Could you please be a little less cryptic?

Why the laughter? Because this bow-tied bozo gets five hours a week on teevee.

Why the laughter? The notion of Tucker Carlson beating anybody up is pretty funny. They were laughing at Carlson, not with him.

There are probably lots of women who would beat up on men who make unwanted sexual advances, as well. The probably is that they lack the physical ability to do so. If women had that ability men would have stopped making unwanted sexual advances centuries ago.

The question is does a person have a right not to be a victim of unwanted sexual advances?

If men can lose their jobs by denouncing they are gay and people believe they are closeted gays anyway, how does being solicited by men impacted their careers. Can't frequent occurences of unwanted sexual advances by men also be construed as an individual being gay?

If a man is with a professional colleague and is solicited by gay males that might have an impact on his career and reputation. As other colleagues could chime in, 'yeah, when I was with John at the conference, a couple of men tried to hit on him'...a few rounds of this type of statement in the office could result in the man's reputation on his job being impacted.

Given that renouncing being gay is insufficient to put such scurrilous rumors to rest, what recourse would a male have?

It is these types of statements which characterize a person's attire as 'gay' that create the need for individuals who are not gay to renounce it.

As you are certainly aware, lots of males who engage in homosexual acts look like thugs and/or Brooks Brother corporate executives.

Why are you singling out Tucker based on his bow ties. His liking bow ties is not indicative of his sexual preferences but rather his taste in clothing.

Craig is not a hypocrite. Simply because an individual engages in homosexual acts does not mean that he should advocate or promote the gay agenda. There are many individuals who feel no need to politicize sexual behavior and who choose to live a lifestyle other than that of a 'gay'.

Craig is an elected representative and as such he represents the views of his constituency. His constituency did not support gay marriage and so he was absolutely right to oppose it as a politician. 

Isn't this the very essence of the problems Democrats are anger with the Dem majority congress for right now? Having put them in the majority, Americans are angry that they are not representing their wishes to end the war.

It would have been the same for Idahoans had Craig chose to vote for gay marriage...they would have been outraged.

Politicians are not obligated to support agendas or policies based on their personal views and lifestyles rather as elected officials it is their duty to represent the political views of their constituency.

The people who are being hypocritical are those who do not understand representational government and who obviously feel that Craig was suppose to not represent his district. That is wrong and Craid should be left alone about that.

Lest We Forget.....

This was the same behavior that accompanied Don Imus' infamous comment. The frat-boy snicker and insider guffaws from Bernard McGuirk that encouraged and "legitimized" Imus' rant seem rife on the MSNBC producer roster.

The same patterns or "class" of behavior (although toned down a bit) is exhibited by "Morning Joe" and many of the vapid, Dem-bashing talking heads reading news copy and "interviewing" the MSNBC punditry "experts".

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada

"Republicans have a very small tent, but it has a very large closet"

(borrowed from SayitwithWookies, commenter on Wonkette)

whiterosebuddy,

The question is does a person have a right not to be a victim of unwanted sexual advances?

That is not at all what is at issue in Carlson's initial telling of the story (though by now, oddly enough, the story seems to have changed somewhat).  Carlson refused those advances, left the park, and rounded up a posse to pound the man's head into a stall.  A premeditated assault goes beyond a simple matter of refusing to be a "victim."

Well, it's funny that if Tucker Carlson wants to kick your butt that you have to wait around 20 minutes while Carlson finds a friend of suitable size so that he can confront you.

If attacked by Tucker Carlson, punch him before he can find somebody to do his fighting for him.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Eddie-george,

And I actually have some respect for Carlson for confronting the person - whether slamming heads was warranted in the circumstances is another matter, but no issues with his taking a stand.

Strongly disagree.  By his own account, Carlson refused the advance and left the scene, only to return with help to slam the guy's head into a stall.  So, what kept Carlson from finding a cop, other than an immature and insecure need for revenge in the form of a premeditated physical assault?  Carlson tells the story as a traumatic event in the formative part of his life as a morally virtuous conservative libertarian, but with no remorse for sidestepping the law for personal violent satisfaction.  What ever happened to "character counts"?

As far as I know, Carlson's story hasn't been corroborated. And the whole thing sounded made up to me. But if I understand him correctly, his claim wasn't that he was merely subjected to unwelcome "advances", but that he was actually groped or physically accosted in some way - in other words that he was subjected to a sexual assault. Carlson didn't change his story in his subsequent statement; he added additional detail.

Vigilantism is wrong; so going back to bang a guy's head against the wall for any reason after the incident has passed is wrong - whether the initial act was an attempted sexual assault, or a guy trying to grab your wallet. If a crime was committed, it should be reported to the police. On the other hand it's wrong to insinuate that Carlson admitted to some sort of unprovoked gay-bashing, singling out a person for attack merely because he was gay.

As I said, I think Carlson is making some or all of this stuff up. The claim seems to be that he and a friend alerted the police, prompting an arrest, but that they still had both the time and inclination to go back to the rest room and accost the alleged assailant before the police arrived. It doesn't add up to me. Especially not for someone like Carlson.

If Carlson went in with a pre-meditated intention to beat the guy up, that's wrong. Period.

My hunch is Carlson is talking up his own anecdote, but who knows, maybe he did go in, told the pervert to give it a break, and it escalated into a full-on fight. Equally, maybe he just went in and beat the guy up. I don't know and it's slightly beside the point.

My two key points are these:

(1) Whatever your sexual orientation, soliciting people in a PUBLIC RESTROOM is disgusting. It's one of the few occasions I reckon you can't complain if someone lashes out at you.

(2) What's funny about Carlson's story is beyond me.

And I agree with your final point... quite what's relevant about Tucker's locker-room descriptions of his formative years is also a mystery. I presume the usual bobbleheads were talking around Larry Craig's situation, and as per normal, were trying to make the story about themselves.

The advancer doesn't know they're unwanted until they try, after all.

 I disagree. Yes, the advancer does know that their actions are UNSOLICITED. They know they are initiating the advance. Typically, they do not respond to being told no either. They continue with their advances and or may grope the person.

If public restrooms were mixed-gender it would be the same for women and men. A legitimate "pass" would be extremely unwelcome, because of the captive nature of bathroom users. It's quite appropriate for there to be laws against exploiting the peculiar circumstances of a public bathroom.

If a man gropes a woman and she slaps him, that's punishment, and appropriate. If a man gropes a man, and gets the crap beat out of him, that's way beyond appropriate.

And the whole thing sounded made up to me.

but he's yelling "fire" in a crowded theater by modeling a reaction that's counterproductive to "mutual understanding via peaceful means."

recently, a guy told me "I have a crush on you" and I politely responded "you're cute too but I fall in love with women, not men, and you don't arouse me." his feelings weren't hurt and I told him that "you're a nice guy so you'll find someone... don't worry."

as the "larry craig" thing unfolds, I wished that craig was smart enough to tell america that horneyness and love are too seperate things.

I think that tucker was being an asshole for deeply hurting a guy in lust by adding insult to injury.

To boldly go...

If a man gropes a woman and she slaps him, that's punishment, and appropriate. If a man gropes a man, and gets the crap beat out of him, that's way beyond appropriate

Why? If women had the capability to beat the crap out of the man they more than likly would. You think the only reason folks want to beat the crap out of the person is because it is the same gender. I am saying it is as obnoxious and reprehensible the other way and many women would beat the crap out of a man if they could.

What you seem to want to do is arbitrate how strong the offended party can be about expressing the depth of their offense.  If you are a very pretty and attractive women or have disproportionate physical attributes about or below the waist repeated and unwanted sexual advances, as well as groping, can occur far more frequently than the average looking or physically endowed individual receives.  Which is why beating the crap out of the person is inappropriate due to the repeated nature of the offense. The more individuals learn that it is inappropriate the less frequent those solicitations would become.  Female vigilantism against groping and unwarranted sexual advances could rightly become the next women's issue as even unattractive women know how powerless they feel when leered at or forced to not go out to certain places due to the ferocity of the unwanted male advances.

All elected officials of the federal goverment are obligated to serve the federal consitution even when their constituents don't like parts of it.

Craig supported national laws and even a national consitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This is a grotesque violation of principles of federalism and the rights of his own constitutuents to determine such matters through their state government.

Legislators have no more authority to set aside constitutional principles for momentarily popular causes than a policeman would have the authority to beat the crap out of a suspect just because a nearby crowd is applauding.

Moreover, a hypocrite is someone who feigns beliefs or virtues that they don't have. Craig claimed to possess strong 'family values' in the conservative sense of the term, and rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, most conservatives consider cheating on your wife with anonymous men in a public restroom as a violation of 'family values.' Craig knew this.

So do you.

"As to why being gay is a career killer, you need to ask all those people in Idaho or on TPM who are calling for Craig to resign."

it works both ways. I'd want him to resign for making same sex couples into second class citizens through the legislation he promotes.

even Dick Cheney noted that his daughter should have the right to conceive a child within a same sex marraige.

the problem for craig is that gay bashers own radio stations and mix pseudo religion and pseudo family values together in order to make moral accusations which only divide communities.

the best thing for america would be for folks like craig to trump that crap by recognizing it as crap.

"He was anything but a hypocrite."

he was a hypocrite and a fake if you believe that he wasn't true to his core values. as a senator, he has the moral burden of being a leader, not a follower-- as you suggest.

To boldly go...

Why which?

Would be OK if women beat up men? I agree it is reprehensible in any direction to make offensive sexual advances.

When we say "beat the crap out of" I assume we are saying "injure substantially", that is, broken nose, concussion, etc.

Sorry, that's not appropriate for either sex in any combination. If one wants to deliver more than a slap, one should call the cops.

Your example would be self-defense against rape. Carlson's perhaps-apocryphal example is not.

Exactly; I my eyes, he became a hypocrite when he starting pretending to "be one of his constituients." Essentially, he was giving his district the GFE treatment.

If he made statements like: "Although I don't agree with the 'defense of marraige act', my district wants it so i voted for it" then I wouldn't call him a hypocrite.

To boldly go...

I was saddened by Craig's ... insistence ... on not being gay.

as I implied in another posting, craig might not "be gay." i.e., while I think some guys are cute, I don't fall in love with them-- only women.

I totally find it believeable that craig was only using men for sexual pleasure and nothing else. In fact, he was looking for a casual encounter at the airport, not love.

In fact, I truely believe that if craig was gay, he'd leave his wife but they're still together because their partnership trumps everything else. i.e marraige is a committment, not a sexuality.

To boldly go...

There is nothing in the constitution that supports gay marriage.

The irony of the Craig scandal is that he isn't defending himself from his political opposites; the liberals, Democrats or gays, he's defending himself from Republicans and his constituents.

There is nothing in the constitution that supports gay marriage.

 Moreover, a hypocrite is someone who feigns beliefs or virtues that they don't have. Craig claimed to possess strong 'family values' in the conservative sense of the term, and rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, most conservatives consider cheating on your wife with anonymous men in a public restroom as a violation of 'family values.' Craig knew thi

 We do not know that Craig was feigning beliefs. The presumption is that because he engaged in homosexual acts that he was suppose to support gay rights. Kerry said in the last election that because he was catholic he did not beleive that meant he could impose his religious beliefs on the electorate when it came to abortion. Would you call him a hypocrite? Many evangelists and religious right people think he is though.

 Many married people engage in infidelity yet they do not believe that infidelity is good for the public. They recognize that it is a personal transgression and should not be public policy if they were given an opportunity to make infidelity acceptable in marriage. The same goes for people who drink. They do not beleive that public policy should support drinkers when they drive. Are they hypocrites as well? There is a huge difference between personal behavior and beliefs and public policy.

Why which?

Both. Why is a slap appropriate and beating the crap out of the person, not?  When is it OK to determine the degree of redress for the indiviidual offended. Let's be clear, I am not suggesting anything lethal here.

 If one wants to deliver more than a slap, one should call the cops.

Women who suffer domestic abuse already know that is no redress.

I was saddened by Craig's public display insistence not just on having done no wrong but on not being gay.

Why? Many individuals who engage in homosexual acts do not consider themselves gay. People get to choose their sexual proclivities. Just as they get to choose to call themselves gay. Which is one of my primary points of contention, people choose what sexual acts they will engage in. Some choose swinging, some choose bisexuality and still others sado-maschoism. Their sexual choices are not an identity. That is what Craig was saying. He is not gay. Why is that not acceptable?  Doesn't he get to choose for himself?

Marriage is a state issue. There is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government any authority over marriage, and there is an immense body of literature that explains--if any explantion you need--why this is so.

Craig was not serving Idahoans when voting to nationally ban same-sex marriage--Idaho already prohibits same-sex marriage--he was violating the constitutional principles that were his sworn duty to uphold in an attempt to impose the views of Idahoans on those living in other states.

Furthermore, cheating on your spouse is not hypocrisy. Failing to live up to standards is not hypocrisy. Failing to live up to standards that you're publically pretending to live up to IS hypocrisy.

Drinking is not hypocrisy. Wanting laws against drunk driving while you engage in drunk driving is not hypocrisy. Conveying that you yourself never drive drunk when you actually drive drunk all the time IS hypocrisy.

Not lethal, just waterboarding for gropers, eh? I've become unsure what your point is, but I'm sticking to my feeling that nothing except physical attack justifies physical attack intended to cause injury. I include rape in physical attack, so one person's example of a guy crowding another guy forcibly into a stall would count as rape and justify self-defense, at that time. It would not justify retribution.

BTW, we weren't talking about spouse abuse, but actions in public. But if the cops aren't a help, I guess it's Hobbes' world.

Not lethal, just waterboarding for gropers, eh? 

Hmmm, waterboarding for gropers...ooo, let's see it's not lethal but it definitely terrifys and intimidates the individual...worth consideration, I'd say.  Can we start a waterboarding petition for punishment of gropers?

I'm sticking to my feeling that nothing except physical attack justifies physical attack intended to cause injury. I include rape in physical attack, so one person's example of a guy crowding another guy forcibly into a stall would count as rape and justify self-defense

Surely you are not conflating the act of rape to being crowded in a stall, are you?   If so, you sound like that ESPN commentator Larry Smith, who said that Vicks actions were worse than Kobe's!

You apparently don't consider that groping is anything more significant than if, say, a stranger grabbed your arm.

For many women, having someone grab their breast is a much stronger violation. It can psychologically haunt them, to some degree, for the rest of their lives. Because people do things like that, women learn that their lives are circumscribed, that they are "asking for it" if they walk alone after dark, etc., etc.

A slap is not, by any means, sufficient punishment.

whiterosebuddy said:

"Many individuals who engage in homosexual acts do not consider themselves gay."

Are they Bisexual?

Are they deluding themselves? What word or words are used to describe them?

If Barney Frank didn't consider himself gay, how would he describe himself?

I engage in heterosexual acts, but I'm not heterosexual?

I'm soooooo confused. :-)

Are they Bisexual?

Are they deluding themselves? What word or words are used to describe them?

They could be bisexual, no they are not deluding themselves. They simply do not consider what they do sexually as an identity. Do you consider what you do, as a heterosexual an identity? I doubt it. Rather it is something that you do, not who you are. Gore Vidal, said it best...'there is no such thing as a homosexual there are only individuals who engage in homosexual acts."

I think that was Craig's point. He is not gay and chooses not to live a 'gaylifestyle'  That is his choice. Unlike race, being gay is a choice. Men who sleep with men are not necesarily gay in that they choose it as an identity or choose to live that lifestyle. Craig is married has a family and does not consider himself gay.

Here's the question:

Is a catholic, catholic if they choose to support abortion?

Then he's either defending himself as a hypocrite or he should be defending himself as a gay or Bi person

Why? Based on him defending the values he believes in does that make him hypocritical?  And why doe anyone have to defend their sexual proclivities? Isn't that private? Clinton only had to defend his infidelity to his wife, why should it be any different for Craig? Why are his personal legal sexual choices any of the public's business?

Maybe he decided that sex was a private behavior

had craig believed that sex was a "private thing," he wouldn't have advocated the "defense of marraige" law which continues to divide the country by implying that same sex couples are less worthy of marraige.

i.e. I go to an episcopal church and the divide is clearly becoming wider and that's sad since the dream of universal communion only gets that much further away.

I think not. Seems that he had the courage of his convictions and the ability to discern between private sins and public policy.

well, when you commit lewd acts in a public restroom, those private sins start impacting the public. as you may remember, when the Foley page scandal broke, Senator Craig was in the crosshairs as well and, again, in that situation his sins were not private and he seemed to care less about public policy.

To boldly go...

Based on him defending the values he believes in does that make him hypocritical?

And why doe anyone have to defend their sexual proclivities?

As to Craig, he isn't defending his sexual proclivities, he hides them, then he lies about them. As to others, generally speaking, you only have to hide your sexual proclivities from the political system if you're a Republican. Most Democrats don't care if you're gay, and that's how it should be.

Why are his personal legal sexual choices any of the public's business?

They shouldn't be, unless you're selling yourself and running for elective office as one who looks askance at gay people, and who, once elected signs on to anti gay legislation, while at the same time being gay yourself. That to me is fraud.

Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, Dem Barney Frank, both known gays, and as far as I know, they never ran for office attacking gays, nor did they ever push legislation discriminating against gays.

This is playing with semantics.

You say "being gay is a choice".

Yes, at birth, when handed my
FORM # 146, "THE SEXUAL IDENTITY OPTION" I checked the BOX marked "HETEROSEXUAL."

On what do you base the assertion that "being gay is a choice."?

but then, capitol punishment doesn't raise the innocent from the dead either...

To boldly go...

On what do you base the assertion that "being gay is a choice."?

sexuality can be conditioned to some extent, I think. if you read the UK papers, there can be "gay sex epedemics" at the boarding houses where students live.

and, after that experience, I'd imagine that some kids have the "Brokeback Mountain" experience where they feel gay by nuture and straight by nature.

To boldly go...

Tucker Carlson seems to be one of those deeply conflicted individuals who is very vocal and agressive to hide his own self-doubt. Yet another hypocrite?

d

Why is that not rape, or at least attempted? Maybe you misunderstood the example; I meant a forceful sexual assault

I suppose it is a gender thing..but most females interpret the word rape as forcible penetration. Male convicts do also.

What "values" is he defending His own.

What has become to be known as 'family values'.

As to Craig, he isn't defending his sexual proclivities

That's what I said. I said he doesn';t have to. So why all the fuss about him not defending his sexual proclivities for furtive homosexual encounters in public restrooms?

As to others, generally speaking, you only have to hide your sexual proclivities from the political system if you're a Republican

False. The republicans have a group called LogCabin republicans..the democrats have no such corresponding group. If anything it is more acceptable to be gay independent of your politics if you are GOP than if you are a democrat. That is my entire point. Your sex life does not have to be political. That is a choice. It is not a fraud. People do not have to proclaim gay as an identity nor live the gay lifestyle based on their desire to engage in homosexual acts, it is their perogative...not an identity.

They shouldn't be, unless you're selling yourself and running for elective office as one who looks askance at gay people, and who, once elected signs on to anti gay legislation, while at the same time being gay yourself. That to me is fraud.

It is not a fraud. His public life is consistent with his voting record. Why can't you see that? Why are you unable to understand that this man chooses not to live the gay lifestyle, chooses not to identify with being gay and chooses to have a marriage and family even though he engages in homosexual acts?  What is your problem. People's sexual lives are not an identity it is something they do...it is not who they are. It is not the end all and be all of them as human beings. Sex is just a behavior and a part of them but not their entirety...geeez!  Why is that so hard for you to accept. 

This is what annoys so many people. Be gay if you choose but don't try to say that others are simply because it is your choice. Live and let live. Sex is a behavior not an identity. For all those people who fail to understand that and want to claim it as an identity GREAT!  Just don't think that because you choose that identity that every single person who engages in homosexual acts has to also. They don't!  That is their choice. They get to choose just like all those people who want to claim gay as their identity had a choice.

You do not have to be a fraud to not choose your sexual proclivities as an identity. You simply have to know and understand that is not a lifestyle you prefer.

Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, Dem Barney Frank, both known gays, and as far as I know, they never ran for office attacking gays, nor did they ever push legislation discriminating against gays.

And?

That is their choice. Just as the gay lifestyle is a choice.