…and this is a 
Any conservative can make an ass of themselves on Fox: Ben Stein gets crazy
Category: Kooks
Posted on: September 1, 2007 6:46 PM, by PZ Myers
Ben Stein is making a new movie (Expelled, have you heard of it?) that's supposed to be out in February, but right now he's building the excitement by making television appearances and demonstrating that he is a raving lunatic. Yeah, this is exactly the guy I want as the spokesman for Intelligent Design creationism.
He's defending Larry Craig. It's promisingly incoherent, and here are his arguments, more or less in the order babbled.
He's upset that the police arrested an Idaho senator when they're supposed to be busy chasing Al Quaeda. What is it with these wingnuts? We're supposed to suspend law and order while they look for Muslim terrorists hiding under the beds? I think I'll go rob a bank, and when the police show up I'll chide them for neglecting their duties in protecting the citizens of Morris from the jihad.
All he did was tap his foot. Yeah, right, OK. And gesture, and confess. And all Florida representative Bob Allen did was ask for sex, he didn't actually fellate a police officer.
Gestapo, gestapo, gestapo, gestapo, gestapo. I call Godwin! Gestapo.
Homosexuality is not illegal. This is true and as it should be, but this is coming from the fellow who sneered at the Democrats as the party of homosexuals, and equated homosexuality with pedophilia (but it's OK—some of his best friends are gay.) Craig wasn't arrested for being gay, he was arrested for soliciting.
It is not only legal, but widely approved by all Republicans, that heterosexual men have sex with their wives. Still, I think if my Trophy Wife™ and I were in the mood next time we were traveling and found a quiet place in the airport to get wild together, the airport police would have legitimate grounds for arresting and fining us for inappropriate behavior.
I would, of course, immediately tell the Gestapo that they should be searching for Al Quaeda instead of disturbing fornicating heterosexual couples, which is perfectly legal in America. It also sounds like it would be more fun than robbing a bank.
This is a trumped up attempt by the executive branch to change the balance of power in the senate. All I can assume with this remark is that former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein is jealous that the current Republican in the Oval Office seems to be doing a much better job of undermining the Constitution than his favorite president. But even there, Craig is a Republican rubberstamper, and Bush is a Republican, and this arrest is most embarrassing to the Republican party. Maybe he should have saved this argument for when Hillary takes office and starts shipping the Republican senators off to work camps in the Alaskan oil fields.
Now I'm looking forward to his movie even more. A googly-eyed gnome with a monotone accusing people of gestapo tactics has already had his screen test, and it flopped.
Politics
Comments
Ben Stein has spent decades trying to justify and explain away the criminal excesses of the Nixon administration (of which he was a part). I think the effort snapped his brain (if, indeed, a broken brain wasn't a prerequisite for working in the Nixon administration). All of his noisy babbling is the same: incoherent, illogical, and obstreperous. A lovely combination.
Posted by: Zeno | September 1, 2007 6:54 PM
I have to totally disagree. The Minnesota police absolutely should be looking for Osama bin Laden. Assuming, of course, that he's hiding out in a Minneapolis Starbucks or something.
Posted by: Narc | September 1, 2007 7:07 PM
"Al Quaeda; because nobody fears communists anymore".
Posted by: Protobiochemist | September 1, 2007 7:11 PM
I sincerely hope you take apart Stein's movie, when it's released, in the same point by point manner. Immensely entertaining.
Posted by: Dante | September 1, 2007 7:21 PM
The former senator Craig keeps saying that he is not gay. Maybe, he is bisexual?
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | September 1, 2007 7:22 PM
Well, in this instance I have to pretty much agree with Stein. What shocked me about the arrest was that it was made.
I do think it fair to ask if it is a reasonable use of a limited police force, even ignoring the "in this world of terrorists hiding behind every tree" to station officers in public bathrooms solely to arrest men looking for sex.
As far as I can tell, Craig didn't approach a child, didn't solicit a prostitute, did not have sex in public (I am assuming that, had the officer not been a cop, the actual acts would have taken place either in a stall or somewhere else).
Why men of any stripe would want to pick up other men in a public bathroom, I don't know. But, had Craig approached a man at the airport bar with some understood gay signal, it would (I assume) have been perfectly legal.
PZ, you might want to ask your Trophy Wife how women respond to unsolicited whistles, propositions, etc. I think you will find that, absent physical violence or the threat of physical violence, most women can handle unwanted advances without any assistance from the local constabulary. Why men need to be protected against similar types of advances is beyond me.
Posted by: lc | September 1, 2007 7:27 PM
#5: Of course Craig is bisexual. He has to buy sex.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | September 1, 2007 7:32 PM
Stein is right that being gay isn't illegal; it just means that one becomes a second-class citizen outside certain parts of the country and is prone to being attacked by people who, oddly enough, agree with the views promulgated by Ben Stein and other neo-cons on most things -- including the view of gay rights they normally hold. Until, that is, it is more to their advantage to reverse themselves when it's one of their own who suffers for being discovered as a homosexual.
Of course, I could be wrong about this. Ben Stein could surprise me and come out as an advocate for equal rights, protections and privileges for homosexuals under federal law. I won't hold my breath on that one.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | September 1, 2007 7:34 PM
He's upset that the police arrested an Idaho senator when they're supposed to be busy chasing Al Quaeda. What is it with these wingnuts? We're supposed to suspend law and order while they look for Muslim terrorists hiding under the beds? I think I'll go rob a bank, and when the police show up I'll chide them for neglecting their duties in protecting the citizens of Morris from the jihad.
To be fair, the "don't you have better things to do?" response to police is a common one, used by people of any political stripe, when they think the arrest was not warranted in light of more pressing concerns. Airports are among the most "nervous" public places in America in terms of worries of terrorism, and so it is not unreasonable to question whether police priorities are jumbled if they are delegating manpower to busting gay sex in airport bathrooms. More to the point, if you woke up tomorrow as the police chief in charge of the Minneapolis Airport, and had to choose between a greater terrorist security detail or a greater gay cruising detail, where would you assign your men. All policing should have an element of "crime triage".
All he did was tap his foot. Yeah, right, OK. And gesture, and confess. And all Florida representative Bob Allen did was ask for sex, he didn't actually fellate a police officer.
Asking about oral sex is explicit has no chance of being misinterpreted. The events described in Craig's case, though certainly odd, are not at the same level of public affront. For example, if it had been you in that stall and Craig's foot hit yours and you saw his hand, you would have just said, "Uhh...are you OK in there?", he would have stopped (realizing you were not a gay cruiser), and that would have been it and you would have shared this odd little moment with others, not even realizing you had been hit up for gay sex. Based on what I read, I think it is fairly likely that Craig was trawling for action, but fairly likely it different than criminal intent. It is arguable that the police should have waited until a more explicit statement or action happened before busting him, and this way there would be no question of his intent. His signing a confession of guilt, though legally damning, doesn't convince me of his guilt, though, as I can easily understand wanting to simply put something like this behind him and dispatching it expediently that way (or so he thought).
Posted by: cm | September 1, 2007 7:36 PM
I am so pleased that the recent legal unpleasantness didn't apparently exercise any chilling effect on your expression.
Posted by: Elaine | September 1, 2007 7:44 PM
I thought that Craig had actually been a part of passing a law that made this sort of bathroom cruising illegal.
I mean, i'm not sure, but i thought that was part of the delicious irony.
Posted by: catofmanyfaces | September 1, 2007 7:46 PM
More to the point, if you woke up tomorrow as the police chief in charge of the Minneapolis Airport, and had to choose between a greater terrorist security detail or a greater gay cruising detail, where would you assign your men. All policing should have an element of "crime triage".
In all seriousness, I believe that republican senators have done more damage to this country in recent years than can be attributed to terrorists.
Posted by: Albatrossity | September 1, 2007 7:47 PM
I think it's great that a few Republicans are now thinking about their inherent Constitutional rights and maintaining checks on police authority.
I think it's very important that prominent Republican politicians and spokesman personally experience the sorts of police surveillance, unexplained arrests, and unchecked police authority for which they have so passionately argued for the past 6 years if not longer.
Under Republican standards, Craig could simply have been disappeared from the Minneapolis airport to a detention facility in another country, without his family's knowledge and with no access to an attorney or to a court, and all would be justified as long as police said that they thought that maybe Craig had information related to terrorism.
Making arguments from logic, evidence, and principle is not appreciated by Republicans.
Having Republican leaders directly experience the negative consequences of their own policies may be the only thing that can help them halt their 'unitary executive' policies.
Posted by: El Cid | September 1, 2007 7:48 PM
I'm not defending Craig by *any* means. However, I would not be the least bit surprised if these cops indeed had some other agenda. I have *never* met a cop who wasn't some power-hungry Nazi. This is even evident from the interview (the cop is clearly on a power trip).
I've worked with cops. My wife treated cops on a psych unit (75% were borderline personality disorder and comprised the largest segment of all patients at this major medical center in Chicago). So there is no love lost there. However, it has nothing to do with Craig's guilt or innocence. And who cares anyway?
As to Stein, I confess to buying some finance books authored by him. Don't ask. Seemed like a pretty good idea at the time. I'm a complete moron. I feel like burning them in protest. He's sinking to a new low IMHO.
Posted by: anthropicOne | September 1, 2007 7:52 PM
If I were a police officer, and someone was acting oddly and gesturing in a way familiar to those minority of gay men who cruise bathrooms, I'd be obligated to arrest the guy...especially if, as Craig was doing, he was subsequently clearly trying to lie his way out of it. Giving him a fine and no jail time seems to me to have been a perfectly appropriate way to discourage a kind of victimless crime, but also an activity that doesn't belong in public spaces.
It's also silly to call this, as some have, an attempt to torment Republican politicians. I never heard of Craig before this, I wouldn't recognize him if he were five feet in front of me, and I suspect that the police officer knew nothing about him, either...other than that here's another traveler in a suit trying to play kinky games in the airport restroom.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 1, 2007 7:52 PM
also an activity that doesn't belong in public spaces.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one, PZ. The activity was solicitation of sex, not the sex itself. Are you saying that solicitation doesn't belong in public spaces? Then every time a guy uses a stupid pick-up line on someone, he'd be arrested. Not that that wouldn't be a good thing in some cases, but still. What he did was hit on the wrong person. He didn't offer money (prostitution), he wasn't aggressive (attempted rape), he tried what was basically a nonverbal pick-up line, and one that was more subtle than most, because anyone who wasn't part of that subculture wouldn't even understand it. Nothing says that they would have then engaged in hot and heavy sex right there in the men's room. How does the cop know that he didn't have a hotel room waiting?
I'm all for the fact that he's been hoist on his own petard, given that he's been at the forefront of making homosexual encounters something to be prosecuted, but I can't agree with the concept that what he did was indeed morally wrong.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2007 8:02 PM
"If I were a police officer, and someone was acting oddly and gesturing in a way familiar to those minority of gay men who cruise bathrooms, I'd be obligated to arrest the guy."
With all the crap we have to go through in airports post 9/11, is this really the best use of law enforcement? Gimme a break. It's like the idiots who pull someone over for doing 10 mph over the speed limit when a block away 1 out of every 10 cars runs a red light.
Of course lewd public behavior should not be tolerated and should be enforced. But somehow this smack of misguided priorities to me. If this is an issue, airports should modify the structural environment to end the problem. Thi is a design problem, pure and simple.
Posted by: anthropicOne | September 1, 2007 8:06 PM
...And think of it this way: if he had been two feet outside of the bathroom, and propositioned a woman instead of a man, would he have been arrested? Of course not. In fact, a woman who walked up to a police officer and demanded that the guy who just propositioned her should be arrested would be laughed out of the airport. At the bottom of it all, the "crime" here was simply being gay. I thought we were at least past that point by now.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2007 8:08 PM
Not having been in the bathroom at the time of the incident, obviously, I cannot be sure what did or did not happen. I am not familiar with gay subcultures (or straight ones, really), and so I had no idea that such "signaling" exists.
Putting myself in a parallel situation to that of Mr. Craig, I imagine myself walking down a street, whistling to myself. I am arrested for trying to purchase drugs. It turns out that in that particular neighborhood, all drug buyers signal their intent by whistling, which of course, I have no idea about, not being part of that culture. I was just whistling because I am a happy guy, and the "knowledge" of that culture cannot reasonably be attributed to me without further evidence of intent. Any defense lawyer worth his JD could win that case.
Thus, an innocent act can be interpreted as intent to commit a crime, just as in the Craig case. It is POSSIBLE (I could even say "likely") that a person could accidentally tap his foot against his neighbor's in an adjacent stall (I am 6'2" and can relate to the small-stall issue). Not having been there, I cannot speak to how much tapping there was, whether Craig instigated it, whether he picked up a piece of paper or was signaling under the wall, etc.
It is clear the police officer is lying in at least one respect (claiming he saw Craig's LEFT hand, with wedding ring, under the RIGHT wall of the stall, something that is well-night impossible for a big man sitting on a toilet in such a stall. I tried it yesterday (next to empty stalls) in public restrooms in the Los Angeles and Chicago Midway airports (thus risking my Senate career), and couldn't even come close to doing it---and I am much more flexible than I imagine Craig is at his age.
So it appears both sides are shading the facts toward themselves, and that Craig's actions could be entirely innocent or entirely not. In that case, Mr. Senator, HIRE A LAWYER and FIGHT THE CHARGES. Pleading guilty and hoping it will go away only makes it look as if you have something to hide, and makes the outcome easily predictable.
Posted by: cureholder | September 1, 2007 8:19 PM
Sex isn't the only thing public cruisers get. They also get the rush at the thought that what they are doing is wrong and they may get caught. For better or worse sex in public is illegal. Take that into account and that cruising in a public place like a restroom or a park means that the encounter happens in the same spot more often than not and you have soliciting to engage in lewd or indecent acts in public.
If his intention were to take the man back to a hotel room then that could have been taken into account. No, he pleaded guilty to this crime because he knew it was what he was doing. A man educated in politics should KNOW that in the judicial system a plea of guilty means you confess to the crimes you are accused of and that being a politician this would be public. He also should know that a crime committed in office is grounds for impeachment. Just who the hell were his history and law professors that they didn't mention that to him? Shame on them for misleading him to think that a plea of guilty would just blow over.
Anyone who falls for the arguments that this is a prosecution of gay sex is simply falling for the framing of the republicans.
Posted by: ChrisD | September 1, 2007 8:26 PM
Falling for the framing of the Republicans? They aren't framing, they can't get away from him fast enough. They attacked him like sharks on a dead whale and got him out of office within a week. If anyone can be counted on NOT to say that prosecution of gay sex is overzealous, it's Republicans. I think it's a lot more telling that they've circled the wagons around senators caught doing just about everything else illegal under the sun, but as soon as teh gay is involved, they cut and run.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2007 8:31 PM
Ignoring the fact that there are think-tanks engaged in mole operations providing public memes for discussion, you may be right Carlie. But anyone who tries to make this a gay sex issue has missed the obvious crime intentionally, and what are we to say about Democrats then that support the prosecution of this fine albeit confused gentleman? That THEY are then the hypocrites. It's simply spin.
Posted by: ChrisD | September 1, 2007 8:43 PM
I think you're right, the spin on both sides on this has been huge. My basic point, though, is that what he did seems to me to be on the far end of the curve in terms of being either illegal or wrong. If anything, the policeman jumped the gun by arresting him before he was positive of what was being "discussed". As it is it looks to me to be more prosecution of a thought crime, a la ...oh, crap, you know, that stupid movie where everybody gets arrested before they actually do anything wrong. If he had instead waited to find out the exact terms of solicitation before springing the arrest I'd be less uncomfortable with it.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2007 8:50 PM
I think the problem comes in with the term "solicitation". Since gay sex isn't a crime and it appears Craig was looking for a blow job, I don't see how it could be solicitation unless when he ran his hand under the stall wall he had a $20 bill in it.
There is (or should be) a legal difference between "cruising" and "solicitation". Certainly I'd say gays have the same right to pick up a potential lover in a public place as any straight.
Much as I hate to admit it, I think Craig got a bum deal. Yeah, I'm terribly amused that another conservative Republican wing nut is shown to be a totally hypocrite and a little less than morally upright, but that doesn't make what happened right.
Posted by: dorid | September 1, 2007 8:59 PM
Was it jumping the gun or simply a compulsion to arrest someone? I'm sure this wasn't some rookie cop. And assuming this was a seasoned cop (who would have known to wait a bit longer just to be sure), what other possible motivation could there be for the arrest at that point in time?
Again, this just feels fishy to me. Personally, I'd be interested to see this cop's arrest/prosecution record.
Posted by: anthropicOne | September 1, 2007 9:03 PM
Why are the masses so obsessed with SEX?! We have issues (murder, legalized torture, and legalized slavery, i.e., NAFTA, WTO, etc., which affect all of humanity.
Why is it that SEXUALITY, SEX ACTS, FORNICATION, and anything to do with sex as seemingly LEGAL ADULTS has once again taken over! Why are so many in this world obsessed with SEX?!
Why are people so obsessed with SEX?! So many profess they are atheists, so many profess they are socialists, so many profess they are humanists ... but yet, these very same people seem to be as obsessed with SEX as much as those who profess to be christians, muslims, jews, etc.
HETEROSEXUALITY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BISEXUALITY...
sex, sex, sex, sex
Come on, people!
Your CHILDREN of the world, your progeny, your future humanity, are being tortured and enslaved and murdered for what? Your latest bargain at Target or Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Whole Foods or Lowe's or McDonald's or Jiffy Lube or Walgreen's or ...
And you feel the need to purport sexual preferences by endorsing outdated, outmoded, and ineffectual SEX laws?! as well as reporting on them?! as well as NOT confronting this idea?!
Why is no one screaming for equal HEALTHCARE?! against corporate GREED?! comprehensive EDUCATION?! and FREE media?!
Why is EVERYONE so obsessed with sex?!
Posted by: maybe24tea | September 1, 2007 9:05 PM
I agree that it's kinda weird that this was as big of a deal as it was and yet Vitter still has a job. Isn't prostitution a crime too?
Posted by: Mena | September 1, 2007 9:07 PM
One of the political blogs I follow is run by a gay man, and so has a high proportion of gay commenters. What I read as a translation of those signs, was that the hand along the partition signal basically means "present your penis, I'll go to town". That's not the same as "let's go to my place" or "what's you name, handsome". Other, "hookup", blogs not only identified this restroom as a place to meet, but also noted that the cops had been staking it out.
Craig was about to have sex in a public bathroom. Think of the children! I agree with the entire innocent until proven guilty concept - durned important. The fact that he plead guilty means he was asked if he understood what he was pleading to. I have no sympathy AT ALL for him. Public sex is not appropriate. Period.
It's too bad that gay men like him (straight men who have sex with men) feel so oppressed that he can't be publicly gay, but anonymous public sex? Talk about risky.
And as far as Mr Wide Stance goes, drop your pants and see if you can get your feet into the stalls on both sides of you. If he could spread his feet that far, his pants were OFF.
Posted by: True Bob | September 1, 2007 9:11 PM
You cannot fornicate with your wife, by definition.
Posted by: John Hynes | September 1, 2007 9:22 PM
I loved how Ben Stein said they did it to change the balance of power. In reality they demanded that he resign because he would be replaced with a Republican. Whereas when Vitter got popped, his replacement would be a Democrat.
Posted by: Tatarize | September 1, 2007 9:27 PM
Ahem...
Crazy or not, I've still made about $200 off reselling used books written by him. Most of them unread.
Yes, I'm the bad atheist book dealer that makes about 30% of his income selling Christian / New Ager books. But I delight in the irony. Those purchases support an infidel.
And I get a lot of books from Christian run thrift stores. I don't support the "something for nothing" nature of most charity, but I love the something for something nature of a charitable thrift store. Especially since they are a sorta dumping ground for people that are too lazy to have a garage sale.
Posted by: wildcardjack | September 1, 2007 9:28 PM
All other considerations aside, the dude's in a high public office on a platform touting the opposite of what he was doing in the restroom at the airport. He's out.
Posted by: garth | September 1, 2007 9:39 PM
"Homosexuality is not illegal. This is true and as it should be, but this is coming from the fellow who sneered at the Democrats as the party of homosexuals, and equated homosexuality with pedophilia (but it's OK--some of his best friends are gay.) Craig wasn't arrested for being gay, he was arrested for soliciting."
Mark Foley is not a peadophile. He's either a homosexual teleiophile or a homosexual ephebophile (depends of which age he prefers the most). As for "equating" homosexuality with paedophilia, what about it? That remark makes you the conservative, obviously some sexual preferences are more equal than others.
Posted by: Christian Carlsson | September 1, 2007 9:47 PM
To: Dude....
Why is he OUT of office? any more than GONZALEZ? any more than REGAN?
Any more than Clinton?
Any more than Nixon?
Any more than Kennedy?
Any more than Roosevelt?
Any more than . . .
Anyone, anywhere, any belief or NONbelief... why the obsession with sexuality?
ok - so as a society we expect our elected officials to hold to honor the current laws that are in place, and to some of those during their 'tenure' enacted.
BUT SEX?!
Why are so many, on ANY side of ANY political spectrum willing to argue and condemn another of their same species for a sex act?
SEX
SEX?!
What the hell does sex between any legally consenting species have to do with ANYTHING?!
It's none of anyones' business!
I find it amazing that people are willing to allow laws to continue where the death penalty is concerned with nary an argument much less a peep; yet they will voice their opinions and allow their tax dollars to be spent where SEX is concerned.
hmmmmm?
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | September 1, 2007 9:58 PM
First this was an out of the way restroom at the airport - how far out of the way relative to Craig's flight I don't know and it's something I would have asked the senator in the interview if I were the cop.
Also, when Craig responded "you solicited me", I would have said, really, how so? The cop is an idiot but Craig's denials are simply not credible.
Should the cop have let Craig go further before he pulled the plug on his sting? As one Idahoan who's been waiting for this dishonest, hypocritical and all around mean guy to be taken down - I wish he had. Did he have enough for an arrest - based on the statute and the circumstances I'd say, yes.
Further, the sting operation was initiated based on consumer complaints about activities specifically in that bathroom. Somewhere in the coverage I also read about the discovery of internet advertisement of this particular site (restroom) for the express purpose of gay males hooking up. So, when they get a tip about al Queda I'm sure they'll follow it up. [Actually they did - at least a local FBI agent in August of 2001]
A very young cop (and not a particularly effective interrogator) has a powerful person who's already insisting he needs to catch his flight, he gets pissed because he's trying to do this guy a favor and move him along and he expects the guy to have the decency to make an honest statement.
Craig insists "I'm not going to fight you" - of course he's not, he knows he's been caught red-handed. The cop, exasperated says, "that's not the point" ... indeed.
His show of his senate ID card was an attempt at intimidation - maybe that has something to do with the cop's attitude as well.
As far as it being clear that the officer lied because he stated it was Craig's left hand - all I can say is that you (cureholder) must be one inflexible person - I wouldn't have any trouble crossing over with my opposite hand and, for medical reasons, am at the least flexible of my life. Craig is not a big guy, either.
All that aside, should he have been mowed over as he has been? No, and if this were about the crime - he would not have been.
None of the Republicans are asking for Vitter's head on a platter but first of all he's not gay and secondly, he comes from a state with a Democratic governor.
It's about two things - hating homos and having power. Do I feel bad for Craig ... not one iota. He helped create the atmosphere that lead to his downfall.
Posted by: CJ | September 1, 2007 9:58 PM
My favorite part is that people from Idaho are too simple to understand our legal system.
Posted by: Tiax | September 1, 2007 10:03 PM
cureholder
It is clear the police officer is lying in at least one respect (claiming he saw Craig's LEFT hand, with wedding ring, under the RIGHT wall of the stall, something that is well-night impossible for a big man sitting on a toilet in such a stall.
Um, isn't the RIGHT side of the cop's stall the LEFT side of the adjoining one? Unless we're talking about the new non-euclidean stalls, in which case he was probably attempting a ritual to summon something squamous and rugose...
Pleading guilty and hoping it will go away only makes it look as if you have something to hide, and makes the outcome easily predictable.
When issuing these sorts of tickets, the cops count on the fact that most closet-cases would much rather pay the fine than go to court, even if they would almost certainly win the case if they did so. Same reason why out-of-state drivers are more likely to be ticketed, except they're relying on the fear of public exposure, rather than mere inconvenience.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | September 1, 2007 10:38 PM
One reason I think it is a problem is because it is in a bathroom, where people have a little more expectation of not being hit upon while their pants are down. Not so much an issue with men hitting on women, which can't usually happen in restrooms.
As to the argument that this is "taking police away from going after terrorists/muggers/etc", that just doesn't make sense. If it happened on sept 12, 2001, sure. But since then we've had plenty of time to hire and train new police, raise salaries in order to get more, raise taxes to pay them, and whatever. There isn't a fixed limit of the amount of resources we as a society can put into policing.
So the only issue is whether it is worth the money, completely independent of fighting terrorism or "more important things". Unless you think that we, as a society, shouldn't be spending money building a new shopping mall, buying SUV's, or making golf courses, until terrorism is solved, the argument doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Rob | September 1, 2007 10:43 PM
Didn't the charge have to do with peeping (rather more intrusive than mere propositioning, if true, imo) rather than the famous "wide stance" / foot-tapping per se?
Posted by: Liane | September 1, 2007 10:45 PM
My understanding is that this police sting ... seeking out Republicans and arresting them ... is part of a Minneapolis Police Training Op to prepare for when the Republican National Convention comes to town.
Those smarmy, icky Republicans can go to Saint Paul if they really need to, but they better not cross the line into the big city.
Let this be a warning to them. We don't cotton to their kind 'round here.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 1, 2007 10:55 PM
cm wrote: " More to the point, if you woke up tomorrow as the police chief in charge of the Minneapolis Airport, and had to choose between a greater terrorist security detail or a greater gay cruising detail, where would you assign your men. "
Given that the police were responding to complaints about the bathroom, and there had been no complaints about terrorists in Minneapolis' airport, I think the bathroom sting is justifiable.
Don't be such a scaredy cat. Oooh! Terrorists!
Posted by: Jon H | September 1, 2007 11:03 PM
"Unless we're talking about the new non-euclidean stalls, in which case he was probably attempting a ritual to summon something squamous and rugose..."
Well, as it is, if he wasn't lucky he might have gotten something like that.
Posted by: Jon H | September 1, 2007 11:06 PM
carlie wrote: "Nothing says that they would have then engaged in hot and heavy sex right there in the men's room. How does the cop know that he didn't have a hotel room waiting?"
How could he have a hotel room when he had a plane to catch?
Don't play stupid. He was angling for some quick, anonymous sex in the bathroom, the bathroom was known as a place where that occurred, and they had probably caught other people in the act, as well as other people using similar signals.
Posted by: Jon H | September 1, 2007 11:23 PM
If we assume that bathroom stalls are "public places," shouldn't the police be arresting people for public defecation??
Posted by: Grumpy | September 1, 2007 11:33 PM
Ben Stein is a raving conspiracy-nut, and I'm not sad to see Craig go down (though it's Vitter that deserves it: he did a lot more than play footsie), but that doesn't mean that we have to think that the officer in question here was a saint either.
As I read the police report and the interrogation, the officer had no prosecutable case against Craig, and basically got him to plead to a bogus charge by threatening to out and embarrass him.
I don't necessarily feel sorry for Craig (though it's clear that in such a situation, he had no choice but to plead whether or not he was actually guilty), but as police work, that's sort of despicable, and not the sort of conduct I want to see from law enforcement. Get the evidence to nail someone the right way.
Posted by: Bad | September 1, 2007 11:55 PM
Heh.. heh...
Posted by: Dan | September 2, 2007 12:09 AM
He's upset that the police arrested an Idaho senator when they're supposed to be busy chasing Al Quaeda.
Since when do right-wingers think terrorism is a law-enforcement issue?!
Every other time they talk about it, it's a "war," to be handled by the military. (Right up to Orrin Hatch, who said, on September 11, 2001, that the attacks were "an act of war." To which I screamed at the tv, "No, you idiot, they were an international crime." Which isn't convenient if you have a country you've got your teeth fixed to invade, I guess...)
Posted by: Interrobang | September 2, 2007 12:13 AM
Given that the police were responding to complaints about the bathroom, and there had been no complaints about terrorists in Minneapolis' airport, I think the bathroom sting is justifiable.
Don't be such a scaredy cat. Oooh! Terrorists!
God, you're right! I've been living in fear! THANK YOU JOHN H., I HAVE MY LIFE BACK AGAIN!
Posted by: cm | September 2, 2007 12:14 AM
To me, the most convincing evidence that Craig is in fact gay was his reaction to being arrested. His immediate reaction wasn't, "What the heck are you talking about?" Afterwards, when he saw his wife, he didn't say, "You'll never believe what happened to me today!" He tried to keep it a secret FROM HIS WIFE.
If he were arrested over a misunderstanding, he would have been flabbergasted when talking with the cop and would definitely have shared the story with his wife. He wasn't and didn't. He's gay.
There's not many data points to go on, but the pattern seems to be that public figures who make a REALLY big deal about homosexuality being a sin (e.g. Ted Haggard) are turning out to be closet homosexuals. So... Who can we expect to show up in the news next?
Posted by: Wally Hartshorn | September 2, 2007 12:18 AM
As much as I despise lying wingnuts like Craig, I'm going to have to say he probably didn't commit a crime. He propositioned some guy in a bathroom nonverbally. It is rude, tacky, annoying, sleazy, and just a bit pathetic but so what? Those aren't crimes either.
IMO, if he went to court he would have beaten the rap. If they convicted everyone who ever hit on someone, everyone in the USA would be in jail except for a few priests and televangelists. Oops, there wouldn't be many of those either, LOL.
Who actually convicted Craig was himself. As a public Death cultist he had to hate gays and he was publically your typical homophobe. In private it is obvious he was driven by his sexuality to rather tawdry, dangerous, activities in public restrooms. Even if he contested it in court and won, he would have outed himself as a lying hypocrit and not a true Death cultist who walks the walk. He is a victim of his own ideology and his own lies. As the book he pretends to believe says, "As you sow, so shall you reap." Not going to shed any tears over this one.
Posted by: raven | September 2, 2007 12:23 AM
Craig is being rushed out primarily for the sake of the religious right, the people instrumental in putting him in there. People can argue the niceties of arresting the man, the case, etc., but as far as the law goes it is a fairly minor "crime", the sort that could be settled by sending in the guilty plea (to a lesser charge, yes) and the fine.
What I like is Ben slitting his IDC throat by whining over the Craig arrest and resignation. Doesn't the man know who's coming to his lie-fest, Expelled...? He's going to be claiming that we're the Gestapo coming after the IDiots, after claiming that the cops were the Gestapo coming after Craig, when the very people who believe the former disbelieve the latter. We'll have to keep the latest whine around to show Stein's credibility in Expelled....
Don't forget that Craig is also a sometime supporter of rubbishing the First Amendment and forcing creationism into the science classes:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/and_yet_another.html
Yes, Ben is telling fibs in supporting his fellow creationist (we don't know for sure if (Methodist, according to some) Craig really is a creationists, but what's the difference, when he's trying to put creationism into government?).
Legally, the whole bathroom incident is a tempest in a teapot. Politically, Stein is playing the idiot. I just wish that this latest from Stein was closer to the release date of his wretched movie.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 2, 2007 12:30 AM
Craig is being rushed out primarily for the sake of the religious right, the people instrumental in putting him in there. People can argue the niceties of arresting the man, the case, etc., but as far as the law goes it is a fairly minor "crime", the sort that could be settled by sending in the guilty plea (to a lesser charge, yes) and the fine.
What I like is Ben slitting his IDC throat by whining over the Craig arrest and resignation. Doesn't the man know who's coming to his lie-fest, Expelled...? He's going to be claiming that we're the Gestapo coming after the IDiots, after claiming that the cops were the Gestapo coming after Craig, when the very people who believe the former disbelieve the latter. We'll have to keep the latest whine around to show Stein's credibility in Expelled....
Don't forget that Craig is also a sometime supporter of rubbishing the First Amendment and forcing creationism into the science classes:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/and_yet_another.html
Yes, Ben is telling fibs in supporting his fellow creationist (we don't know for sure if (Methodist, according to some) Craig really is a creationists, but what's the difference, when he's trying to put creationism into government?).
Legally, the whole bathroom incident is a tempest in a teapot. Politically, Stein is playing the idiot. I just wish that this latest from Stein was closer to the release date of his wretched movie.
Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 2, 2007 12:32 AM
I know it's been said above but I'll say it again for anyone who wasn't paying attention --
1: Cruising is a public nuisance because the copulation tends to happen at the same place as the solicitation, and because it creates an "atmosphere of harassment" when it's allowed to continue. There's a bathroom at the downtown Macy's that's infamous for this sort of thing, badly enough it's been written up in the local press at least once, which I didn't find out until *after* I had a pretty disturbing encounter in one. I'm no homophobe and certainly no prude but I think as a citizen I got a right to empty my bladder in the designated receptacle without some creep trying to steal a look.
2: It's not the scandal, it's the denial. And the rank hypocrisy. And, yes, the schadenfreude, but still. If Craig were an out homosexual having consensual sex in private, I would have no problem with the dude.
3: If you've got a dozen or so cruising complaints in your airport this month and less than half that number of incidents of terrorism nationwide in the last six years, then yes you should be assigning more cops to anti-cruising duty than anti-terrorism. Besides, we already have the TSA and the FBI on that beat.
PS @ #37 - BUUUURN.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | September 2, 2007 12:40 AM
My dream would be Pat Robertson or John Gibson at Fox. But, it'll probably be either Fred Phelps or Dinesh D'Souza.
Still, Robertson is pretty much the ultimate sleeper pick.
Posted by: Dan | September 2, 2007 12:42 AM
Tempest in a peepot?
...near a peepot, anyway...
...on a peepot, if they were sitting on them as they played out this transaction...
Posted by: dveej | September 2, 2007 1:00 AM
#53, I completely sympathize! What a pain to have some creep trying to check out your dick while you're taking a pee! Those creeps really get in the way of all of us non-creeps who want to check out your dick, and that frustrates me just like it frustrates you!
Maybe we (us non-creeps who want to check out your dick, and you pissers who don't want to hold your hand over it or go into the stall) could get together and get some action going on this. How about a law: "Only non-creeps can check out the dicks of guys pissing in public"?
Ban creeps!!!
Posted by: dveej | September 2, 2007 1:17 AM
To #53, continued:
Also, K. (may I call you that?), your comment name is kinda hawt - smacks of German - I love a man in a uniform!!! Jawohl!
Posted by: dveej | September 2, 2007 1:19 AM
I've got to say that based on what I've heard about this case, if I were the magistrate presiding over a court where Sen. Craig was being tried for allegedly soliciting sex, I'd need rather more than a cop's say-so to convict him.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 2, 2007 1:22 AM
Just to clarify, according to the reports, the police officer's stall was to the right of Craig's stall as both faced forward. Thus, the left-hand-under-the-right-wall is virtually impossible (although some posters here assert they could easily do it, none of them claim to have ACTUALLY done it, and if they try to do it in a normal stall (with walls that go almost to the floor) while sitting on the toilet, they will discover why common sense says the cop is lying about at least this one thing.
Posted by: cureholder | September 2, 2007 1:22 AM
Look. Craig is a disgusting hypocrite. We all know what he was up to.
Some of you seem to seem to be suggesting that non-aggressively hitting on someone in a public bathroom should be a crime. I would disagree. Situations of harassment aside, if someone you aren't interested in makes a signal, you ignore them or say "no thanks." That simple. Doesn't matter where you are.
There are unisex bathrooms in this world. More in eurpoe than the states. No woman will EVER be arrested for winking at a man and making hand gestures in a bathroom. Unless you're willing to suggest that she should be, then you need to reexamine your prejudices.
In addition, there are many places where it is illegal to have sex - and people that do have sex in those places get arrested for it. Parks, supermarkets, bars, stadiums. People also make flirtatious gestures in those places, and they don't get arrested for it. You have to actually start having sex in those places to get arrested.
What did Craig do that he got arrested for? I'm not talking presumptive meaning, or supposed intent... what were his actions?
He tapped his foot, bumped someone else's foot, and made a hand gesture. That's all. YES, we know what he was after, but still, those were his actions.
Or rather, that's what a cop says his actions were. No witnesses, just his word against a cop's. And cops LIE. They don't lie rarely, they don't lie occasionally, they lie ROUTINELY. And when they lie or entrap someone on a bullshit charge they always tack on a "disturbing the peace" charge for you to cop a plea to.
If people are having sex in the bathroom, have a cop sit in a stall and then bust anyone when the action starts. If the cop gets hit on, have him wait until the "perp" makes an actual move towards doing something illegal... sticking his head under the stall, or his butt or whatever.
If you're seriously arguing that you want to live in a country where you can be arrested based solely on a cop's claim that you tapped your foot and moved your hand a certain way, please let me the fuck out. I don't want to live in that country.
Hypocrite, asshole, etc., doesn't matter. Craig was busted for being gay in public.
This is an arrest that would never have happened to a straight man hitting on a woman with signals and not offering money, even if in some subcultures the signals were meant to suggest not getting a private room.
The standards of probable cause were lowered here because nobody is going to defend a gay man's actions, especially in Idaho, not even the gay man himself.
Posted by: craig | September 2, 2007 2:19 AM
The Stein interview was crazy. I can't wait for the movie too. The only thing that he was right about is the senator being a victim. He is definitely but by his own party.
He obviously has some personal issues to work out. He should admit to himself that maybe he is bisexual or homosexual and be honest with himself and everyone else. But the conservatives won't stand for that, of course, and are calling for his head. He can't be gay because to be gay you have to chose to be gay and he never chose to be gay, therefore he isn't. I love their logic.
This, of course, has everything to do with the next election. The senator with these allegations lost his conservative vote so it's best for their conservative governor to replace him with someone that has a greater chance of being re-elected. If their governor was a democrat, we would of never found out about this.
Guaranteed.
Got to love politics.
Posted by: Geral | September 2, 2007 2:35 AM
May want to check first to make sure there aren't any Minneapolis cops nearby.
Posted by: noncarborundum | September 2, 2007 2:37 AM
The Minneapolis police seem to be doing a pretty good job on fighting terrorism. I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks on their beat for a while, unless you count the Rethuglican Party destruction of the bridge through intentional lack of maintenance.
The fact remains that Senator Craig pled guilty. So he must have recognized that there was a law and that he violated it. Maybe some of you think it is a bad law, so get it changed. I think anti-drug laws are bad, but lots of good people get sent to jail for a long time for using drugs. They are not bothering anyone, but Craig was.
I regularly see parents not letting their kids go to public toilets alone in restaurants, parks, airports, or where ever because they don't feel it is safe. Clearly there is a problem.
Craig is a university graduate and did some graduate studies. He was a member of congress since 1981, and as such voted on many laws. If he doesn't understand the law, how can we expect some poor common man or woman to understand it?
Posted by: bernarda | September 2, 2007 4:35 AM
I look forward to Sen Craig's comeback single a la George Michael, the video parodying his newfound sexual liberation, him cavorting with a well hung policeman. I assume Republicans have a rich sense of irony.
I had a senior military intelligence chap on my boat, once. He said they weren't looking for bin Laden. Too much trouble if they caught him, and he's a bit of a knacker anyway. Probably a stiff, was his opinion.
Posted by: lunartalks | September 2, 2007 6:16 AM
The definition of a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested. Losing Larry Craig to the dark side is what really pisses Ben Stein off.
Posted by: Dave Wisker | September 2, 2007 6:41 AM
For those playing the home game:
What Craig did
Gazing through the crack in the stall door for 2 minutes?
Anyone that thinks that an unwanted sexual advance after such peeping would have been OK if the target was a woman is invited to be thrown into a pit of rabid mice.
Posted by: Graculus | September 2, 2007 8:21 AM
Rationalize it all you want. Craig committed a crime.
Posted by: Moses | September 2, 2007 9:19 AM
The issue as to whether sting operations such as Senator Craig fell victim to are a legitimate use of law enforcement personnel is controversial. However, I think that the commentators here are missing the point. What happened was that several complaints were made to the Minneapolis and airport police concerning soliciting for sex occurring in the mens rooms at the airport. The question is, for those who oppose such sting operations, what is it that they think the police should do when numerous such complaints are received?
Posted by: SLC | September 2, 2007 9:39 AM
#68: When the police receive complaints about something, does that always mean they must do something about it?
What if the police get complaints about the weather? (I have heard that they do.)
IMO, the police, as well as those men who are offended by being asked for sex, should politely refuse all non-aggressive offers. That's it. End of problem.
What kind of country passes laws against people politely and non-aggressively asking other people to have sex with them?
Sheesh!
Posted by: dveej | September 2, 2007 10:01 AM
What kind of country passes laws against people politely and non-aggressively asking other people to have sex with them?
So staring at you for 2 minutes while you are "dishabille" is "polite"?
Posted by: Graculus | September 2, 2007 10:05 AM