i guess we should mention larry craig (since we are a blog of record) September 6, 2007Posted by agarvin in politics.
i don’t have a nytimes account, otherwise i would paste the article. i’m too lazy to get one. anyway, the point of the article is to say that both the officer and craig likely lied. the officer claimed that he did not respond to any of craig’s signals, and so he was being harassed – but that doesn’t make any sense since the whole signaling procedure requires response. craig claimed that he didn’t do anything wrong and that he ‘just has a wide stance’, but the officer’s account of things is right in line with the canonical signaling procedure.
the author also points out that it’s really quite strange that minnesota still has officers doing these sorts of missions in the first place. most of the people that engage in these activities are upstanding outside of their one fetish.
i thought the article was interesting because, somewhat counterintuitively i suppose, i don’t think that craig should resign. sure, he’s hella hypocritical, but that doesn’t seem like a resignation-worthy offense. in addition, while soliciting sex in bathrooms is odd, i don’t see it as a bad thing per se – and the article explains this pretty well. at the very least, i think it’s utterly ridiculous to put craig’s action on the same plateau as the mark foley page harassment incident.