This morning’s Denver Post proclaims, “Nothing incriminating found in Hancock cell records.” The skeptic may wonder, rightly so, if the Denver Post is so naive, so gullible to believe Denver’s mayor-elect actually–between 2004 to 2006–used his cell phone to schedule the particular trysts with prostitutes he is alleged to have engaged in. Michael Hancock is a bright, articulate gentleman who would, without doubt, understand that cell phone records are certainly akin to those white pebbles Hansel laid upon the ground when he and his sister, Gretel, were banished from their home. The pebbles, illuminated by the moon, led them directly back to their home from the dark and deep forest where they had been abandoned by their parents. Fairy tales can come true…
Notably, the “Denver Players” prostitute service noted on its logs that Hancock used pay phones to arrange the alleged trysts. A smart move by a smart man. Also notably, today’s Denver Post story includes the observation: “Additionally, Hancock’s cellphone was frequently in use at times when the appointment logs [of the "Denver Players"] alleged he was engaged with a prostitute.” May we then make the assumption that a “John” does not use his cell phone going to, coming from or waiting for his, um, encounter with a whore? Maybe. Maybe not.
I’ve noted in a prior post on this blog that “It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that radio talk show hosts are the most prolific whores on the face of earth who revel in humping to death each and every half-baked, bullshit issue that happens to tickle their nose hair.” And, of course, I was focusing primarily upon Peter Boyles, KHOW’s early morning “whore,” who has worked this Michael Hancock story to climactic heights. In spite of my earlier observation, I am, in this case, torn between allegation and truth. And, I must admit, that the “truths” Michael Hancock has provided to the Denver Post in the guise of his cell phone records rings (I know, I know: cell phone-ring) inadequate to a full refutation of the allegations against him.
I have, understandably so, become quite a cynic when it comes to politicians and their incredibly haughty inclination to feed their immense egos with the most unsavory of traipses through the underbelly of life’s pleasures. Indeed, since Nixon–who pleasured himself with the assumption that his power, his position was sacrosanct, invincible, above the law–I’ve turned a skeptical eye toward any politician’s sanctimonious platitudes that wreak, for me, of something dark and damning behind that closed door where “allegations” of misdeeds are kept as something to be manipulated, corralled, disingenuously disavowed as though–Can I get a Hallelujah!–the words I am not a crook ring reasonably true to partisans, to those who are blinded by their loss of reasonable doubt. A loss engendered by the illusory conclusion their man is above the paltry urges of mere mortals.
I do not know the truth about this imbroglio. I certainly wish I did. And, alas, the truth may never be known…except by Michael Hancock himself. “Such is the egomania of democratism,” William F. Buckley, Jr. tells us. To paraphrase: “If one is disturbed about Michael Hancock’s explanation, refutation of allegations, then one should be worried about one’s self, not about Michael Hancock.”