We're Sorry for Spiking the News

by emptywheel

The NYT has a really weird story out today which tries to explain why news outlets don't publish "open secrets" about public figures.

Old-fashioned as it seems, there are still tacit rules about when an open secret can remain in its own netherworld, without consequence to the politician who keeps it. But now that any whisper can become a global shout in an instant, how much longer can those rules apply? And should they, anyway?

[snip]

In the mainstream media, the recent standard for pursuing open secrets has been murky, but generally guided by the notion that private behavior matters when it is at odds with public declarations. Mr. Foley’s bawdy flirtation with pages was fair game not least because he had sponsored legislation seeking to protect children from online predators. Mr. Craig supported a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution barring gay marriage and civil unions and has voted in Congress against gay rights.

Of course, the article gets a bunch of things wrong. The mainstream media let Craig and Foley (and continues to let David Dreier and others) off the hook for years, in spite of their clear hypocrisy. And Jim McGreevy was not outed because of hypocrisy--he was outed because of the clear impropriety of hiring his boyfriend (and here again, the example of Dreier is worth raising). Nor does the mainstream media ever point out the hypocrisy, in this case, of the Republican Party, which likes to mobilize the base by cultivating homophobia while remaining quite tolerant (up to a point--Dreier couldn't become majority leader, after all) of barely-closeted gay men. At some point, the hypocrisy of the Republican party needs to become part of the story.

And perhaps most curiously, the article doesn't discuss the reasons to report legal wrong-doing--even if it involves personal behavior. That is, shouldn't the media have reported on Foley's behavior with congressional pages, since those pages were underage? Shouldn't the media report that David Vitter has admitted to breaking the law?

And, finally, the article doesn't quote either of the two people who ought to be quoted for the story, Mike Rogers and Lane Hudson. Are they afraid to talk to the guys who proved the mainstream media complicit?

And just to balance the NYT's weird story, here is Mike Rogers' statement on the Larry Craig's resignation:

Today, Larry Craig apologized to everyone except the people he has most harmed by his actions -- gay Americans. His legacy will include his career-long work in opposing basic civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans, creating an atmosphere where it is unsafe for many to be honest about their lives.

Those in American politics who use anti-gay sentiments for political purposes must learn from this experience and reconsider their divisive tactics. Politicians like Larry Craig have helped to create a society that drives many men and women into the closet. Larry Craig's arrest, when coupled with the hypocrisy of seeking sexual encounters from the very men he actively legislates against, becomes merely the catalyst to expose the dishonesty and secrecy of anti-gay politicians who expect a community to harbor its own enemies within.

The time when politicians can stand with one foot on the platform of homophobia and the other in the closet has come to an end.

Comments

[Ishmael]

As repulsive as Craig's legislative record has been during his tenure in Congress, I have to say that I do feel for the dilemma in which in found himself when he was arrested for making an invitation to someone to engage in a perfectly legal sex act, that did not amount to pressing and persistent nuisance, no evidence that the sexual act would take place in a public place, nor that any money would change hands. If he defends himself, he loses, and if he pleads guilty, he loses. The men's room trap that Craig fell into was similar to the perjury trap that Clinton fell into - both were looking for consensual sex, and then because the judicial system became involved, a civil case for Clinton, an arrest for Craig, it "wasn't about sex" anymore, it was "about the perjury", or "about the conviction". This is where the media parsing about what is "newsworthy" becomes relevant - what the NYT is saying in essence is, when do they have an excuse that the interest in the case isn't prurient? Oh, its because the Enquirer already printed it, or it is because of a compelling public interest - essentially, what can they pretend the case is about instead of sex. If Craig wasn't facing extreme pressure on himself or his family from the Republicans, he could have done what Barney Frank did and Clinton now wishes he had done, say it was a misunderstanding or a mistake, but nothing to do with his duties and let the voters decide. He may have been surprised if he could face the issue personally, and could have withstood whatever threats he was getting, or assurances for his future he was getting for quitting. I had a client once who found himself in the same position that Craig found himself in, charged with what used to be called "gross indecency" under the Canadian Criminal Code, and I contemplated a constitutional challenge to the legislation, as it was used for decades as a shorthand for criminal sodomy and almost never against heterosexual offences. Ultimately, the client decided that he could not publicly take this "stance" (pardon the pun), and a plea bargain was made. But the hypocrisy of the press as to why they give coverage to these issues is part of the problem as to why the closet remains inviting to gays and others.

[P J Evans]

Ishmael, Craig didn't have to solicit in a more-or-less public restroom. That's what got him arrested: that this was a reasonably public place, and not one where one should be expecting to be hit on. Also, there apparently had been complaints about this restroom and the activities inside last year, so security had been increased to discourage those activities.

[Tomj]

Why not apply these arguments to something a little less political: speeding. First it is not a felony to speed. The fines could easily add up to $500. The defense of Craig based upon an analysis of the behavior as if it occurred in a private bedroom or a nightclub is similar to complaining about a speeding offense as if it occurred on a private road or during a Nascar event.

It is easy to get all tied up in what the police should or shouldn't be doing and how, but guess what: they didn't write the law and they can't finalize a conviction. Public restrooms in airports are used by every age group, every class and nationality people are there and gone in a matter of hours at most. Do any of these travelers have an expectation of privacy as they pass through a strange place? Can't the expect to be left alone as long as they mind their own business? If they are rushing from one plane to another and need a bathroom. If the one they choose is being used for sex, how close is the next bathroom? Even if they are not offended by the activity, it's just not the place for it. And it would be real hard to get this activity to stop if the charge was simply depriving others of a public service.

[Larry K]

One thing about the Craig story that bugs me is the assumption, from many if not all quarters, that Sen. Craig or anyone else who engages in the behavior that Craig no doubt has engaged in over the years -- having anonymous sex with other men while remaining married himself and fathering children -- necessarily falls into the category "closeted gay man." The assumption here is that there is, in effect, one "homosexuality"; that anyone who engages in homosexual acts fits into that category (along with virtually everyone and anyone else who ever engages in such acts); and that any other non-homosexual relationships that that person engages in have to be nothing but an evasion and a sham. In fact, there is good reason to think that there are many "homosexualities," not just one, just as there are many "heterosexualties," not to mention sexual orientations that overlap these or other categories. That Sen. Craig is a man who periodically finds the idea and the act of engaging in anonymous sex with another man to be more or less irresistible does not necessarily mean that he feels that way at all times but manages much of time not to act on those impulses, doing so though only out of fear, cynical self-interest, and the like, or out of ignorance of and/or refusal to acknowledge his "true" nature (that he is, in other words, a "closeted gay man"). One can see and understand the relatively political (as in sexual politics) basis for such a view, but it seems to me to be absurdly mechanistic and unreal in psychological terms. For further information on this topic, I'd suggest a look at the late Robert J. Stoller's book "Observing the Erotic Imagination" (Yale).

[Ishmael]

PJ Evans - My point is that there was no need to involve the police and criminal justice system in this situation. Craig and anybody else can solicit for sex anymore they want as long as it is not pressing or persistent, involve minors, or involve money, which is are the traditional criminal law benchmarks for when the police should be involved. By my reading of the police report, any solicitation by Craig was in the form of coded signals that would have been innocuous actions to someone who was not receptive to the invitation. Nothing about a tapping foot is especially lewd in my view, even if it takes place in a public washroom. By the way, I had seen no evidence that any sexual acts had taken place in this washroom, this seems to have been the speculation and conclusion that everyone leaped to, without any actual evidence. And I disagree with your statement that "security had been increased to discourage those activities", even if they had included public sex acts. "Security" was not increased - this implies that they had put a men's room attendant or security guard in place to discourage any public sex that may have resulted from such solicitation. No, it was not an increase in security, there was a decision to place undercover police officers in place as bait to use the power of the criminal law to shame homosexuals in a public context. When the police are placed in bars and other places to protect women from the often far more offensive, public, and harrassing come-ons from drunken men, then I'll see the parallel. Otherwise, I see the police interest in being criminalizing seeking homosexual sex, and not heterosexual sex.

[Fr33d0m]

These stories exist in a bubble and apply pressure at the outer edges of that bubble. The pressure builds as more people know about the story and can burst as media desire to be first out with the news or as someone simply plunges a sharp object into the bubble. That is at least more plausible than what the NYT posits.

Oh and PJ, what most of us are not happy with in this story is how little evidence is necessary to arrest someone. I think most agree that sex in a public place is wrong on so many levels, but Craig was not arrested for having sex. It may be too forgiving to say he was arrested for tapping his foot and for waving his hand, but that is essentially it. I am not one to take what an officer of the law says as fact (perhaps because I've been one), so I'll give Craig the room to wiggle (pun certainly not intended) on this one despite my inner instinct telling me he was soliciting.

[DeeLoralei in Memphis]

Wasn't this the same NYT who a few months ago ran an article on the Clinton's sex life?I vaguely remember it being something about wondering if the Clinton's had sex, when and where and the fact that they only spend 3 or 4 nights a month under the same roof. Sex between married people shouldn't ever be any sort of "open secret".

And I'm with Fr33d0m and Ishmael on this one. Doesn't seem to me like Craig did anything illegal. Though we can all assume what his actual intentions were. But shouldn't the legal bar actually be higher than assumptions and some odd behavior?

And LOL @ Fr33d0m " he was arrested for tapping his foot and waving his hand". That made me think of some Broadway musical. Jazz hands, anyone?

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Well, you can parse facts all you want. My take on this is that Larry Craig probably got sidewise of Bu$hCo over the Patriot Act (and for anyone in touch with the Libertarian wing of the GOP, that's inevitable).

That police officer was extremely credible, Craig's attempt to get off the charge by using his US Senate business card raised the Cringe Factor, and the Idaho Statesman had offered him **repeated chances** to come clean; instead, he continued to lie to them. Larry Craig put the Statesman in the same position -- being lied to -- as he'd put that young cop. Dumb.

Butch Otter is certainly in the catbird's seat.

[JGabriel]

Ismael: "Nothing about a tapping foot is especially lewd in my view, even if it takes place in a public washroom. By the way, I had seen no evidence that any sexual acts had taken place in this washroom..."

Sorry, Ishmael, this is where you lose me. It seems beyond a reasonable that Craig intended to have sex in the washroom rather than take it somewhere more private. How do we know that? He was in transit, in an airport bathroom, and in the interview tapes Craig makes it clear to the officer that he can't miss his flight.

Obviously, Craig hadn't even the time, much less the place, to take it somewhere more private.

If it weren't for that -- if, say, Craig had gotten busted in a hotel men's room -- then I'd agree with you.

Finally, people know they're taking the risk of getting caught when they have sex in a public restroom, and it's not a situation that's specific to gay men. For instance, the college student who invites her boyfriend into the women's room in the campus library, or the woman out with an insufferable date who runs into an intermittent lover and whispers to him to meet her downstairs by the phone next to the women's room in ten minutes.

Hugh Grant knew he was taking a risk when he got that blowjob in L.A. Larry Craig knew he was taking a risk when he decided to pick up someone in an airport men's room.

So Craig got arrested and had to pay a fine. Boo hoo. He didn't have to go to jail, he didn't even have to wear handcuffs, and he didn't have to walk a gauntlet of press photographers as he headed into the county jail or up the courthouse step. This wasn't the type of sting operation that typically leads to a public outing. Hell, it didn't even hit the news until 2 1/2 months after the arrest.

The problem really is the hypocrisy. If an openly gay Democratic Senator had been caught in such a sting, maybe he would have gotten away with an "Oops, sorry, won't do it again." But Craig was a closeted Republican, denied it despite the evidence and his own credibility problems, and it was his own base that demanded his ouster.

[Ishmael]

Police surveillance of certain activities in men's rooms is as offensive to me as police surveillance of other legal activities. The prurient interest of the police in the "men's room activities" that may only exist in their fevered imaginations, or perhaps they just read Craigslist to see where they can find men's rooms where they can successfully troll for this type of conviction without ever having any real complaints or harm or public sex, is really offensive to me. There are legitimate police activities that are being neglected so that this police officer can do something that could be accomplished by regular visits by a janitor or even a security guard, if the real goal is to ensure that public sex does not take place.

[JGabriel]

Fr33dom: "I am not one to take what an officer of the law says as fact (perhaps because I've been one), so I'll give Craig the room to wiggle (pun certainly not intended) on this one despite my inner instinct telling me he was soliciting."

Fair enough. Personally, in response to the complaints, I think the police should have posted a guard at the lavatory, or altered the rounds to check it more frequently.

On the other hand, it's possible they tried that and it didn't cut down on the complaints. If so, maybe they felt the best tactice was to start a sting operation and hope that the news eventually hit the internet boards that publish such information.

If that's the case, and I'm saying if because we don't know if they tried less intrusive measures first, then I'm not sure what else the police, and the officer on duty, could have done. Letting the tearoom ritual continue until the suspect puts his genitalia under the stall divider is one option to remove all reasonable doubt, I suppose, but there does seem to be some effort here to let the suspect walk away with at least a modicum of dignity left intact.

[masaccio]

I was wondering why I have never been propositioned in a men's room. Here is a possible explanation. I may have been propositioned, but I would never have noticed because I don't know the signals. Somehow, I find this reassuring. The fact that the signals are pretty discrete means that unless their object signals back the entire "seduction" vanishes like like smoke in the air. The real problem is that now that the signals are outed, this subculture will have to find a whole new way to find each other. Texting?

[Dismayed]

Ishmail, you're cracked. He was looking to jack a guy off in a public restroom. Kids use public restrooms.

Now would be a good time for you to just shut the F up on this one.

[Ishmael]

Dismayed - somewhat surprised by the vehemance of your post. I've been very clear that public sex in a washroom is potentially criminal. If someone can tell me why the use of police sting tactics is the appropriate reaction to this alleged scourge, instead of less intrusive measures, I'm prepared to listen, but this seems to be a targeted use of police resources against a particular group when the same activity is tolerated in different contexts. If there is evidence of public sex, or the activity was for purposes of prostitution, then there is a legitimate criminal law interest, or at least one supported by statute. Otherwise, even by the police report, Craig was convicted of "disorderly conduct" for making a coded suggestion that there may be mutual interest in sex. I would expect more than "But what about the children!!!" as a response to this concern.

[bmaz]

masaccio - That cracks me up. For some reason, my immediate thought was amorous men using the Peabody ducks to carry messages under stall dividers.....

Ishmael and others - I am of a conflicted mind about these type of stings. And I have seen just about every variation of it at one time or another. As a general rule, I think such sting programs are a crappy use of police resources. Money or no money involved, homosexual or heterosexual, it is still consenting adult interaction. It strikes me as tacky for cops to be doing very much of this, and make no mistake, cops really love these programs. It is easy pickins, drives up their numbers, and police officials and politicians crow about it. But hey, I also think that fucking photo radar speeding tickets are an affront to common human decency; I at least want a cop to have to put his donut down and write me a ticket based upon the prevailing conditions at the time instead of a freaking grainy picture. Call me crazy. I will say this, according to Sara (who lives there and I trust implicitly) and a couple of others I have seen in this process, this restroom was not in the general vicinity of where Craig should have been, is kind of out of the way, and is literally internationally famous for this kind of sordid activity. That does militate a little in favor of what the cops did here.

[bmaz]

Dismayed - In Ishmael's defense, when you are a lawyer and repeatedly see clients that are caught up in useless, stupid stings that are just being run for the sake of doing it, which is incredibly common as i related above, it is easy to get jaded about this junk. In Dismayed's defense, the historical facts about this restroom, at this airport, over a great many years really do indicate that there was a legitimate problem.

[Ishmael]

masaccio's link to the NYT article says it better than I have so far:

"....Public sex is certainly a public nuisance, but criminalizing consensual acts does not help. “The only harmful effects of these encounters, either direct or indirect, result from police activity,” Mr. Humphreys wrote. “Blackmail, payoffs, the destruction of reputations and families, all result from police intervention in the tearoom scene.” What community can afford to lose good citizens?"

[Prabhata]

My memory might be wrong on this, but I don't remember the press outing Jim McGreevy. I thought that McGreevy had a press conference admitting he was gay and would step down as governor of New Jersey. Unlike Craig, McGreevy's response the the blackmail was courageous. McGreevy stopped the blackmail on its tracks. The press was left with little to chew on.

I'm not a guy, and therefore don't understand those who accept the idea that police should not stop sexual activities in men's bathrooms. It seems to me, that a public bathroom, where children can enter anytime, should be private and free from any sexual activities. My daughter, who was eight years old at the time, experienced the sight of a prostitute and her john doing their business on the floor of a public bathroom in a park in Sausalito.

I live in San Francisco and I find loving acts (embraces and kisses) between gay couples as pleasing. But I've heard of men walking into public bathrooms with their little boys to the sight of sexual activity. I think that the police should do everything in their power to stop that activity. There is no reason for that to happen today, when most communities accept gay people.

[jimBOB]

can tell me why the use of police sting tactics is the appropriate reaction to this alleged scourge, instead of less intrusive measures, I'm prepared to listen,

Sex in a public bathroom is a crime, i.e. lewd behavior. You don't send janitors to deal with criminal behavior.

Craig's conviction was to a lesser charge, which he agreed to in a plea bargain. Stop imagining that bringing up the lesser charge has some relevance here. Craig's coded suggestion was an attempt to start immediate sex in a public rest room, i.e. he was attempting to initiate a crime. Yes, stopping crimes is a legitimate use of police resources.

If there is evidence of public sex,

The evidence in this case was the previous complaints about public sex in this bathroom, thus justifying the sting operation.

[Cujo359]

It's a complicated issue, and so I'm not too surprised that the NYT has written a rather muddled essay about it. My thinking is certainly muddled.

As JGabriel observed, Sen. Craig's own base demanded his ouster. Yet, if they'd known all along that he was gay, he probably wouldn't have been a Senator in the first place. So I don't think hypocrisy was the issue, at least for them. The hypocrisy just made it burn a little more when they found out. Kinda like my reaction when I finally saw President Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" video after knowing that he really had. If the issue is important to them, lying to people makes them angry when they find out. Clinton's lying didn't change my opinion of his worth as a President - my belief is that his offenses were of a personal nature. Craig's base would disagree on that count, too, I suspect.

Should they have published before? Probably. Someone certainly should have published the fact that Craig was convicted of a crime. Hypocrisy? I agree that Craig was a hypocrite and that he certainly deserves his fate on that basis alone. However, if you think there's a standard for what hypocrisy is and how much is too much, read some right wing websites and then talk to me. I get a little concerned when it's left up to folks to determine what hypocrisy is worthy of news coverage.

[Cujo359]

To amplify jimBOB's point, the police report stated that there were other people using the men's room at the time of the incident in question. Clearly, just having people around wasn't a deterrent.

[JGabriel]

Ishmael: "Dismayed - somewhat surprised by the vehemance of your post. I've been very clear that public sex in a washroom is potentially criminal. [...] even by the police report, Craig was convicted of 'disorderly conduct' for making a coded suggestion that there may be mutual interest in sex."

In a place and situation where the sex could only be initiated in the washroom, or some other public area nearby. Craig proved that himself when complaining to the officer about needing to catch his flight.

What alternate explanation is there, besides the intent to have sex in the washroom, assuming that Craig was propositioning the officer through tearoom etiquette?

The only alternative I can see is to accept Craig's denials, which frankly aren't credible.

As I said earlier in the thread, if this had occurred in a hotel men's room, or somewhere else where there was the possibility that Craig would or could suggest that they take the activity somwhere private, I'd agree with you.

I just don't see that here, which, in addition to the frequent complaints, provides a legitimate basis for the police to take an interest in preventing public sex there -- as bmaz noted above.

I don't think the points you're making are completely off-base, I just don't think they apply to this particular bathroom in this particular airport -- because there's nowhere private to take it if the proposition is accepted.

[Tomj]

One overlooked commandment is to not provide the opportunity for sin. Sorry for the religious language, but legally there isn't a great way to say that responsibility is not only on those who get caught. Or maybe a better way to use this type of language is that those in charge of running the airport and providing an environment everyone is comfortable with, can get away with putting the responsibility on someone else to do the right thing (whatever that is).

Why not remove the situation entirely? Instead of a large multi-user, single-sex bathroom, why not individual unisex bathrooms where you can go in, lock the door and do whatever you want. Maybe you have a 10 year old child of the opposite sex. S/he can go into an empty unisex bathroom on their own while you wait outside. If these unisex bathrooms are located where there is the usual traffic, and who knows who waiting to get into the next open room, you might reduce the chances for anonymous encounters like this. But if it happens, maybe they'll keep it quiet enough to not upset anyone else. If some complaints arise, it would be easy to just place any airport employee outside the area to monitor anything out of the ordinary. Requiring an officer to sit around and play a game only helps matters at the time the officer is there. This case proves that the police activity doesn't put a stop to the activity, so it isn't working. Why not put up a sign: undercover cops inside, no cruising! Then everyone knows about the situation. Not doing this seems to implicate airport management in a coverup or allowing the situation to continue.

[JGabriel]

Cujo359: "As JGabriel observed, Sen. Craig's own base demanded his ouster. Yet, if they'd known all along that he was gay, he probably wouldn't have been a Senator in the first place. So I don't think hypocrisy was the issue, at least for them."

There haven't been many, just 2 or 3 I think, Republican Reps and Senators who have gotten re-elected even though they were out. You might be right that Craig wouldn't have been elected if he was out, but I think it's unfair to the people of Idaho to assume that's true. We just don't know.

In the absence of that evidence, I think it's fairer to assume at least some of his constituents, and perhaps even a majority, are more concerned with the hypocrisy than the gay.

That's just my opinion, though. As they say, your mileage may vary.

[masaccio]

Hypocrisy is one of my favorite failings, as we are all guilty to some extent. It's hard not to laugh about the Craig thing, because, as the article I cited and others say, part of the thrill of the solicitation and the act is the danger of getting caught. So when that happens, the schadenfreude comes from the fact that although they want the sense of danger, they cannot handle the actual getting caught part. But for me, the best thing was the rerun of the "naughty, nasty boy" bit from Craig, with that feral leer on his face. It makes me grin, just thinking of it.

[Jodi]

Ishmael,

maybe I don't have all the sordid details right. I haven't wanted to check out it out in those nasty places that probably have taken pictures of the very place by now.

But anyway, as I understand it the officer was either sitting on the toliet in a stall, or urinating standing up at one of those trough type urinals that men use with a small partition between them.

I don't think any normal person wants homosexuals to be able to look across or under, or in between the stall or partitions, and prosposition them in any manner whatsoever. In fact I think that it would distress most all normal people.

In fact, I am all for sending the homosexuals to the other sex's restroom, or let's just have a homosexual restroom in large places like airports, etc. We do it for men and women.

Public Restrooms are not for sex and the fact that homosexuals seem to sometimes do it under stalls, or behind the bushes at public parks doesn't mean that it is legal or should be condoned or permitted.

[JGabriel]

Prabhata: "I ... don't understand those who accept the idea that police should not stop sexual activities in men's bathrooms."

To be fair, I don't think Ishmael or the others joining his position are arguing that sexual conduct in public restrooms should be illegal, just that propositioning an adult in a bathroom, especially if done discreetly, shouldn't be illegal. I pretty much agree on that score; I'm not interested in seeing people arrested just because they make someone uncomfortable.

The point Ishmael seems to be ignoring (or avoiding or not seeing) is that, in the case of the Minneapolis airport bathroom, there was no where else to take the sexual conduct if the proposition was accepted. It would, perforce, lead to public sexual conduct.

[Ishmael]

JGabriel - my comments are not limited to "this particular bathroom in this particular airport" - although I do think that given the "tearoom etiquette", there must have been something about the officer's reactions that suggested to Craig that it was safe to escalate the signals. My theme in this thread is the hypocrisy that drives the actions of the media and law enforcement when it comes to exposing or criminalizing sexual behaviour. These types of police stings are more about targeting vulnerable groups than they are about the public interest in not stumbling involuntarily upon public sex acts. Craig's interview after the fact shows that that officer himself was trying to elicit a confession from Craig for solicitation, probably because the signals given were ambiguous in a legal context. I am not prepared to accept that the police are not conducting these stings to intimidate a easily threatened group of closeted males, whose activities otherwise pose no risk to society as a whole other than the assumption that they will be engaging in public sex. I haven't seen any evidence that this is a national scourge other than the apocryphal stories of those like Tucker Carlson who claim to have been victimized by "the gays". As Bmaz says, these types of stings are easy to do, drive up the numbers, and portray to the public that the police are doing their jobs as a result of the publicity. I could make the same argument about the war on drugs and the diversion of police resources to the arrest and jailing of addicts.

[JGabriel]

TomJ: "Why not remove the situation entirely? Instead of a large multi-user, single-sex bathroom, why not individual unisex bathrooms where you can go in, lock the door and do whatever you want."

Or just open a gay bar in the airport.

Yes, I'm being slightly facetious.

But you gotta admit, it probably would solve the problem.

[bmaz]

JGabriel - Interesting idea on the gay bar bit. Still wouldn't solve the Larry Craigs problem children though. He could never be seen in the actual gay bar, so he would stand somewhat off from it and ... wait for it ... wait for gay bar patrons to go to the restroom. Same problem still.

[JGabriel]

Ishmael: "My theme in this thread is the hypocrisy that drives the actions of the media and law enforcement when it comes to exposing or criminalizing sexual behaviour. These types of police stings are more about targeting vulnerable groups than they are about the public interest in not stumbling involuntarily upon public sex acts."

Well, then, I agree with your theme. I just don't see it as applying to Craig or the Minneapolis airport.

I noted this earlier in the thread, but let me repeat it: Craig wasn't jailed, wasn't handcuffed, and wasn't made to walk a press gauntlet to the county lock-up or up the courthouse steps. The news didn't even leak for 2 1/2 months. And if he wasn't a Senator or public figure, it probably would have never leaked.

In other words, it appears that the Minneapolis police did *not* have the goal of putting the men they caught through public humiliation. It appears that their goal was to extract a punitive fine, and perhaps provoke some personal embarrasment, in order to enforce, as you put it, 'the public interest in not stumbling involuntarily upon public sex acts.'

I completely understand that there recent historical precedents for exactly the kind of humiliating and degrading treatment you're describing. And I agree that such targetting and treatment would be wrong.

But it appears, to my eyes anyway, that the Minneapolis police were taking measures to avoid that treatment, such as: making the arrest before the tearoom ritual reaches the point of genital exposure; not handcuffing the suspect; not jailing the suspect; treating it as a misdemeanor fine rather a felony; anmd not publicizing the arrest (Craig's case seems to be an exception, and even there the news didn't get leaked until more than 2 months after the fact).

[JGabriel]

bmaz: "Interesting idea on the gay bar bit. Still wouldn't solve the Larry Craigs problem children though. He could never be seen in the actual gay bar, so he would stand somewhat off from it and ... wait for it ... wait for gay bar patrons to go to the restroom. Same problem still."

Ha! I agree, in fact I actually thought of that too. On the other hand, it would probably cut down on the general, overall, problem. And people wouldn't be able to make the excuse for Craig that he had nowhere else to troll.

[Ishmael]

JG - I have difficulty accepting that the police were especially discrete in this case. Craig was a) publicly arrested, b) detained and interviewed by a police officer looking to get a confession, c) given a court date where he would have to appear publicly and respond to the charge publicly, which I suspect is the reason he chose to plea to the neutral, non-sexual causing a disturbance charge, and d) you are ignoring the role that the police accomplices in the media play in this type of operation. The police dont have to publicize, I can tell you from personal experience that there are reporters who do nothing but hang around courthouses reading the docket looking for familiar names and salacious charges to get their story of the day. And, as a lawyer, I have relied on knowing the system and having a good relationship with certain court staff to ensure that certain matters are scheduled in certain out of the way courtrooms on lazy Friday afternoons when the reporters have gone home to avoid publicity. Again, the hypocrisy of the media and the police feed upon each other in these matters.

[JGabriel]

Jodi: "In fact, I am all for sending the homosexuals to the other sex's restroom, or let's just have a homosexual restroom..."

Yes, and while we're at it we can add separate restrooms for all the blacks, Jews, Muslims, and Catholics. Or maybe we could just set up a separate restroom for all the White Straight Republican Protestants so they can protect their genitals from the prying eyes of all The Others.

Jesus, Jodi, you're fucking insane.

[JGabriel]

Ishmael: "I have difficulty accepting that the police were especially discrete in this case. Craig was a) publicly arrested, b) detained and interviewed by a police officer looking to get a confession, c) given a court date where he would have to appear publicly and respond to the charge publicly, which I suspect is the reason he chose to plea to the neutral, non-sexual causing a disturbance charge, and d) you are ignoring the role that the police accomplices in the media play in this type of operation. The police dont have to publicize, I can tell you from personal experience that there are reporters who do nothing but hang around courthouses reading the docket looking for familiar names and salacious charges to get their story of the day. And, as a lawyer, I have relied on knowing the system and having a good relationship with certain court staff to ensure that certain matters are scheduled in certain out of the way courtrooms on lazy Friday afternoons when the reporters have gone home to avoid publicity. Again, the hypocrisy of the media and the police feed upon each other in these matters."

All good points, especially 'c', and food for thought.

I admit that the requirement to go before a jury to defend himself, for someone charged with soliciting public sex, especially gay sex, gives the police an easily abused power over the person caught -- especially since it could provoke discrimination and harrasment.

It's very problematic. Of course, most of the consequences you've outlined are the result of any arrest, such as for smoking a joint, drunk driving, solicitation, or even straight couples caught in flagrante in a public place. Really, the problem for Craig (and others caught in the same type of sting) is the public's reaction to teh gay rather than the crime.

In comparison to how police forces throughout the country used to handle these sort of situations -- I'm thinking of, for instance, NYC and Stonewall in the 60's -- the Minneapolis police handled it with much more discretion, and seemingly less intent to publically humiliate.

That said, you've made some good, inarguable points. Even if the handling has improved, maybe it's still not good enough. I've already stated that I think posting a guard or instituting more frequent checks is the appropriate action for the complaints the Minneapolis airport police were receiving. But, perhaps they were already tried, and, as Cujo noted, the presence of people using the bathroom 'for its intended use' (as the arresting officer put it) didn't seem to deter other people from using it as a tearoom hotspot.

I guess I just don't know, given the complaints, what else the police could have done, or what they had already tried. Ignoring the complaints and the tearoom doesn't really seem like a very good option either.

Ah well, you haven't really changed my mind - I still think the Minneapolis tearoom was one of the situations where there was a probably a legitimate cause for the police to use a sting operation - but you have raised doubts. It does seem like there should be a better way to handle it, although if we lived in a better society where people weren't persecuted for being gay, then the way it was handled probably wouldn't seem so problematic.

[P J Evans]

Well, if Craig hadn't sent those discreet (and also discrete - not the same thing!) signals, which most ofus hadn't even known about, he wouldn't have been arrested. Which argues that he's been doing this for some time and should have been aware of the possibility of being busted.
What really put the cap on this was pulling out his senatorial business card as if he thought it was a get-out-of-jail card.

BTW, the thread on this at Making Light has the suggestion that there be a door from the men's room to a room where this kind of sexual encounter can be had in privacy.

[Dismayed]

Okay, appologies to all in advance, but I'm just going to keep playing the dick here.

Ishmael, after reviewing the continuing conversation, my advise to you was sound council.

But then you go on to say - "I am not prepared to accept that the police are not conducting these stings to intimidate a easily threatened group of closeted males, whose activities otherwise pose no risk to society as a whole other than the assumption that they will be engaging in public sex."

Ishmaiel, have you no clue as to the impact on public health caused by this kind of activity? How far up your ass is your head? Where have you been since 1983?

When I listened to the tape, it was clear that Craig was grasping for straws. I've taken many a stall shit and never ever bumped a foot or reached to pick up a piece of toilet paper. It was clear to me that the cop knew what he was doing, though I had no clue what this code stuff was all about. I found the whole thing a bit perplexing, so I hit a few sites, read a bit more - and clear as day there is this pattern behavior that fits the cop's accusations on the nose.

Craig has not one bit of wiggle room -- Professional cop. Clean bust. End of story.

In one blog, I read about a guy, who jacked a couple of guys off then went back and ass fucked another guy under the stall wall! (sounds a bit uncomfortable, but I can see how it could work) He described the activity in enthused detail. And the descriptions I read don't make it sound like this bathroom is "out of the way." Seldom is "across from the food court" out of the way.

Not only do I never, ever want to walk in on that with my little nephew -

Add that to the fact that many many of these guys are closeted, and you have a public health nightmare.

This is the kind of crap that gives good decent gay men a bad name. The gay guys I know, a few of which are lifelong friends, HATE this kind of crap.

On this topic, Ishmael, You're reading a whole lot like Jodi. Take my advice, put a sock in it.

[Tomj]

This is crazy, but maybe somebody knows why public bathrooms are designed the way they are. I always get the impression that there is some social engineering going on. On the one hand they are public, but limited to one sex only. They have individual stalls for privacy, but the walls only extend down to your shins. There are cracks in the doors, so everyone has to figure out a strategy to locate an empty stall. Do you look under the door, or through a crack? If there is a social engineering aspect to this, what are the goals? What if the walls were solid on the sides and the front had a semi-transparent panel at the bottom of the door? Then you could remove urinals in the men's room and add stalls. The entrance could be opened up a little so that the waiting and washing area would be semi-visible from the outside, nothing private happens in the waiting/washing area. Stall doors could be fixed so that they don't stay closed for long if nobody is in the stall.

[Sara]

I made this point on an earlier thread, but the reason the Mpls Police assigned to the Airport were doing the "stings" had to do with two factors -- yes there had been customer complaints about the action in that particular Loo, but there was in addition an issue of Security. You see before 9/11 this was a location that any person could access, but after 9/11 they blew the security perimeter out, and the only persons who legitimately have access to this particular Loo are ticketed passengers who have passed through security, people changing planes, and legitimate employees of the airlines, the airport, or the vendors in the terminal.

After they moved the security in late 2001, cutting off access, they began to notice a pattern of unauthorized persons trying to break the security system. Of course they were arrested, and as they established the pattern of who was breaking the security set-up, they found many were young locals seeking to turn tricks in that particular Loo for money. The problem was referred to the Joint Terrorism Taskforce -- which includes members from Federal agencies -- FBI, CIA, FAA and Homeland Security. It also includes state agencies and county and local ones. Our former USA, Tom Hefflefinger finger was a member, and so was Amy Klobuchar, formerly Hennepin County Prosecutor, now US Senator. And yes -- Local MPLS Police which provide part of the force at the Airport run by the Airport Authority. The Feds wanted a plan to stop the trade, because it was an incentive to break security -- and the agreed plan was to step up enforcement, using stings and other means. But in the end all this was a consequence of Terrorist-proofing our Airport.

Now -- they use a variety of vice squad undercover officers for this --they even borrow from other forces on occassion. It is not really a strain on budgets, as I calculate it in the second quarter, when Craig was arrested, they arrested 41 persons, all of whom took a plea, got fined -- probably the fine and court costs brought in 250,000 in that quarter, possibly a million dollars a year. It is probably a profit making operation.

So how do I know about the men's Loo on the Food Court at the Airport? Well back in my days of setting up an AIDS service organization in the mid-1980's, one of our counselors found out that several of our HIV Positive clients were supporting themselves by turning tricks out there. We had to search around for someone who could counsel them, but also let them know that if they didn't change their ways, someone might have a talk with Public Health. It was a two or three week crisis -- but eventually we found someone who could deliver the message with the right Omph. At any rate during that period I heard stories about virtually every cruse zone in the cities. But this place in particular was a place for turning tricks for pay -- largely well heeled businessmen changing planes. At one point in the mid 80's the Minnesota Aids Project plastered the inside of the place with AIDS Safe Sex posters, and put in a condom dispenser with free condoms. -- in otherwords the place has quite a colorful history, and is well known by travelers interested in the trade. When the Republicans took control of the State Leg, they made it illegal for MAP (Minnesota Aids Project) to distribute free needles and free condoms -- so ended the history of the place as a Safe Sex Education Center.

Anyhow, the story as you can see is fairly complex -- but it does include the question, how do you evict people from a cruse zone, once anti-Terrorist Security precautions have made it inaccessable to all but those using the airport for transit, or who have jobs there?

As GWBush is famous for saying, after 9/11 everything changed. This is just one more small detail on the change menu.

[P J Evans]

Tomj

If the stall doors are hung properly, they shouldn't swing closed by themselves. (The only 'closed' doors I've seen that aren't actually closed and locked are on handicapped stalls, where the door opens out instead of in, and not on all of them, either.)

[JGabriel]

Sara: "You see before 9/11 this was a location that any person could access [...] After they moved the security in late 2001, cutting off access, they began to notice a pattern of unauthorized persons trying to break the security system. [...] they found many were young locals seeking to turn tricks in that particular Loo for money. [...] The Feds wanted a plan to stop the trade, because it was an incentive to break security -- and the agreed plan was to step up enforcement, using stings and other means. But in the end all this was a consequence of Terrorist-proofing our Airport."

Wait. This is just too good.

Senator Craig got busted for soliciting gay anonymous public sex because of the PATRIOT ACT?

Bwahahaha!

That just raises the schadenfreude to whole new level. My god, the irony!

[JGabriel]

Sara: "But this place in particular was a place for turning tricks for pay -- largely well heeled businessmen changing planes."

And it just keeps getting better.

So, Sen. Craig (R) was not only soliciting anonymous gay public sex, but doing it where he probably knew he could get someone young and hawt if paid for it?

*AND* the enforcement effort that caught him was a result of the PATRIOT ACT?

(Just stares at the screen in gobsmacked awe)

Wow.

Maybe there really is a God.

Sorry, I know I probably shouldn't be laughing, but... Holy Cow. That's just... I have no words.

Can I use it for a novel?

[LizDexic]

Ishmael...you're way too smart to argue with the likes of "Dismayed" or "Jodi". At least JGabriel listens.

[Steve]

The fact that this discussion is going as it is on this fairly liberal blog just shows how sexually awkward Americans are. On the one hand we are bombarded with sexual messages, on the other hand talking about our own sexuality is taboo. So in discussions like this we have to shut down our personal sexual experience or lack of experience and talk from emotion, political correctness, or third party experience. (I have a friend who...)

It seems to me all this has be to considered in the larger contexts of:
1) sex education and our taboos about sex
2) extra-marital sex in general
3) extra-marital straight sex
4) extra-marital gay sex
5) 'public' sex
6) what we think is ok to say and the reality of our own individual sexual urges and experiences (the condemnations of public sex seem pretty politically correct here - isn't this gap between personal sexual reality and public taboos why a Craig votes for same-sex marriage, cause as an Idahoan he'd lose the next election if he didn't?)
7) figuring out one's own sexual identity in a society that basically denies options other than a pink or blue designation at birth

All the men who claim such ignorance about public sex and the signals seem a bit disingenuous. You've never been in a bathroom that had explicit graffiti in it? On the other hand, I've never walked in on sexual activity in a men's room. It seems to me the internet is a far more likely place for a kid to walk in on graphic sexual activity. But if one does walk in on sex with one's kid, if one responded appropriately when it happened, we wouldn't send messages to our kids that sex is bad and something not to be talked about. And when they walked in on it alone, they might remember it's ok to talk about it with us. But we've inherited those taboos so we don't know what to say and thus perpetuate the problem.

Hang in there Ishmael. Your professional experience with those caught in such stings seems to give you the best understanding of the topic.

[JGabriel]

Steve: "The fact that this discussion is going as it is on this fairly liberal blog just shows how sexually awkward Americans are...."

Perhaps, but I can't imagine even a European looking at the story Sara just related, and not being flat-out amazed by the karma and irony of its complicated web.

[Dismayed]

Hey, 99% of the time Ishmael is on the ball. He's just way out in looney land on this one, and it is one specific incident we're talking about here.

As for the swat, Lizdexic. Oh, nevermind, looks like you're just here for the Gummy bears.

[bmaz]

Hey, I tried to tell you all that Sara had previously explained that there was a legitimate problem with THIS restroom, I just didn't fully explain or do it nearly as well as Sara did...

[Dismayed]

Yeah, I read that BMAZ. But my position on the matter would be the same for any public restroom. If it were located in a bar with an age limit, well then that would be a slightly different story.

I don't usually go off like that, but going after the cop, acting like Craig was just the victim of an unfortunate situation, that just set me off.

Arguments like that are the exact sort of thing that give Neocons ammunition for attacking "liberals" "moral values".

The hypocrisy aside, if a dem congressman were in the same situation we'd damn well better call for his resignation.

And to in any way impune the cop, in this specific situation? jeez.

[JGabriel]

Yes, bmaz, you did. But I wish you'd provided a link.

Sara's explanation is thing of beauty.

From an ironist's standpoint, anyway.

[Dismayed]

And yes, the irony is FABULOUS!

[JGabriel]

More than fabulous. Awe-insiring.

[JGabriel]

Inspiring.

(Mutters to self: get new keyboard.)

[Ishmael]

I think what Sara's group tried to accomplish in the 80s with education and condoms is a far more effective response to the social harms of a transient sex trade than police stings. Whatever may have been an appropriate response to the unique conditions in this one men's room, police stings and shame tactics by the media will only serve to keep gays stigmatized.

[bmaz]

Dismayed - I don't think Ishmael was talking about the individual cop so much as the fondness for police departmental leadership's fondness for these type of sting programs. I can tell you from experiencve represeting clients caught in a lot of these type of things, that an awful lot of them truly seem designed just to push up arrest numbers in a category that makes politicians and press happy. They are also real moneymakers, because nearly everybody pleads out. Based upon what Sara said, and the fact that airports are a lot more likely to have children around than some other places, I think this was a valid place to run a sting and this cop did avery professional job. I think you and Ishmael may be in less disagreement than you think; but that is just my take....
.

[Steve]

JGab - Sara's story is one of the benefits of the blogosphere, getting more background on things like this. But that irony is related to post 9/11 hysteria not to the sex issue per se.

I stand with Ishmael that the real issues could be solved by more creative, less retributive, and ultimately cheaper and more successful approaches.

Why not post a sign on the restroom saying it's being monitored by security for inappropriate behavior? That would stop the Craigs. Especially if there was a camera monitoring who went in and out. (Sorry, that would be an invasion of privacy.) How many different hustlers can here be Sara? If they monitored the hustlers, they could also learn about holes in the security.

But that would bring embarrassment to security, not to closeted gay males. Every solution has side effects as Sara's post reminds us. In our homophobic (yes it is getting better, but it still has a long way to go) society I think that Ishmael's point that humiliating closeted males tends to be a positive outcome for many of those in charge of finding solutions has credibility.

[Ishmael]

We are more than willing to give credence to reports about police racism in certain parts of the country, fror NYC to LA and everywhere in between and the targeting (some call it "profiling") of certain ethnic groups. Why is it so difficult to believe that homophobia may be driving certain police actions as well?

[bmaz]

Ishmael - Not hard to believe at all; it is a fact. But there are a whole lot more of these sting programs targeting normal prostitution johns. Under these circumstances, at this airport, that would have been justified as well I think. It is neither natural, nor comfortable, for me to be sticking up for the police on much, but here I think it was reasonable.

[JGabriel]

Ishmael: "I think what Sara's group tried to accomplish in the 80s with education and condoms is a far more effective response to the social harms of a transient sex trade than police stings."

Steve: "I stand with Ishmael that the real issues could be solved by more creative, less retributive, and ultimately cheaper and more successful approaches."

(With a slightly distracted air) Yes, yes, I'm sure you're both right. And I really do agree that the types of programs Sara discusses are better and more effective than police stings.

But, after reading the additional details Sara's provided, I don't know if that's even relevant anymore. There's just a sort of mythic inevitability to the Craig sting, an epic grandeur, that I don't think any programs or efforts by human beings could have prevented. Caught between the pincers of his own votes to trade liberty for security, to exacerbate a health crisis, and to repress a sexual identity and practice he denies but practices himself?

The fates were gonna get that man no matter what. We are but specks in the face of such overwhelming forces and history.

I'm just too verklempt to argue the issue any longer.

[Ishmael]

Bmaz - I'm not disputing that stings can be an effective and legal tactic for the police. One of my pointe is that the use of police resources is disproportionate to the harm caused by the nuisance activity in question, whether it be public prostitution, drug use or cruising. Take IV drug abuse for example - often took place in public washrooms, was a real danger to those who would come in, broken needles, addicts dying from overdoses, kids traumatized from seeing the horror of drug abuse, and the real danger that could come from walking in on a drug deal in progress. All much more serious than the consequences of gay cruising. The solution wasn't to do sting operations that would result in the arrest of addicts and dealers - it was to create safe shooting zones and needle exchange programs, which reduced the harm to everyone. These have worked from Zurich to Vancouver. The criminal law is not the solution to every social problem. Just sayin'.

[bmaz]

I agree with every iota of that. I just, somewhat uncharacteristically, think this one was ok. I also wonder if Craig had not have gotten antagonistic with them if he might have walked away with no charge; but that is an entirely different matter.

[orionATL]

you're a big-time coach of a big-time team. you won on saturday, big-time-team way.

god's in his heaven: all's right with the world.

on sunday morning you haven't yet read "the week in review",

not that you ever do,

because you turn first to the sports page

and this is what grabs you:

Appalachian state 34

Michigan 32.

damn.

just when it was conventional wisdom that a big-time team should pay "Loser U" big money (500K - 750K) to beat up on said losers in a big way in order to get said big-time team's season started with a big bang -

Appalachian state 34

michigan 32.

this is simply not fair.

the business model is broken.

outsourcing?

michigan 48

bangalore 46*

*cricket scores converted to football scores by international agreement (and additional remunerations).

[Ishmael]

Bmaz - re Craig's interview, yes, some judicious use of the right to silence and good legal advice may have gotten Craig out of this mess - he really dug himself in deeper with the cop with the "wide stance" absurdity and the "entrapment" threat.

[Sara]

JGabriel -- yes, of course it should be used in the right place in any art form. I have been thinking more of a film, the "Autobiography of a Loo" -- had not thought about this place for years till Craig got caught, but then the brain got tickled and one remembers things that transpired in the past. When Craig says he traveled through the airport every week (twice, coming and going) and he always stopped in that Loo -- you just crack up, and at the same time get angry at the stupid reporters unable to ask around a little and find the local lore.

I don't think it was actually the Patriot Act that was involved here, it was an earlier piece of legislation right after 9/11 that ordered the FAA to put all the security in place. (most of it was recommendations out of Gore's commission on Airline Security -- the post TWA 800 commission.) Lots of money was released for all the security upgrades. Our Airport got a little bit of everything, Dragons teeth to prevent truck bombs, doubled fencing with razor wire in between, just a sample of all the things they have in their kit bag.

Remember this is also the Airport Police who, last winter, arrested a group of Imams for "Provocative Praying" in the transit lounge. They were leaving a conference, arrived at the airport, went through security, found their departure area, and it was time to pray, so they rolled out their rugs, and had at it -- and other passengers reported them to the cops, who arrested them. About a month after that our Taxi Drivers at the Airport, almost all of whom are Somali Muslims, decided they would not accept fares from people carrying booze. We have a number of international flights -- and many come off those planes with their tax free plastic bags. That required some high level mediation. So I see all of this less as a story about personal sexual identity, much more as a collision of cultures or sub-cultures, with one of these being the otherwise rather invisable commerce in the Men's Loo. It would have remained rather invisable had not the "marketplace" been vastly changed by the security changes post 9/11.

Another interesting aspect of the Craig story -- the matter of his now trying to take back his guilty plea, and I suppose stand trial on all the counts. I hope he has a good strategic lawyer. The current Hennepin County District Attorney, whom I am sure would give personal attention to the trial of a retired US Senator, is Mike Freeman, son of Orville Freeman, former Governor and then Sec of Agriculture in the Kennedy-Johnson Administration. Freeman served 8 years as Prosecutor back in the 1980's and early 90's, and then didn't run again because he ran for the Senate Seat that Mark Dayton held for 6 years, but now Amy Klobuchar holds. When Amy ran for the Senate last year, Freeman ran for his old job. Craig would face a Jury drawn from a county that votes at least 70% DFL in most races, -- most of Hennepin Co is in the 5th District, represented by Keith Ellison. Apparently there is also a recent ruling from the State Appeals Court refusing the change of plea after sentencing -- some think that is probably the leading case law. Yes, should he demand a jury trial and win, he would be cleared, but if he is found guilty, he would probably get a month in the workhouse. He might just want to leave well enough alone. I also doubt if he can kick the case into Federal Court given the fact that DOJ's Joint Terrorism Taskforce people authorized the sting, and then designated the local police and the County Prosecutor to handle the cases. The FBI agent who represented DOJ in setting up the task force was Colleen Rowley, and it was set up more than a year before 9/11. At that time Colleen was leading part of the case against the last remaining member of the Simbineese Liberation Movement, found hiding out as the wife of a Doctor in St. Paul -- and the defination of Terrorism at that time, was more or less derived from that case.

So yea, if all the levels of this could be properly fictionalized as an ironic novel or screen play -- I think we would have a winning piece of art about cultural collisions in contemporary middle America.

One could add in the roles of Michelle Bachmann and her Husband. She is the Ultra Right Congresswoman elected in the 6th district last year, the one who french kissed Bush after the SOTU on the floor of the house last winter. Bachmann's husband is a Psychologist with a practice exclusively devoted to "curing" gay men with evangelical religion, and the two of them used to hide in the bushes during Gay Pride events to observe. One wonders why Craig did not make use of Bachmann? They make a practice of going to Gay Bars and Night Clubs and then if they are not treated nicely, sueing under Civil Rights/Affirmative Action laws. They are doing it in DC since she was elected, but all they got for their effort in Minnesota was signs at the doorway in several Gay Night Clubs announcing conformity with MN Civil Rights Laws. But she spent eight years in the MN Senate trying to get an anti-Gay Marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot, quite unsuccessfully. We think we have a DFL candidate who can defeat her next year, not on these social issues, but as an organic farmer, banker, and venture Capitalist deeply invested in various alternative energy projects.

[Jodi]

I will say it again, and again, and again.

I go into a restroom to take care of some very private business, and have no wish to be scrutinized or "signaled to" or in some instances touched, and in one particular airport on the West Coast blatantly verbally accosted by a pervert that looked like a woman but had other sexual desires.
And if they touch me during these communications on the foot or elsewher, they are going to get the Pepper Spray and also get arrested if I can manage to scream loud enough.

Many times people send their children, say a 11 year old boy or girl with a younger similar sex sibling to the bathroom while they are taking care of business at the counter, waiting in line, or doing something else so they can't leave and go with the children, and this Ismael is going to say that it is alright to have these perverts propositioning people and doing sex in the bathroom and others here are defending his point of view.

That is vile. And thank God, not allowed in air Fair Land.

And if it is a male in a bar or on the plane, and he wishes to approach me he better do it very carefully. But thankfully males are NOT in the bathrooms that I frequent.

And by the way, for some of you will get mixed up, I am not saying homosexuals are all perverts, just the ones that seem to be actively seeking random sex in restrooms. They are very sick perverts.

[JGabriel]

Jodi: "I am not saying homosexuals are all perverts..."

No, you didn't *say* that, but you did say:

Jodi: "In fact, I am all for sending the homosexuals to the other sex's restroom, or let's just have a homosexual restroom..."

So you clearly think they should all be forced to use separate bathrooms, like African-Americans in the Jim Crow south.

I stand by my earlier judgement, Jodi -- you're fucking insane.

[JGabriel]

Sara: "JGabriel -- yes, of course it should be used in the right place in any art form. I have been thinking more of a film, the "Autobiography of a Loo" -- had not thought about this place for years till Craig got caught..."

Hmm, I was thinking more along the lines of the book form, say Kundera or Rushdie, with Craig like The Imam from "The Satanic Verses":

The Senator stared out the window pensively. Fory years of anonymous gay sex, and he'd never been caught before. Who would believe the cop over the words of The Senator? Yes, denial was his best option.

An aide poked his head through the door. "Senator?"

The Senator, startled, convulsed. "Jiminy God!" he screamed, "I'm NOT gay!"

[Sara]

Jodi -- the Irony is that if someone had propositioned any of Craig's children, you would never have heard the end of it. He would have pushed the kite into the upper atmosphere, and shouted from that vantage point. But if he takes advantage of some teen kid who does not have a supportive or sympathetic family, and who, on comprehending probable sexuality, throws the kid out of the house, Craig was right there to pay perhaps twenty bucks for a blow job, and then forget and deny the association, while demanding that such a kid was unworthy of serving say in the US Army. Not deserving in having any job protection, and quite obviously not protected from abuse.

Among other things, this is a class and status thing. Craig did not go to a local where young folk able to pay 30-40 thousand a year for college and who were not sure of their sexuality -- for a liason. No, he went to places where his status would not be questioned. He went slumming. We have to grasp all the class aspects of this as we comprehend what happened.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Ismael, as a mom who has occasionally traveled on long flights with a young son in tow, I appreciate the efforts of law enforcement to ensure that we can allow our little darlings to relieve themselves in relative safety. Moms worry when their sons don't emerge from the loo lickety-split, and it's *not* fun to watch your little darling vanish into a men's room in a major airport while you cool your heels outside wondering whether someone's shooting up, ass-banging, or 'whatever' in the very spot you've just sent your kid. Frankly, it's nerve wracking.

If you want to complain about the cops 'overly monitoring' illicit men's room behavior, that's your affair. I don't buy it. The days are long gone when every kid on a long plane flight had a male parent, uncle, or cousin to help out in the loo. Quite frankly, I feel you are asking me (and other parents) to put some Senator's happyTime in the loo as more important than child safety. I find that absolutely appalling.

Anonymous sex presumably increases risk of HIV/AIDS.
This was anonymous sex.
Larry Craig knew 'the signals'.
He received them; he sent them.
After sending them, he sought to evade the consequences by handing over his business card and basically trying to intimidate a cop.
The cop appears to have conducted the matter in a professional fashion.
All of this occurred AFTER Larry Craig had repeatedly denied engaging in gay activities to the Idaho Statesman.

I don't see 'gayness' as the main issue here; that's WHY this is so tragic. Larry Craig probably thinks it's about 'gayness', but I don't see it that way. The gays of my personal acquaintance are in committed relationships and -- perhaps impelled by HIV/AIDS -- appear to place quite a high value on commitment and monogamy. (In fact, I'd trust any of these friends to take my kid to the loo in an airport.)

There are other more important issues:
-- Craig's anonymous sex is related to public health.
-- Craig's implication that he was 'too important to be questioned by a cop' is an embarrassing abuse of power.
-- Craig's repeated denial of his private actions is an issue of integrity.

It's a very tragic story, but who doesn't marvel at the subtle droll humor of Madame Karma at work here? I'm with JGabriel on this one; if it were a novel, who'd believe it?

[Dismayed]

Bravo, reader. I think we're done here.

And Ishmael, I agree that criminal law is not the solution for all social ills, not the solution for most of them - nor is war the cure for social injustice.

Oportunity cures (almost) all, but hey that means spreading wealth around a bit, and what fat cat wants to do that? I mean hell, if we did that where could a guy find a cute boy pro?

At the end of the day, If you don't want to get stung, use your stinger at home. (or at least somewhere with a reasonable expectation of privacy in the eyes of the law)

Of all people ever caught in a dragnet, none deserved what he got more than Craig.

enough said.

[Jodi]

You are the one that is insane, JGabriel.

I am for separating people's public restrooms based on their sex.
Female, male, and other.

And I know that you aren't stupid enough to compare that to Racial Segregation. Wait. Whoa. But you did do just that!

[melior]

It's going to be hard for the GOP to lay claim to any spirit of tolerance in Texas, where their official Party Platform goes beyond the 'sanctity of marriage' and still calls for the recriminalization of homosexuality.

Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy

[Dismayed]

Jodi, go take your medicine.

[Dismayed]

And if you must indulge you demons here, quit using bold - that got tiresome long ago.

[Jodi]

Bold begone!

[Jodi]

bold?

[No Blood for Hubris]

"Bawdy flirtation"?

Feh.

What kind of language is that?

Foley was grooming an underage kid. That's a pedophile thing, not a "bawdy" thing. Yecch.

[QuickSilver]

Jodi, are you a man or a woman, or do you know? (In fact, multiple troll posters appear to use the "Jodi" moniker.) It's very strange for you to be talking about urinals as well as the anxiety of being hit on by another woman whom you are not sure is a woman. No wonder you are calling for a third bathroom for others... No one would know the need better than you.

It was no secret to anyone in Washington or Idaho political circles that Craig was gay. Once again this week, the GOP showed America its true colors, its "family values"... By comparison, the GOP has pampered David Vitter.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Dismayed, thx. Almost done.
Except for commenting that my info confirms QuickSilver's -- that people in political circles knew Craig was 'gay'. The real wonder here may be that it took so long to 'out' Craig publicly. I have a hunch more than one Idaho GOP member would like to shove Arlen Spectre in a soundproof box for the next 6 weeks ;-)

[Neil]

How do we know Senator Craig (R-ID) "is not gay and has never been gay"? He told us so earlier last week just before he resigned.

Are gay bi-sexual men who cruise for sex less respectable and less suitable for public office than heterosexual men who cruise for sex?

[Neil]

Jodi's solution to the Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) scandal is separate toilettes, four in all, one each for Male Heterosexuals, Female Heterosexuals, Male Homosexuals and Female Homosexuals? Don't you think celibates deserve a little privacy too?

I've never had a problem in a men's room, never been propositioned or harrassed, never been uncomfortable because a hetero couple or gay or lesbian couple was making it in there when all I wanted was a toilette. But that's just me.

If four five bathrooms is a reasonable accomodation for married anti-gay family-value Republican Senators to troll for tricks, then five bathrooms it is!

If Minneapolis decides to crack down on cruising in the airport's men's room, interstate rest area, or local playground I think it's reasonable law enforcement as long as all people have equal treatment under the law.

Why did Republicans force Craig out and not Vitter. Is it because Craig cheats on his wife with men and Vitter cheats on his wife with women?

When is Mrs Vitter going to make good on her word to emasculate her husband for sexual infidelity? It's been an awfully long time since we've had a Bobbit story in the headlines.

[Steve]

Overall, I think that Ismael is using Craig to talk about the general conditions of society that lead closeted gay men first to be closeted and second to seek anonymous sex and the reaction to that, while many others are talking specifically about Craig. Thus the conversations go in different directions. I certainly am not losing any sleep over Craig's fate, but I am concerned about the conditions of society (see Melior above) that continue to make living as a homosexual so difficult. Not to mention others who deviate from the prescribed norm. So, in my mind, whether to have police in the bathroom or cameras or whatever, is like talking about getting flood water out of the house rather than about fixing the dikes. You have to clean out the house, but the real problem is something much larger.

Reader of Tea Leaves - I'm not trying to be flip here. If you're worried about your son taking too long in the men's room, I'd recommend you just walk in and find him. (Warn him before you're going to do that if he isn't out in 2 minutes so he's not embarrassed.) You're going to see much less than you see on the beach, and protecting your son (or your own comfort) is more important than the sanctity of separate bathrooms. On more than one occasion I've had my wife use the empty men's room when the women's room was full or closed for cleaning. And no, I wouldn't recommend men go into the women's room, though I've asked women going in to check on my daughter.

[Jodi]

I would like to state that there are two subjects really being discussed here, and sometimes being mixed up.

One subject is homosexuals and their problems and their rights and the other is perverts and their perversion and how it is treated under the law. Now what everyone is really upset about is perversion that occured at some airport, and I think that that is the class into which Senator Craig falls and he also seems to be a bisexual at the least.

The restroom, the bathroom, the toliet are places where people go to take care of personal private matters.
Now it may be our own calls of nature, or it may be our children's or siblings, or a stranger's. But it is our most personal private business.

I am amazed at the people here who scream against the Patriot Act, a national identity card, and other acts and procedures which they think violate their phone, or mail, and identity and other privacies, who then say well, it is ok for homosexuals to actually be and then to hit on people in bathrooms and if these people's feelings are hurt, or they are upset and offended, or even outraged, well then that is just too bad. Or to say well it is ok to consider the public Restroom as a fine place to have sex, and other people, children as well, just shouldn't look if they don't like it, and not be offended because it is some inalienable right.

Then they scoff at people who are worried about their children, and say well you just need to escort your child (even if the opposite sex) into the bathroom.

I say that someone overtly seeking sex in a public restroom is a pervert and should be subject to the criminal code and likewise get screened for mental problems, and at the very least be put on the Sexual Offenders list.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Nothing taken personally Steve, it's part of 'thinking through complex issues'. I'm not above hollering a warning before entering a men's loo ;-)

There is a larger social issue related to closeting; however, as more and more of us have worked with, or lived near, people who are openly gay, behavior like Craig's really does seem baffling and sad. But it is related to public health, and that's where I start hollering like a madwoman.

FWIW: My son had a openly male gay teacher, who chose to emphasize HIV/AIDS in his health curriculum (in a public school). The teacher had administrative support, and his lessons were open for parental preview; anyone could show up on specific evenings to preview the lessons and talk with the teacher. All parents had the right to pull their kid from the health lessons, but no did. The kids learned some respect for their budding sexuality, and that teacher had an impact on the lives of his students. That man could escort my kid to a restroom anytime; fine by me. Contrast Larry Craig's cowardice (and shame) with the courage and integrity of my son's teacher, and the Senator comes out quite badly.

Whether that teacher would have been permitted to offer such a curriculum in a public school in Idaho is doubtful. As more of us know gays as co-workers, friends, neighbors, etc, the issues of personal integrity and honesty become more significant, and the outdated prurient, sensationalized 'gay factor' fades into the background.

I've been too long on this thread, but one final element that may in part explain my interest: at one point my son came within a few white blood cells of a diagnosis for leukemia. News like that prompts a parent to reflect pragmatically about the blood supply, particularly when a doc recommends that if there are 'specific blood donors' it may in the kid's best interests. I'm confident that I'm not the only parent who's ever started a list: "jeez, who might I ask if they'd be willing to donate blood for my kid?" Having to think about the safety of the blood supply for a child's health, tends to eliminate patience with anonymous sex and some other rather reckless behaviors.

This final point may also explain why the loathsome spectacle of Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card at Ashcroft's hospital bed fills me with more indigant scorn and contempt that I can civilly express. The same psychology willing to violate a hospital room is the same psychology that used Larry Craig's 'right wing' votes for their purposes, but then tossed him out like yesterday's expendable trash in the blink of an eye. There are many sad characters in the story of Larry Craig, some of whom are evidently his former GOP colleagues. How more guilt, shame, denial, secrecy, and fear will make the world safer, or the blood supply safer, is a mystery.

But I still object to Larry Craig's attempted abuse of power (his Senate business card), his obstinate denial, and his dishonesty.

Bathrooms need to be safe for kids. And the blood supply needs to be safe for all of us, because none of us know when we might need it. Because of public health implications, law enforcement of male bathroom 'stings' have this mom/aunt's enthusiastic support.

[CD]

I love the detailed (and accurate) information from Sara illuminating this discussion. With her grasp of local issues surrounding Larry Craig's arrest, I am surprised she didn't throw in a further amazing irony: the arresting officer is a real straight-arrow who is well-respected and known for his respectful and professional handling of the arrests. His professionalism has not gone unnoticed. He has on his desk a photograph of himself receiving a law enforcement award from Dick Cheney.

[greenhouse]

Steve, nice pun. "about fixing the dikes".