If Mother Theresa wanted to disclose her religious doubts, fine by me. But it seems wrong for anyone--even people in public life--to be made to explain non-criminal sexual activity or their take on the idea of God.

Yes, these things might have some bearing on a politican's conduct in office, but so what? Judge a person on the basis of those things that they were put into office to do.

All this seems like a displacement activity drummed up to divert us from the real issues: misconduct in public office, not outside of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Larry's WIDE STANCE on narcissism and MT's exploration of humanity. Whatever Mother Theresa did and why she did it, she did as a realized human being. 'Wide Stance' Larry is a million miles from any such exploration let alone any self discovery. My fear is the near certain realization that the government of our country is full of these pathetic beings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't give a damn what anybody does in the bathroom if they do it with a consenting adult, and I don't want police spending time in the WC trying to find out what is going on there. It matters not to me at all who, or how many people, politicians screw. In fact, I want to make certain that they are fully satisfied sexually when they pass laws as that might reduce their tendency to be uptight when they do so.

Why not finance a 'Piece Corps' for high government officials to ensure that they are not frustrated. Judges, Presidents, and legislators should have access to a supply of civil servants who have the responsibility to make them relax. There should be women for men, men for men, men for women, women for women, and luminaries from the south might want members of their own family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

for the same reason the Army makes a big deal out of decorating soldiers in wartime: to put a good public face on its institutional ass.

We're not seeing so many medal ceremonies right now because kicking down doors and frightening old women is a harder sell to the public than singlehandedly clearing out an enemy machine gun nest. Not that the occupation is any easier on the troops; they seldom get time to point their guns before they get killed.

As for the church, with so many people not coming to mass, using birth control, getting divorced and voting with their feet, they're fast-tracking MT's canonization and saying, "Hey, folks, Mother Theresa had doubts too, and she's a saint!" I wonder which PR agencies they're using.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The partial or complete fessings up of Foley, Gingrich, Vitter, Vick, MT, Haggard and others leave us wondering about the state of unaware closeted others who are yet to up with a good healthy fessing.
Is it possible for the momentum of public confessions to build? If so, might we look forward to Cheney, Bush and others coming clean about their lies, deceptions and other crimes?
No, I don't think so. Sorry. What was I thinking? Although some of them have the strength (?) to admit their narrow conservative/republican stances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The church is bragging about that? Huh? It seems more like something Christopher Hitchens would have uncovered, to put in a new edition of his book about what an embezzler & total fraud she was.

The Carnahans have to make nicey-nicey noises about the RCC since they're in one of the more Catholic upper south states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are not exactly dealing here with a culture known for self reflection.
i.e. When George W (43) was asked to name a mistake he has made. This epitome of American culture replied "I can't think of one".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Was Larry Craig peering into your stall in the bathroom? No. He was sizing up a man who appeared to be lingering there while others pooped and went. Smells something of entrapment to me. I can see airport travelers complain about hearing sex acts in neighboring bathroom stalls, but not for fear of unwarranted solicitation. Why are policemen detailed to interrupt a time-honored last resort among few options for lonely homosexuals to hook up?

I believe Senator Craig when he says he's not gay. To a homophobic conservative, the idea of a male partner may seem dirtier than a quick lewd act to feed his nagging alter-ego.

That said, I'm damn glad he's unmasked for the humanity-hater he is. The GOP plays by no rules. We should celebrate the rare occasion it works for the common good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Credit to David Brooks (NY Times). People want to be able to take or send their children to the bathroom at the airport or restaurant with having to worry. That's what at the heart of this. - Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Canadians are a very tolerant bunch and we really don't care what someone does in their bedroom as long as they don't rub our noses in the details after the fact. I think that the majority of us are more gay-apathetic than gay-positive. So I find it absolutely astounding to learn that police forces in the US are spending their time trolling for queers in public bathrooms. And then arresting and booking these down low dudes and making them into criminals. Amazing. You'd think there would be worse criminals, committing more heinous crimes, that would be far more worthy of their attention. Now wouldn't it be ironic if this "sting operation" had been "spearheaded" by Larry the Lech at some point in the past? Such is this fate of this hypocrite: he made his own toilet and now he's been flushed down in it. With the rest of the offal, and the slops. It's all so strangely poetic in a lurid and putrid sort of way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..............could not happen to a more deserving guy. Let him live with his sorry stupid hypocritical ass and let the rest of us ignore him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beyond all the hypocrisy, of which there is more than enough in both main parties, what should really get your attention is that this sleazy bastard actually looks for sexual encounters in a shit-house! That alone should disqualify him for any position of responsibility much less drafting laws to govern the rest of us.
What a romantic scenario! Lurking around in a malodorous environment--this is a truly deranged individual! He needs time in a rubber room not the Senate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hear people saying why should the police target public sex?

True story: 2 incidents.

1. My family and I (husband, wife, 12 yr old son, baby in backpack) went on a walk one fall day in a nearby riverfront park--we had just moved to town. There were several men in their cars in the parking lot, but I didn't think anything of it. As we walked, we noticed various other ppl in the park, all men. We smiled and said "hello" to everyone we passed, as one does. Most all of these men startled when we said hello, few returned our salutations. One stared and stared at our son. At one point, we heard very loud grunting coming from somewhere in the trees. My husband and I exchanged puzzled glances, but didn't think too much of it. We're progressive people, have many gay friends and openly champion gay/lesbians rights in our community; I kind of figured we'd stumbled onto the local place where closeted men find each other. But I didn't feel comfortable going back to that park with my kids; and it's a pity--this park is gorgeous, isolated and the closest one to our suburban neighborhood.

2. So when my g/f the following spring suggested a picnic, I said let's go to this park. After all, neither of us were men, and surely those men would be circumspect--I figured anyone there would avoid us. I wish.

We set up our picnic overlooking the river, in view of the parking lot. Two men were already there, but they seemed to be waiting for others. One of these men kept watching us (no biggie) but the other kept approaching and standing ever near us, listening to our conversation. We ignored him, thinking that would make him go away. But no, he came closer and closer and finally SAT DOWN WITH US AT THE EDGE OF OUR BLANKET. I finally looked up, frankly a bit frightened and said firmly and clearly "excuse me, we'd like to be alone." He looked a bit put off, and got up. But he only moved off a few feet, kept watching us (with one eye on the parking lot now) and actually glared a bit. He kept standing about 4-5 feet away and continuing to stare, an annoyed look on his face. Or maybe thinking we'd start making out and he'd get to watch (?) We'd had enough by this time and left.

The latter event made me realize that I could NOT go into that park under any circumstances. These places have private, internal messages and codes. The danger is that simply by entering this public park, we were sending signals in a language we didn't speak, didn't intend and didn't understand; others decided we were sending messages that we didn't intend and the whole thing could have been a serious mess.

And naturally, when the public outrage reached a crescendo about this place, everyone said it was those filthy, dirty gays--see how they make public places unfit? See why we need to keep marriage safe, holy and het?

It's enough to make a true ally cry. I want to be able to take my kids, friends and grandma to a public park. I also want everyone to be able to marry, date and walk freely in public.

The gay rights movement needs all the help it can get--and public sex only makes it far far worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no reason to pretend that Mother Theresa was the wonderful person constructed by corporate media.

In real life Mother Theresa was a friend and supporter of the murderous regime directed by the wealthy Duvalier family in Haiti; by contrast, she urged the poor victims of the Bhopal Union Carbide explosion to forgive the corporations and governments that had conspired to blind and maim them and to kill their family members.

Did Mother Theresa ever visit Archbishop Romero? Did she ever ask Catholic military men throughout Latin American to stop torturing civilians?

The reflexive respect provided Mother Theresa is a farce and is very much undeserved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So all of you who believe sex and religion ought to be private, is it ok if a public official lies to his/her spouse?

Yes, I am a supporter of some personal privacy, even for elected officials. If a candidate is single, gay or straight or bi or whatever, I do not need to know the particulars of his/her sex life. If someone lives a poly life, be open about that, no details needed. JUST DO NOT LIE.

As to religion, it is hugely important to know a candiates stance. It is naive to think one's religion doesn't impact one's moral choices. I wish there were more atheist/agnostic candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the one hand I think that what the political right has been doing for the past twenty+ years is so evil that pretty much anything that can be done to get them out of power is justified. Gingrich and his pals actually wrote the book on this kind of behavior, so they shouldn't be so upset when it's turned around on them. I, for one, am pretty fed up with being called a traitor or a political nut when I disagree with what they're doing.

On the other hand, ruining some guy's life because he's gay or engages in what most of us might consider a little dirty seems dirty itself. I feel a little unclean about what is going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think that Craig should be dumped because he is gay, but would you want to be represented by someone so pathetic that he had to hit up men in a public toilet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PUNISHED you for caving in to Bush and GOP on everthing especially tax cuts for the rich, war in Iraq, BIG BROTHER act, etc ... Why don't you go to Idaho and find a real Democrat to replace the traitor or are you too much of a BULLSHIT Establishment "Democrat" ?!?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing this Craig matter has made me think on is how many things we do are simply matters of custom .
I am sure for most of time that humans have been on Earth sex was public.
At a gut level I probably feel like most people in the USA and have been uncomfortable the few times I have accidentally run across a couple being sexual while hiking.
Is it harmful? No more so than people being gay or eating with their elbows on the table.
While i am fine with having our current standard of "morality" as far as public sex goes, i don't think it should be a criminal offense and the police should spend their time more wisely.
Of course the police waste most of their time protecting people from what they should be free to do and using the disgusting tactic of entrapment to do it.
Sex in public is better than violence in public. In fact ,to me, sex is ALWAYS better then violence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]