What are the Odds?!?!

Michael A. Livingston of Cheltenham, Pennsylvania wrote to the New York Times to complain about Frank Rich's "Monday Night Football/Indecency Hoax" article. At first it seemed as if Mr. Livingston was trying to portray himself as a left-leaning feminist...

"Having recently been host to a party for 9-year-old boys, who alternated between pretending to be Janet Jackson baring her nipple and the desperate housewife baring her bottom - punctuated in each case with fits of uproarious laughter - I cannot take quite as cavalier an attitude toward the 'Monday Night Football' episode as does Frank Rich. The issue is not obscenity but rather the trivializing, hostile view of sex and women that now passes for free expression even on programs aimed at younger audiences. Whether Mr. Rich accepts it or not, this is a major issue for many otherwise tolerant people, and plainly expressed itself in the recent election."

...although it is obvious that in reality Livingston is a homophobe (the boys were imitating naked women!) and a Christian follower of Rush "Shocked" Limbaugh:

"I must also take issue with Mr. Rich's increasingly mean-spirited comments regarding the personal behavior of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators. The point of a religious philosophy is not that people are perfect, but that they can be forgiven for their sins through repentance and charitable behavior."

So can we forgive Livingston for completely making his story up? Seriously, what are the odds that the boys were actually acting out the two biggest Religious Right-American Family Association censorship flashpoints? The story would have been more believable if they had said the F-word 21 times and pretended to kill each other while redecorating Livinston's house.