. Something about self-hating gays drawn to the gay-hating party, no doubt.

The retiring Justice Souter, everyone seems to assume, is gay. So there are many people who believe he ought to be replaced by a like-minded person. As it happens, there is reason to believe that Sotomayor, among the possible nominees, was one of the least likely to be gay, which might have helped her case.

I don’t care (really). On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind knowing. I wouldn’t mind not having to wonder. And—so shoot me—knowing does explain a bit, fill in the picture, round out the profile. And, again, it certainly is something that comes up a lot. Inquiring minds do want to know.

We have now opened up these confirmation hearings to just about everything. They are really about prying and ferreting and insinuating, but mostly about a whole bunch of pointless stuff.

So why not ask something that people actually care about?

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.
60 comments
VIEWING:
 
JBTipton
May 29, 09 11:07 AM CDT
"So why not ask something that people actually care about?" Because reasonable and reasonably grown-up people are quite happy to leave ALL questions of a person's sexuality to be precisely what they declare it to be--or choose NOT to declare it to be. While of course there are almost certainly going to be matters before the Supreme Court that will have special resonance for homosexuals--closeted or not--the same can be said for almost every case that will come before the Court--it will have some special meaning to some justices because of their membership in a wide variety of groupings--ethnic, gender, sexual preference, racial, cultural, styles of thinking, and a host of issues over which we rightly will not be questioning this or any other candidate. Why rightly? Because no one, not the candidate herself, can accurately state what direction his or her presumed or declared membership in any one of these numerous sub-groupings would have on her/his rulings. So the answer as to why Inquiring Minds Want to Know? Pure purience. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
May 29, 09 11:19 AM CDT
My point is that, pruriently or not, everybody's asking anyway, so why pretend otherwise.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
RobN
May 29, 09 12:03 PM CDT
First of all, "everybody" isn't asking. A lot of us don't care and aren't asking. If you want to know, say that you do. Don't hide behind "everybody". Secondly, how about we just rely on good manners for a change and consider the fact that it's none of our business.
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
kokuaguy
May 31, 09 12:09 AM CDT
Of course she's not "gay." Do you think for a minute Obama's first S.C. justice nomination would have made it through the vetting process if he/she were not straight as an arrow? Give us a break!
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
trollific
Jun 1, 09 8:09 PM CDT
Never heard of Michael Wolff or Newser before he (the everyman) posed this very question. Enjoy your fifteen minutes Mike.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Concerned9
Jul 8, 09 6:38 AM CDT
I want to know because I have decently "looked the other way" before only to find a gay person make laws or rulings which I find objectionable. (I am from Massachusetts where we reelected to Congress a guy who seduced a page boy.) Gay politicians now invariably have an agenda to promote their way of life. I have never understood what makes them so special. Why can't bigamists have some rights? What about people who would marry close relatives. They are natural too, but I would not want them in the Supreme Court.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
RogerMohajir
May 29, 09 11:58 AM CDT
"Something about self-hating gays drawn to the gay-hating party, no doubt." Wow! Self-edit much? I have no idea of the accuracy of your assertion that the Republican Party is disproportionately gay, but the casual conclusion you draw from that "fact" is nonsense. Apparently gay people's lives have no meaning beyond sexual preference, unlike straights who can be passionate about economics, social issues, and a host of other ideas that might affect their party affiliation. Rich white men don't have to be self-loathing to be Democrats, but gays can only be Republicans if they hate themselves? Get a grip. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
Reader81174264
May 29, 09 12:13 PM CDT
Is Judge Sotomayor a turtle? I just thought I'd ask, because someone out there must be wondering. I've never seen her carry her home around on her back, but I've never seen her home at all...so who knows. She might be a turtle. I don't really care if she's a turtle. I just think that we should know since someone out there must care about whether she is a turtle and, if so, all that that implies. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
Reader81261615
May 30, 09 7:00 AM CDT
Good comment! But please don't upset those kids who love Ninja Turtles.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
JonmarkP
May 30, 09 5:10 PM CDT
You bet your sweet ass she's a Turtle.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
BigBill
May 29, 09 12:41 PM CDT
I'm gay, and I wonder. In Sotomayor's case, a quick google search (with a dab of skepticism that any allusion to potential gayness is probably Republican in origin) didn't turn up much...Even Justice Souter warranted a google search. Maybe he's just another unusual single person, or maybe he's gay. People just want to know, you know? They are curious, and it's an unfortunate, undeniable fact that one's place on the Kinsey scale is something people want to know about, kinda like they want to know whether you're a boy or girl, white or black, etc. or etc. A lot of time and energy is spent hiding these facts from other people, and when you step into the public spotlight and become a public person, all pretense of privacy is (virtually) gone. I'm sure that few politicians will dare say it, in public (they're fond of hiding their skeletons, as well), but in private...If you score an interview with her, you can always ask, and if they don't say "NO" loud and clear, then there's your answer. As for the Republicans hiding in the closet...It's unfortunately spot on. I only wish more of these closet cases would be outed in order to reduce the chokehold the Republican party has on them (and us!). Too many closeted gay Republicans have been ardent sponsors of legislation restricting my (our) rights, and the only way to reduce their power is to make naked their orientation. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
cris
May 29, 09 12:42 PM CDT
This is the second time in the past week-and-a-half that you've mentioned that you "don't care" about the ostensible topic of your editorial. It seems to me that you only add this disclaimer to distance yourself from the inanity of the topics you pick. You routinely write about topics you a) don't care about b) don't appear to have researched and c) don't advance the public interest in any appreciable way. How does it feel to be a hack? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
trollific
Jun 1, 09 8:12 PM CDT
High fifty for you cris.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
fancygapva
May 29, 09 1:49 PM CDT
Did you write a column asking about Souter's sexual orientation? Did you (or anybody) dare to ask about Condi's sexual orientation? Is it anybody's business? For the past 15 years or so I have been a member of the 5th sexual orientation--voluntarily and adamantly celebate after proving conclusively to myself that my judgement in partners is very very poor. I was married 32 years ago but not since. Some people think I'm a Lesbian. Does that make me one? Being married and having kids is no proof of heterosexuality. A person's statement that he/she is NOT gay doesn't prove anything. It's only when a person comes out that you "know" for sure, and even then it's all surmise. So why even write the piece you wrote? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Zephyr
May 29, 09 2:17 PM CDT
I must say, this truly comes off as...well sensationalism. Should we ask? No. Should we ask anyway because "everyone"...meaning you...are? No. You backtrack a lot to say that it shouldn't matter, when its clearly exactly what you seem to think matters. "I don’t care (really). On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind knowing. I wouldn’t mind not having to wonder. And—so shoot me—knowing does explain a bit, fill in the picture, round out the profile. And, again, it certainly is something that comes up a lot. Inquiring minds do want to know." Not having to wonder? Inquiring minds want to know? How can you write this an not that you're simply saying: I know it shouldn't matter, and I shouldn't ask, but I'm going to ask anyway and write like it matters. Because I can. Sensationalism. Nothing more than a vie for attention. And you got it. Way to go. "It’s the question mark about every single public person without a spouse or children or a big time social life." It only is because people like you won't get off it. We (by we I mean myself and many, MANY others, a few of which have made excellent remarks here before me) don't care. We ACTUALLY don't care. And whats more, we for some crazy reason believe that Ms. Sotomayor has a right to privacy. Enough of your gossip, save it for a slumber party with 13 year olds. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
May 29, 09 3:32 PM CDT
I understand that you are high-minded and I am in the gutter. Or could it be that I am just curious about what makes people tick?
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
RobN
May 29, 09 6:19 PM CDT
You're not curious about what makes people tick. If you were you'd be writing an article on her upbringing, her early influences and experiences. You're just curious about somebody else's sex life. If you are then say so. Don't hide behind the everybody's thinking it routine. At least be honest.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
Zephyr
May 30, 09 1:18 PM CDT
If it's "high-minded" to think that gossiping about someone's private life on a very public blog is immature, then yeah I guess I am. I'm 21 years old. Why am I the mature one here? What's your excuse?
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
No118
May 29, 09 3:12 PM CDT
This was a stupid article. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
May 29, 09 3:26 PM CDT
thanks.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
paulpvbrown
May 29, 09 8:07 PM CDT
People seem to think that being gay is about sexual behavior, when it isn't at all. Being gay is about who one loves. You can be a gay virgin. But being gay is also relevant to a person's life story, the same way that being Puerto Rican, female, Catholic, etc., are. I am gay, and I want to know if she's straight, bisexual, a lesbian, asexual, or is into red patent leather thigh-high stilleto heeled boots as her sexual interest. These things will shape her view of the world. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Fondue
May 29, 09 11:16 PM CDT
This brings to mind something I never considered before. Ever notice how when people say that being gay is a choice that no one ever says being straight is a choice? Has anyone ever asked a straight person this? It's ridiculous really, so why do people assert that people are gay by choice when it clearly is not?
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
MikePost
May 29, 09 8:20 PM CDT
I also sort of wondered if she was gay, but if you're going to write an article about it, why not really write about it and start asking people who she's close with, worked with, family members etc? Why just speculate without any of the normal things any writer would do on any other topic? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
IN RESPONSE:
paulpvbrown
May 29, 09 8:35 PM CDT
Yes, he could have done a better job.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
kokuaguy
May 31, 09 12:18 AM CDT
After thinking about it I've concluded that Wolff's piece isn't about Judge Sotomayor, but whether it matters what a nominee's orientation is, and whether the nation has a right to know. If she were possibly gay, I don't think Wolff would be trying to out her. Because she's not, I believe, it's safe to have this discussion in the context of her nomination.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader81224351
May 29, 09 8:21 PM CDT
I thought one of the benefits of being a two-time National Magazine Award winner and having your own column in Vanity Fair was that you got to write about topics that you 1)knew about and 2) cared about. I also didn't realize people got National Magazine Awards for phoning it in. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
trollific
Jun 1, 09 8:20 PM CDT
Bright side! Now you know that much more about, what was that again? National Magazine Award? Is that like selling subscriptions, or something?
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader2043
May 29, 09 10:20 PM CDT
That's a queer question. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
nick
May 30, 09 6:10 AM CDT
Is Sonia Sotomeyer gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that). Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
trollific
Jun 1, 09 8:24 PM CDT
another Seinfeld reference for M. Wollf. Sonis: ""Look, you wanna have sex right now? Do want to have sex with me right now? Let's go! C'mon, let's go baby! C'mon!"
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader81261615
May 30, 09 7:08 AM CDT
I agree with RobN's comments. Please write a piece based on research and facts about Sotomayor's academic upbringing, her rulings and her intellectual orientation. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
frankel1205
May 30, 09 10:45 AM CDT
Mr. Wolff, I can tell by your commentary that you are old. Only people over 40 give a damn whether someone is gay or not---unless they are planning to date them or have a relationship with them. I'll be glad when people who are younger than 40 are running the place. Gay marriage and everything regarding sexual orientation will be totally moot. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
May 30, 09 10:55 AM CDT
You may be right. But, meanwhile, there are still an awful lot of people over 40.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
trollific
Jun 1, 09 8:16 PM CDT
daz rite mike, an we prane you, like, 26. getchyasef on ice, dawg. we doan wantcha! evuh.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Sniffer
May 30, 09 1:01 PM CDT
People under 40 running the place - Hmm - that's what Bill Clinton & George Bush Jrs. Generation said about trusting people over 30 & look what those 2 pieces of Shit did to Our Country. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
JonmarkP
May 30, 09 5:19 PM CDT
I'm far more interested in why a corporate tool like Obama nominated her than whether or not she's gay. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
hongdb
May 30, 09 5:52 PM CDT
Mr Wolff: I am a longtime admirer, and your right-rail column is one of the first sites I check-out each morning. Thanks for your newly-prodigious output. That said: I promise you that I am a genuinely, 100-percent, un-frustrated asexual person. I had no idea that such a status was "now pretty much understood to be a cover." Imagine that! An air-beard? I do agree with you however, that, as a 47-year-old, neat, too-thin, well-groomed, well-dressed (read: uptight) judge/instructor/appellate coach-mentor, I am widely assumed to be gay (except by those who remember my promiscuous romps though HS, undergrad and L school (my theory: the good lord gave us all only so much "oomph," as it were, and I shot-off my allotted three-score-and-ten's-worth in 34 mad frantic years--talk about a "Burn Rate!")). And FWIW, I just let 'em all think whatever they like, as any demurrals (a) would be perceived as defensive, (b) would be dignifying an uninteresting and prurient concern, and--most importantly (c) would be implying that there is something wrong with being gay. Perhaps THAT is why Judge Sotomayor and Sec'y Rice keep their own counsel? And finally: in my well-earned opinion, I believe that asexuality is more deviant and unnatural than ANY other sexual orientation. Far far more. Brrr! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
May 31, 09 9:26 AM CDT
You are right. You must be right. Why wouldn't there be a lot of people--perhaps ultimately most--who tire of sex? This status surely deserves it's own movement. No sex please and proud of it.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
lexingtonave
May 31, 09 3:52 AM CDT
Mr. Wolfe, Are you gay? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
WEAREDOOMEDFOLKS
Jun 7, 09 11:29 PM CDT
Hee Hee
Vote up! Vote down!
0
bostonbilly
May 31, 09 9:02 AM CDT
OMG, WOMAN, LATINA, and now possibly GAY! It's more than my liberal heart can take. Stuff it RWers! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Nwambe
May 31, 09 12:33 PM CDT
For God's sake... "though I don’t know anyone who doesn’t assume she isn’t not gay. " You're reaching. It's a slow news day, and you've got nothing else to write. Alas, it makes you sound like a 14-year-old girl gossiping about who's taking who to the Sadie Hawkins dance. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
kirei_gaisuto
May 31, 09 3:17 PM CDT
Who gives a fuck if she's gay? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
WEAREDOOMEDFOLKS
Jun 7, 09 11:30 PM CDT
AMEN
Vote up! Vote down!
0
AlarmingFemale
May 31, 09 7:15 PM CDT
@RobN and frankel1205 - cosign you said it well. "Only people over 40 give a damn whether someone is gay or not---unless they are planning to date them or have a relationship with them." Could we bump that up to 50? I'm going to be 49 next week and I couldn't care less is she is gay. It hadn't crossed my mind, in fact. But then, I don't run with Mr. Wolff's crowd. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Isekrzual
Jun 1, 09 9:43 AM CDT
"(Though asexual, once an acceptable status, is now pretty much understood to be a cover.)" - Umm... Excuse me? There are plenty of asexuals, like myself, who do not use this word as a cover for being gay. No, it is a huge part of our identity, whether we like it or not. To write us off as covering for some feelings of shame over being gay is offensive in around 5 different ways. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader81541738
Jun 1, 09 9:48 AM CDT
You may be in the gutter but you're looking at the stars. If you know who I'm paraphrasing, YOU"RE GAY!!!! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
NewserHound
Jun 1, 09 10:08 AM CDT
Sorry, but if you chose a career / lifestyle in the public eye, or even worse, a career that the tax paying people support with their $$, then you race, age, sexual orientation, income, should all be of public record. I am sorry, but lying over sexual preference only infers that you will lie about something else possible something more serious. I do not care gay or straight who my representatives, judges, and politicians are, I just think that they HAVE TO BE honest and forth coming. Or they shouldn't be so willing to collect tax payers money. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
sarabethbrooks
Jun 1, 09 1:50 PM CDT
You know, saying that asexualty is just the same as saying that gay men are covering up their attraction for women. I know it's impossible for you to imagine a fulfilling life without sexual attraction, but I'm telling you that I am living that life right now, and I've never been happier! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader81644963
Jun 2, 09 4:35 AM CDT
Take 4 prozac a day. Then rethink your comment about asexuals. I bet you there are millions of people there on medication who don't feel a damn thing anymore. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader79213555
Jun 4, 09 3:50 PM CDT
My god, Wolff. Your self-hatred comes on like a tidal wave everywhere you go. It's understandable: If I were you, I'd hate myself, too. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
newsrmandan
Jun 4, 09 5:07 PM CDT
Fondue...you stated to your own surprise...."Ever notice how when people say that being gay is a choice that no one ever says being straight is a choice? Has anyone ever asked a straight person this? It's ridiculous really, so why do people assert that people are gay by choice when it clearly is not? ...... No one ever says being straight is a choice because its normal/natural to be straight. The overwhelming majority of people on this earth live within the bounds of mormal/nature. As humans we all make choices that further our human-ness. Choosing to be homosexual does not further the cause of being human. Birds fly they also can walk but overwhelmingly they choose to fly, why? Because it furthers them in there bird-ness. Don't take this as being snide just giving you an answer, you seemed stumped. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
MikePost
Jun 5, 09 6:29 PM CDT
Being gay, I believe, from a straight prospective is just as normal for them as it is normal for us to be straight. Orientation is not about choice, in my view, but about discovery. I discovered in my early teens that I was attracted to cute girls. I imagine that gays are attracted to their same sex the way straights are to opposite sex. People make way too big a deal out of our orientation... straight or gay etc. I look at it like this: if you aren't gay you probably know someone who is and if that is a family member or a neighbor or a work colleague, then you probably aren't put off by gays. If you don't know any gays AND you get your beliefs from faith based information about gays... then you probably have a problem with gays. Anyway, them's me views on the subject. I could be wrong, but I don't have a problem with gays.... or blacks or even lesbian commitment ceremonies. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
MikePost
Jun 5, 09 6:34 PM CDT
And another thing: do gay birds and animals--much documented in science biology studies etc--choose to be gay? Inquiring minds want to know. Perhaps gays in nature just made a wrong choice and need to be set on the right path by prayer and Bible study strongly admininstered by a cruel fundamentalist zoo keeper. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader82153571
Jun 6, 09 8:14 AM CDT
So all single individuals are gay? that's a new one Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader82153571
Jun 6, 09 8:19 AM CDT
all single people under suspicion of being gay now Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
WEAREDOOMEDFOLKS
Jun 7, 09 11:27 PM CDT
So be it if she's gay....one thing for sure she does not care for WHITE MEN! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Concerned9
Jul 7, 09 9:36 PM CDT
I could care less about her personal life or anyone else's for that matter. But I am a person who hates having anything shoved down my throat, and in my 66 year lifetime I have seen the gay community infiltrate politics, show business, schools, etc , invariably using these positions to promote and force their doctrine into our general society. It particularly galled me to see my kids indoctrinated in their schools. There seems to be no limit to what they want as they try to force respect and privileges for the gay lifestyle from every last citizen. It has raised my objection to them in general. So while I believe in "live and let live" they don't seem to offer it to me. It matters to me that the next Supreme Court Justice might be in a position to rule that I must like whatever is next in the Gay agenda. It is not an irrelvent question to me. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
OctoPapa
Jul 11, 09 6:04 PM CDT
BIGOT! The problem is, even though you bring up 'HATE' in your second sentence, you can't recognize your own bigotry. Read back your message, substituting "straight" for "gay" and see how it sounds ....Oh, and the phrase is "I could NOT care less." Your way does not make sense.... kinda like your diatribe about "them." Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Concerned9
Jul 12, 09 11:21 AM CDT
Thanks for your reply. That is a exactly what I was talking about. I expressed my honest opinion and look what I got back.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Nov 20, 09 | 8:32 AM

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

Nov 19, 09 | 10:14 AM

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

Nov 18, 09 | 2:40 PM

And We Thought We Hated Mammograms

Nov 18, 09 | 8:43 AM

China and the Obese: The President Meets His Greatest Problems

Nov 17, 09 | 6:50 AM

Rupert Murdoch’s Guy Gets It

Nov 16, 09 | 12:30 PM

Obama's Secret Weapon: The Hug

Nov 16, 09 | 8:01 AM

The President Wants You to Know He’s Too Dopey to Use Twitter

Nov 13, 09 | 6:55 AM

Does Warren Buffett Know What He’s Talking About?

Nov 12, 09 | 7:02 AM

Is Lou Dobbs the Last Conservative Pundit?

Nov 11, 09 | 9:07 AM

Who Was the Fort Hood Shooter?

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS