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.

Comments

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[sixstring]

Yeah, where's Rosie's moral outrage?

[de stijl]

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]

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]

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.)

[J sub D]

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?

[mitch]

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.

[joe]

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.

[J sub D]

But probably more than a politician.

[John]

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.

[J sub D]

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.

[tim]

"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.

[John]

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.

[Tim]

"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.

[Tim]

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.

[Rick Barton]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Ayn_Randian]

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).

[joe]

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.

[Rick Barton]

Jesse:

(An additional suggestion: Don't dress the guard like a cop in the Village People.)

I can't stop laughing!

[[e-mail]]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[Dan T]

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!

[gorgonzola\'s foil]

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.

[joe]

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]

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.

[Finkelstein]

Ya missed the point joe.

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[de stijl]

He was not "flirting." He was solicing bathroom sex.

Technically, he got busted for peeping (as I understand it).

[Syloson of Samos]

BTW, as those who read the Scorecard will note, the Scorecard deals with more than just gay marraige.

[Syloson of Samos]

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

[joe]

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.

[joe]

de stijl,

He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct.

The peeping and signalling were the overt acts in the commission of the crime.

[joe]

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.

[asg]

Did Jesse Walker seriously refer to Frank Rich as "readable"?

[Rick Barton]

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?

[metalgrid]

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.

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[Reinmoose]

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.

[joe]

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]

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]

Ayn_Randian,

Which gay civil rights groups have been silent on the matter?

[Syloson of Samos]

Ayn_Randian,

I will note that I have already linked to a statement by a member of the LRC staff on the issue.

[Syloson of Samos]

Er, the LCR.

[metalgrid]

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.

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[Lamar]

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.

[Reinmoose]

Lamar -
again I comment: maybe the "gay rights guys" don't want to be associated with bathroom sex?

[metalgrid]

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]

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]

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?

[joe]

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.

[joe]

Shame on you, too, Lamar.

You fell for it.

[VM]

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!

[joe]

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!

[Lamar]

"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.

[Lamar]

It's jury nullification!!!

[thoreau]

Let's not quarrel and bicker over this. Larry Craig threads are supposed to be happy occasions!

[Sir Launcelot]

sorry sorry. just tend to get carried away!

[thoreau]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[joe]

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]

I'm getting impatient with the feud between joe and AR, but I shall refrain from tapping my foot.

For obvious reasons.

[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

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.

[J sub D]

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]

Can we get back to Larry Craig jokes? Serious discussion of this topic just seems wrong.

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[Rick Barton]

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]

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]

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?

[Rick Barton]

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]

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!

[Rick Barton]

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!

[Rick Barton]

...Shoulda been: thoreau is a *physicist*...

[Ayn_Randian]

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.

[thoreau]

AND he's funny....

Stop talking about my appearance, Barton!

🙂

[Rick Barton]

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

[John]

"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.

[prolefeed]

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.

[Syloson of Samos]

Rick Barton,

1-800-FYSICST?

[prolefeed]

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 ..."

[Rick Barton]

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?

[Rick Barton]

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]

Rick Barton,

Ever see My Own Private Idaho?

[Syloson of Samos]

In case anyone is interested, My Own Private Idaho was re-released a few years ago as one of those Criterion Collection deals.

[Lamar]

"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....

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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).

[Rick Barton]

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]

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.

[Syloson of Samos]

Rick Barton,

Probably River Phoenix's best performance, BTW.

[Rick Barton]

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....

[Syloson of Samos]

Rick Barton,

Ah, one of the so-called Midnight Movie genre.

[eric c]

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.

[John-David]

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.

[joe]

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.

[joe]

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?

[J sub D]

...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.

[joe]

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.

[joe]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Jim Bob]

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]

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.

[joe]

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...

[prolefeed]

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?

[eric c]

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]

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.

[Michael Guinn]

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!

[Tom Blanchard]

You should not compare Senator "Wide Stance" to Rep. Barney Frank. Mr. Frank has way too much class than to troll public restrooms.

[Reinmoose]

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.

[joe]

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?

[joe]

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]

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.