Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Tough way to make a living

Mark Steyn on the Sen. Larry Craig fiasco in his own inimitable style:

..."I am not gay," says Sen. Craig over and over, as somberly and emphatically as President Nixon's famous insistence that he was not a crook. Any day now, the senator will announce OJ-like that he's redoubling his efforts to track down the real homosexual...



...Did you know that tapping your foot in a bathroom was a recognized indicator that a criminal act is about to occur? Don't take your iPod in with you! Or, if you do, make sure you're listening to the Singing Senators: Hard to tap your foot to "Sweet Adeline," and if you do it's unlikely to be in a manner sufficiently frenzied to attract the attention of the adjoining constables...



Steyn is the best.



35 comments:

Gabby in QC said...

A couple of points regarding this story:
1. A couple of weeks ago, the left was up in arms because undercover cops had been used at the Montebello Summit to allegedly incite protesters to violent action.
Now, the left seems to be applauding the use of an undercover cop to entrap a would-be participant in gay sex.
Under what circumstances is undercover police work acceptable? Is it only if it involves Republicans (or conservatives)?

2. All the reports I heard on radio/TV stated Craig pleaded guilty, leading the audience to believe the senator admitted guilt, but then recanted. However, according to the CNN site at http://tinyurl.com/346d8c
"Craig pleaded guilty August 8 to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, according to Minnesota criminal records."
So why have all reports suggested the senator pleaded guilty to the charge of gay sex?

3. Why is this senator's sexual orientation of any importance to Canadians? How many Canadians were even aware of his existence prior to this "event"?
Apparently, he's been able to serve for 27 years despite rumours circulating about his sexual orientation, so he must have been doing SOMETHING right, according to his constituents.
Maybe the senator is right: "Craig said he was the victim of a "witch hunt" conducted by the Idaho Statesman."

Red Tory said...

LOL. Keep on defending toe-tappin' Larry. It just goes to show how horribly cockeyed (no pun intended) your moral compasses are.

To refute just one of the many bogus assertions above, here's this from The Huffington Post:

Senator Larry Craig attempted to defend himself yesterday. "I am not gay. I never have been gay." He said it like he meant it. I actually hope he did mean it. I don't want him in my club anyway.

The problem is, as I see it, is that Larry Craig is talking about the wrong "problem."

No one is accusing Craig of being gay. They are accusing him of being a pervert.

He doesn't have to answer to the American public about being gay. He has to answer to the American public, the Idaho voters and the police about being a pervert in a public restroom.


Get a clue.

Yes, poor Sen. Craig... boo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo. Such a victim.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, read the update on this post.

BTW, I can think of a Liberal MP who was supposed to have a murky sexual background, but it didn't seem to affect his ability to do his job effectively.

Gabby in QC said...

Is that THE Red Tory!? Another avatar? Are we having an identity crisis?

Yes, of course, quoting from the Huff Po lends weight to one's irrefutable moral compass ...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Is that THE Red Tory!? Another avatar? Are we having an identity crisis?

Yes, that is Red Tory unmasked. AKA Martin Raynor.

He had a 'coming-out' party on his blog. (Coming out of anonymity.)

Not nearly as scary as I had imagined.

the rev. said...

Yeah, Joanne, your pal Weiner Prattles made a big deal about what an ace internet detective he was in finding out RT's (not so) "secret identity" and posting it on the internet for all to see. Since you think such an outing is such a great idea, I guess we can look forward to you posting your full name, address, family photos etc any time now.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Since you think such an outing is such a great idea

I never asked Martin to disclose his identity.

And Werner is hardly my 'pal'.

Crabgrass said...

Joanne, do you not think that Craig was soliciting? Steyn is really saying he doesn't believe it?

Gabby, can you point me to a report that suggests Craig pleaded guilty to a charge of "gay sex"? I didn't even know such a charge existed. I'm just learning about this whole thing. In any case, Republicans really do appear to have a knack for getting into this kind of thing, don't they?

Gabby in QC said...

Crabgrass, I'm sorry, I can't give you any links to support what I wrote in my first comment.
If you reread it, I mentioned TV & radio reports:
"All the reports I heard on radio/TV stated Craig pleaded guilty, leading the audience to believe the senator admitted guilt, but then recanted."
So the reports I mentioned were not written ones. And it was not made clear in those reports that the senator had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.

You also seem to take issue with the use of "gay sex" to describe the situation.
But how else to describe what the senator was allegedly willing to participate in? The encounter took place in a MEN'S washroom ... unless they have unisex washrooms in that airport.

Gabby in QC said...

"Yes, that is Red Tory unmasked. AKA Martin Raynor."

I guess I have to catch up on the blog-news. Why was it necessary for anyone to "unmask" Red Tory?
The only reason I brought up the avatar is because this is the third or fourth version I've seen of his persona, and I'm always curious for what reason people choose their avatars.

Unless the blogger is a public figure writing under an assumed name, I see no reason for disclosing that blogger's real identity.

CC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Red Tory said...

Gee, you could at least spell my name correctly. It's "er" not "or" — I hate that. Bad enough being accused by the Nexus of Retardation of committing identity theft. Let's stick to facts, shall we?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sorry, Red. I know how you're a stickler for spelling.

That was unforgivable.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Gabby, actually Martin Rayner unmasked himself, at the request (or rather demand) of another blogger.

Red Tory said...

Well, to be factually correct, it wasn’t because the other blogger in question (whom I shall not mention) asked or demanded that of me, but because in his demented psychosis, he chose to publish my name, tell people where I lived, invited them to comb through the online directory of my ISP for compromising images (there are none, btw) and also suggested that a picture of a friend of mine was that of my “significant other.” All this while accusing me of having committed “criminal libel” against him for the heinous act of ridiculing his comically absurd pretensions. There are some who doubtless found this highly amusing, but I wasn’t one of them. It was however encouraging to discover that there were many others from across the political spectrum who condemned this sort of deliberately malicious behaviour on his part out of respect for the principle of freedom of speech, if nothing else. Regardless of their opinions, nobody should be stalked, bullied or threatened just for speaking their mind.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Regardless of their opinions, nobody should be stalked, bullied or threatened just for speaking their mind.

I totally agree. It really did cross the line of acceptable blogging behaviour. People like that take the fun out of it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Joanne, do you not think that Craig was soliciting?

From what I read, the man is guilty of tapping his foot. I can't read his mind.


Steyn is really saying he doesn't believe it?

Did you happen to read the title of Steyn's piece?

liberal supporter said...

It must be just a coincidence, but the obnoxious trolls, like the one who would spout Nazi slogans, then accuse RT of being a Nazi, have disappeared over there.

Likewise the one who cannot write in paragraphs. Likewise the one who says that I am RT. Likewise the one who says "so sad" after making preposterous misrepresentations of RT's position on anything. Likewise the one who says they need to take a shower after visiting RT's cesspool of a blog. Likewise the one who claims to be a veteran and expects to be believed and agreed with solely on that basis. (That one is not TJ; I believe TJ really is a vet and I have a lot of respect for him, even when disagreeing with him)


Did all those trolls just decide to pack it in? Or maybe one person now fears they may be tracked by law enforcement and so all his sock puppets vanish at once.

Crabgräss said...

Gabby, I didn't take exception to the description of what was going on as gay sex. I agree - he was looking for exactly that. My question arose because you made reference to "the charge of gay sex". I raised that question because I think that focusing on the gay sex element actually obfuscates the fundamental points, as RT noted in his post (referencing the piece in Huffpo).

Nobody with a their head screwed on right is attacking him because he was pursuing gay sex. It's the stunning hypocrisy involved, vis à vis his public face, and the fact that he was soliciting for it in a public space (the illegal part).

On the use of undercover cops, it wasn't the left who denounced the actions of the Sûreté de Québec at Montebello, but rather anyone who feels that peaceful protest and dissent ought to be respected rather than discredited by authorities using any and all underhanded means possible. Do you not think that's a fair characterization? If the sides chosen on that issue tended to be divided along left/right political lines, that doesn't speak well of conservatives.

Crabgräss said...

Joanne: "From what I read, the man is guilty of tapping his foot. I can't read his mind."

I'm not asking you what you think he could be convicted of based on what you've read thus far, or what you think has been absolutely proven beyond any doubt; I'm asking whether you think he was soliciting. Feel free to avoid the question a second time.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Crabby - Are you asking me if I think he was trying to ask for a sexual favour, which he was willing to pay for? It is possible. Why?

Red Tory said...

LS � Yes, what an odd coincidence, huh? I hadn't actually thought of his mendacity being quite a widespread as you suggest, but I suppose it's possible. Who knows with that guy.

Brian in Calgary said...

Regardless of their opinions, nobody should be stalked, bullied or threatened just for speaking their mind.

Amen. I've just deleted WP's blog from my list of favourites.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Professor Canadian Cynic funny?

Crabgräss said...

Guilty of not having read the link...

The extract from Steyn's article that you included in your post threw me. I thought that he was arguing that there were insufficient grounds on which to conclude that Craig was soliciting, and I assumed that you were here to agree with him.

That second excerpt does make it look like Steyn is suggesting in a sarcastic manner that all they had was the foot tapping. Anyway, I'll be more thorough in my reading next time.

Sorry if I came across as cranky. Have a good evening.

How do you like my new umlaut?

Gabby in QC said...

Crabgràss,
"I agree - he was looking for exactly that."
Ummm, I don't think I said that the senator was looking for that; he has been accused of it, and roundly ridiculed for it, so what do you and I agree on, exactly?

"... referencing the piece in Huffpo"
I hope you will forgive me if I don't take whatever Joan M. Garry, the writer of that Huff Po piece and Executive Director of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), as gospel. Whether we admit it or not, we are all pushing forward our own POV, and Ms. Garry is no exception.

"On the use of undercover cops ..."
Oh? Labour unions are no longer associated with the left?
Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians?
Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada?
The Canadian Union of Public Employees?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/247995
"Angry anarchists and family-friendly activists converged on the posh Montebello resort in Quebec on Monday to protest the North American Leaders' Summit. ...
Mandeep Dhillon, a spokeswoman for No One is Illegal, a group of immigration activists, said the aim of protesters is to disrupt the summit."

It is quite one thing to march & chant one's opposition to _______ (fill in the blank). It is quite another to go with the intention of stopping the meeting because a personal invitation to attend has not been extended, and, as experience has sadly shown at other summits, violence and senseless destruction of property has taken place.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Isn't Professor Canadian Cynic funny?

'Funny' is not the first word that springs to mind.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sorry if I came across as cranky. Have a good evening.

No problem, Crabgrass. Thanks so much for being honest here and admitting you hadn't read the article. I find a lot of people 'fake' it when confronted.

How do you like my new umlaut?

Quite impressive! Now how would you pronounce that?

Crabgräss said...

Gabby, I need to clarify two things.

First, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. This bit, "how else to describe what the senator was allegedly willing to participate in? The encounter took place in a MEN'S washroom ... unless they have unisex washrooms in that airport", led me to believe that you were accepting as an obvious truth that Craig was after gay sex (I'm getting really tired of typing that. You?). I'm still a little uncertain what you meant, in fact.

Secondly, regarding the undercover cops, you had said "the left were up in arms" over what had happened at Montebello. I assumed you were talking about the reaction of various groups to the whole thing, and not about who had organized the particular bunch that managed to end up in the spotlight. Are you saying that you didn't see any criticism of the provocative behaviour of the Sûreté from anyone on the right? I'm sure I did, but confess I can't remember exactly where. But what matters more is this: do you think that peaceful protests or the voicing of dissent should be discouraged? Or worse yet undermined? Does it depend on who the authority figures are?

Crabgräss said...

Joanne - pronunciation is the same. My umlaut is for visual effect only. I hope you're properly cowed.

Gabby in QC said...

Crabgräss,
Re: your first point:
"... led me to believe that you were accepting as an obvious truth that Craig was after gay sex"
No, I'm not convinced that he was seeking a "brief interlude." Is that a better way of describing it?

On your second point:
"I assumed you were talking about the reaction of various groups to the whole thing ..."
I don't know what you mean by the "whole thing."
What I was referring to was 1. the left decrying the use of undercover cops and 2. their calling for a public inquiry into the whys and wherefores and who knew-whats at what time.
Using undercover cops is a legitimate tactic, IMO.

To your third point: "do you think that peaceful protests or the voicing of dissent should be discouraged?"
Not at all. But unfortunately, as we saw at the APEC meetings in Vancouver, the Quebec City Summit of the Americas, and the G8 Summit in Genoa, among others, these protests usually degenerate into violence, and that violence tends to be more and more destructive.
Notice this one coming up:
http://tinyurl.com/33kew6
"Radicals issue APEC riot manual
September 03, 2007 12:00am

MILITANT APEC protesters are secretly plotting an outbreak of violence for US President George W. Bush's arrival in Sydney tomorrow, distributing a rioter's training manual on how to wear gas masks, confront police and even evade fares.
The clandestine anarchist action, six weeks in the making, has been dubbed "FLARE in the void" and is described as an "Anti-APEC counter convergence"..."

As I stated last time, it's one thing to participate in a peaceful march, chanting slogans or "We Shall Overcome," but quite another to engage in wanton destruction of property, throwing billiard balls at the police.

Crabgräss said...

Gabby, I only saw one person carrying a rock in the Montebello video, and it wasn't one of the protestors. If violence had erupted there, and the undercover cops had not been outed, who do you think would have been blamed? Unfortunately, I can only allow one guess on this.

Gabby in QC said...

Crabgräss
" ... I only saw one person carrying a rock in the Montebello video, and it wasn't one of the protestors."

That video must have been some powerful stuff, to show a 360 degree view of the area.

Look, if you want to believe that the violent outbreaks at demonstrations are instigated by undercover police, go ahead. No number of arguments on my part will convince you otherwise.

I'll continue, in my own naive way, to believe that the police are there to make sure things don't get out of hand and to catch those who destroy private & public property.
Past experience has been my best teacher, not a blurry YouTube video.

Crabgräss said...

Gabby, you're right. Probably all of the protestors were carrying big rocks.

Still, it might be enlightening for you to see that video. I'm sure it's still around.

Gabby in QC said...

Crabgräss,
"Probably all of the protestors were carrying big rocks."

Not quite. There were also peaceful protesters, according to the reports I've read.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing also went on:
http://tinyurl.com/2rwyzu
"... One day before the arrival of the U.S. and Mexican presidents, some protesters placed two concrete blocks on opposite sides of Canadian Pacific railway tracks and tied a banner between them. ...
The anonymous saboteurs sent out a news release claiming credit for the blockage but didn't identify the group responsible or their main motivation. ...
News of the incident came as several hundred protesters gathered peacefully on Parliament Hill for a rally organized by a range of economic nationalist, environmental, labour and other groups."

As you can see, some people, like those who placed cement blocks on the train tracks, don't care who gets injured or how much damage they do. That is the kind of protester I strenuously object to, no matter how valid the cause.