It seems that Obama has been taking some heat lately for the fact that his White House basketball games don't include women.  A-ha, he's a sexist!!  Salon's Tracy Clarke-Flory has the right take on this, I think:

 

There is a tremendous difference between doing business at a topless bar and organizing a pickup game with co-workers, though. And, as a woman who has always tried to play ball, literally and figuratively, with the boys, I couldn't help rolling my eyes at the critique of Obama's supposedly sexist sporting habits. As a feminist, I find it embarrassing, frankly. I'm all for political and workplace parity, but surely the president should be allowed to bond with his colleagues in a number of different ways, right? We don't really want to require that he only hold official events with 50-50 sexual representation, do we? Or that he form a knitting circle, or some other stereotypically female-friendly club, as a means of connecting with congresswomen?

Truth is, if there's a dominant male culture in the White House it's more reasonably blamed on the gender divide that is already deeply entrenched in politics. Changing that isn't an issue of holding a basketball game with both male and female Congress members (although, hey, that would be great); it's an issue of balancing power in Washington and, to his credit, Obama has selected more women for his Cabinet than any other president. Clearly, there's still plenty more work to be done and I'm holding out hope the president's performance on that front will be as impressive as his jump shot. In the meantime, I sincerely hope he takes up Kathleen Sebelius on her one-on-one challenge.

What she said.

Apparently, the story of a Springfield, VA (my hometown!) man so charged gained "international attention" last week, but missed my attention till 5 minutes ago:

The way Eric Williamson tells it, he might have been making coffee or flipping eggs or taking a picture down from the wall when a woman and her 7-year-old son walked by his Springfield house and saw him, through the window, naked. 

He says he never saw them and never knew they'd seen him -- until the police showed up.

In a case that gained international attention last week, hitting a nerve for anyone who has ever dashed from the bedroom to the laundry room in the buff, Williamson was charged with indecent exposure.

There are conflicting accounts of what happened Monday morning, but everyone agrees on this: The 29-year-old was naked and home alone, and he could face up to a year in jail.

I actually know the neighborhood where it happened-- I had lots of friends right around there.  Anyway, in addition to being a matter of he said, she said, there's quite a number of interesting legal issues at stake.  The crux:

Washington area lawyers say the case, like others before it, will probably boil down to a crucial question: Did Williamson intend to be seen? Virginia law defines indecent exposure as the intentionally obscene display of private parts in a public place or "any place where others are present."

Today, the Post hosted an interesting chat with an attorney to really bore into the legal issues.   Now, that I think about it, I better be a little more careful when I dash through the house looking for some clean boxers.  Or better, yet, just yell for Kim to go find me some.