Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
La Cage Aux Sénateurs
Larry Craig goes to court to fight his sex rap later this week. Frank Rich -- the only readable regular in the New York Times opinion district now that John Tierney has moved to the science pages -- sticks up for the embattled senator:
What Mr. Craig did in that men's room isn't an offense either. He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn't expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and "wide stance" were at most a form of flirtation....
Yet gay civil rights organizations, eager to see a family-values phony like Mr. Craig brought down, have been often muted or silent on this point. They stood idly by while Republicans gathered their lynching party, thereby short-circuiting public debate about the legitimacy of the brand of police entrapment that took place in Minnesota. Surely that airport could have hired a uniformed guard to police a public restroom rather than train a cop to enact a punitive "Cage aux Folles" pantomime.
|9.24.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Frank Rich for the win.
The muteness of gay rights groups is akin to when people mock Condi
for "not really being black" and the black-rights groups suddenly
turn deaf. It's not about actually sticking up for all members who
are oppressed, just the ones you agree with.
How sickening.
|9.24.07 @ 11:37AM|#
It's my understanding that the basis for the charge was not the above listed behavior, but what preceded it. Namely (from the officer's charge sheet): peeping at the officer through the stall crack from outside the stall for two minute before entering the stall next to him.
pistofnick|9.24.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Two nervous toe taps for Craig!
I can't say I like politicians, or worse hypocritical closeted
ones, but he committed no crime.
He should fight the charges, sue the police involved in the sting,
renounce his Senate seat and find an honest line of work: producer
of g@y p0rn perhaps?
Jesse Walker|9.24.07 @ 11:43AM|#
peeping at the officer through the stall crack from outside
the stall for two minute before entering the stall next to
him
Which, if the officer is telling the truth, makes Rich's suggested
alternative policy even more sensible. Don't send an undercover cop
into the bathroom. Send a uniformed guard. That should discourage
such invasions of privacy.
(An additional suggestion: Don't dress the guard like a cop in the
Village People.)
|9.24.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Which, IF THE OFFICER IS TELLING THE TRUTH,
makes Rich's suggested alternative policy even more sensible. Don't
send an undercover cop into the bathroom.
My emphasis. As a juror, I'd give less credibility to a cop than to
an average citizen. I didn't always feel that way. Now, who's fault
is that?
|9.24.07 @ 11:51AM|#
The Republicans are in a trap here; if they abandon Craig they are homophobes who are "lynching" him, and if they protect him they are hypocrites. Craig has put them in a real pickle.
|9.24.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Gay Rights activists need to endorse sex in public bathrooms, or
they're traitors to the cause?
Whatever.
Craig wasn't soliciting steamy bathroom stall sex?
Whatever.
Now, the argument that deterrence is a better way to deal with the
problem than sneaking up on people is a good - and one I wish the
highway patrol adopted - but that doesn't get Craig off the hook,
or require gay rights groups to come to his defense.
|9.24.07 @ 11:53AM|#
I have sympathy for Craig but Rich does have a point that this kind of cruising for lack of a better term by cops is over the top. Put a guard in the bathroom and bust anyone having sex or have security people take a walk through once an hour. How hard is that? Why go trying to entrap dirty old men and then arrest them for "maintaining a wide stance"? What a joke. Craig should definitely be held up to public ridicule. It is pretty obvious that he was cruising for gay sex bathrooms. But, he should have never been arrested.
|9.24.07 @ 11:54AM|#
but that doesn't get Craig off the hook, or require gay
rights groups to come to his defense.
If it was Barney Frank, they would. Hypocisy all around.
|9.24.07 @ 11:57AM|#
"If it was Barney Frank, they would. Hypocisy all around."
That's a big if and probably not true. I don't see why gay groups
should defend a man who thinks that sodomy should be illegal.
|9.24.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Gay rights groups would be hitting the baracades for Barney Frank. What the police did is either wrong or it is not. It is not okay as long as the bust the right gay guy. But the fact is that if you are a homosexual who doesn't toe the party line with gay rights groups, in their view it is okay for you to be abused for being gay. I really think they wouldn't have a problem with going back to the days of criminal sodomy as long as the law was only applied to closeted Republicans.
|9.24.07 @ 11:59AM|#
"But the fact is that if you are a homosexual who doesn't toe
the party line with gay rights groups"
Are we still talking about Sen. Craig ? He and his ilk believe that
gays should have no rights.
|9.24.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Gay groups would be extremely disappointed in Mr.Frank if he was caught cruising for sex in a bathroom. As an out congressman, he has the added responsibility to demonstrate that gay people can live moral lives.
|9.24.07 @ 12:03PM|#
John Tierney:
The Minnesota sting operation may well be unconstitutional, as
the A.C.L.U. says.
At least, the undercover cop shoulda gotten an affirmative response
from Craig to the question: "Do you wanna have sex right here?" for
Craig to have committed a crime. There might be fair reasons for
laws that proscribe sex in public places. But there are no fair
reasons for laws against certain behavior just cuz that behavior
grosses out many of us.
Yet gay civil rights organizations, eager to see a
family-values phony like Mr. Craig brought down, have been often
muted or silent on this point.
Good point.
|9.24.07 @ 12:04PM|#
If it was Barney Frank, they would.
And your evidence for this is...? Ah, I see. It's right there in
your next sentence.
Hypocisy all around.
Since we know "hypocrisy all around," then it must be true that
they would act differently if this was Barney Frank.
|9.24.07 @ 12:07PM|#
He and his ilk believe that gays should have no
rights.
Yeah, I guess if marriage is the one and only "right" that defines
you as a rights-bearing human being. But for the rest of us with
less of a penchant for hyperbole...not quite.
Gay Rights activists need to endorse sex in public bathrooms,
or they're traitors to the cause?
joe (as you're oh-so-fond of saying), u need to werk on yer reeding
skillz. Read the post, and what I wrote and get back to me. That
shouldn't be too hard for you (except you failed it the first time,
"it" being actually reading what was written).
|9.24.07 @ 12:09PM|#
We know they would treat Barney Frank differently, because
they're hypocrites.
We know they're hypocrites, because they would treat Barney Frank
differently.
OK.
John, would you please yell at me for not recognizing the
undeniable logic of the above arguement? And then ask me why I'm
having so much trouble understanding a simple point?
And then, to top it off, would you please chastise me for being
such a blind partisan that, even though I'm a smart guy, I can't
acknowledge this simple and irrefutable logic?
Cuz that would be great.
|9.24.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Jesse:
(An additional suggestion: Don't dress the guard like a cop in
the Village People.)
I can't stop laughing!
|9.24.07 @ 12:10PM|#
If you think the gay rights struggle has been all about
marriage, you're sadly mistaken.
For instance, at the time of the Stonewall riots,in NY it was
illegal for 2 men to dance and it was illegal for a bartender to
serve alcohol to a gay person.
|9.24.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Randian,
I was responding to the original post.
I know you're big on that Radical Self ideology, but sometimes,
it's not all about you.
|9.24.07 @ 12:14PM|#
and again, I say, joe, read the original post, where Rich writes (and this is for you because it's obviously so hard):He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn't expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and "wide stance" were at most a form of flirtation.
|9.24.07 @ 12:16PM|#
I'll ask the obvious: if Craig didn't commit a crime, why did he plead guilty? He himself admits to having committed a crime!
|9.24.07 @ 12:16PM|#
In an August 28, 2007 press conference in Boise, Idaho, Craig
said:
"I am not gay. I never have been gay.... In June, I overreacted and
made a poor decision. I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in
hopes of making it go away...."
I see absolutely nothing hypocritical about gay rights groups
taking the good senator at his word. If, in his statement, he went
with a Governor McGreevey style "My truth is that I am a gay
American.", I expect that the facts on the ground for gay rights
groups would be different.
|9.24.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Already read it. Thanks. You can stop now.
You see, I don't MISUNDERSTAND their rather obvious, simply-stated
opinion. I DISAGREE with it.
He was not "flirting." He was solicing bathroom sex.
No misunderstand. Thanks anyway. A differing interpretation of the
same facts.
So you can stowe the arrogant pose, and try to respond to my actual
point.
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Since we are talking in the abstract about what gay rights
groups think of Craig, let's get somewhat more specific. Here is
the HRC's 2004 Scorecard on the congress:
http://www.hrc.org/documents/2004ScoreCard.pdf
You'll have to ferret out the numbers for yourself.
|9.24.07 @ 12:23PM|#
He was not "flirting." He was solicing bathroom
sex.
Oh, now who's the mind-reader? Look out, joe, your double standards
are showing.
try to respond to my actual point.
You don't have a point, you have pointless conjecture.
|9.24.07 @ 12:24PM|#
He was not "flirting." He was solicing bathroom
sex.
Technically, he got busted for peeping (as I understand it).
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 12:26PM|#
BTW, as those who read the Scorecard will note, the Scorecard deals with more than just gay marraige.
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 12:30PM|#
This is what the Log Cabin Republicans had to say about Craig as of late August of this year: http://online.logcabin.org/log-cabin-questions-senator.html
|9.24.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Oh, now who's the mind-reader?
Nobody's the mind-reader. The cops observed how people soliciting
steamy bathroom stall sex solicit it, and caught Craig doing the
same thing.
Look out, joe, your double standards are showing.
Yes, I'm a hypocrite because I think Craig's intentions were
obvious, and I think Craig's intentions were obvious because I'm a
hypocrite. Briliant reasoning; you sure got me.
|9.24.07 @ 12:31PM|#
de stijl,
He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct.
The peeping and signalling were the overt acts in the commission of
the crime.
|9.24.07 @ 12:33PM|#
You occasionally see men making the statement, "That episode with that other man in the public rest room was just a big misunderstanding," but this is the fist time I've seen it made by so many people on behalf of someone else.
|9.24.07 @ 12:33PM|#
He was not "flirting." He was solicing bathroom
sex.
Ok, joe. But don't you think that for him to have been arrested for
it, the undercover cop shoulda have had to get evidence in English
rather than just body language, to make sure?
|9.24.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Hmm, so standing silently by while Republicans throw a lynching
party means liberal and 'left' groups are to blame for the lynching
done by the Republicans.
Apparently it's in the nature of Republicans to lynch homos, so
that gives those folks a pass in the blame game.
Some of you people have such twisted logic that I begin to see why
some radical gay activists get their view that the silent heteros
who don't advocate for gay rights are just as much to blame as the
people happily gay bashing and passing anti-gay legislation.
Apparently both groups share the same bent sense of logic.
|9.24.07 @ 12:36PM|#
no, joe, you rightly called out the prognosticators who said
what the gay-rights folks would do if it were Frank and then you
turned around and say that you somehow know that Craig was
"soliciting steamy bathroom stall sex".
Um, other than the (now-contended) police officer's report, what's
your proof?
Your demagoguery is astounding.
|9.24.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Rick,
For the charge he plead guilty to, disorderly conduct, I think the
solicitation of sex without such an affirmation is enough, though
it's a close call.
For the original charges, I would agree completely.
|9.24.07 @ 12:41PM|#
so standing silently by while Republicans throw a lynching
party means liberal and 'left' groups are to blame for the lynching
done by the Republicans.
Wow, lots of failing at reading going around here. No one said that
it's gay-rights groups "fault" that gays get the Two Minutes Hate,
just that their silence during it is deafening.
|9.24.07 @ 12:46PM|#
I would wager that it would be quite a bad move, politically, for a gay rights group to come out in favor of soliciting bathroom sex (or soliciting, in public restrooms, sex, even if that is not where it will be happening). Maybe they don't officially include that behavior in what they are trying to gain rights to do? I don't think most people even thought about whether or not you had a right to do any such thing before the Larry Craig incident.
|9.24.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Um, other than the (now-contended) police officer's report,
what's your proof?
Other than the police officer's word, and Craig's guilty-as-hell
behavior on the taped interview, I have only circumstantial
evidence.
Such as: Craig the frequent flier and VIP happening to use the
public rest room in an airport, rather than the much nicer private
rest rooms he had access to - and the one that that has been the
subject of complaints about men having sex in the stalls.
And the guilty plea.
And the fact that Craig was accused of similar behavior in theh
80s.
And the fact that, after being a bachelor into his late middle-age,
he married a staffer who had two kids shortly after those earlier
charges were made.
I've got the word of a police officer, a history of similar
charges, behavior that looks like wehat someone would do to throw
people off the scent, a guilty plea, cases of similiar behavior of
other men in the same location leading to bathroom sex (enough for
the police to assign someone to take care of the problem), and
Craig behaving like a guilty man after he got caught.
What have you got, other than "joe's a liberal" and "Craig's a
conservative?"
Your demagoguery is astounding.
Your denial is astounding.
metalgrid|9.24.07 @ 12:49PM|#
AR: No one said that it's gay-rights groups "fault" that gays
get the Two Minutes Hate, just that their silence during it is
deafening.
That's just splitting hairs on the matter. The article says:
They stood idly by while Republicans gathered their lynching
party, thereby short-circuiting public debate about the legitimacy
of the brand of police entrapment
Somehow implying the gay groups have some obligation to fight
police entrapment when bona fide homos are not involved.
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
Which gay civil rights groups have been silent on the matter?
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
I will note that I have already linked to a statement by a member
of the LRC staff on the issue.
|9.24.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Not to mention when such entrapment actually does go overboard,
gay rights groups do come to the defense of the accused even though
they self-identify as hetero:
http://www.expressgaynews.com/2007/9-13/news/localnews/4024.cfm
And nothing is stopping anyone from having a public debate about
the legitimacy of police entrapment other than the squeamishness of
the general hetero population. Frank Rich needs to get off his
blame the homos game.
|9.24.07 @ 1:08PM|#
I should not have said silence, I should have said their lack of
defending him.
And the fact that Craig was accused of similar behavior in theh
80s.
And the fact that, after being a bachelor into his late middle-age,
he married a staffer who had two kids shortly after those earlier
charges were made.
joe - your standards of evidence are shitty...so accusations and
late marriages are proof to you now? Yikes. I believed you to be
more thoughtful than that.
Not to mention when such entrapment actually does go overboard,
gay rights groups do come to the defense of the accused even though
they self-identify as hetero:
Erm, yeah, unless they're Republican senators who disagree with
their positions on politics, then it's "hetero under the bus!" This
entrapment WAS overboard, and yet...silence. That's Rich's
point.
|9.24.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Who would have thought that Joe is in favor of rounding up gays?! The senator is clearly gay, and gay rights people are content to let him go down in, er, flames. Instead of using the incident to eviscerate bathroom stings, they are going mum so that a single GOP politician can get replaced by another. Good job, gay rights guys, good job. Way to keep your eye on the ball.
|9.24.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Lamar -
again I comment: maybe the "gay rights guys" don't want to be
associated with bathroom sex?
metalgrid|9.24.07 @ 1:23PM|#
The senator is clearly gay, and gay rights people are
content to let him go down in, er, flames.
Umm no, we don't want him. And as long as he stays married to a
woman and does what he does, he's a hetero and evidence of the
damage the hetero lifestyle has on people - forcing them to pursue
anonymous sex in bathrooms, lie to their partners, children and
constituents... etc.
Lamar, you should probably convert to the gay lifestyle since the
straight one is so deviant as demonstrated by Larry Craig.
metalgrid|9.24.07 @ 1:32PM|#
AR: Erm, yeah, unless they're Republican senators who disagree
with their positions on politics, then it's "hetero under the bus!"
This entrapment WAS overboard, and yet...silence. That's Rich's
point.
Not Republican senators - homophobic senators. Just because
Republican and homophobic can seem so synonymous these days is no
reason to use one when the other is more suitable.
Things fall into place much better when you look at it from the
"don't defend the homophobe" perspective than the "unless they're
Republican senators who disagree with their positions on politics"
position - well unless you have your own political agenda to
push.
ellipsis|9.24.07 @ 1:36PM|#
I meant to mention this on the other Larry Craig thread... I
don't know why but despite being straight and completely
unattracted to men, I've been propositioned in everything from
bathrooms to bars. I don't know why I'm such a magnet, but you know
what? I'm not offended, and it doesn't bother me. I don't think it
should be illegal for gay guys to pick each other up in the men's
room if that's their preference.
Maybe it's just because I'm a libertarian, but I don't see the
problem with such behavior. Speaking to several gay guys I know,
there seems to be a lot of sympathy for Craig. Who knew Larry Craig
would have a chance to expand the Log Cabin Republicans?
|9.24.07 @ 1:36PM|#
AR, you dishonest piece of crap, I KNEW you were going to do
that!
You asked me "WHAT ELSE" besides the cop's statement makes me
believe him, and then when I gave you a list of circumstantial
evidence that makes the cop's statement look credible, you pretend
that I'm using the circumstantial evidence by itself to convict
Craig.
I KNEW you were going to pull that stunt. You're pathetic.
VM|9.24.07 @ 1:38PM|#
train a cop to enact a punitive "Cage aux Folles"
pantomime.
ah ha! that's it!
it was the training program that killed him!
(or he had to watch the terrible performances).
WE WILL UNCOVER THE TRUTH, NO MATTER HOW MANY BATHROOMS WE SEND
MR. STEVEN CRANE TO!
|9.24.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Ayn Randian, Defense Attorney:
Sure, the police claim they saw the suspect throw a bloody knife
off a bridge, but why should we believe them?
Well, the defendant is known around town as a violent thug, he had
scratch marks on his arms, and he kept contradicting himself and
trembling when the police interviewed him.
Atty Ayn Randian: You're going to convict a man because of his
reputation, some scratches, and how he acted when
interviewed?
Juror Lamar: Golly, that's terrible! I can't believe they'd charge
him based on that!
|9.24.07 @ 1:53PM|#
"maybe the 'gay rights guys' don't want to be associated
with bathroom sex?"
That may be true, and I would still find it wrong that they're not
trying to put an end to discriminatory, unreliable policing
entirely directed at gays. I'm not falling for anything AR is
saying. I think the writing is on the wall about Craig. I just
don't think it should matter, and I think gay rights groups are
doing themselves a disservice by not attacking the system on this
issue.
I don't deny that Craig did everything they said he did. I just
can't believe it's a crime to flirt, regardless of how seedy
you think it is.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Let's not quarrel and bicker over this. Larry Craig threads are supposed to be happy occasions!
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Look, Idaho is a place with potatoes, and nice scenery, and some
high tech firms, and huge...tracts of land.
I'm getting very impatient with all this bickering. So impatient
that I'm tapping my foot up and down!
No, Senator, I'm not interested in THAT.
|9.24.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Lamar,
I repeated those facts in response to a specific question - whether
the officer's accusations were credible.
I agree, they shouldn't matter.
It isn't a crime to flirt. It's a crime to have sex in a men's
room. And I can live with that.
|9.24.07 @ 2:13PM|#
AR, you dishonest piece of crap...You're pathetic
Wow, joe, really going the classy route (again) in this debate, are
we?
metalgrid -- it's cute how you say that the gay rights guys rise to
the defense of victims of entrapment in one breath and then talk
about how you "don't want" Craig in the other. I am just wondering
why the gay-rights folks want to defend a priest, of all people,
against entrapment but are willing to let a Republican Senator fall
victim to it. What's with the double standard? Entrapment against
gays is entrapment against gays, and the gay-rights folks should be
in a tizzy...but they aren't.
It isn't a crime to flirt. It's a crime to have sex in a men's
room. And I can live with that.
That's a reasonable standard joe, it's too bad that, given Craig
never had sex in a bathroom nor did he give any sort of definitive
proof he intended to, that your standard goes right out the window.
And I am sure it has nothing to do with the "R" next to his name.
Nope, nothing at all.
|9.24.07 @ 2:27PM|#
I don't need a lecture on class from someone who tried such a
dishonest trick as you tried to pull.
Busted, AR. Just bow out gracefully.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 2:28PM|#
I'm getting impatient with the feud between joe and AR, but I
shall refrain from tapping my foot.
For obvious reasons.
|9.24.07 @ 2:30PM|#
it's too bad that, given Craig never had sex in a bathroom
nor did he give any sort of definitive proof he intended
to
It's too bad you choose to ignore inconvenient evidence and smear
people who point it out to you rather than acknowledge that
disagreement with your wishful thinking might have some basis
besides blindness.
You're seriously arguing that "That episode with the other fella in
the public rest room was just a big misunderstanding," and claiming
that only people who find this argument implausible are deluding
themselves.
Whatever, dude.
|9.24.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Everybody, Craig's a republican and joe is a partisan democrat. His partisan feelings will not allow him to say that the left has it's hypocrisies, too. Don't even bother.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Can we get back to Larry Craig jokes? Serious discussion of this topic just seems wrong.
|9.24.07 @ 2:40PM|#
no, joe, I am openly saying that you're interpreting some innuendos into something that makes a Republican look the worst. To you, late bachelorhood + accusation before = wanting to get it on in the toilet. That's just convenient tea-leaf reading on your part. But I didn't need to tell you that.
|9.24.07 @ 2:42PM|#
thoreau:
Let's not quarrel and bicker over this. Larry Craig threads are
supposed to be happy occasions!
Happy as is "reckless" or happy as in "gay"...?
Paul|9.24.07 @ 2:47PM|#
peeping at the officer through the stall crack from outside
the stall for two minute before entering the stall next to
him.
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
metalgrid|9.24.07 @ 2:49PM|#
AR: It's cute how you say that the gay rights guys rise to
the defense of victims of entrapment in one breath and then talk
about how you "don't want" Craig in the other.
Hmm, I said they are under no obligation to defend homobphobic
heteros in situations where they are clearly guilty. Then they
defend heteros like the priest when they aren't guilty of anything.
So I fail to see the cuteness in two clearly separate
incidents.
And I also don't include people who don't lead a gay lifestyle in
the gay community. If you get married to a member of the opposite
sex, you're leading a hetero lifestyle, no matter how many poles
you smoke in the bathrooms. To compound it by working against equal
rights for homos squarely puts them in the homophobic camp where
gay groups shouldn't even dignify them with a response when they
fall from grace.
AR: I am just wondering why the gay-rights folks want to defend
a priest, of all people, against entrapment but are willing to let
a Republican Senator fall victim to it.
Probably because the Priest clearly solicited private sex while
Craig did not. Not to mention that Priest isn't an elected official
gunning for a constitutional amendment against gay folks.
AR: What's with the double standard? Entrapment against gays is
entrapment against gays, and the gay-rights folks should be in a
tizzy...but they aren't.
Not all entrapments are created equal. Soliciting for nasty public
bathroom sex isn't the same as soliciting for private inside a
private home sex. How is that so hard for you to get your mind
around?
|9.24.07 @ 2:51PM|#
This is perfect! It's "Private Idaho" by The
B-52's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFyBH-z6c1w
(love this tune and vid anyway)
fyodor|9.24.07 @ 2:58PM|#
For the charge he plead guilty to, disorderly conduct, I
think the solicitation of sex without such an affirmation is
enough, though it's a close call.
For the original charges, I would agree completely.
joe, don't you think the original charges were there to get him to
plead guilty to the lesser charges?
And if he's guilty of disorderly conduct based on peeping through
the stall crack, doesn't this bring us back to the significance of
Jesse Walker's point (at 11:43)?
I have no interest in bashing gay groups and this raises larger
issues of using bait for enforcement that goes beyond gay issues,
but I think the practice of using undercover cops dressed like they
may very well want the indiscreet attentions of gay men to bust gay
men when that attention is given is something that should trouble
all freedom loving folk, gay or otherwise!
|9.24.07 @ 3:01PM|#
I'm getting very impatient with all this bickering. So
impatient that I'm tapping my foot up and down!
No, Senator, I'm not interested in THAT.
thoreau is a phyicist AND he's funny....
What a groovy geek he is!
|9.24.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Soliciting for nasty public bathroom sex isn't the same as
soliciting for private inside a private home sex.
Agreed, but my whole point is that Craig may have been soliciting
FOR sex WHILE in a public bathroom, but not necessarily soliciting
to HAVE sex whilst in said bathroom.
And I also don't include people who don't lead a gay lifestyle
in the gay community
Kind of like some people don't include Condi in the "black
community" because she doesn't lead what some perceive to be as an
adequately "black" lifestyle. So, the priest was living an
adequately gay lifestyle then, was he? Good thing he wasn't
preaching a homophobic philosophy or anything like that...heavens
no.
I don't think Craig is "clearly guilty"...actually in the
expressgaynews link you gave me, I believe he falls into this
unfortunate scenario: "Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda
Legal, says cases such as Penland's are troubling. They are
typical, he said, of public agencies implementing "selective
enforcement" of laws in order to ensnare gay men.
"Unfortunately these cases are not uncommon," he said. "A lot of
people who get arrested don't know the law, make a plea and hope
that it will go away."
His main concern, Davidson said, was that the misdemeanor arrests
from public sex stings cause irreparable damage to the men's lives,
including job losses, ruined relationships and sometimes even
suicide.
|9.24.07 @ 3:18PM|#
I was just gonna say that "I'm swelling with regional pride" cuz
my freind, fyodor made the scene. But that might be misinterpeted
on this thread. So I'll just note that fyodor and his stellar band
live here in the Denver area!
http://www.littlefyodor.com/mainpage.html
|9.24.07 @ 3:25PM|#
"Who would have thought that Joe is in favor of rounding up
gays?! The senator is clearly gay, and gay rights people are
content to let him go down in, er, flames. Instead of using the
incident to eviscerate bathroom stings, they are going mum so that
a single GOP politician can get replaced by another. Good job, gay
rights guys, good job. Way to keep your eye on the ball."
Lamar wins the thread. That is exactly right. What is the world
coming to Lamar? I keep agreeing with you. I think I need to have
myself checked out or something.
|9.24.07 @ 3:28PM|#
joe: Gay Rights activists need to endorse sex in
public bathrooms defend the right of gay people to
flirt, even if they don't like the person's politics, or
they're traitors to the cause?
Whatever.
Good to see you're, as always, standing up for the oppressed, joe.
Oh, that's right -- only the oppressed who vote for
Democrats.
|9.24.07 @ 3:34PM|#
To compound it by working against equal rights for homos
squarely puts them in the homophobic camp where gay groups
shouldn't even dignify them with a response when they fall from
grace.
So you're for defending civil rights only for people you personally
like? "First they came for the gays I didn't like ..."
|9.24.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Lamar wins the thread.
Ok, but where did I finish in light of the fact that I linked to
both the fine and sooooo appropriate "Private Idaho" vid, AND to
fyodor's site?
|9.24.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Here's this comment again with everything spelled right and
stuff: (now what is that "Preview" button for...?)
I was just gonna say that "I'm swelling with regional pride" cuz my
friend, fyodor made the scene. But that might be misinterpreted on
this thread. So I'll just note that fyodor and his stellar band
live here in the Denver area!
http://www.littlefyodor.com/mainpage.html
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 4:14PM|#
In case anyone is interested, My Own Private Idaho was re-released a few years ago as one of those Criterion Collection deals.
|9.24.07 @ 4:19PM|#
"What is the world coming to Lamar? I keep agreeing with
you."
The stars must have aligned....Of course, I disagreed with you on
the Iranian Prez visit to ground zero that I acted like a 12 year
old, dropping the F-bomb everywhere....
|9.24.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Look, I'm very much for protecting gay rights. But a right
neither a gay nor straight person should have is the right to hump
or blow in a public restroom. I personally don't want to walk in on
that, nor would I want my kid to do that.
Now you may think he was entrapped, or that he was arrested before
he actually tried to engage in sex, but certainly sex in a public
place should be illegal (unless it sex between two beautiful women
of course).
|9.24.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Ever see My Own Private Idaho?
Nope. But since you mentioned it, I read about it in Wikpedia. See
it? Dig it? Don't have to be Gay to enjoy it? Do they have the tune
in it?
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Rick Barton,
It is related to the song somehow, but I can't recall how. The song
isn't in the movie as far as I know.
Nope, don't have to be gay. You do have to be ok with people living
some extreme lives.
|9.24.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Syloson of Samos,
Ok-thanks. I dig edgy films. I'l recommend onea my faves: "Liquid
Sky".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Sky
An analogy of an immigrant in the world of New Wave fashion models
(circa the early 80's) to an alien on our world. And an immigrant
made the film....
|9.24.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Joe,
Just to clarify. You cite previous rumors from the 80s.
The Idaho Stateman actually investigated those and reported that
the page who made the accusations later admitted he lied.
Also, they investigated him for 8 months and pretty much disputed
every rumor - they cited only one anonymous source who they
describe as not credible.
Also, in the last month of media frenzy, not a single man has come
forward to claim to have had a relationship with Craig. This,
despite the fact that Larry Flynt has offered one million dollars
to anyone with a story about a sitting Republican House or Senate
member.
Also, his wife was never on his staff and they have 3 not 2
children.
And he married her when he was in his mid-30s, I wouldn't consider
that late midddle-age.
Also, I dont' know where you get your information about some VIP
club membership. I haven't seen anything like that reported
anywhere. Those airlines that have such clubs usually only have one
per airport and I don't know that even if he was a member it would
have been more convenient that using a restroom midway between his
arrival and departure gates.
|9.24.07 @ 6:02PM|#
But a right neither a gay nor straight person should have is
the right to hump or blow in a public restroom. I personally don't
want to walk in on that, nor would I want my kid to do
that.
As long as they don't spill their precious fluid and keep the noise
to a minimum, I actually find a little blowjob less distasteful
than what some guys do when using the stalls for their intended
purpose. I swear I want to put a bullet in those motherfuckers that
shit standing up, use a mile of toilet paper, and then don't flush,
so you're afraid to because you know you might end up wading in
it.
And no, I really don't know where that rant came from.
|9.24.07 @ 7:14PM|#
J sub D,
Let me try to walk you through this:
The fact that THIS EPISODE does not demonstrate any leftist
hypocrisy does not mean the left has no hypocrisy.
You're thinking backwards: because the left has its hyprocrisies,
there must be leftist hypocrisies going on here. See, it doesn't
work like that.
Anyway, I haven't been commenting on "the left's hypocrisies." I've
been writing about the evidence of Craig's guilt.
I know you want so desperately to see some sort of partisan
blinders on everybody else, but this time, it's led you to imagine
not just a position for me, but an entire line of commentary that
doesn't even exist.
Could it possibly be that I'm not the one who isn't seeing clearly
here.
|9.24.07 @ 7:16PM|#
AR,
no, joe, I am openly saying that you're interpreting some
innuendos into something that makes a Republican look the worst. To
you, late bachelorhood + accusation before = wanting to get it on
in the toilet.
Not quite: I'm interpreting some circumstantial evidence that he is
gay as evidence that he might have hit on a man in a
bathroom.
Why do you think that suggestions that he is gay makes him look the
worst?
|9.24.07 @ 7:25PM|#
...but I think the practice of using undercover cops dressed
like they may very well want the indiscreet attentions of gay men
to bust gay men when that attention is given is something that
should trouble all freedom loving folk, gay or
otherwise!
Kind of like decoy prostitutes. And we know they would never, ever
lie to get a
conviction.
|9.24.07 @ 7:31PM|#
fyodor,
joe, don't you think the original charges were there to get him
to plead guilty to the lesser charges?
Yes, probably. That doesn't really go his guilt, though.
And if he's guilty of disorderly conduct based on peeping
through the stall crack Wait, that's not what I said. I don't
think he is guilty based on peeping through the stall crack.
Apparently, neither did the cop, since he waited for him to do the
little paper-grabbing, foot-tapping thing.
On the larger point, as I said already, I agree it would be better
to get an unmistakable statement of intent, for evidentiary
standards.
|9.24.07 @ 7:35PM|#
prolefeed,
Maybe you should make more of an effort to judge people on their
actions rather than the groups they belong to - whether sexual
orientation or political. That's what I do. It's much more in line
with the individualist, anti-prejudice set of beliefs you pretend
you care about.
I, for example, strongly support the rights of gay people. And, I
don't think that having sex in public bathrooms - whether by gay or
straight people - should have legal sanction.
See, that, prolefeed? How the distinction crosses across
demographic groups, and follows behavior? That's a much better way
to think about things.
|9.24.07 @ 7:42PM|#
eric c,
If the Senator hadn't just gotten busted for solicing another man
in a restroom - with the point of dispute, apparently, being the
location in which he wanted to get jiggy - I would just write off
those old accusations entirely. Even now, they don't amount to
much.
But on the other hand, the people who've heard of Larry Craig and
his history aren't saying, "Naw, that can't be right. Not Larry
Craig," the way they would for, say, Mitt Romney.
My point in briging that up is that Craig's partisans, like Ayn
Randian, are accusing this cop of perjuring himself, and maybe this
isn't the best situation to make such a charge.
|9.24.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Yes, gay civil rights organizations should concern themselves about the right of men to surreptitiously solicit buttsex in public crappers. It should be their number-one public policy concern.
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 8:59PM|#
They stood idly by while Republicans gathered their lynching
party, thereby short-circuiting public debate about the legitimacy
of the brand of police entrapment that took place in
Minnesota.
I really wonder how much public debate any sort of discussion could
have engendered.
|9.24.07 @ 9:07PM|#
Jim Bob,
You just put your finger on it, exactly.
The charge that gay rights groups have a duty to stand up for the
right to engage in sex in public toilets suggests that such
behavior is what gay rights groups exist to fight for.
Not equal rights. Not public acceptance and tolerance for people of
different sexual orientations. Not the right to go about one's
private life as one sees fit.
No. Buttsex in toilets; that's what a certain segment of society -
one inclined to argue for the Republicans, it would seem - thinks
that gay rights organizations must champion, if they are to be true
to their ideals.
I don't think that charge tells us much about gay rights
organizations, but it tells us a great deal about the people making
it.
Next, we'll have the same crowd telling us that the NAACP are
hypocrites because they refuse to stand up for the right to steal
hubcaps. After all, THOSE PEOPLE do that sort of thing...
|9.24.07 @ 10:23PM|#
And, I don't think that having sex in public bathrooms -
whether by gay or straight people - should have legal
sanction.
joe, I agree that someone, straight or gay, caught in the act of
buttfcxing or giving a blowjob in a public bathroom should be
subject to a misdemeanor fine so as to encourage them to get a room
next time. On the other hand, in the actual situation we're
actually talking about, I disagree with using taxes involuntarily
extracted by force to hire police to sit in public bathroom stalls
hoping to arrest people, of any sexual orientation, from engaging
in behavior that might be interpreted as flirting or soliciting
sex.
See the distinction?
|9.24.07 @ 11:37PM|#
Joe,
points taken, but I do wonder if the folks who have known this guy
for some time maybe aren't getting the attention from the press
that detractors are
with regards to the credibilty of police, not to beat a worn out
drum, maybe I just say Nifong?
and I probably have a too much of a personal bend having seen cops
lie before from minor things like how fast I was driving to more
serious
Mike Laursen|9.25.07 @ 2:15AM|#
I don't recall Craig declaring that he was wrong and he now realizes that oppressing gay people is wrong. Until he does so, his hypocrite ass deserves to dangle there twisting in the wind.
|9.25.07 @ 3:47AM|#
Entrapment YES- Hypocrisy-Oh YES!!
The Senator from Idaho who would cut off funds to insure medical
benefits to children of uninsured parents, continue the insane war
in Iraq, and give a thumbs up to illegal wiretaps is suffering from
something called KARMA!
The airport police should send in uniformed officers periodically
to make sure sex acts are restricted to more private
settings.
I can't STAND Sen. Craig- but what crime (other than desiring a
same-sex rendevouz)did he commit?
A known "hook-up place" was raided- Too bad gay men are left to
their bathrooms because if they're found in bed---it could mean
prison in some states!
Absurd!! ALL of it!
|9.25.07 @ 5:15AM|#
You should not compare Senator "Wide Stance" to Rep. Barney Frank. Mr. Frank has way too much class than to troll public restrooms.
|9.25.07 @ 9:03AM|#
Did everyone forget the part where he tried to immediately get
out of it by indicating that he was a senator? That's not a protest
of the charges, that's an attempt at weaseling out of them.
I agree that the cop should have gotten verbal confirmation, but
this is no less lawful than the entrapment used against pedophiles.
The main difference here is the obvious difference in severity of
the potential crime.
|9.25.07 @ 9:23AM|#
prolefeed,
Yes, I see the distinction. The entire thread has been about 1)
whether the police had enough evidence to conclude that he was
attempting to get jiggy in the bathroom stall and 2) their methods
in going about keeping the bathroom from turning into the set of a
porno.
Yup, everyone's clear on that distinction. Care to add anything to
the debate that everyone who is perfectly clear on that distinction
have been having?
|9.25.07 @ 9:27AM|#
eric c,
Of course police are not always perfectly reliable, but I'm going
to need something stronger than "I can think of a cop who lied"
before I believe that this cop way perjuring hiimself in this
case.
Ask yourself something:
this cop knew he was dealing with a United States Senator, and that
he would be toast if he was caught lying. The Senator, obviously,
would have been perfectly willing to keep the whole thing quiet if
the cop let it go.
Would a cop in that circumstance go forward in bad faith, or if he
wasn't absolutely sure? There's no angle for this cop, and lying
cops generally have an angle.
ellipsis|9.25.07 @ 3:22PM|#
I think the biggest problem in this whole sordid tale is that
Larry Craig is a classless idiot. He wanted to troll the public
restrooms, but yet he wanted to keep the news of his adventures
quiet. Not a good combination.
If he had half a synapse, he'd make arrangements for his flings on
some posting board anonymously, so he'd have at least a small
chance to keep these things out of the public eye. If he has a
preference for guys, fine, but most Idaho residents aren't really
hip to that. If he really likes trolling the public bathrooms, he
should rethink how important being such a public figure is to
him.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245