PDA

View Full Version : The Gift that Keeps On Giving


Lindsey
September 7th, 2007, 12:23 AM
OK, I have refrained from making any reference to the Larry Craig incident here because (1) frankly, I'm not sure Sen. Craig did anything he deserved to be arrested for; and (2) when members of the opposition are engaged in the process of hanging themselves on the nightly news, the only thing you want to do is find some popcorn and sit down to enjoy the show. But this is too good not to note.

It turns out that the 2008 Republican Convention is being held in [drum roll] Minneapolis. So Log Cabin Republicans will have ample opportunity to make a pilgrimage to the infamous Larry "Wide Stance" Craig bathroom (http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/larry_craig_slog_reader_visits_the_scene).

This has got to be the best GOP convention joke since the 1992 George H.W. Bush campaign adopted "We Are Family" as its theme song.

(Hmmmm, it occurs to me that the American Land Rights Association, which is calling for a boycott (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/052362.php) of the Minneapolis airport because their airport police are weakening private property rights in the West by hassling Larry Craig, may have to hoof it to the convention if they don't want to be left out of the schmoozing...)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 7th, 2007, 10:00 AM
OK, I have refrained from making any reference to the Larry Craig incident here because (1) frankly, I'm not sure Sen. Craig did anything he deserved to be arrested for; and (2) when members of the opposition are engaged in the process of hanging themselves on the nightly news, the only thing you want to do is find some popcorn and sit down to enjoy the show. But this is too good not to note. It turns out that the 2008 Republican Convention is being held in [drum roll] Minneapolis.ROFL!!! Now that is very funny. (And the only thing Larry Craig really did wrong was be stupid. Totally utterly irredeemably idiotic. "Oh, I'll just plead guilty to this misdemeanor and nobody will ever notice...")

ktinkel
September 7th, 2007, 02:02 PM
ROFL!!! Now that is very funny. (And the only thing Larry Craig really did wrong was be stupid. Totally utterly irredeemably idiotic. "Oh, I'll just plead guilty to this misdemeanor and nobody will ever notice...")The only thing I am sure we have learned about this poor schnook is that he tends to talk first, think afterwards.

Judy G. Russell
September 7th, 2007, 03:33 PM
The only thing I am sure we have learned about this poor schnook is that he tends to talk first, think afterwards.Or talk first and not think at all.

Lindsey
September 7th, 2007, 05:24 PM
(And the only thing Larry Craig really did wrong was be stupid.
Which probably should be reason enough to force him to resign from the Senate, but if we threw every stupid politician out of Congress and the state legislatures, they'd be pretty sparsely populated places!

Actually, I need to amend my original statement. The original charge against him was invasion of privacy, I believe, for peering into the stall where the policeman was (and he apparently had his face right up to the door, because the cop said he could see his eye well enough to know that it was blue). That really is something that merits arrest, but they dropped that charge in exchange for a plea of guilty to disorderly conduct for the toe-tapping and hand-swiping. I don't have any doubt he was trolling, but as far as I'm concerned, what they actually nailed him for is like fining a guy for walking up to a strange woman in a bar and asking to buy her a drink.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 7th, 2007, 05:25 PM
The only thing I am sure we have learned about this poor schnook is that he tends to talk first, think afterwards.
Reminds me of something my father always liked to say about "Please engage brain before opening mouth."

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 7th, 2007, 09:45 PM
what they actually nailed him for is like fining a guy for walking up to a strange woman in a bar and asking to buy her a drink.That's what happens often in plea bargain situations. They indict the guy for murder and accept a plea to spitting on the sidewalk.

sidney
September 8th, 2007, 01:42 AM
Or talk first and not think at all.

I really like this take (http://www.monkeylaw.org/2007/08/31/) on the story :)

Mike
September 8th, 2007, 02:43 AM
I don't have any doubt he was trolling, but as far as I'm concerned, what they actually nailed him for is like fining a guy for walking up to a strange woman in a bar and asking to buy her a drink.
I have not doubt he was trolling, either but I have a particular distaste for this whole event (kinda like the "your mother-in-law driving off the cliff in your new car" thing). There's an article at officer.com (http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Rising-Minneapolis-Officer-Netted-Sen-Craig/1$37657) that praises the cop.

This sounds very much like entrapment, and while I'm no fan of Craig and I think he deserves to be exposed, plenty of gay men who have never made advances to other men in restrooms have been the object of advances toward them, only to learn a few minutes later that the man who made the advance was an undercover cop who propositioned solely for the purpose of entrapment.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't endorse sex in public places, regardless of the orientation of the participants. But I have a big problem with entrapment situations. In far too many of the situations, the cop who was installed in the bathroom or whatever has lied. Even of the object said, "no, thank you," he still has had to endure the process, and often gets pressured into pleading to a lesser offense in exchange for "leniency."

If a PD (or more accurately, the jurisdiction the PD serves) wants to stop that activity, then fine, monitor the bathroom for situations where a non-cop propositions another guy, and then arrest the one who made the advance.

A former boyfriend was shopping in an upscale department store in San Jose several years ago. He noticed a good-looking guy as he was selecting cloths from the rack, and finally realized that the other guy was nodding his head toward the fitting room, as if to suggest Tom should meet him there. Tom ignored him, and then as he was paying for his purchase, asked the clerk to call security.

As Tom was leaving the store, the guy approached him, and then pulled out his San Jose Police badge and told Tom to leave the premises immediately, or he would be arrested for interfering in a police matter.

Entrapment happens, and it's usually the arrestee's word against a cop. In such a situation, who has the upper hand in front of a judge?

Think cops would never try to entrap someone? I witnessed a situation that didn't involve a restroom or them evil queers. A couple of years ago, I was walking along Grand Avenue in Oakland, when a cop who was trying to catch red light runners shot out of his hiding spot to try to catch someone. Unfortunately, after the red light runner had passed, but before the motorcycle officer had revealed himself, an old lady saw a parking spot on the other side of the street, and started to turn her 1970 pickup left to pull into it. Unfortunately, since the parking space is an angle space, not perpendicular to the roadway, it's considered a U-turn to pull into it from the other side of the street--an illegal U-turn, at that. She started to make the turn, then saw the officer approaching. However, he stopped, and then waved her to make the turn. She proceeded, and then the cop pulled up behind her truck and gave her a citation.

If he wants to bust her for the illegal U-turn, fine, but he shouldn't have encouraged her to do so.

fhaber
September 8th, 2007, 09:39 AM
(Commentary on my sheltered life and reading threads in reverse order, the only sensible option for intermittent visitors)

I saw "trolling" and immediately discounted the thread as just administrative chitchat about VBulletin, spammers, and blogtrolls. Little did I know that it was all about Little Old Ladies being easier to ticket than red-light runners (g).

Judy G. Russell
September 8th, 2007, 10:14 AM
I really like this take (http://www.monkeylaw.org/2007/08/31/) on the story :)Quoting from the blog Sidney's referencing:So, I’m hoping he doesn’t resign, and runs for re-election, if only so I can see the campaign posters: “Larry Craig. He’s not gay, he’s just stupid.”Exactly. And it wouldn't surprise me (sigh) if the idiots voted him back in...

Judy G. Russell
September 8th, 2007, 10:17 AM
This sounds very much like entrapment, and while I'm no fan of Craig and I think he deserves to be exposed, plenty of gay men who have never made advances to other men in restrooms have been the object of advances toward them, only to learn a few minutes later that the man who made the advance was an undercover cop who propositioned solely for the purpose of entrapment. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't endorse sex in public places, regardless of the orientation of the participants. But I have a big problem with entrapment situations.I agree with you entirely, and here am not at all sure Craig deserves to be prosecuted for anything other than being terminally stupid.

Mike
September 9th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Little did I know that it was all about Little Old Ladies being easier to ticket than red-light runners (g).
Only Little Old Ladies driving trucks that are 30+ years old.

Mike
September 9th, 2007, 01:34 AM
I agree with you entirely, and here am not at all sure Craig deserves to be prosecuted for anything other than being terminally stupid.
He's already paid the fine for the lesser offense, right? If so, can he be prosecuted at all for this issue?

Judy G. Russell
September 9th, 2007, 09:57 AM
He's already paid the fine for the lesser offense, right? If so, can he be prosecuted at all for this issue?If he succeeds in being allowed to withdraw his guilty plea from the lesser offense, yes. (And unfortunately there is no statute that covers being terminally stupid. Then again if such a statute existed we'd have very few people in public office...)

Judy G. Russell
September 9th, 2007, 09:58 AM
(Commentary on my sheltered life and reading threads in reverse order, the only sensible option for intermittent visitors) I saw "trolling" and immediately discounted the thread as just administrative chitchat about VBulletin, spammers, and blogtrolls. Little did I know that it was all about Little Old Ladies being easier to ticket than red-light runners (g).Around this place, anything is possible in any thread!

ktinkel
September 9th, 2007, 11:29 AM
I share your uneasiness about entrapment. That aspect of this story especially makes me cringe.

If the objective is to stop this activity in the airport mens’ rooms, surely there are better methods. It would be cynical to say that it looks as if the objective is to embarass suspects — but that is what it looks like.

Mike
September 10th, 2007, 01:09 AM
If he succeeds in being allowed to withdraw his guilty plea from the lesser offense, yes.
Ah. I hadn't heard that little tidbit. In your learned opinion, do you think he has a chance?

Mike
September 10th, 2007, 01:11 AM
It would be cynical to say that it looks as if the objective is to embarass suspects — but that is what it looks like.
Kind of like the jurisdictions that arrest the johns in prostitution stings?

Unfortunately, there's little defense for the innocent guys in this situation, unless one of them has the forethought to carry an engaged recorder into the men's room. I'd never think to do that.

Lindsey
September 10th, 2007, 05:39 PM
I really like this take (http://www.monkeylaw.org/2007/08/31/) on the story :)
LOL!!

--Lindsey

Lindsey
September 10th, 2007, 05:48 PM
I have not doubt he was trolling, either but I have a particular distaste for this whole event (kinda like the "your mother-in-law driving off the cliff in your new car" thing).
I think we're pretty much on the same page with this. Craig's a hypocrite, and for that he deserves scorn, but beyond (apparently) peering into the stall where the officer was (and that would probably be difficult to prove), I don't see that anything he did should be against the law. If he had exposed himself, if money had changed hands -- yeah. But I think you're right that a more effective way to stop solicitation in that bathroom would be just to install an attendant. But of course, that would affect the airport authority's bottom line...

If he wants to bust her for the illegal U-turn, fine, but he shouldn't have encouraged her to do so.
Absolutely. That's dirty pool.

--Lindsey

ktinkel
September 11th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Unfortunately, there's little defense for the innocent guys in this situation, unless one of them has the forethought to carry an engaged recorder into the men's room. I'd never think to do that.Now that would be strange!

Judy G. Russell
September 11th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Ah. I hadn't heard that little tidbit. In your learned opinion, do you think he has a chance?Here's a nice learned opinion: It Depends.

Judges are -- justifiably -- loathe to recognize the criminal equivalent of buyer's remorse. Lots of people plead guilty and then have second thoughts. The criminal courts would never get anything done if withdrawing a guilty plea was easy. But there are a couple of issues here that might take this out of the ordinary scenario. One is his allegation that there were some representations made to him by the police officer about the consequences of a plea. That might affect the voluntariness of the plea. Another is his argument that there wasn't an adequate factual basis for a plea, which would legally render the plea suspect.

But his whole argument about feeling panicked... nope, that ought not to be accepted. He's not a dumb kid, he's a United States Senator, and if he didn't know enough to call a lawyer and keep his mouth shut, that's his problem.

Mike
September 12th, 2007, 01:03 AM
Here's a nice learned opinion: It Depends.
That's the usual response that a good systems analyst gives to any question about computers, software, and programming.

Thanks for the points to consider. The legal analysts on the news are suggesting the judge likely won't be very sympathetic.

Mike
September 12th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Now that would be strange!
Yup.

Another alternative is to stay out of the restroom. That works some of the time.

Lindsey
October 9th, 2007, 05:33 PM
I didn't know how right I was about Larry Craig being the gift that keeps on giving.


There's an outfit that calls itself "1st Traveler's Choice" with a website featuring recipes from innkeepers, chefs, and culinary professionals. It also has a section called "Congress Cooks!" with recipes submitted by current and former Congressmen.

"Congress Cooks!" has a recipe from Sen. Larry Craig. It is for an Idaho potato (no surprise there).

Reamed out.

And stuffed with (wait for it) ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a hot dog.

He calls it the "Super Tuber".

Wash and dry potato. Rub with shortening or butter. With an apple corer or small knife, core out the potato center (end to end). Push hot dog through the center. Bake until potato is cooked through.

[...]

... Eat as a finger food . . .

I am not making this up (http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm).

----------

In other news, Idaho is inducting Larry Craig into its Hall of Fame. No, they are not being satirical (http://www.ritzfamilypublishing.com/id_hall/Inductees.htm).

--Lindsey

sidney
October 10th, 2007, 12:55 AM
I am not making this up (http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm)

And in case you want proof that it isn't a hoax, the Internet Wayback Machine has copies of the recipe page (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm) dating back to May 13, 1997 (http://web.archive.org/web/19970513054651/http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm) with the same recipe as submitted by Sen. Larry Craig, just changes in some formatting of the web page over the years.

Mike
October 10th, 2007, 01:44 AM
ROFL!

Lindsey
October 11th, 2007, 12:11 AM
And in case you want proof that it isn't a hoax, the Internet Wayback Machine has copies of the recipe page (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm) dating back to May 13, 1997 (http://web.archive.org/web/19970513054651/http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm) with the same recipe as submitted by Sen. Larry Craig, just changes in some formatting of the web page over the years.
LOL!! Oh, my goodness! It did occur to me when I read it that someone might have submitted that as a hoax, but checking out the site, I decided that it looked likely that it was indeed legitimate. Glad the Internet Wayback Machine confirmed that. (I'd never heard of that before, but I'll definitely have to remember it for the future.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 11th, 2007, 12:13 AM
ROFL!
Truth really is stranger (and funnier!) than fiction, isn't it?

--Lindsey

Mike
October 11th, 2007, 02:26 AM
Truth really is stranger (and funnier!) than fiction, isn't it?
Most definitely. And I'm glad that judge said, "No."

Judy G. Russell
October 11th, 2007, 08:43 AM
I'm glad that judge said, "No."That was essentially a foregone conclusion under the law. You can't have plenty of time to consider and contemplate, and then act, and then change your mind just because you don't like the publicity or the consequences of a plea. The whole criminal justice system would fall apart at the seams if "just because..." was a good enough reason for withdrawing a guilty plea.

sidney
October 11th, 2007, 11:42 AM
And here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU) on YouTube is a video of what actually happened in that airport mens' room :)

Judy G. Russell
October 11th, 2007, 10:54 PM
And here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU) on YouTube is a video of what actually happened in that airport mens' room :)ROFL!!! Very funny!

Mike
October 12th, 2007, 01:47 AM
And here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU) on YouTube is a video of what actually happened in that airport mens' room :)
Forwarding now!

ndebord
October 12th, 2007, 07:17 PM
I think we're pretty much on the same page with this. Craig's a hypocrite, and for that he deserves scorn, but beyond (apparently) peering into the stall where the officer was (and that would probably be difficult to prove), I don't see that anything he did should be against the law. If he had exposed himself, if money had changed hands -- yeah. But I think you're right that a more effective way to stop solicitation in that bathroom would be just to install an attendant. But of course, that would affect the airport authority's bottom line...


Absolutely. That's dirty pool.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Uh, that does depend upon how, ah, attendant the attendant might be.

;-)

Lindsey
October 12th, 2007, 10:34 PM
Most definitely. And I'm glad that judge said, "No."
Indeed. There are no mulligans in the justice system. Or at least there are not supposed to be.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 12th, 2007, 10:39 PM
Uh, that does depend upon how, ah, attendant the attendant might be.
Well -- it does help if he is not on the take and not passed out from alcohol or dope. Or snoozing because he has a night job.

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 13th, 2007, 01:23 PM
Well -- it does help if he is not on the take and not passed out from alcohol or dope. Or snoozing because he has a night job.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Or, one could say, "on the make."

;-)

Mike
October 23rd, 2007, 11:34 PM
Every morning at 10 am, my preferred radio station does a show called "10 at 10," where the DJ chooses ten tunes from a given year and plays them. Between the songs, he often plays little news clips, TV jingles, adverts, etc., all from that year.

Today's show covered 1982, and one of the news clips concerned the Congressional page scandal of that year. Guess whose name was mentioned?

Yup.

So I Googled it, and found this: http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html

Lindsey
October 30th, 2007, 07:41 PM
Today's show covered 1982, and one of the news clips concerned the Congressional page scandal of that year. Guess whose name was mentioned?
The man is in serious denial about himself. Sad.

--Lindsey