Free Reggie Gossett!

Last night a friend of mine was arrested while trying to help out a fellow citizen. According to the bwog, Reggie Gossett and his girlfriend Illyana Mendez- Penate, were at a party for the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, which is a transgender rights advocacy group, when they witnessed a black man being violently detained outside. When the group from the party asked what was going on and why the man was being so violently detained, things got a little out of hand. According to the SRLP website, the two police officers from the 9th Precinct in Lower Manhattan then grabbed two individuals (presumably Gossett and Mendez-Penate) and violently arrested them. The officers also saw fit to pepper spray the crowd on the sidewalk where Reggie and Illyana were. If these facts are true, then it certainly sounds like the police were a little overzealous in their arrest tactics. As far as my research tells me, to verbally ask a police officer why someone is being detained while remaining on the sidewalk is no crime. Now if Reggie and Illyana had jumped into the fray and attempted to free this mystery man from police custody, then there's a different story. But because I know Reggie and he is far from a violent being (when I met his girlfriend she did not strike me as one who would throw down, either), I doubt that either of them initiated a violent confrontation with the po.

I talked with an officer from the 9th Precinct and he told me that Reggie had been transported to central booking (I am assuming Illyana went with him). I then tried calling the number he gave me for the Manhattan Criminal Court and received no answer. The folks at the Manhattan Early Case Assessment Bureau (part of the DA's office) were less than helpful, but I do not blame them since bwog posted their number and told everyone to call them to have the charges dropped. I would not suggest calling Manhattan ECAB because they're the ones who decide what Reggie and Illyana get charged with and pissing them off is not going to help. They have a lot of work to do and calling them to harass them or have them drop the charges is just not the most productive use of one's time, so don't call. The arraignment is to take place sometime today (he was arrested last night and by law should be seen by a judge within 24 hours, though this is not always the case) at 100 Centre Street in Lower Manhattan. From these preliminary details it sounds like Reggie and Illyana were more victims than they were perpetrators and hopefully someone in the DA's office or down at court recognizes that, too. Peace.

Photo - The 9th Precinct stationhouse (www.en.wikipedia.org)

Daily Wrap Up (Sort of)

More like two stories that I'm not going to do two full posts on in one. Let's go chronologically, shall we?

The Middle East is not enough...
No, we need to alienate ourselves from Europe, too. As was reported on CNN.com last night, National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell told the Senate Judiciary Committee that al-Qaeda might be recruiting and training Europeans to carry out attacks on American soil. He, along with Michael Chertoff's concurring, said that because Europeans do not necessarily require visas to come into America, some terrorists who are European might be slipping under the radar and entering the country (holy shit, some of them might even be white!). But wait, I thought that they were all coming in from Mexico.

Anyway, this does not bode well. Let's say that we require visas for all European travelers because we are so scared of a couple of them blowing up the whole country. That will piss off the EU and other European countries who will require the same of us. This will make it even more inconvenient to travel to foreign countries because beyond Customs taking forever to search your bags, you're going to have to go through the whole visa process, as well. So before we go an piss off our European friends across the pond, let's think about this whole thing first.

Man Robs Bank with Bomb Strapped to his Body
Strange, but true. A man with an apparent bomb strapped around to his body (authorities have yet to verify whether it was a live bomb or not) robbed a bank in Hollywood, Florida. The po is saying that the man was a victim and not a perpetrator in this crime, as apparently three masked men stormed his house yesterday and forced him to rob the bank, where he also works. Apparently the men made off with a lot of dough, too.

This reminded me of an incident a few years back in which a pizza delivery man had a live bomb locked around his neck and died when it exploded. He had told authorities, before the bomb detonated, that he had nothing to do with it and that he was an innocent victim. Four years after the incident, authorities came out and said that he helped plan it and that his two other co-conspirators pretty much played him. There is nothing really to analyze here, I just find the two stories intriguing and, it being such a weird crime, was wondering why CNN did not connect the two. Peace.

Photos - Top: Europe (www.countryreports.org)Bottom: The man with a bomb strapped to his body after he robbed the bank (www.cnn.com)

Ahmadinejad Speaks

It was a crazy day yesterday, what with the President of Iran here on campus and Secret Service everywhere (not to mention the po). While Columbia was being lambasted all week in the media and on blogs and comments on said blogs, it seems that everyone suddenly supported Ahmadinejad coming to Columbia to speak because PresBo ripped him a new one in his introduction of the leader. Personally, I thought that it was a bit harsh (not saying that it was not true for the most part, but the man was still a guest), but PresBo has argued before the Supreme Court, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The campus was buzzing since 11 in the morning with protesters from both within Columbia's community and from elsewhere. I have most of the day on tape, I am just waiting for it back from CBS (we were in negotiations over the footage but the negotiations fell through). Once I clean it up a bit I will post it here.

Like I said, interesting day. I saw protesters scream at each other all day, took orders from the Secret Service to close the window I was looking out of in Hogan (which had an amazing view of where Ahmadinejad's convoy came into Lerner) via an NYPD sergeant (who was nice about it) and an NYPD captain (who was kind of a dick about it) who kindly knocked on our door and told us that they did not want to have to send the feds in, because in the words of the captain, "They do things differently." The speech itself was disappointing because the translator for Mr. Ahmadinejad was pretty awful, granted that Farsi is a difficult language to translate into English. Because of the translating issue I've yet to watch the entire speech start to finish but have heard a majority of it. As I'm sure most people are saying, the best line was Mr. Ahmadinejad's assertion that Iran has escaped the "homosexual phenomenon." Which brings me to one of my points: hearing Ahmadenijad speak without any media spin and a news anchor telling me what he said and why it is evil was really beneficial to me. To hear the man say something as ridiculous as that really puts into perspective everything else he has to say. Before this I just thought he was anti-gay (like the majority of Republicans today) but he is in absolute denial. To hear something like that firsthand - without media interference - discredits the man more than any pundit or talking head screaming about Mr. Ahmadinejad and his anti-American policies.

Additionally, the hypocrisy and/or ignorance of many of the people who were against him coming was overwhelming. First, many commenters on the Spectator's website and other websites concerning the visit denounced Columbia as a whole institution, attacking the students and anyone affiliated with the school. The invitation was sent out by President Bollinger after Ahmadinejad contacted Richard Bulliet, a professor within the university, asking for a renewal of last year's invitation, which was canceled by PresBo. Which brings me to hypocrisy point number 2. Many people have been crying foul over Ahmadinejad's invitation and the rescinded invitation to Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist, including this kid. Many people said that Gilchrist was being censored and that if Gilchrist could not speak then Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to speak and that Bollinger was being an ass. This is why that argument is bullshit: Gilchrist came last year and had a chance to speak but Public Safety bungled it by not protecting him from a pissed-off crowd (the Secret Service was much more effective in keeping the crowd under control for Ahmadinejad), Gilchrist was invited this year by Dave Eisenbach, who leads a program called Friendly Fire, which is meant to get speakers together to debate hot-button issues, but had the invitation rescinded when there was confusion over whether one of the students involved in last year's brawl would debate him. The invitation was not rescinded because of Gilchrist's views, but was rescinded because there would be no counter point to his argument (which was a prerequisite for Mr. Ahmadinejad's visits). So basically we just did a reversal this year: Ahmadinejad can come, too bad for Gilchrist. Hopefully next year we'll invite neither and skip the whole mess.

Another point made by those opposed to Ahmadinejad's speaking was that the man (through Iran) sells Iraqi insurgents weapons that are used to kill American soldiers (this is per Bush and company, so I'm not exactly sold on it given their history of information gathering, oh, and this), but if this is true it certainly is wrong. However, let's look at America's history and their dealings with Iran and Iraq. To make a long story short the American government, under Ronald Reagan, sold arms to both Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. To quote a former senior State Department official: "We wanted to avoid victory by both sides." In other words, the United States wanted the two countries to be in a perpetual war. And now we've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and we're licking our lips looking at Iran. Just saying. So it does not make Iran's alleged arms sales to Iraq right if we did the same thing not two decades ago, but to say that Ahmadinejad should not speak because he forfeited his right when he did these alleged arms sales might not be completely accurate, because Reagan was honored as a national hero when he died and I doubt the same would be given to Ahmadinejad (nor should it be).

These are just some of the arguments that many people used to say that Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to speak here. Some pointed to the fact that he's a foreigner (no mention of citizenship requirements in the first amendment), some said he is so anti-American he should not be allowed to speak in America (I do not think I need to point out the hypocrisy of that one), etc., etc. I heard from a friend in the Office of Public Affairs here in Columbia that people were calling up and threatening to take their kids out Columbia. To that I say go ahead, deprive your child of an Ivy League education because the president of the university, who would destroy you toe-to-toe in a debate on free speech in America, decides to host a controversial speaker. Some people have refused to give money because of this. I find it ridiculous to judge a 250 year old university based on one day in its history. Don't give money to the school because of its tendency to treat its students poorly, not because of some speaker who puts his foot in his mouth when asked tough questions. And don't take this post as me supporting Ahmadinejad; the man's ridiculous viewpoints are so out-there and reprehensible I don't have time to go into it, but that does not mean that he should be denied an opportunity to speak when invited to. That's the beauty of free speech, even idiots have the right to it (insert joke about my blog here). Peace.

Photos - Top Left: President Bollinger introducing the President of Iran (edition.cnn.com), Top Left: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia (www.signonsandiego.com), Middle Left: Columbia students/faculty/staff watching the speech on South Lawn (www.bwog.net), Middle Right: Protesters outside of the Columbia gates (abcnews.go.com), Bottom: As bwog puts it, the "Aftermath" on South Lawn (www.bwog.net)

He Tased You, Bro

(You all know the story of the kid who got tasered at University of Florida on Monday. If not, read about it here because the story is too long to explain here.) I tried to avoid this issue - I really did. It just seemed too complicated; is it a free speech issue, is it a police brutality issue, is it an enigmatic mix of the two? While the whole "taser" aspect is clearly a police brutality issue, the freedom of speech certainly plays a role because it is what sparked the police action. Additionally, many of the responses on the various websites and blogs that I have seen have attacked the speaker, Andrew Meyer, for being obnoxious. While I have checked out his website and he seems like someone who thinks he is funny, but in reality he is really just annoying, that does not take away his right to free speech. He was not inciting a riot (as the police report wildly misinforms anyone who reads it) in the forum with John Kerry, he was not advocating illegal conduct or anything like that, he wasn't threatening anyone. If you can get past his bro exterior, Meyer actually asked a legitimate question of John Kerry: Why did you concede on the day of the election if there were rumors of disenfranchisement and mechanical failures in voting machines? Kerry thought so, too, because as Meyer was being manhandled by the po, Kerry actually answered his question.

So, having watched a couple versions of the events (here and here), I'm going to lean toward the argument of over-zealous police work. The first rebuttal to this is the fact that Meyer appears to be resisting arrest. This is where the core of the debate lies. To begin, there was no arrestable charge present, thus any resisting that occurred could not be classified under "resisting arrest," because no arrest should have been occurring. It appears that after Meyer's mic was turned off he put his arms up in the air and walked away from the mic, indicating that he was done with his diatribe-laden question. Instead of waiting to see if Meyer would create a scene and thus require the need to be directed to the exit, the police rushed in directly to put his hands behind his back and lead him out of the auditorium before Senator Kerry had the chance to answer his question. Throughout the whole ordeal, Meyer seems to be trying to keep his hands up - a non-confrontational gesture - while the police are yelling at him to keep them down. Additionally, Meyer clearly asks a few times why he is being arrested. Instead of explaining the situation to Meyer, the police respond with more force to try to get him out of the auditorium. Throughout this whole ordeal, mind you, Senator Kerry is actually answering the question posed - which, again, was legitimate.

So the police get him up the ramp about 10 feet from the exit (a 6'2" 250lb. cop versus the smaller Meyer did not turn out to be much of a problem for the cop) when Meyer turns around, asks what they are doing to him and finds himself at the bottom of a pile of about 5-6 cops. Meyer continually asks why he is being arrested and actually says that if they let him up he will leave under his own power. Because no arrestable charge had been relayed to Mr. Meyer at the time, this is a request that should have been granted. There was no way he was armed (you think the security at the event didn't set up a metal detector for a U.S. Senator who was a former Presidential candidate?) and he posed very little physical threat to the officers who, in theory, were wearing bulletproof vests and other protective gear. So why the taser? If you ask me, I say inappropriate police work.

Was Meyer under arrest? No. Did Meyer resist arrest? Technically no, because he was not under arrest because the police never said that he was. Was Meyer's speech protected by the 1st Amendment? Absolutely. With this information, I have to venture to say that the police in this instance used inappropriate force, and it seems that some at the University of Florida may agree with me, as the arresting officer and a sergeant present have been placed on paid leave. Peace.

Photos - Top: Andrew Meyer amidst a struggle with University of Florida Police (www.suntimes.com)

Police Brutality in the 26?

According to Columbia's newspaper - The Spectator - a curious little incident occurred on West 114th Street near Broadway on Thursday night/Friday morning. It seems that a sophomore from Columbia - Garam Sohn, SEAS 2010 - was walking along the street with an open can of beer. Not that uncommon around campus as we are a college. Well, when the po-po saw him, they did not take too kindly to it. It is illegal to have an open container of alcohol in public according to New York City Administrative Code 10-125. However, the punishment is not arrest but simply a summons (which boils down to a fine of $25). As it turns out, the cops asked for some ID, which Sohn was unable to produce. While I can not find any law that says one must have a photo ID on them at all times in New York, I do not know if it is illegal to be unable to produce an ID for a cop following a violation (I do not think it is, however). Anyway, this really must have pissed the cops off because according to eyewitnesses, the police officers cuffed Sohn, threw him to the ground, and put him in the back of their patrol car. Sounds a little excessive for a non-arrestable offense.

Here, however, is the kicker. An eyewitness claims that while the po were questioning Sohn, two white boys walked by with open 40s and were told by the police to cover them up with brown paper bags. No cuffs, no ground throw-age, no nothing. As a crowd gathered (nothing nearly this exciting ever happens up around Columbia because the cops have it on lock), the original officers called for backup and antagonized the crowd, which was reportedly majority-Asian, asking them if they understood English and if they had had too much sake that night. Not the most racially sensitive cops the 26 has to offer (I hope). Sohn said that he was brought back to the precinct, tossed in a cell for two hours and was told - verbatim - that he was being a dick. The cops have not been identified because they allegedly threatened arrest when a witness asked for their names and shield numbers (again, nothing illegal about transparent policing). Sohn was charged with the following: having an open container of alcohol, obstructing pedestrian traffic, refusing to comply to an order for dispersal, and creating a hazardous environment.

The four violations (the newspaper article lists them as misdemeanors, but under New York law they are simply violations) seem a bit stretched. The open container of alcohol is a given. Obstructing pedestrian traffic (New York Penal Law 240.20(5)) will not stand because he simply was not doing it. Unless someone complained about Sohn blocking an exit or an entrance or the whole sidewalk (impossible for any one man), then this is a bogus charge. Refusing to comply to an order for dispersal (New York Penal Law 240.20(6)) will be declined prosecution as well due to the fact that the police officer was not within his or her authority to ask Sohn to move anywhere. The cop was within his or her authority to write Sohn a ticket and dispose of the booze, but asking him to move anywhere is not included in that. And finally, creating a hazardous environment (New York Penal Law 240.20(7)). Are you kidding me? The actual text of the law is, "He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose." He was creating no hazardous condition, that was what the police were doing by making a big deal out of an open can of beer. The four charges were probably the arresting charges and I doubt that they made it to arraignment, unless the reporting in the Spectator is completely off and there are facts that the public are unaware of.

So where does this leave us? If everything that has been alleged is true, what should have been a simple fine of $25 turned into four violations of which only one is legitimate. These cops, if they made the remarks they have alleged to, should be reprimanded appropriately and they should go through some more training with how to deal with the public that they have sworn to protect and to serve. If anyone has any photos or any other media of the event please let me know and I will be more than happy to post it. Peace.

Photo - Some cop holding an open container of alcohol in public (the girly Smirnoff Ice is not necessarily the drink that Sohn was drinking) (www.laviagelaw.com)

Keep Your Eye on this One

As I have reported on in the past, there is a story brewing up in little Plainfield, New Hampshire that has the potential to turn into another Ruby Ridge or Waco fiasco. Just some quick background for those who have not read about this (or were too lazy to click on the link I provided you): Ed and Elaine Brown have been convicted of federal tax evasion in January of this year, but have refused to turn themselves in to the proper authorities. Instead, they have barricaded themselves into their home in NH, which comes equipped with all the amenities - including power generators (these came in handy when the feds cut their power off) and a turret with a 360 degree view of the property (SUVs that have been blocking the driveway sold seperately). The situation between the government and the Browns seemed as if it were coming to a head when Ruby Ridge icon Randall Weaver went to visit the home upon a heavy federal build up in Plainfield and rumors of a raid. Now we all know what happened at Ruby Ridge and I'm pretty damn sure the feds don't want a repeat of that. Weaver said that he was there to lend his "cult-like celebrity" to the Brown's cause.

That got me thinking: just what is the Brown's cause? Ed and Elaine claim that they should not go to jail for hiding $1.9 million in income from the IRS, saying that "income taxes are voluntary, and any tax on labor amounts to slavery." Tax law itself is extremely confusing, and then trying to disprove something that the tax codes allegedly say is a whole other ballgame. But I will paraphrase the best I can (President Bollinger may not like it). Apparently, the only way that Congress, which by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution had the right to levy taxes, would be able to create a direct tax upon the people is by the apportionment of the states. Because the states have not divided up and decided what a proper income tax would be, the income tax should apply to no one within the U.S. This view was essentially upheld in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895). However, with the advent of the 16th Amendment, all question of direct tax was tossed out the window, as this essentially exempted income tax as a direct tax. So apparently the Browns might be arguing that the 16th amendment is not Constitutional or something of that nature? I'm not exactly sure and would appreciate any help in the comments.

So, why am I writing about this now? The U.S. Marshal has claimed today that four associates of the Browns have been arrested. The four, who are from all over the country and range in age from 22 to 50, were charged with accessory after the fact and some weapons charges for their role in assisting the Brown couple. Now, this may come as a surprise, but Ed and Elaine don't particularly like the po-po messing with their affairs, and this could lead to another standoff like the one we saw this summer. Plus, with the two parties on edge (it's fall, the weather's changing the kids are back to school, the two sides want the other dead, etc.), something big could go down. Ed Brown has said that he will not go down without a fight, and has threatened to kill almost every cop and fed who has stepped foot in Plainfield, including the judge who convicted him. If you want to hear their cause straight from the horse's mouth, then check out their MySpace page (which proves that now EVERYONE must have one if these two do). So keep an eye on this situation and if you do figure out what their actual argument is, let me know. Peace.

Photos - Top: Ed Brown talks to the press as Randall Weaver stands behind him (www.blogs.kansascity.com), Middle: The compound where Ed and Elaine Brown have been holed up since Janurary (www.newhampshireunderground.com), Bottom: The happy couple (www.strike-the-root.com)

The Defense Screws Up and the People Pay for It

Yet another twist in the story of what Charlie calls "the scariest looking pairing he's ever seen." Yesterday Mahender Sabhnani and his wife Varsha were back in federal court on Long Island to answer to the allegation that they had violated their four and a half million dollar bail by running their perfume/scents business from outside of the confines of their home. Instead of ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas Platt sent the pair back to their multi-million dollar mansion in Muttontown to wait until September 19, when he said he would rule on the case. Meanwhile, he instructed the prosecutors to get together with the defense privately to sort out all of the details. In court papers, however, it seems clear what happened. The bail that the Sabhnanis were released on stated that if the two wanted to continue to run their perfume business, then they should do it from their home and no place off site. Somehow, the Sabhnanis did not get the message and the defense attorneys who, from the way the court papers make it sound knew that the couple was violating parole, did not advise them of their misdeeds.

So, where does this leave everything? Well, the Sabhnanis are back at their Long Island palace despite clearly violating the conditions of their bail. The fact that their own defense attorneys did not advise them of their violation should not factor into it. At the end of the day they violated their bail which, in my opinion, they should not have received in the first place. Yet somehow Scaring and company get off the hook simply by saying to Judge Platt "Oops, my bad." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if a poor person of any ethnicity violated the conditions of his or her bail and tried to be given a second chance simply by saying, "Well, nobody told me I couldn't do it," the judge would laugh as their ass was hauled back to Rikers. It seems that if you want second or third chances in life you need to be rich. Peace.

Photos - Top left: Mahender Sabhnani (www.indiequill.wordpress.com), Top right: Varsha Sabhnani (www.nypost.com), Bottom: The couple's home in Muttontown, NY (newsfeedresearcher.com)

A Renewed Call...?

NYC DOC patch (PatchCollector320 Tripod)

As I have said in the past, (as well as here) there is a potential for trouble when police/correction officers are allowed to take their service weapons with them wherever they go. Correction Officer Ricardo Walters, 41, of Hempstead, New York may be a perfect example. Walters was allegedly at a bus stop at 6 in the morning talking to some woman when all of a sudden he pulls out his weapon and demands her money. The woman allegedly gives him her purse then flags down the police who find Walters walking to his car and arrest him. They find that the weapon he used in the robbery was his 9-mm service revolver.

However, this is not the first time that Walters has been involved in some off-duty trouble. On April 1, 2006 Ricardo Walters shot and killed a man who was trying to break into his car at his home in Hempstead. He said that he was awoken by the car alarm, grabbed his off-duty weapon and went outside to confront the two would-be thieves. As he stepped out of his house, according to the report, one of the men fired a shot at him. Walters returned fire three times, hitting one of the men in the head while the other one fled. No gun was ever recovered from the scene and, as far as my research tells me, no one ever found the other man. It has been alleged by a commenter who claims to have some knowledge of the case that the Hempstead PD was incompetent in handling the case. This begs the question of who was this other guy, and where was this gun with which they allegedly shot at CO Walters? It might be beneficial for Hempstead PD to take a fresh look at this case given Walters's recent arrest.

It appears that Ricardo Walters has either had a string of bad luck or a penchant for getting himself into trouble. I sincerely hope that there was no cover-up involving the shooting out on Long Island in the spring of last year, but some things about the case just simply do not add up. I would urge you to write to the District Attorney of Nassau County, Kathleen Rice, and request that the case involving CO Walters back in April of last year be looked at again with a careful eye.

***NOTE*** The original post (which included a comment thread) had to be deleted because of technical difficulties with Blogger. It should be noted that someone commenting under the name of "blogher" brought up some problems with my post (such as my sarcasm which could be translated to be a personal attack on Mr. Walters). After reviewing the post again, I saw how some of my sarcastic comments could be seen as personal attacks on Mr. Walters. I just want to say that they were not meant that way, as I do not know Mr. Walters personally and thus can not comment on who he is as a person. All of this being said, I am solely going off of news reports and happened upon the information regarding both cases involving Mr. Walters and (as I have in this post) I am simply putting the information out there as clearly as I can. I will leave it up to the reader to come to his or her own conclusions. Thank you to "blogher" and "EmmGee" for the comment thread and the (mostly) civil debate.

The Pot Calling the Kettle...Gay?

As most of us are well aware by now, Idaho Senator Larry Craig (R) seems to be in a bit of a bind. He allegedly solicited some nooky from an undercover airport police officer in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. While on a summer hiatus from blogging (well, at least the last half of the summer when my work for Columbia really picked up steam), I feel the need to delve into this story uncharacteristically late due to a nice little ditty written by Nancy Gibbs in this week's Time magazine. When the report of Craig's arrest became public some of the first words uttered out of Craig's mouth were, "I'm not gay," which you can hear for yourself in the video posted below this. Now Mr. Craig has missed the point because that is not what he's being charged with. He is being charged with trying to get some in an airport bathroom stall (what happened to meth dealing and back rubs in the privacy of one's own relatively sanitary hotel room?). Gibbs has a great line about this: "'I am not gay. I never have been gay,' he insisted, as though that were the charge that had to be knocked down, not the accusation of recklessness or infidelity." It's true. Craig is more defensive about his sexuality than the fact that he would have a) been paying for sex and b) cheating on his wife. Rumors about Craig's sexuality have been floating in the air for quite some time, as the top of the page in Time in which Gibbs' article lies has a quote from Craig saying he does not hit on men, but if he did he would not do it in Boise. Additionally, as per the CNN article, blogger Michael Rogers called on Craig to come out of the closet in mid-October of 2006. Craig's "secret" does not seem to have been a secret at all, you just had to know where to look.

So where does this leave things? Well, first I think we should look at some prominent politicians' responses. Mitt Romney, who chose Craig as his Senate liaison, called the whole thing "disgusting." John McCain - rising from the rubble of his train wreck of a presidential campaign - declared that it was "disgraceful" and "it harms our reputation with the American people." My question is this: what is disgusting and disgraceful? Craig's actions or, as Craig himself first jumped to, his sexuality? When the whole Clinton ordeal broke, I do not remember language such as "disgusting" being widely used by Senators and researching on the internet I could not find any of that type of talk either. I even found an article in which Trent Lott - not one to necessarily restrict himself from saying stupid things - was uncharacteristically mum about the situation. Would this be the same if Clinton had hooked up with a male intern? Doubtful. As a country we need to realize that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and the whole religious viewpoint and its "sinful" nature is played out. Cheating on your spouse is wrong, paying for sex is against the law - the gender of who one is cheating with is completely irrelevant; something that many people in this country seem to disregard.

Photos - Top: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) (www.id.blm.gov), Bottom: Where Craig likes to get his freak on (www.blognetnews.com)

Senator Larry Craig Press Conference