Glenn Greenwald has an absolute ball pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the right-wing reaction to Larry Craig’s “outing” last fall and their screams for Craig’s resignation today:
Nonetheless, it is hard to overstate the intense fury that this pre-election report triggered from the Right — not at Senator Craig for engaging in this behavior, but at Rogers for reporting it. A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms (acts that are simultaneously criminal and adulterous). The same political movement that impeached Bill Clinton and which has made a living exploiting issues of private morality for political gain insisted that Rogers had reached a new and despicable low in politics even by reporting this.
This reaction was so widespread that only a fraction can be identified here for illustrative purposes. At Hugh Hewitt’s blog, Dean Barnett pronounced: “The thuggishness continues . . . . [A] benumbed nation can only look on in horror at what has become of the Democratic Party.” Barnett accused Rogers of being a liar (“Rogers will maintain the anonymity of these three men, presumably because they . . . . don’t exist”) and also claimed that he hasn’t “heard from a single conservative who gives a hoot about Larry Craig’s sexuality.” According to Barnett (and many others), the Left only thought the story would matter because it mistakenly assumes that Christian conservatives actually dislike homosexuals…
***But now, with the election safely over, a fundamentally different view — one might say the exact opposite view — has arisen among this same political faction (and, in some cases, though not all, even among the same individuals) over the Craig bathroom sex story, one which confirmed the truth of Rogers’ October report. Michelle Malkin yesterday called Craig a “weasel,” accused him of not caring about the “dignity of his office,” and demanded that he resign. Various other right-wing blogs — noting that a GOP governor will appoint his replacement — also are calling for Craig to resign.
So revealingly, Barnett’s blog colleague, Hugh Hewitt, demanded Craig’s immediate resignation while openly acknowledging that he does not believe Sen. Vitter should resign. I wonder what the difference might be? It cannot possibly be that Craig’s liaisons were with men rather than women, because the Right is completely indifferent to such considerations.
Pretty much. The only thing that is different is that there is no election and Craig’s replacement will be chosen by a Republican Governor. I thought I would look up what I had to say about this whole affair back in October:
My attitude- so what? Who cares if he is gay?
Oh- that is right- the GOP cares if he is gay, because if he is, it might suppress the voting base. Which is, of course, the only reason why the right wing is having a collective hissy fit about this ‘outing’ of Larry Craig. Even now, the GOP is running on a platform of gay-bashing.
I think these intentional outings of people is wrong- if Larry Craig is, in fact gay, it was his business and his business alone. If it were not for the GOP running around demonizing gays, pretending that acceptance of homosexuality will be the end of the world, and engaging in gay-bashing as political sport, closeted gays would not be closeted. I don’t know if Craig is gay, and I don’t care, and even though I disagree with people being outed against their will, it is, in large part, the GOP’s fault that being outed as gay is still considered a smear.
In other words, it was clear they were hacks then, it is clear they are hacks now (Lawyers, Guns and Money puts it all together as far as Hewitt is concerned. David Vitter is from Lousiana. Louisiana has a Democratic governor. Hugh- the consummate party hack). Film at 11.
*** Update ***
And, amusingly enough, the only people defending Craig are what the deep thinkers in the comments at Protein Wisdom would call the “homophobic left”:
I think that’s about right. Look, I wouldn’t want to bring my 4-year-old son into the airport bathroom and stumble across two people having sex, gay or straight. It’s tough enough getting in and out of the john without him touching every dirty surface or contributing to the mess with an errant aim. But sex didn’t happen here. Even the propositioning is murky at best. And short of a proposition involving sex for money, what is illegal about inquiring about sex? Tactless, maybe. But criminal?
See also Yglesias and Garance Franke-Ruta.
*** Update ***
And just because I want to have this in my archives, Hewitt’s justification for demanding Craig’s resignation is priceless:
But even if I did believe him, this would make his judgment too flawed to be in the United States Senate in a time of war. He has to go.
Uncle Sam needs us all not to have gay sex at a time of war. Otherwise the terrorists win. Insert your own “300” quip.
timb
Do you think that one can oppose gay marriage and still claim to not discriminate against gays?
I don’t, but it’s a pretty common refrain. I understand why people who fight for marriage will settle for civil unions (as long as the difference is only semantic so it placates the right wing crazies), but I cannot figure out how one can claim to support gay rights and oppose gay marriage.
It’s a mystery.
myiq2xu
It’s no wonder that the GOP hated Clinton so much.
He had sex with women!
Dreggas
Filthy Breeder, may as well have been banging a stick in a trash can.
Shelby
I don’t understand how you can accuse Jeff Goldstein of “dense and unreadable prose” but link to the interminable, impenetrable, meandering Greenwald.
John Cole
Brevity is not one Greenwald’s strongpoints, I will readily admit, but much of his length (or girth, if you will, considering the topic), is linking the hundreds of stupid statements made by Greater Wingnuttia. Given their propensity to make stupid statements and then archive them, any time you address them you are going to have a LONG post.
Tsulagi
Say what you will about these tards, absolutely none can deliver the comedy with such clueless delivery on such a regular basis.
From the Idaho Values Alliance touting their family values pro-life Senator WideStance for his courageous stance on killing embryonic stem cell research, on the same page they warn about the homosexual peril facing the nation and its bathrooms…
No doubt when Republicans far and wide read this, they tap out their agreement from their manly wide stance.
Dreggas
Oh one question regarding his wide stance. My understanding is he was sitting on the can when this occurred. Yet he has a wide stance? C’mon one cannot spread ones legs THAT wide when their pants are down unless they are pretty damn fat (he doesn’t appear to be) and he supposedly slid his foot over and rubbed the cops foot.
Leeds man
I didn’t know you could have any stance while sitting down.
Wilfred
Dreggas is right! It’s like aiming at a dog with a tank. It.Can’t.Be.Done. I just tried it sitting in an upright refrigerator box that I modeled on the specs of the bathroom stalls at Minneapolis airport. Sitting on a stool, in lieu of the loo, I placed a big pair of shoes at the approximate distance of the neighboring stall, with my own size 38 trousers secured firmly around my ankles, although if I really had been in a public bathroom I’d never let them drop that far. But this was in my house, so it was ok. Anyway, I simply could not maintain a maximum wide stance and make foot contact with the other foot(less) shoe. After repeating the experiment several times, and tearing my pants at the crotch, I satisfied my self that the alleged incident could not have taken place, unless I removed one leg from my pants and swung my foot over completely to the side, pivoting in an approximate arc of 120 degrees. This maneuver, however, resulted in my penis dragged over the edge of the stool causing severe discomfort and making me cry out in pain. Thus it would seem unlikely to have occurred since there was no report of Senator Craig yelping. I think that exonerates the Senator and makes everyone else a hypocrite.
Paul L.
I thought the left were all for the “right to privacy”.
So I guess Greenwald (and John by extension) sees no difference between what someone does in public and what someone does in private.
So by that standard seeing someone engaged in certain behavior in a public place is the same as peeking in their bedroom window finding out that they are engaged in that certain behavior.
So by that standard, there is no difference between someone who looks at pornography on his TV at home and someone who looks at it on a DVD portable player at the mall or driving in traffic.
Dreggas
Umm no…it just proves the senator is full of shit… LOL.
myiq2xu
Men’s room etiquette:
There is an invisible wall that extends from the bottom of the stall wall to the floor and from the top to the ceiling. THOU SHALL NOT TRESPASS!
Peeking through the crack, looking under the door, and stall sharing are also forbidden.
When standing at the urinal, keep your eyes focused on the wall in front of you. Unless it is crowded, always keep at least one space between you and any other men.
Keep all conversation to a minimum. Do your business and get out. Hand washing is optional, especially if you used your feet to do everything except work your zipper (You should use your feet whenever possible.)
Just because another man smiles at you is not justification to begin pummeling him while screaming “Fag!” Winking or intentional touching however, is ample justification.
Any questions?
Jake
You see? That’s the problem. Teh Gays just need to stop making Teh Hets feel inferior by being unstoppable luv machines who can accomplish in a few days apparently what they struggle to accomplish in a life time. No wonder flat headed yahoos continue to chase people down the street with baseball bats. They want the secret of being Sexual Powerhouses!
Yeah, I could’ve ridiculed the unsourced “secret” stat but why bother? The Earth was created in 6000 years, Bush is a great president, gays have a bazillion sex partners. I just wish we could introduce a useful rumor. Like if you say or think the words, gay, lesbian, homosexual, etc. more than some undetermined amount of times you become one and there’s no cure.
John Cole
If I say yes, there is a difference, will you stop watching porn at the mall?
Seriously, you are scaring the kids.
Dreggas
wow. You might wanna quit your day job there Paul, I hear Wringling Bros. is looking for a new contortionist.
Oh and by the way you can be arrested/cited for watching porn while in your car. Had a case where some dipshits driving an SUV through a McDonalds drive through were watching porn on an in car dvd screen which was viewed by a woman and her kids directly behind them. The woman called the cops and the guys got busted…want fries with that?
Dreggas
I thought this was common sense unless you were in a leather bar.
Dreggas
Heh I know malls that sell pr0n, in canada anyway. Of course it was to my utter delight that I discovered Fry’s now sells pr0n movies on dvd as well. Nothing like electronics and hardcore WOOT! LOL.
jnfr
Greenwald does go on at length, but only because he is meticulous in presenting all conceivable details relevant to his argument. It can be hard to read, but it’s even harder to refute, because he doesn’t miss a thing and he documents it all.
Quiddity
I don’t like outing under any circumstances. Larry Craig is representing his constituency, which apparently doesn’t like gays. And, from all reports, Craig did a good job of being a representative of the citizens of Idaho. Isn’t that what we want in a democracy?
I do not dispute the hypocracy and hackishness of various right wing pundits and bloggers, but on principle, shouldn’t we condemn the outing of Craig? (At least in the abstract; yes there was an arrest, but my argument is focused on the exposure of personal behavior, not on the extra-layer of illegality.)
The demand that a person’s personal behavior align with public behavior is a very unwelcome trend. I never bought into the (early feminist) claim that “The personal is political”. Because if that’s so, then you have no effective right to privacy.
Gus
jnfr, agreed. I’m not a big fan of Greenwald’s prose, but I wad through it anyway, because it’s worth it. Goldstein on the other hand writes the kind of prose that changed my career path away from academia. Intentionally dense, clogged with trendy theory, proclaiming “look at how smart I am!” Yuck.
Dreggas
I would say no. What I want in our republic are representatives and leaders who I elect because they personally share my views and values. I would not vote for someone unwilling to “practice what they preach”. If anything it is more demoralizing when one discovers that their “leaders” don’t believe a damned thing they claimed. That is the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes in many respects.
If anything it reduces ones faith in the system because all it shows is a do anything, say anything desire to get elected and to hell with what your constituents want. It is sad and it is pathetic. Yes I think the same of dems who do this as well.
r4d20
Just because another man smiles at you is not justification to begin pummeling him while screaming “Fag!”
Uh Oh! Looks like I have some apologies to make.
Oh well, live and learn.
Actually, the only time I got creeped out by a gay man was when I was showering at the university gym and a guy walked in, slowly looked me up and down, smiled and said “Well, hello!”. Dude, at least wait till I’m dressed damn it!!
IU1995
I’m not a guy but judging from most of the guys I know, I’ll make a couple of bold assumptions.
1. One of these days, he’s going to slide his fingers back and forth under the wrong stall and he’s gonna pull back a nub.
2. When his foot “accidentally” brushes against the wrong foot, he’ll be limping home with a bunch of crushed toes.
Most dudes don’t play when it comes to public restrooms. Not saying I condone violence but when a dude’s personal space is invaded by another dude, well bad stuff may happen.
myiq2xu
A politician’s (as opposed to the average citizen’s) personal behavior should align with his or her public pronouncements.
Make a big stink about “morality” and you had better behave according to your asserted moral code.
The old adage about people who live in glass houses applies here. Don’t criticize Bill Clinton for playing gag the intern if you’re cheating on your wife. Don’t condemn homosexuality if you’re a peter puffer too.
That’s one of the reasons I’m a Democrat, we’re allowed to have a good time.
chopper
yes, i totally forgot that the one-night stand was invented by a gay.
chopper
but we don’t believe in a public official’s “right to hypocrisy”.
Pb
Quiddity,
I disagree, from last time:
The truth will set you free.
Paul L.
Wow nice post Glenn #176589
You forgot
Wow, the “do you still beat your wife” retort.
Left me guess if I reply: “I don’t watch porn at the mall.”
You’ll reply: “When did you stop?”
And the missing the point award between public and private behavior goes to:
Dreggas
yes. now let me spell it out real slow…he…plead…guilty…to…lewd…acts…in…public
He wasn’t in his own home and wasn’t being watched, in that case whoever was watching would have been able to be prosecuted under peeping tom laws.
Tsulagi
Paul L., I sure as shit don’t need to hear about gooper pooper engagement in public restrooms in any comparison. Engaging, becoming engaged, or whatever else they do in the stalls.
Think of the children. Keep it up and we’ll have to start ballot measures to protect them from WASPs demanding wide-stance safe public facilities. Who knew that acronym really meant Wide Anal Stance Pub in the GOP?
myiq2xu
The GOP gives new meaning to the words “Quit stalling!”
LITBMueller
So THAT’s why my dick fell off after I bonked my second wife! Sheesh – you’d think the Grand Designer would have put a “For Use with One Woman Only” warning label on the damn thing!
What?!?!? So it’d be OK if say, Hillary, spoke about being opposed to torture in public, but enjoyed picking up random men in bars and putting them in her extreme S&M basement torture decive in private?
I doubt it very very much. Much like we wouldn’t want a guy who is buddy buddy with the mob to become Atty General or we wouldn’t want a person who regularly hires vastly underpaid illegal aliens from Guatemala to take care of the their lawn, house, and kids become the Sec. of Labor.
How you conduct yourself in your personal life is an absolute reflection on whether you are worthy of a position of importance (despite the fact that our Pres. is a recovering alcoholic and coke head).
And, trying to get cops to give you a blow job in an airport bathroom is not private, its public, especially since its not an “adults only” bathroom, know what I mean?
Nikki
I’ve always said the only thing keeping hetero men from being as promiscuous as gay men is hetero women.
Pb
Fox News story on Sen. Larry Craig now offers no party identification whatsoever… Film at 11!
(I’m sure they just forgot, and they’ll falsely stick a “D” after his name real soon now, thus “fixing” the problem…)
Dreggas
Oh…My…God move over sand box…
Dreggas
Questions is would anyone be suprised?
Fats Durston
But the cop said they only used square-backed toilets! Square-backed!!!
Everyone knows that it’s not just cops who use square-backs, and they’re not square anyway! They have rounded corners!
Punchy
John Cole, openly linking to, complementing, and downright pimping Glenn Freakin Greenwald….
/2006 BJer shakes head in amazement, lifts jaw off floor…
Nikki
Isn’t that what the last 2 elections have been all about?
myiq2xu
Men? I’m shocked.
myiq2xu
I kid you fucking not. Post at Think Progress.
Poor Barney Frank. There aren’t any gay Democrats anymore.
Dreggas
and besides it’s impossible to twist one’s ankle at just the right angle to rub someone else’s foot, especially since there is such a limited field of view between the floor and stall.
Praedor Atrebates
Insert your own “300” quip? Now I haven’t seen that movie but isn’t it entirely about gladiator-esque gay grapple-fighting top to bottom? That IS the draw for that particular movie by the GOP (in particular) isn’t it? Again, I really don’t know much about that movie, though I DO know something about the REAL events that the movie skids glancingly off of…for instance, it wasn’t “300 against buttloads”, it was 300+/- Spartans with an additional 700+/- Thespians taking on a buttload of Persians…
Now who knew that 700 ancient theater actors could put up such a good fight against a bunch of immortals?
Gus
FYI, I think what PaulL is defending here is not Craig’s hypocrisy. He’s making the case that private homosexuality isn’t a big deal for the wingnuts that Greenwald cites. What turned them against him isn’t his homosexuality, but his public lewdness. Uh-huh.
Quiddity
Pb:
Okay, no privacy for you.
LITBMueller:
Absolutely OK.
myiq2xu:
Why?
Pb
Romney half-throws Craig under the campaign bus — that was quick!
Dreggas
complete and utter bullshit as demonstrated by their outrage over Lawrence V. Texas and for anyone who forgets that one, they weren’t outraged over the violation of privacy.
Pb
Quiddity,
Welcome to the world of public figures.
grumpy realist
What we’re simply saying is put your money where your mouth is. If you come across as a freakin’ homobigot screaming about TEH GAY and criminalizing all sorts of behavior, you can’t turn around and scream “but I am a Senator!” when the very same rules get applied to you.
And yes, a great discrepancy between what you preach and what you practice shows in my opinion that you’re a pretty stinky human being. (Mainly because in 99% of the cases, the individual is haranguing people about Sin, Sex, and Appropriate Behavior but wants everyone to give him a free pass when it comes to his OWN behavior. Will not do–as ye mete out, so shall ye be judged.)
RandyH
Some might wonder if this type of activity happens all of the time in most restrooms around the country. Nope. But certain ones, like this particular one at MSP airport, have a well documented reputation. Well connected closet cases seek out the listings for such legendary hook-up places. Princess Sparkle Pony explains just how Larry Craig found this particular restroom. He didn’t just stumble upon it. If only he had checked the more recent feedback on that particular hot-spot, he would have noticed that there was a well-documented sting operation going on at the legendary men’s room behind the shoeshine stand.
Quiddity
To Pb (again): One development over the last decade in jurisprudence has been a shift away from procedural rules for investigations (probable cause, warrants, etc.) and to a new standard, finding out The Truth. This allows evidence seized improperly to be used, among other things. This Truth-agenda has been supported mostly by conservatives. And it would appear that you also support that kind of social system.
Quiddity
Pb (yet again): Are you saying, by linking to Public Figures at Wikipedia, that because something it happening, it is therefore not to be critized?
Pb
Quiddity,
I don’t see how that follows. I am of course in favor of “finding out the truth”, as I think our judicial system traditionally is as well. I am also in favor of doing so in a manner consistent with our laws and our Constitution. As for the rest, you assume too much. But here’s a question for you, regarding Craig’s original outing–do you think any laws were broken there? Or do you think such outings should be made illegal? What controls, if any, would you propose placing on journalism, and what else should we not question about our Senators?
Jake
Fixed.
Dreggas
because they are elected by their constituents because the constituents believe that they hold the same values and are a fair representation of those values.
whippoorwill
I think maybe we’re on the cusp of a giant stride forward in the social evolution of man. Well, maybe not quite. How many times have we witnessed the moral contortions of homophobe republicans when one of their own gets outed. It is a marvel of stupidity to see. All that political energy waisted just to please the holier than thou voting block. It would be too much
to hope for that this episode [even if a bit high on the sleazo-meter] might teach republicans that hypocrites are not revered by American voters.
Pb
Quiddity,
I don’t even understand what you’re getting at here. Can anyone else follow this? Therefore, no, that’s most likely not what I was saying at all. Just pointing out that there are established legal standards here regarding privacy and public figures like Sen. Craig that you may or may not be aware of.
Quiddity
Pb: I wasn’t sure how expansive your celebration of “the truth” was, and as a result brought up how such a quest can lead to a more intrusive government. As to the original outing, it seems fair game to report if someone has broken the law. My concern was more with the presumption that it’s okay to out someone – like that blogger did last year.
Dreggas: Functionally, if a politician says he holds the same values as his constituents, and acts accordingly, then for all intents and purposes, he is holding the same values. Let’s not try and crack open the black box which is the human mind. Why do you want to snoop around Craig’s closet?
myiq2xu
Quiddity asks “Why?”
I don’t care what a politician’s sexual orientation is, or how many sexual partners outside of marriage they have, or what else they do in private.
But when they want to criminalize behaviors that they secretly engage in, or lie, or are hypocritical, then I care. When they commit lewd acts in public places, I care.
The common thread in all these recent scandals isn’t just that the people exposed were members of the GOP, it’s that they were piously promoting their “family values.”
David Vitter gave speeches claiming that Clinton should resign because he was immoral. Haggard, Allen and Craig all are anti-homosexual homosexuals. Foley sponsored the Child Sexual Predator Act while preying on teenage interns.
I wouldn’t have voted (or sent money) to any of these perverts, so I’m just wallowing in schadenfruede.
I waited years for what went around to come around. Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it?
Quiddity
Pb: Do you agree with those “established legal standards” for public figures? You haven’t said.
Quiddity
myiq2xu:
You care for reasons I don’t understand. I’m not talking about the illegality – or what happens in public. I’m talking about the “merits” of outing. Is hypocracy to be outlawed? Is that what permits an exposure of private behavior?
Pb
Quiddity,
I’m actually not too fond of them, as they stand. In general, I personally think protection from defamation in the U.S. is a bit too weak (whereas in the U.K., it’s a bit too strong), and that we allow our public figures to be harrassed probably more than anyone should be. As a practical matter, I can see why there’s a different standard, and I’m not necessarily opposed to having one, but I’d tweak things a little bit towards slightly expanding protections from defamation for everyone.
All that having been said, that is the law as it stands, and I think that’s worth knowing as well. Also, yes, I was asking you for your opinion about the original outing, last year.
Xenos
Hypocracy is not to be outlawed. However, hypocracy ought to be exposed. Law has nothing to do with it.
Quiddity
Clarification: I probably should have stated my position at the start: There should be an absolute and unbreachable wall between the public and the private. The only exception would be knowledge (e.g. a psychiatrist’s) that a person might harm someone else.
Also, I thought that since this blog is libertarian in spirit, that commentators would share my view. I’m apparently mistaken.
Zifnab
Except, it goes a step beyond that. Craig wasn’t just sitting up on a soap box and tossing about hypocrasy, he was crafting legislation – legislation with very real and tangible consequences to those that violate its strictures – designed to force others to conform to his moral code.
He was banning people from enjoying the benefits of married life – insurance, financial security, family life, degrees of sexual freedom – while indulging in those benefits himself. If Craig was simply a TV Preacher, outed for failing to practice what he preached, we could laugh him off as a hack. But anti-sodomy legislation, harsh penalties for lewd public conduct designed to punish same sex couples from kissing or cuddling in the open, and other trash bills are designed to put people in prison for completely harmless lifestyle choices.
That’s why Craig’s behavior is no less unconscionable than Paris Hilton’s wreckless driving or Michael Vick’s dog fitting. He’s trying to be above the law. The law HE helped craft. In these instances, he absolutely deserves to be outed because it exposes his political agenda as the “Some are more equal than others” bullshit that it is.
myiq2xu
If you want privacy, don’t become a public official. Hypocrisy isn’t and shouldn’t be outlawed, but those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Hypocrisy in public officials merits exposure, aka “outing.”
Dreggas
When I vote for a candidate I am acting in my own self interest to vote for someone who is going to represent me and vote not only for my self interest but for their own, they are my avatar in congress if you will. As such if I vote for candidate X who says he is against issue Y which I am also against, and may vote based on his public pronouncements, he or she should be against issue Y privately as well. If he is not, and turns out to be secretly FOR interest Y then he/she no longer represents me with respect to the fact that he/she will not vote for what is also in their own self interest.
Further, growing up the one thing that rankled me about my parents was the do as I say not as I do mentality. Being told not to drink by a father who’s currently killing a can of is not necessarily inspiring. In fact it tends to be completely and utterly hypocritical.
If one wants to lead and be thought of as a leader they should lead by example. They should not be ashamed to be who and what they are and speak clearly, on a personal level, and in their gut believe what they are saying.
I do not vote for people only to have them turn out to NOT be what they say they are. Voting record aside. If they talk the talk, they had better walk the walk because they are no longer simply private citizens, they are public figures.
myiq2xu
If Craig had taken the position that a person’s sexual orientation was none of government’s business and had opposed all forms of discrimination, his own orientation would be none of our business.
His activities in a public restroom however, would be.
Pb
Quiddity,
How exactly would that work? Remember, in the original outing, the outer in question (Mike Rogers) interviewed people about their private behavior with the outee (Larry Craig). They chose to disclose to him such private information. Wouldn’t a libertarian view then allow him to then do whatever he wishes with said information (an ye harm none)?
I’d say that a fair chunk of this blog is at least somewhat libertarian in spirit, myself included, and many more so than me. However, “somewhat libertarian” can cover a lot of ground. :)
John Cole
I am really not sure what we are arguing about, to be honest.
My position is such:
1.) I think it was wrong for Rogers to “out” Craig. I do take note that one of the reasons many people remain “in” the closet is the voting record of folks like Craig, and their continued pandering to folks like the IVA.
2.) I am not completely sure there is ample evidence to convict Craig of lewd conduct. Regardless, he pled guilty, so that is no big deal.
3.) I don’t think he should be forced to resign. Maybe censured by the Senate, as it seems violating laws against lewd conduct should not go unnoticed.
4.) I think there is no real big difference between Vitters and Craig, other than that Vitters crime went unpunished and would have been considered more of a crime by society and dealt with more forcefully.
5.) In my world, Sen. Craig would be free to have as much gay sex as he wanted, as well as be free to use a dildo in Alabama, marry a man, serve in the military, etc. Likewise, Sen. Vitters may have some explaining to do to Mrs. Vitters, but he would not be breaking the law should he hire a prostitute. Both of them could then smoke a joint when they were done.
If there is anything else I am missing, let me know.
Quiddity
Pb: I agree with your view about US vs. UK defamation law.
Let me tell you a little story that, while it’s not an outing in the formal sense, had a big impact for me.
In California, over a decade ago, there was a senate race. The Republican was Bruce Hersheson, very conservative and I didn’t support his candidacy. As the race headed into the final weeks, it was revealed that (a) he had visited a strip clup called the Seven Veils, and (b) that he went to the Centerfold Newsstand, which sold pornography. Now it turns out that I also went to that newsstand, and you know what? It was one of those newsstands that had a huge selection of serious magazines as well. I would purchase Foreign Policy magazine or Sky and Telescope. Or a British newspaper. But the name of the newsstand was admittedly racy.
By the way, the Democratic operative that went after Hershson was Bob Mulholland, who is a skunk in my opinion.
In any event, that was for me, a “close encounter” with an outing of sorts. I felt a certain kinship with Hersheson, even though I would never vote for the man. It bothered me that that sort of private activity was made public (I consider it a private activity if legally, you go to a strip joint or purchase pornography).
Quiddity
John Cole: Because the current story about Craig involves violation of the law, I’ve been unable to clearly detach it from the outing issue. What prompted my comments was an acceptance of outing, at least everywhere I’ve looked. I agree with you on all the points, but as to point (1), it was wrong for Rogers to out Craig, I think you will find many who disagree.
David
So the Hewitt crowd was Beauchamping before Beauchamp even existed?
laneman
If I penned a short story that had this plot line, no one on the face of teh earth would publish it because the story line is so cliched on both the repubs side and rightwignuttter side.
Un-fucking-believable
ppGaz
What’s the big fuss? The only allegations we’ve heard about Senator Craig relate to oral sex. And as we were told 24/7 by the Democrats about a decade ago, oral sex isn’t sex at all. Just ask Bill Clinton.
Quiddity
Pb:
Good question. I think mostly with social convention, but that’s weak tea. I don’t have a good answer, but I’d like to throw up some general questions about privacy:
Is it okay for a boyfriend to sell candid pictures of his girlfriend to Penthouse?
How do you feel about the news outlets that run tapes of 9/11 calls?
Zifnab
So John, I do have one question for you.
If a politician announces, “I have never before, nor do I, nor will I ever smoke marijuanna for any purpose, medicinal or recreational” and three weeks later, a reporter receives a tip that said politician goes into his garage every night and smokes up a bowl, should the reporter investigate the tip or respect the politician’s privacy.
What happens if the politician is currently working on legislation to throw every pot smoker in prison for no less than 10 years?
Pb
Quiddity,
The thing is, in both cases we’re talking about public places. Hypothetically, if you were at that newsstand, and you saw Bruce Herschensohn purchasing pornography, then you’d be a witness to that, and be free to use that information as you see fit (if, on the other hand, you saw him buying Foreign Policy magazine, you could report that instead). I agree that those tactics sound rather slimy, and that can just as easily backfire on a campaign as well.
myiq2xu
I’ve never been to the news stand, but I did once pay a visit to the Seventh Veil on Sunset Strip.
I don’t think these randy Repugnants should be forced to resign for their sexual orientation or even for misdemeanor crimes. Whether or not they should be forced to retire is up to their constituents.
There is a form of defamation that makes it a tort to violate someone’s privacy by publically disclosing private information. Unfortunately for Craig et. al., it does not apply to a “public” person.
jaime
Romney is now using the Clinton did it deflection; comparing Craig, Clinton and Tom Foley and the wingnuts are just eating it up.
Now, consentual sexual relations is just as deviant as scouting out young pages to call up to the big leagues when they turn 18 or trolling for anonymous Blowjays at a public toilet.
Teak111
So you sit on the toilet, tap you foot, get a positive response (the cop said he moved his foot back and forth), then some sort of hand signal indicating, I presume, to come on over to my stall. Is that how it works. So the second guy comes on over and they go at each other for a while. Wouldn’t that mean two pairs of feet in one stall, a sure sign something is up. Are there any commenters who can tell us how these things work.
Alllit
“Also, I thought that since this blog is libertarian in spirit, that commentators would share my view. I’m apparently mistaken.”
Yes you are. John Cole is a socialist. And Tim thinks that Stalin didn’t go far enough.
Quiddity
Pb: I’ll have to think about what you’ve written. One thing that strikes me, is that some people will be able to hide their activities better than others. E.g. Hershenson pays a runner to get Hustler. I’m uncomfortable with a system that rewards people who are better at being hypocrites. For me, cutting the Gordian Knot would involve conventions (and as little law as possible) that make a whole set of activities personal and shielded from view.
Leader Desslok
Since we’re on the subject of forbidden lust…
I was watching the Miss Teen USA pagent (I, uh… was just waiting to see what was coming on after it… whatever that was) and there was a particularly hot contestent, Miss Louisiana. She is Teh Hot. One thing, though. She’s 15.
15.
When I was 15, I doubt I had a hair on my ass. This girl is… well, she’s a beautiful woman. There’s no ignoring it.
I’m always amused by how society tries to infantilize teens, as if their children. But this girl is probably a bit of a freak of nature, most of the pagent contestants were 17/18 year olds. But I digress…
Larry Craig is a homophobic creep and a self hating hypocrite (as is David Vitter) and his removal from the US Senate is a very good thing whether his replacement is a Republican or a Democrat.
But Gay Marriage really is the worst idea ever. The only competition is maybe straight marriage. Look, the government shouldn’t have anything to with marriage regardless. Marriage is religious/spiritual ritual which should have no standing under the law. No special rights. No entitlements. The courts should view married couples as nothing more than roomates who are fucking, which is essentially what they are.
Divorce Courts are the greatest sources of fraud in this country, a complete waste of public resourses. Alimony payments? Please. The only thing these courts should be concerned with is settling child custody, otherwise… what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours, if you didn’t pay for it you can’t have it. Can you even imagine what a circus Gay Divorce Court would be? Fox must be salivating at the prospect of producing that show.
I get so tired of these bitter gay activists (those guys have such a big chip on their shoulders it’s wonder they can walk without a limp) telling me that gay people not being able to get on the marriage gravy train is as bad as segregation. Hey gay people… I’m sorry that people hate you. Seriously. That’s not cool. But no, you can’t have a pony.
But of course I voted against my state’s gay marriage ban amendment. It’s the same principle to me. Government simply shouldn’t be involved in this at all.
I look forward to all the comments saying I’m a pedophile for thinking that this girl is smokin’.
magisterludi
This die was cast when the the GOP sold its soul to The Moral Majority.
TR
Craig just gave a statement.
His first words, and I’m not making this up, were “Thank you all for coming out.”
Someone needs to keep that phrase out of his mouth if he’s going to say “I’m not gay” 20 times after it.
cleek
lemme guess… you’re single ?
my wife and i share a checking account. we make roughly the same amount of money. there is no “i paid for it” in such a situation.
Bubblegum Tate
Wait, I thought it was that John is a magical-realist and that Tim thinks Mao’s only mistake was making his book so small.
myiq2xu
I agree. That means getting government out of everyone’s bedroom, allowing civil unions between members of the same sex, prohibiting discrimination based on private matters (religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and letting women decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion or use contraceptives.
Ya, know, a “Consitutional Right of Privacy.”
When Wingnuttia agrees to stay out of other people’s bidness, we’ll stay out of their.
chopper
i love the right. do they take some kind of ‘equivalency’ exam where they learn to make these lousy comparisons?
1) a democrat getting a DUI when they were 21 is the equivalent of:
a) a republican shooting his butler in the jaw
b) a republican stabbing a hobo over a quarter
c) a republican nuking moscow
d) all of the above
Pb
I don’t know what Penthouse’s policies are in such cases, so how about we go with “sell on the internet”. Assuming he took the picture, and thus owns the copyright, and that she’s of age, and was ok with being photographed at the time, odds are it’s perfectly legal. Morally speaking, though, and without knowing anything else about the case, it’s probably not “ok” — it’s rather uncouth, to say the least.
I wonder about that sometimes. Are 911 calls public, or does that vary on a state-by-state basis? I generally think 911 calls are fine for what they are–a person calling for help in an emergency. It’s sometimes a bit sensationalistic to play them, but there’s generally not that much real information involved. I’d be fine with keeping them under wraps to the extent that they relate to an ongoing police or legal matter, and then only disclosing them to the appropriate parties, i.e., the police, court, judge, lawyers, jury, etc., until after the trial.
jnfr
This is pretty much how I feel, and double for any public servant in charge of public policy.
myiq2xu
There is no comparison. How can you compare an EVIL DEMOCRAT to a saintly Republican who made an insignificant error in judgment?
Dreggas
Quiddity,
I can understand your anecdote influencing your beliefs on this matter. In some ways I detest outting, myself, after seeing the hell it could cause people in small towns who were outted then thoroughly ostracized, intimidated, or attacked.
However when you enter a public realm you enter a public realm. If I see someone famous, notably a politician, entering the 7th Veil then you bet your bottom dollar that’ll be a hot topic along the lines of Oh my god you won’t believe this.
If that politician has been publicly preaching against going to stip clubs, the hypocrisy to me is so odious and contemptuous that yes I would gladly point it out. The emperor has no clothes.
Now as was said about the news stand (oddly enough I think I’ve been to that one myself though I live down in OC), if the guy was buying a magazine (not swinger related) or a newspaper that’s one thing. But again if he is in a public venue buying material he publicly preaches against that is something he should be called on.
Rogers, in outting this guy, conducted an investigation, a private one by all means but not one unlike those conducted by spouses who think their SO is cheating on them, while I disagree with the tactics it wasn’t done in a completely dirty manner (like say sicking the paprazzi on the guy and smearing his face all ove the Nat’l Enquirer).
Where I draw the line between “public” and “private” life is the sanctity of one’s home. A place where one can draw the curtains and keep the lights low. When one steps outside the home and off of one’s property, especially if one is famous/recognizable/important any expectations of real privacy go out the window.
Using craig as an example, if he brought a guy to his house, hey he just had a friend over. If he’s in a public restroom flagging, as the case may be. Hey the guys a freaking hypocrite and soliciting becides.
This goes for Vitter too. He was using a call girl service and got caught. He’s lucky he didn’t get caught in a police sting where he could be arrested.
About the only ones working in the adult industries that I know of who really take a persons privacy seriously are professional Dominatrixes/Dominants/Submissives. Why? Well for the most part they have an ethos that respects that persons privacy within their establishment.
If the person is seen entering it and the place is known to be a facility then the expectation that, that will be kept secret should be none.
myiq2xu
That depends on what she looks like. Send me what you’ve got and I’ll let you know.
Pb
Teak111,
That’s probably why Craig “put his roller bag against the front of the stall door” — to “attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall”.
chopper
wanting the same basic right that you and others can enjoy based solely on a sexual preference isn’t ‘wanting a pony’.
Quiddity
Dreggas: I think we agree on major points. Regarding outing, there was this guy, Michelangelo Signorile, who would out people with nary a second thought. Yet he said that his own outing (to his family IIRC) was a very painful experience. You can imagine what I thought about him after learning that.
As to doing things in your home as a bright line. Maybe. I think women who go to abortion clinics should not be reported as such.
myiq2xu: “Consitutional Right of Privacy” Isn’t that what Roe vs Wade established>
Dreggas
I disagree completely. Being married I am entitled to visiting my wife in the hospital, inheriting her property and several other rights and responsibilities that come as part of the legal side of marriage, the very secular side of any contract entered into. Gays do NOT have access to those same protections and that in and of itself is wrong.
As for marriage being a religiou/spiritual thing. I’ll give you 20 bucks for your second born daughter to be my second wife and reserve the right to beat her if she displeases me. Sound very religious to you? No? Well that’s some of the “Law” of the bible regarding marriages. It was a contract then as well…oh wait that meant tribal government was involved…shit…well I guess there should be no marriage, spiritual/religious, or otherwise.
Quiddity
Dreggas: Minor points to clarify. The Centerfold Newsstand was on Fairfax just north of Melrose (and Fairfax High School). And … it was the newstand vendor who told (or confirmed) that Hershenson was a customer. So whadda you do if even the commercial entities you do business with expose your activities?
Pb: Thank you for providing the correct spelling of Hershenson.
myiq2xu
And what, pray tell, has Wingnuttia campaigned against for 34 years now?
How many speeches denouncing “activist judges legislating from the bench?”
What do you think Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito mean when they say they are “originalists” or that they believe in “strict contruction?” Could it have something to do with the fact that the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution?
John Cole
Just out of curiosity, are there really people who think I am a socialist?
And by socialist, I mean a socialist in the sense that my economic policies and positions on the government are to the left of Max Sawicky, and not a socialist in the sense that it is a garden variety insult at Ace or protein wisdom.
Because if they do, that is just funny.
Quiddity
Pb: (delayed reply to your comment on news organizations playing 911 calls): If nothing else, I think they legitimize exposure of private activity, even if it’s not strictly private per se. I could come up with a scenario where a caller to 911 holds back potentially embarassing information and as a result, someone is harmed (or treated promptly). I would hope that a call to 911 is handled in the spirit of a doctor-patient relationship. Tell all that you can for the best remedy, safe in the knowledge that what you say will be kept confidential.
myiq2xu
Socialist? No.
Commie, pinko, Marxist and/or Red? Hell yes.
Dreggas
Again there is a difference. There is and should be doctor patient privelege, just as there is patient client privelege. However, again, a woman entering an abortion clinic is either going there to support a friend, works there, or is there having an abortion. There are several possible conclusions to be drawn. A public figure, going to a strip club while being against strip clubs (unless he has a protest sign) is open to scrutiny of their all too public activities.
t. jasper parnell
This stuff about hypocrisy and the public/private divide. Clearly it is complicated, but isn’t one of the responsibilities of elected officials to or, in any event, to attempt to uphold respect for the laws that they pass? Don’t Larry Craig’s actions undermine the very things he claims to uphold and, conversely, despise, and which aided his election? As a result of this behavior isn’t respect for the law undermined? Doesn’t it seem as though Craig and those like him propose one set of laws (or perhaps even worse one set of moral standards) for others while they are free to cavort to their hearts content? If so, isn’t this kind of think an inversion of Mandeville’s claim about private vice and public benefit? In which case, the public private divide matters only in those cases where hypocrisy reigns. Not thatI would advocate outlawing hypocrisy; however, surely voters have a right to know that those who claim to share their values don’t. You may say that so long as the representative votes the way the folks want, it is a-ok; this, I would suggest, impoverishes the political realm by insisted that it is a form of theater, which is I think wrong somehow.
Pb
Quiddity,
I think the libertarian view is, you do business with other commercial entities. That is to say, if there’s a demand for privacy, then the magical Free Market fairy dust will poof into existence a better business. In practice… good luck with that. Ultimately, that all amounts to little more than Caveat Emptor.
You’re welcome… and, that’s why I have Teh Googal to do my thinking for me. Yay, commercial entitites! :)
I think that’s a good point, if perhaps somewhat unlikely. If there’s ever a good time to tell the truth, and quickly, it’s during a 911 call. But do you think that–as I mentioned before–keeping them under wraps for the purposes of any relevant trials and investigations would be sufficient to address your concerns here?
demimondian
Interestingly, as one of the proud non-libertarians here, I think outing is always wrong, too. I came of age in the seventies, and was very active in the gay rights movement in the eighties and early nineties, and I saw too many live ruined by outing.
(And, no, John, you aren’t a socialist. I’m scratching my head, in fact, trying to think of any of the regulars who I might label socialist, and I can’t come up with any. Well, Krista, maybe, but she’s Canuckistani, so that doesn’t count.)
Quiddity
Dreggas: I think it would be easy to determine if a woman entering an abortion clinic works there or is having an abortion (and who is or isn’t the supportive friend).
t j Parnell: You talk about “Larry Craig’s actions” as if they were an ongoing thing. And maybe they were. But I’d like you to consider someone who rarely acts differently from his public pronouncements. Is that blatant hypocricy? I’d say no. And if you agree, then we enter the realm of the calculus of hypocricy. Who sets the standard? Is one straying enough? Or three? Or three per month? Etc.
You think that viewing politics as a “form of theater” is wrong. Is that an aesthetic wrong? Because it sure isn’t a functional wrong (politicians representing constituents interests).
myiq2xu
I have a copy of Goo Gals around here somewhere. It’s one of those bukkake movies John was asking about.
t. jasper parnell
Consider, for example, the current administrations oft made claims of honor, duty, country, and related whatnot. The fact that they (that is to say many) clearly, as Inigo Montoya would have, do not know what those words mean has led to a situation where millions of dollars intended to “rebuild” Iraq go to line their pockets. The only way to get at what they really mean is to investigate their private actions, no?
As an aside, why on earth pin one’s response to this, or for that matter, any issue to something as amorphous as an ideology, i.e., libertarianism, surely if it matters it matters not because viewed from the proper ideological perspective it makes sense but rather it makes sense because it makes sense.
Dreggas
Is that the one selling Bongs? Might be another one, I needed to get a pack of smokes before going to dinner with friends at The Old Spaghetti factory one night ( they closed it now).
You go to a commercial entity, again in the public square, then you shouldn’t really expect much privacy or confidentiality. I mean seriously, you are a public figure going to a news stand and picking up pr0n and the guy selling newspapers who sees your face on said news papers outs you when asked a question and he’s honest in his answer then really, it sucks, but there’s nothing to be done.
Now of course the guy would have had to buy pr0n, if he didn’t then whatever. Now if said person enters someplace like, say, the pleasure chest then that might be a different story since they tend to be a wee bit more respectful of privacy (in most cases) and you’d be left doing guess work as to why he went in there in the first place.
Zifnab
Dude, John, seriously. If you’ve got a politician who publicly opposes pot smoking, but has allegations surrounding him that he privately smokes dope, do you think a reporter should investigate or respect the figure’s privacy?
Come on, man. This is a legitimate question.
And, if it makes you feel any better, I still think you’re a giant socialist butterfly kicking at the cocoon of Independent Democrat status. Any day now, I look forward to your post on the Glorious People’s Revolution, while you roll over your color scheme to a brilliant shade of Soviet Red. Also, when you have a three way gay marriage to Amanda Marcotte and Cindy Shehan, promise you’ll invite us.
Quiddity
Pb: Keeping 911 calls under wraps for potential investigative uses has the practical effect of keeping them private. I’d rather they be private from the get-go (with certain exceptions). But if the only way to keep them private is for the reasons you stipulate, then I’d reluctantly support it.
Punchy
Drinking margs by yerself on a Friday nite…nah…I’d say you’re quite anti-socialist.
t. jasper parnell
Again, I think this is a very narrow sense of interests limited. I am not quite clear what you mean by “functional.” It is in my interests as a voter to send people to represent me who actually believe what they profess to believe because in the hurly burly of politics and the deal making necessary to make a law, I want to be sure, or at least reasonable so, that my representative will strive to get me and mine as much as they can instead of making a series of deals that fit more comfortable with their (unspoken) beliefs.
KCinDC
The outing last year was about behavior in public restrooms, just like the behavior resulting in this arrest, so what is the relevance of all this talk of public versus private behavior?
Quiddity
Dreggas: There might have been a glass shelf at checkout that had small pipes on display. I know High Times was on the racks. And there was a small nightclub in the back. This has all disappeared, I believe.
Not for serious discussion, but for fun: What if said public figure went to Centerfold Newsstand and didn’t buy porn, but spent a good 10 minutes in the adult area thumbing through the copies? What’s that? Research? Or a dirty mind?
myiq2xu
Cheapskate.
John Cole
Sure, investigate away.
By the way, gay sex isn’t illegal. Smoking pot is.
Neither should be, though.
t. jasper parnell
Re calculus. I would argue that each incident is for the individual voter to decide. Seeking to limit discussions of private behavior on the grounds of functionality or some such limits the ability of voters to decide what matters to them, no?
stickler
John, I think people are using the word “socialist” in a way that means “somebody with whom I now disagree.” Sort of like how Josh Trevino refers to “The Left” all the time. You are now, to a lot of Outer Wingnuttia, an apostate. And “apostate” is harder to spell than “socialist.”
And for the love of Saint Urho, could we all please get this straight:
The disgraced former Republican member of Congress is named MARK FOLEY. Tom Foley is the former — Democratic — Speaker of the House, defeated in 1994 by George Nethercutt.
Again, and please make a note of it:
MARK FOLEY = disgraced pervy Republican from Florida
TOM FOLEY = distinguished former Speaker from Spokane
Quiddity
t j parnell: By functional, I mean that the politician does what he says he’ll do (in the narrow and broad sense). Why does it matter what internal thoughts are going on in their heads? You speak of “belief”, but that’s a totally unsettled area of human psychology. What does it mean to believe in something? I know what a functional perspective is. Actions that are congruent with a stated position. I mean, I know people who are overwhelmingly supportive of minorities, yet I’ve heard the rare racist comment? So, what does the person believe?
Dreggas
One could easily make the argument that it was for research, After all they are spending that much time thumbing through pr0n without buying then they definitely aren’t there to partake. If they do however grab the latest copy of green cherry magazine, pay for it, slip it under their jacket and walk off I begin to wonder.
t. jasper parnell
Bingo; more laws more heretics. Then again no laws doesn’t seem like such a good idea, Kropotkin’s view of nature to one side.
Quiddity
Dreggas:
Not true. There is this thing called memory.
t. jasper parnell
This doesn’t help. In the broad sense someone like Vittner is saying he will lead as moral a life as he insist others do; in the factual sense he didn’t. No you may claim that belief is psychological indeterminated; to which I would respond (quoting Elvis C) actions speak louder now than words. Or, perhaps, by their actions shall ye know them.
I agree, though, that it is a difficult call; however, to repeat myself, I favor giving people more informatoin because, fool that I am, I think, or rather believe, that they will then make more informed decisions.
Captain Magic
Craig’s downfall was he plead guilty-Vitner wasn’t arrested, so he managed to eek by. But is amazing to see just how quick and capricious the blowhar^H^H^H^H^H^Hase can turn on one of their own.
Pb
I thought that word was liberal? (see also here for the follow-up to that classic)
t. jasper parnell
I actually think that JC is part of a Trotskyite cabal; or posibly the People’s Front of Judea.
Dreggas
No gay sex isn’t illegal anymore. And no smoking pot should not be illegal either
t. jasper parnell
It seems I meant Vitter.
Quiddity
t j parnell: Giving people more information yields different results, based on the culture. Throughout history there have been periods where full disclosure would result in execution (“Are you an anabaptist?”). I’m not saying that’s the situation now, and indeed, there have been periods where full disclosure meant everyone benefiting, but you need a tolerant society. I’d rather take a two-track approach. Shield private behavior as much as possible, and work through the law and social conventions to reduce stigmatization. Then let the private be revealed by the individual, into the (now) tolerant world.
myiq2xu
Why is it that when wingnuts say they want to “get government off our backs,” what they mean is they want to deregulate business and cut taxes on the rich, but at the same time they want to have government butt into our social and sexual activities?
John S.
I could be wrong, but I thought technically it was only posession of pot that was illegal. If you have smoked it, then the pot has become disposessed, and therefore you cannot be found guilty of such a crime!
Therefore, pre-smoked pot is illegal, but smoked pot is not.
t. jasper parnell
Re: The Anabaptists
I understand that all cultures suffer from prejudice and blinkered world views. However, unless we adopt a paternalistic notion of how people ought to decide any issue, it is impossible to decide what is or what is not fair game. In other words, there are many things I do not care about; however there are others that I do. From my perspective noone is in a position to decide what (true) information I can get as I work toward any decision. If I do not want to vote for some godless Socinian, I have the right to know that candidate A’s public adoration of the Trinity is not matched by his private shrine to Servetius.
myiq2xu
The GOP gives new meaning to the phrase “sexual congress.”
myiq2xu
Uh, Jasper? do you have a doctor’s note for that “medicinal” herb you have obviously been smoking?
t. jasper parnell
Nope.
Quiddity
t j parnell: Thank you for your clarification. I think we’ll have to disagree on this issue. My general position is that of a radical empirical reductionist, so, until we have a clearly established model of the mind, I don’t like to posit anything about its state (or even if there is “one mind” as opposed to multiple sub-components). Your mention of the Trinity reminds me of my own deep skepticism about the Pauline/Augustine/Luther notion about justification by faith. No surprise here: I think justification is by deeds (if you buy into the religion). Paul’s talk about “faith” leaves me completely puzzled. What does that mean? He treats is like a binary state. You either have it or you don’t. Or do you? Does it flicker in and out, with commensurate justification/damnation? And (awkward transition), I see the same ambiguity regarding contemporary assertions as to whether someone is a hypocrite or not (and therefore deserving of outing).
Mike
But public sex is, and should be. If that’s what Craig was after, it’s a fair cop.
myiq2xu
Y’all sound like Miss South Carolina, but I’ll bet ya ain’t even half as cute.
Dreggas
No one is quibbling on that, well unless you are an exhibitionist…
Zifnab
Gay sex only recently became legal with the overturned anti-Sodomy laws. And I’ll give you three guesses on Craig’s take on the decision.
t. jasper parnell
So, seeing the ambiguity, as a libertarian, you decide that we need a “bright line”? Wouldn’t seeing the ambiguity mean that each individual ought to be free to use all true facts, as it were, to make up their minds as they see fit?
I am perfectly willingto drop the word hypocrisy and exchange for divergence between utterance and practice, assuming — of course — one of my criteria for voting is symetry between public utterance/action and private utterance/action.
In the case of Craig, I don’t care that he is gay, should that be the case, and I wouldn’t vote for him on his stated positions. However, there cases where a divergence between private/public utterances/actions would make a difference. What those are hinge on the concrete circumstance and cannot, at least for me, be decided by some abstraction or series of abstractions.
Re faith:
I think as well that you are confusing action with works, which are usually understood as a commitment (from Luther’s perspective in any event) with the conviction that salvation dervives from the sacraments. Luther argued that salvation was a free gift from God. You cannot, he said, bribe God, whether through sacramental activity or indulgences. Because, like Augustine, he insisted that the sould was irrevocably corrupted by original sin.
t. jasper parnell
I am, actully, cute as a button
t. jasper parnell
OT Petraeus’ refusal tgo worry about corruption kills
HyperIon
Just out of curiosity, are there really people who do not know that gay men cruise public bathrooms?
Dreggas
I read the full story on this guy and it was just horrendous.
t. jasper parnell
Isn’t though. Loyalty, duty, service, country etc, take those words seriously and use them as most would and the boobocracy and its kelptocratic minions drive you to suicide.
Here is an example of private practice and competency to serve. Alberto G worships satan video proof.
rachel
Faith is Schrödinger’s cat?
t. jasper parnell
Schroedinger’s cat was Mittens, Faith was his dog, spelt backwards.
Beej
Outing someone on any essentially personal behavior is okay if and only if the essentially personal behavior is: 1)illegal; 2)contrary to the person’s public pronouncements; or 3)involves a conflict of interest in the performance of one’s professional duties. Mr. Craig’s case would seem to fall under all three.
Dales
Speaking just for myself, I have absolutely no problem with the fact that Craig is gay.
However, that he is married and soliciting sex in a public bathroom is strike one.
That he tried to get out of it by flouting being a Senator with the “what do you think of that?” line is strike two.
That he obviously desperately wanted to keep his being on the down-low hidden but was still engaging in such risky behavior which could lead to him being blackmailed (if it has not already) is strike three.
I am sure that people like Glenn Greenwald would not hesitate at all to try and portray people like me as homophobic for holding those views, by stating or insinuating that they are just excuses for my real, hidden, and hateful true reasons. That doesn’t make people like Greenwald correct; it makes the mendacious.
Dales
(The above is not an assertion about the reaction of anyone specific on the right or right-center beyond myself; while I am sure I am not alone, I have no idea if I am in the overwhelming majority or the minority. I suspect the former, but I do not know that for a fact.)