ThinkFast: January 16, 2008
ThinkFast: January 16, 2008
“Economic stimulus proposals favored by Democrats, including tax rebates [and] extended unemployment benefits…are cost-effective ways” to boost the economy, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). At the same time, however, “some options floated by Republicans such as extending President Bush’s tax cuts…may be less cost-effective.”
47.5 percent: Americans who believe a recession is likely. “The survey also found that barely more than one in five gave President George W. Bush’s administration high marks for economic policy, and many voters thought they would be better off financially with a Democrat in the White House.”
An audit by the Government Accountability Office questions the efficacy of sanctions against Iran. “U.S. officials and experts report that U.S. sanctions have specific impacts on Iran; however, the extent of such impacts is difficult to determine,” said the report states.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who was appointed to replace Trent Lott, “last year obtained a $6 million earmark for a defense contractor whose executives were among his top campaign contributors” and were represented in the matter by Wicker’s former chief of staff.
In late 2005, the CIA’s then-director of clandestine operations, Jose Rodriguez, authorized the CIA station chief in Bangkok to destroy videotapes of harsh interrogation practices. “Rodriguez consulted CIA lawyers and officials, who told him that he had the legal right to order the destruction.”
President Bush wraps up his week-long tour of the Middle East today, “leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit and doubtful that the president made inroads on his twin campaigns for Arab-Israeli peace and isolation for Iran.”
A congressionally-mandated panel of public and private experts yesterday “recommended more than doubling the [gasoline] tax” to “boost funding for transportation projects.” The panel’s suggestions “would take the U.S. down a more European path, with higher gas taxes and greater investment in high-speed rail and other modes of transportation.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation released its 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, in which the United States ranked fifth. Not mentioned in the report is the fact that the top four — Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia — all have universal health care, whereas U.S. businesses are forced to pay health care premiums that rose 98 percent between 2000 and 2007.
The House plans to vote today on a mine safety bill, which is meant to update regulations after August’s deadly Crandall Canyon Mine disaster. The White House, however, yesterday threatened to veto the bill because it would allegedly jeopardize its “achievements and efforts” already underway.
And finally: Katie Couric goes off-script. A new video shows views “behind the scenes at CBS News” and what Couric “had to say about the presidential candidates in between live shots from the New Hampshire primaries.” At one point she made “a cutting motion across her neck” when referring to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and admitted “that she doesn’t know much about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.” She also said that Cindy McCain had “weird blue eyes” that were “freaking [her] out a little.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Support the Impeachment of Dick Cheney!
Today is National Call-In Day
The call is FREE and only takes a minute of your time.
1-800-828-0498 (White House Switchboard, ask to be connected to your Rep.)
Tell your Representative to support HR 333 The Impeachment of Dick Cheney!
If you’re more ambitious call the members of the House Judiciary Committee (found here: http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx)
January 16th, 2008 at 9:08 amPresident Bush wraps up his week-long tour of the Middle East today, “leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit...
including most Americans, who are mystified as to the purpose of his entire administration.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:10 amKatie Couric goes off-script...at one point she made “a cutting motion across her neck†when referring to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
I just gained some respect for Katie.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:12 amThe House plans to vote today on a mine safety bill, which is meant to update regulations after August’s deadly Crandall Canyon Mine disaster. The White House, however, yesterday threatened to veto the bill because it would allegedly jeopardize its “achievements and efforts†already underway.
Bush: "Trust me. Have I ever let you down before?"
January 16th, 2008 at 9:12 amA congressionally-mandated panel of public and private experts yesterday “recommended more than doubling the [gasoline] tax†to “boost funding for transportation projects.†The panel’s suggestions “would take the U.S. down a more European path, with higher gas taxes and greater investment in high-speed rail and other modes of transportation.â€
If only it were that simple. The majority of the cities in this country grew up with the automobile and need to be completely rethought. But a lot of the residents of these newer American cities don't think--let alone rethink. They vote down every attempt to upgrade their public transportation infrastructure.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:17 amA congressionally-mandated panel of public and private experts yesterday “recommended more than doubling the [gasoline] tax†to “boost funding for transportation projects.â€
That should go over like a lead balloon.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:18 amI have a better idea, nationalize the oil companies to stop the price gouging, fund alternative fuels. Stop giving corporate welfare to the oil industry to fund infrastructure. Taxing the people already paying outrageous prices for gas now is ludicrous.
"47.5 percent: Americans who believe a recession is likely."
Likely?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:21 amAll indicators show we are currently in a resession.
MN's top economist yesterday proclaimed MN is now in a recession.
MN's (R) Gov. is having a hissy fit about this release, while still trying to duck any responsibility for the I-35W bridge collapse. This is when he's actually in the State and not campaigning for McCain.
Other States will soon follow suit with recession declarations. As the stock market falters, gas prices increase, food costs rise faster than gas and health insurance reflects double digit increases, one has to wonder where '08 will take us.
Bush needs a huge distraction to sway public opinion again. Will it be Iran? Pakistan? N. Korea? Or, will the GWOT come home to roost?
Hang on, folks, it's going to be a Hell of a ride.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:27 amSen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who was appointed to replace Trent Lott, “last year obtained a $6 million earmark for a defense contractor whose executives were among his top campaign contributors†and were represented in the matter by Wicker’s former chief of staff.
What a great man. He's following in the steps of the man he replaced. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It's almost like Lott is still there!
January 16th, 2008 at 9:31 am8..Zimzone. Maybe the new leadership in Washington will be able to sieze on the coming economic disaster to actually get some new infrastructure projects completed--there will be a large labor force of out of work Americans who will happily sign on to the new WPA work crews to keep bread on their tables.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:33 amMN’s top economist yesterday proclaimed MN is now in a recession.
Comment by Zimzone — January 16, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Meryl Lynch, which was spot on predicting the 1991 and 2001 recessions have stated that Jan was the first month of recession.
I trust them more than all the government hacks put together.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:35 amWhat did we miss?
ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private
ACLU Argues on Behalf of Sen. Larry Craig That Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private
In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.
The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.
The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.
The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.
"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief. [. . .]
So people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an airport bathroom? I don't see how. If anyone looks under the door, they'll see two sets of feet, or someone on their knees. That's exposing what you're doing in there - namely having sex.
They aren't arguing that he didn't want to have sex - just that it was shielded by a supposed right to privacy.
I wonder if Craig will acknowledge the ACLU's involvement, since it goes against what he was claiming occurred.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:35 amSen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who was appointed to replace Trent Lott, “last year obtained a $6 million earmark for a defense contractor whose executives were among his top campaign contributors†and were represented in the matter by Wicker’s former chief of staff.
Then why is he not under investigation. I read recently that Mary Landrau is under investigation for taking a campaign contribution and then giving an earmark. Why is it OK for Wicker to do it but not Landrau? Could it be because she is a Democrat and he is a Republican?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am“Rodriguez consulted CIA lawyers and officials, who told him that he had the legal right to order the destruction.â€
If this is the case, then Congress needs to subpoena the CIA lawyers and officials and they need to give Rodriguez immunity so he will testify.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:39 amI wonder if Craig will acknowledge the ACLU’s involvement, since it goes against what he was claiming occurred. -Comment by barfly
Craig will do whatever it takes to 'clear' his name. After that, he will deny any involvement with the ACLU whatsoever, just like he still denies he's gay.
Larry, next time find a closet. It suits your personality much better.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:39 am“leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit and doubtful that the president made inroads on his twin campaigns for Arab-Israeli peace and isolation for Iran.â€
The purpose of his visit was his usual "photo opts". He was feeling neglected and needed to be in the limelight. And how much did this trip cost the US taxpayers?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:40 ambarfly, it doesn't go against what he was claiming.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:41 amEvery suit involved, states IF he did what he's accused of, then....
And are you really arguing you shouldn't have a right to privacy in a bathroom stall?
And I'll ask again, what justification is there to make hitting on someone a crime?
"If this is the case, then Congress needs to subpoena the CIA lawyers and officials and they need to give Rodriguez immunity so he will testify."
Comment by bilbobaggins
We've done this dance before. They will all use the Reagan defense. It's become their alibi of last resort.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:41 amAnd how much did this trip cost the US taxpayers?
-Comment by bilbobaggins
Hmmm, let's see...$30B to Israel, $20B to Saudi Arabia, for starters.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:43 amI'm not sure how to measure the whole package, but if you factor in World opinion I'd say we're out at least $100 Billion. Of course, that's just 10 months in Iraq, so perhaps it was a bargain? /snark
I wonder if Craig will acknowledge the ACLU’s involvement, since it goes against what he was claiming occurred.
Comment by barfly — January 16, 2008 @ 9:35 am
I actually would rather see the ACLU defending privacy in our homes and bedrooms, rather than defending pervert's public bathroom stall rights.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:43 amFrankly bathroom perverts are annoying jerks who violate others privacy by their antics.
And are you really arguing you shouldn’t have a right to privacy in a bathroom stall?
And I’ll ask again, what justification is there to make hitting on someone a crime?
Comment by Wilco
A bathroom stall has a specific purpose. The right to privacy should extend to the act for which the stall is intended, not any act in a stall. If someone is sexually abusing a child in a stall and is discovered, do they automatically have a right to privacy, and so the acts cannot be prosecuted?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:44 am#12 Barfly,
Im no lawyer, but from reading excerpts of the ACLU brief the main argument seems to be that there is nothing inherently illegal about tapping your feet and waving your hand under a bathroom stall.
as for the reasonable expectation of privacy... I can kind of see the point being made there. You wouldnt expect someone to poke their head under the stall and yell "Y HALO THAR.....BUTTSECHS?!"
January 16th, 2008 at 9:46 amAmerica lives in lala land.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:47 amWe depend on weapons sales while we play the slots at the casino. We drive cars to seat 10. We settle for marginal health care. We reject the idea of renewable energy. We enable corporations to speak for us.
We have myopia.
barfly, please explain to everyone here how hitting on someone is so closely related to abusing a child.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:47 amHow are they the least bit related?
Or are you agreeing with me?
If hitting on someone is perfectly fine, since it is of course free speech, then why should it not be free speech if it's done in a bathroom stall?
A bathroom stall has a specific purpose. The right to privacy should extend to the act for which the stall is intended, not any act in a stall. If someone is sexually abusing a child in a stall and is discovered, do they automatically have a right to privacy, and so the acts cannot be prosecuted?
Comment by barfly — January 16, 2008 @ 9:44 am
-----------------------
its a 'reasonable' expectation of privacy.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:52 am"as for the reasonable expectation of privacy… I can kind of see the point being made there. You wouldnt expect someone to poke their head under the stall and yell “Y HALO THAR…..BUTTSECHS?!â€
Comment by deebaser
But anyone who sees two sets of legs under the door knows what's going on. That isn't what the stall was intended for. Can someone just go in and start a drug-dealing operation that requires someone to sit in the next stall, and pass the money and drugs between them? If anyone happens to see them committing this obviously illegal act, they can't do anything because the two people in the stalls had a reasonable expectation of privacy? You can't argue that since sex between consenting adults is legal, this also should be - because sex in the open is illegal.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am"barfly, please explain to everyone here how hitting on someone is so closely related to abusing a child.
How are they the least bit related?"
I was positing examples, so naturally I would go for worst-case scenarios. See my last post.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:55 amAnd I’ll ask again, what justification is there to make hitting on someone a crime?
Comment by Wilco
mmmm...let's see. I am about to take a dump in bathroom, when somebody starts tapping its foot just crossing my stall, then I hear voices and then I hear that somebody is hitting on me. What do I do? I would say: no thanks, I'm just here to release high entropy matter, otherwise, I would die. But the guy keeps on and on...What do I do? I go to the police and say, hey, there is a guy bothering me, I don't want to hit him, so please, do something.
I think that's what happened, and the guy pleaded guilty, so...
January 16th, 2008 at 9:55 ambut Democrats now agree with Republicans’ long-held belief that tax rebates and/or tax cuts are effective ways to leave money in the taxpayers’ hands to spend and stimulate the economy.
Comment by good_golly — January 16, 2008 @ 9:47 am
No, Democrats have always seen that as a way for economic relief. The difference is the Democrats cut taxes for the middle class, instead of cutting taxes for the richest only while giving corporate welfare away.
The middle class is the pedistal the economy is actually built on. The last 7 years, the bumbling repukes have shafted the middle class while giving away billions to the profit gouging oil companies.
And you republicans wonder why we are in a recession now......
January 16th, 2008 at 9:56 amIf you have the honesty to admit we are in recession, that is
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Hitting on someone in a public bathroom is fine. Banging them there is not. However, I've got to say I also wish the ACLU would focus on more pressing issues than this.
In the meantime, can someone please euthanize Craig already?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:56 amSo bathrooms should be extra-judicious areas?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:58 amJust because you're not comfortable with a guy hitting on you or whatever, it doesn't mean the attempt should be a crime. It's not a crime anywhere else in the entire country. A dude can hit on you in a bar and give you all the gay sex signs he wants to and there's not a thing police can do about it. So why should they be able to in a bathroom?
And I’ll ask again, what justification is there to make hitting on someone a crime?
Comment by Wilco
Would you think the same thing if the person being "hit on" was your 12 year old son?
I think the public has the right to use a public restroom without fearing being exposed to people having sex in a stall. If someone wants to have sex, they can get a room for gods sake.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:59 amIf hitting on someone is perfectly fine, since it is of course free speech, then why should it not be free speech if it’s done in a bathroom stall?
Comment by Wilco
That's just dumb. Imagine that you get to your place at night, and there is this guy/girl waiting outside to hit on you. Every night. Or just one time, but insisting... I'm sure, you would be perfectly fine with that....
January 16th, 2008 at 10:00 amgg spewing the koolaid crap again. It's a good thing the GOP is about to be dead and buried, thay have bankrupted the country, shattered the military and shredded the Constitution, all so a handful of billionaires wouldn't be taxed fairly. No wonder America's reputation is in the toilet.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:00 amdim wit, that's my point.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:00 amYes, public sex is illegal. Enforce THAT.
It's illegal wherever it occurs.
Would you think the same thing if the person being “hit on†was your 12 year old son?
I think the public has the right to use a public restroom without fearing being exposed to people having sex in a stall. If someone wants to have sex, they can get a room for gods sake.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 16, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Thats a ridiculous argument. Never mind the public restroom, who would allow their minor child to be hit on anywhere?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:02 amas for the reasonable expectation of privacy… I can kind of see the point being made there. You wouldnt expect someone to poke their head under the stall and yell “Y HALO THAR…..BUTTSECHS?!â€
Comment by deebaser
Well, I don't know about you but I wouldn't expect someone to wave their hand under the stall unless they were asking for some TP and I certainly would not expect someone to tap my foot in my stall. I would consider both of those acts to be violating my rights to privacy in my stall when I was doing what the stall was intended for.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:02 amA dude can hit on you in a bar and give you all the gay sex signs he wants to and there’s not a thing police can do about it.
Comment by Wilco
ONly if you are comfortable with that...
January 16th, 2008 at 10:02 amFor clarity, I'll post this again:
"In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy."
Not "who proposition people in bathrooms" - have sex with people in bathrooms.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:03 amJuan, that's an asinine comparison.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:04 amThat's harassment. It's not illegal for the guy to hit on me time after time. It's illegal for the guy to BOTHER me time after time.
Thats a ridiculous argument. Never mind the public restroom, who would allow their minor child to be hit on anywhere?
Comment by dim wit
I was just following Wilco's logic. He seems to think that hitting on someone in a public restroom should not be a crime. I disagree with him. If we make soliciting sex in a bathroom no longer a crime, then what's going to stop these guys from hitting on minor children?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:04 amComment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 10:00 am
Well then, we agree!
However, I get no pleasure out of agreement, so we will need to find something to disagree about. Where is Bartlebee when I need him?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am"Thats a ridiculous argument. Never mind the public restroom, who would allow their minor child to be hit on anywhere?"
Comment by dim wit
Does this require a tether-rope of some sort? One cannot watch a child every time they go out into the world...
January 16th, 2008 at 10:05 amJuan, how is someone to know if you're comfortable with it before hitting on you?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:05 amThat’s harassment.
Comment by Wilco
Exactly.
It’s not illegal for the guy to hit on me time after time. It’s illegal for the guy to BOTHER me time after time.
Huh? Then it depends on YOU!!! and not on if hitting on is ILLEGAL OR NOT.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:07 ambarfly/Wilco
January 16th, 2008 at 10:07 amI can understand an expectation to privacy when using a restroom stall for it's intended use. That said, what do I tell my six year old son, when we go to use the facilities in a public restroom and see two sets of feet in one stall and hear the moans of someone in the throes of sexual gratification? Or one pair of feet and another pair of knees? Also, as I recall the justification for detaining Craig was that he was using known signals in an attempt to SOLICIT sex. Soliciting prostitution is illegal and THAT is what the dear Senator was apparently attempting.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 16, 2008 @ 10:04 am
I am aware of no law which says one cannot "hit on" a minor child.
And don't think that I am condoning it, I'm just saying, I don't believe it actually illegal.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:08 amJuan, how is someone to know if you’re comfortable with it before hitting on you?
Comment by Wilco
Maybe because Craig was accused???
January 16th, 2008 at 10:08 amJuan, how is someone to know if you’re comfortable with it before hitting on you?
Comment by Wilco
Why do you insist in misstating the issue? It's having sexual relations in a public stall , not being "hit on" that is what the ACLU is defending.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:09 amJuan, again, harassment is illegal everywhere. Hitting on someone ONCE is generally not considered harassment. Repeatedly hitting on someone who has expressed disinterest is.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:10 amSo again, what is the legal difference between a guy hitting on someone in a bathroom, and a guy hitting on someone one step outside of the bathroom?
Can someone just go in and start a drug-dealing operation that requires someone to sit in the next stall, and pass the money and drugs between them? If anyone happens to see them committing this obviously illegal act, they can’t do anything because the two people in the stalls had a reasonable expectation of privacy? You can’t argue that since sex between consenting adults is legal, this also should be - because sex in the open is illegal.
Comment by barfly — January 16, 2008 @ 9:53 am
The difference between a sex act and a drug dealing act is that dealing drugs is illegal whether it occurs in public or private, and a sex act between consenting adults is only illegal if it occurs in public, so this isn't really a good comparison.
That said, I see bathroom stalls as only providing partial privacy, since one can see below the stall door, and one can hear virtually everything that goes on within the stall as if it was in the middle of the room. The ACLU have their work cut out for them on this argument.
And lastly -- I may be in the minority here, but I don't see that Craig did anything illegal. Unsavory and downright vulgar, maybe -- but not illegal. Craig is a liar, a hypocrite, and has really bad taste in his choice of environmental ambience for his sex life. But I don't see a crime committed until actual sex took place. Why do we have cops running sex sting operations in bathrooms, anyway? Don't they have anything better to do?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:12 amComment by barfly
I am not intentionally misstating the issue. I apparently didn't read that.
In that case, it's a moronic argument on the part of the ACLU. If police suspect an illegal act is occurring (sex in a public place), then they should have the right to investigate.
I apologize.
But hand signs and toe taps shouldn't be illegal. That's just ridiculous.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:13 amComment by good_golly — January 16, 2008 @ 10:06 am
gg, you are quoting the white house, source of lies only. really, what's the matter with you?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:14 amSo again, what is the legal difference between a guy hitting on someone in a bathroom, and a guy hitting on someone one step outside of the bathroom?
Comment by Wilco
Don't know.
But I don’t see a crime committed until actual sex took place. Why do we have cops running sex sting operations in bathrooms, anyway? Don’t they have anything better to do?
Comment by missmolly
Why was he accused then? He was actually having sex, then, right? Otherwise why he pleaded guilty?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:17 amWhy do we have cops running sex sting operations in bathrooms, anyway? Don’t they have anything better to do?
Comment by missmolly — January 16, 2008 @ 10:12 am
my understanding of the sting was that several complainsts were filed, by parents of young children who were afraid for their kids' safety. that particular restroom was becoming a hangout for prostitutes, according to news sources. I can't document this, because it was a while ago, but that information was all part of the story. so, while I agree with you in principle, there may be more to this.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:17 amIf we make soliciting sex in a bathroom no longer a crime, then what’s going to stop these guys from hitting on minor children?
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 16, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Hitting on minor children is a crime no matter where it occurs, I believe. And do you really want to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia? Craig was tapping and hand signaling an adult. His entire incident had nothing to do with minor children.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:18 amjeez... it's the private potty thread...
i don't really want a response, but this caught my attention, haveing read no further:
I might have to throw up in my mouth a little typing this, but the
ACLU... -Comment by good_golly @ 9:59 am
i'm curious as to why someone would be repulsed enough to vomit at the
mention of the American Civil Liberties Union... and organization that
protects and defends the rights and liberties of all people...
it seems very ANTI-american and ANTI-constitution to harbor such a
selfish and ignorant attitude...
just sayin'...
January 16th, 2008 at 10:18 amBut hand signs and toe taps shouldn’t be illegal. That’s just ridiculous.
Comment by Wilco
Oh, now I get it... what are you doing in your free time? :)
January 16th, 2008 at 10:18 amWhy was he accused then? He was actually having sex, then, right? Otherwise why he pleaded guilty?
Comment by Juan C. — January 16, 2008 @ 10:17 am
I have two theories as to why he pled guilty.
1) He's a complete moron. OR
2) He really was soliciting anonymous sex, was surprised that he found himself caught in a sting, was told "we can make this all go away if you plead guilty -- otherwise, prepare for a lot of bad publicity," and was willing to do ANYTHING to keep the whole sordid business from reaching the press.
Of course, it's possible that both 1) and 2) are true.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:21 amDick Morris exposes Hill'reh's use of the race card to rally whites to her support, then uses the gender card, when critics hammer her for it, to rally women:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/in_contrast_to_obama_hillary_p.html
I suppose Hill'reh is merely proving her point that the Reps could use the race card to defeat Obama, by using the race card to defeat him in the primary - can't argue with her about that anymore - it's possible. I just didn't think a Democrat would ever do it so blatantly, but as long as Bubba Clinton says, "Gosh, that's not what I was doing", enough whites will agree to put Hill'reh over the top. Even Charlie Rangle was calling Barack "stupid" for insinuating that MLK "signed the Civil Rights Act", which is a distortion, especially considering that Obama didn't say anything - Hill'reh insinuated that it was LBJ who made Civil Rights a reality, not MLK.
Stunningly, the Clintons will win again, and blacks will fall in line and vote for them again and again - so much for freedom from bondage.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am"The difference between a sex act and a drug dealing act is that dealing drugs is illegal whether it occurs in public or private, and a sex act between consenting adults is only illegal if it occurs in public, so this isn’t really a good comparison."
But anyone who sees two sets of feet in a stall knows its being used for something other than it's intended use. Now, perhaps they're playing gin rummy in there, or comparing recipies, but the appearance is of illicit, and possibly illegal activities. Highway reststops have signs posted, warning of penalties for those caught having sex there - for the safety and convienience of the families that frequently use them. If two men are found in a stall there, there is but one reasonable inference, given highway reststop's history as locales for gay sexual trysts. Unless one of the men is visibly handicapped, and so requires the other's assistance, they are there for sex. And they will be arrested.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:22 amComment by missmolly — January 16, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Well, he is a member of Congress so we can safely assume he is a complete moron.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:24 ami’m curious as to why someone would be repulsed enough to vomit at the
mention of the American Civil Liberties Union…
Comment by katy
It is part of a well ingrained propaganda smear of the right wing that reaches deep into the fundies sphere of influence. They are all against civil liberties generally for the population at large and it's not really a secret. Discussions with fundies will reveal that the aclu is a humanist organization and is against gods laws.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:26 ammy understanding of the sting was that several complainsts were filed, by parents of young children who were afraid for their kids’ safety. that particular restroom was becoming a hangout for prostitutes, according to news sources. I can’t document this, because it was a while ago, but that information was all part of the story. so, while I agree with you in principle, there may be more to this.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 16, 2008 @ 10:17 am
OK, if this is true, I can understand a police operation there. I'm a bit skeptical of these reports, since it was an airport restroom and presumably in the secure area. Since nobody can get into the secure area without a plane ticket, those prostitutes would be racking up a lot of frequent flyer points just to practice their trade.
But yes -- when a situation looks bizarre, there is often more to it, as you say.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:26 amOf course, it’s possible that both 1) and 2) are true.
Comment by missmolly
I think that 1) produced 2).
January 16th, 2008 at 10:26 amComment by barfly — January 16, 2008 @ 10:22 am
I think you missed my second paragraph.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:28 ammissmolly, he was screwed no matter if he was guilty or not.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:29 amEither he pled to the lesser charge (and remember he tried to keep it quiet), or he decided to fight it so then it would all be out in the open, that Craig got arrested for trying to have sex with another guy.
And don't kid yourself. It's not the charge that killed his career. It's the implied homosexuality that did it.
No one is innocent until proven guilty in The Court of Public Opinion.
"Since nobody can get into the secure area without a plane ticket, those prostitutes would be racking up a lot of frequent flyer points just to practice their trade."
What the ACLU is arguing for, includes all public restrooms - in Minnesota.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:29 amDuring the Dem debate last night Obama brought up a great point that clearly distinguishes the Republican view on tax cuts with the Dems. He pointed out that Warren Buffet realized that his seceratary hasa higher income tax percentage witheld than he does. Apparently Buffet has put out a challenge to CEOs of big corporations. He has offered up a million dollars to any CEO who can prove that they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than their seceretary. So far no takers. Go ahead Good_Golly. Keep pissing up that tree. As long as the richest in America get the biggest tax breaks (these are the MOST likely people to hold onto their money rather than spend it) and the middle class is struggling to keep up with stalled salaries, high inflation, college costs, health care costs, mortgage interest rates, milk, oil and everything consumeable there's not much left at all to spend on frivolous expenses.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:31 amI think you missed my second paragraph.
Comment by missmolly
Perhaps I shouldn't have started with "But", as I was providing the same general information.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:33 amWhat the ACLU is arguing for, includes all public restrooms - in Minnesota.
Comment by barfly — January 16, 2008 @ 10:29 am
I understand. I was responding to Lefty Patriot's post about THAT particular restroom. Sheesh! Does anybody actually read my posts?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:35 amWhat did we miss? There's this.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:36 amComment by alpuz3
Gosh, that's a shocker
If anyone is surprised, please speak up.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:38 amThanks for the update, though, alpuz3
I was wondering when they'd respond
Just curious -- how big a problem is sex in restrooms, anyway? I only use ladies' rooms, and in my many years of using them, I have never encountered any sex acts in them.
I assume that restroom sex happens more frequently in men's rooms, but how many of the men here have encountered this problem personally? Is it a big problem?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:39 amI've never witnessed it. Only heard of it second-hand.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am“some options floated by Republicans such as extending President Bush’s tax cuts…may be less cost-effective.â€
Well, no shit, Sherlock.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:50 amThe non-partisan ACLU has defended the rights of rightwingers and perverts, just as they have defended rights of ordinary citizens - yet no one can explain why the ACLU is reviled by the right.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:52 amA congressionally-mandated panel of public and private experts yesterday “recommended more than doubling the [gasoline] tax†to “boost funding for transportation projects.â€
------------------------------------------------
Oh, good luck with that. I doubt that ANYBODY in Congress from either party will want to increase gas taxes in an election year -- especially when gas prices are already causing pain. No matter what their panel recommends.
Joe Sixpack is already pouring more money in his gas tank than he has ever had to before. He can't live any closer to work because he bought where he could afford -- out in exurbia. He can't take public transportation because the suburban and exurban sprawl has made it almost impossible to install a bus or light rail system that would even serve a small fraction of the people in a cost-effective manner.
Joe Sixpack has also noticed that prices of the groceries and other goods he buys have gone up, because of the higher cost of transporting them. His paycheck is getting stretched pretty far as it is. You think he's going to be enthusiastic about re-electing his congressman if his gas taxes double?
Something has to be done to prop up crumbling transportation infrastructure and continue building new public transportation. But not on the backs of the middle class. They've paid enough already.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:52 amIs it a big problem?
Comment by missmolly — January 16, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Can't say it is a big problem, but it is my understanding there are certain hot spots where people look for this activity.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:53 amThe non-partisan ACLU has defended the rights of rightwingers and perverts, just as they have defended rights of ordinary citizens - yet no one can explain why the ACLU is reviled by the right.
Comment by Marie
they defend the proleteriate and the lumpin proleteriate from the bushwazi elitests.........simple.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:55 amIncreasing the gas tax will exacerbate the recession, be disproportionately harmful to those who can least afford it and kick the can farther down the road.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:55 amIt's time for visionary thinking. This is the time for increasing mass transit and creating alternatives to gasoline powered autos.
missmolly,
January 16th, 2008 at 10:55 amWhen did you talk to Joe Sixpack? I haven't seen him on here for a while.
Comment by Marie — January 16, 2008 @ 10:52 am
the conservatives hate everything and everyone, the ACLU included.
If you really want to see the inane ramblings of a conservative who hates the ACLU, try this:
http://stoptheaclu.com/
January 16th, 2008 at 10:56 amWhat did we miss?
How about this:
Bush oil price 'begging' is 'pathetic': Clinton
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AFP) - Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton on Tuesday accused President George W. Bush of "begging" for cuts in oil prices in "pathetic" encounters with Gulf leaders.
The former first lady hit out at the US president as he wrapped up a tour of the Middle East, during a 2008 Democratic presidential campaign debate here.
"President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil," Clinton said. "How pathetic."
http://tinyurl.com/3eywkd
Hear, hear!!
January 16th, 2008 at 10:57 amIs anyone else vaguely insulted by "Joe Sixpack?" I mean, that's the "regular guy" name, right? Isn't it a bit rude that the regular guy is best represented by his consumption of alcohol?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:59 amIs anyone else vaguely insulted by “Joe Sixpack?†I mean, that’s the “regular guy†name, right? Isn’t it a bit rude that the regular guy is best represented by his consumption of alcohol?
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 10:59 am
I apologize if I insulted anyone. Looking back on my post, I can see how that can be offensive, and I won't use that label anymore when describing people like myself in the middle class who live from paycheck to paycheck, struggle to get bills paid and still try to bank funds for a rainy day.
No -- such a person should not be represented by his alcohol consumption. Maybe we should have a contest to find a more appropriate moniker.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:15 amRe: the above argument on Larry Craig and is toe-tapping a protected form of speech
I'm surprised that those who would so strongly argue that stopping a car on I-95 driven by 2 blacks who are speeding is OK and not illegal profiliing; and stopping a lady walking the downtown streets at 11 PM in short, vinyl shorts and waving to passing cars in a district known for prostitution is not illegal profiling, etc. etc. etc.
But toe tapping in a public restroom and passing one's hand under the stall door and looking in the crack between the door and the support column is apparently an illegal profiling.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:15 amIs anyone else vaguely insulted by “Joe Sixpack?†I mean, that’s the “regular guy†name, right? Isn’t it a bit rude that the regular guy is best represented by his consumption of alcohol?
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 10:59 am
I guess its just as demening as refering to mothers with younger children as "soccer moms." I mean, who in this country gives a shit about soccer?
My wife actually prefers I refer to her as a "MILF" rather than a "soccer mom"
January 16th, 2008 at 11:16 amIs anyone else vaguely insulted by “Joe Sixpack?†I mean, that’s the “regular guy†name, right? Isn’t it a bit rude that the regular guy is best represented by his consumption of alcohol?
Comment by Wilco
I actually think it's a perfect metaphor for the average American that is not even registered to vote. Shows what they spend their time thinking about. If the Joes would get involved we would probably not be dealing with bush right now.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:19 amComment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Craig screwed himself over by soliciting sex in a public bathroom, enough said.
Quit trying to defend his actions. sheesh.
It was not the first time that there have been allegations towards Craig for the same behavior.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:23 amI'm defending equal justice, not just Craig. I don't believe what he did should be a crime.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:26 amCertainly that he's been accused of being gay doesn't make his behavior that much more criminal.
Wayne, don't get me wrong. I'm no Craig supporter. He's a jerk for being such a hypocrite.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:27 amBut fair's fair.
missmolly, I'm not offended. It's just something that occurred to me. If only "Joe Sixpack" referred to my abs. But alas...
January 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am#76 - "I assume that restroom sex happens more frequently in men’s rooms, but how many of the men here have encountered this problem personally? Is it a big problem?" Comment by missmolly — January 16, 2008 @ 10:39 am
I'm gay, and I've never felt the urge to search for anonymous sex in public restrooms. I think it's more common for closet-cases to engage in public sex for two main reasons: 1) it's anonymous and less likely to "brand" the inidividual with tha "fag" label, and/or 2) there is no established gay community for them to go and "be themselves" at a bar or restaurant or community center.
One time, when I was in the Army and stationed at the Pentagon, did I ever get "tapped" at by someone in another stall. He kept tapping his foot, and I was uncomfortable so I left. I told a friend about it and he said that was a restroom that was well known for "anonymous sex" hookups. I've heard of a number of restrooms and roadside rest stops that are "well known" for being anonymous hookup sites, but it's never piqued my interest to intentionally visit them myself.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:33 amDid you guys catch The Daily Show/
January 16th, 2008 at 11:39 amJohn Bolton was the guest . He was whining about the debates.
They should he said be all about (fear mongering ) our security . Protecting Americans from Al- Queda , the biggest threat we face today.
He said he hated that the canidates were so off his message , when Jon
jumped in said
WE'RE LOVING IT.
Must see TV!!!!
Maybe we should have a contest to find a more appropriate moniker.
Comment by missmolly — January 16, 2008 @ 11:15 am
i remember that "john doe" (or "jane") was often used...
maybe not for the same application, but that's how I took it...
i DO miss our joe sixpack... "correct me if i'm wrong..." :-)
...
both the daily show and colbert had me in tears last night...
January 16th, 2008 at 11:48 amCertainly that he’s been accused of being gay doesn’t make his behavior that much more criminal.
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Being gay is one thing, I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:52 amA public restroom is a totally different matter.
I'd rather have Colbert's portrait than Dorothy's ruby red slippers any day
January 16th, 2008 at 11:52 amSo Wayne, you agree that hitting on someone in a bathroom is bad.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:53 amWhy is it ok to hit on someone right outside a bathroom, then?
So Wayne, you agree that hitting on someone in a bathroom is bad.
Why is it ok to hit on someone right outside a bathroom, then?
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Because not everyone is thinking of sex when goes to the restroom to dispose of a load?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:59 amComment by Evil Spaniard
So it should be a criminal act if someone hits on me at the grocery store since I'm only there for a pack of taco seasoning?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:04 pmShould people have to wear signs stating they're open to being hit on?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pmOr signs stating that any flirting will result in immediate arrest by police?
How is it free speech to flirt with someone anywhere in the US except in those particular public bathrooms?
Or are you going to stick with your argument that flirtation/hitting on should be illegal unless you know whether the person you're talking to is receptive?
So it should be a criminal act if someone hits on me at the grocery store since I’m only there for a pack of taco seasoning?
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Let's say that's at least immoral if the supposedly "receptive" part is in a "weak" situation, and the hitter profits unfairly from that situation.
And the one judging if is unfair is the "receptive" person. If that "receptive" person isn't receptive the hitter must cease and desist, because, if not, it's the hitter is abusing the "receptive" confidence.
As in rape, simply.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pmSome examples of "weak" target are: people with the pants in the ankles, kids, etc.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pmSo it should be a criminal act if someone hits on me at the grocery store since I’m only there for a pack of taco seasoning?
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Now you are in the realm of being just plain silly.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pmSo it should be a criminal act if someone hits on me at the grocery store since I’m only there for a pack of taco seasoning?
Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Just for the record, being "hit on" and soliciting anonymous sex is completely different.
And for the love of me, I'll never understand the interest in sexual activity in a public restroom (whether gay or straight).
January 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pmI have a hard enough time just being in one.
Call it restroomaphobia.
Wayne, he was arguing it should be illegal b/c the other person is not thinking of sex.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pmI'm not thinking of sex when shopping for taco seasonings, therefore if someone hits on me while shopping for taco seasonings, they should be thrown in jail.
And yes, hitting on someone is different from soliciting sex. But not necessarily.
If I say to a woman, "Hey baby, let's go back to my place," I am doing both.
It's like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
And preying on "weak" people, "rape" as someone referenced, is illegal. What Craig did was not attempted rape.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm“Rodriguez consulted CIA lawyers and officials, who told him that he had the legal right to order the destruction.â€
Tell the CIA lawyers that the American people and the World Community has the legal right to know the truth about the criminal activities of the CIA, and about the use of 'torture' by this criminal government contained in those tapes. Cover up is a crime, the destruction of evidence is a federal crime and torture is an internetinal crime!
January 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pm#111 - "Just for the record, being “hit on†and soliciting anonymous sex is completely different." Comment by DRxJ — January 16, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Not necessarily! I've heard some pretty graphic "hit on" lines that could count as propositions!
I can see where Wilco is coming from, but the truth of the matter is that there is a major double standard between straights and gays in what's considered "acceptable behavior".
Has anyone seen that commercial for some TV station where a woman comes out of a stall, followed by a guy, and the tag line is something like "Adult programming for adults"? Why is that considered OK, but gay Republicans trolling for sex is wrong? Personally, it's all wrong, but who's listening to me? ;-)
It's not right to have double standards such as this, but it's the state of things. It will change over time, but it's not going to happen overnight. Just as it took 100 years after the slaves were freed before the Civil Rights act was passed, it'll take time for gays to receive the equality that straight people currently enjoy.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pmMy 2 cents on Joe Six Pack is that it more refers to the average blue collar american who drinks beer rather than wine or champagne. I think its kinda like saying that "I have champagne tastes, but a beer wallet".
January 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pmExtended unemployment benefits don't work. It just encourages folks to procrastinate before looking for work.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pmExtended unemployment benefits don’t work. It just encourages folks to procrastinate before looking for work.
Comment by muckdog — January 16, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Yeah because people unemployed are LIVING THE HIGH LIFE on their REDUCED INCOME!! ROTFL, you're a DUMB LITTLE BIRD!
January 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pmOh and muckdog, THEFT and OTHER RELATED ECONOMIC CRIMES are higher in countries without unemployment. Sounds like NO UNEMPLOYMENT doesn't encourage people to WORK, but instead to STEAL - right?
ROTFL, what a STUPID LITTLE TARD you ARE!
January 16th, 2008 at 3:45 pmIt's the truth. But you seem to avoid the truth because it conflicts with your ideology.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pmIt’s the truth. But you seem to avoid the truth because it conflicts with your ideology. Comment by muckdog — January 16, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
It's THE OPINION of a MORON! Sorry TARD but you DON'T KNOW what THE TRUTH MEANS - you DELUSIONAL LITTLE WEAKLING!
January 16th, 2008 at 7:25 pmIt’s the truth. But you seem to avoid the truth because it conflicts with your ideology. Comment by muckdog — January 16, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
You never considered that longer term unemployment provides incentives for people to find better suited jobs with higher wages, and that the incentive isn't there to simply be a leisure TARD the WAY YOU WOULD?
You might instead of WHINING like the BRAT YOU CLEARLY ARE, do a little 'RESEARCH' on the effects of prolonged unemployment insurance and how it positively impacts earnings, taxes and other positive economic impacts. I'm SURE you won't find it on your RED STATE PROPAGANDA websites you and your fellow SCUM RESIDE IN - but it's there! But you seem to avoid the truth because it conflicts with your ideology. Google Kathleen Classen, and see her work from the 1970s that turned your NeoClassic RayGun NUTS on their HEADS when it came out!
January 16th, 2008 at 7:44 pm