Senator Larry Craig

On June 11^th 2007, Idaho Senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in an airport bathroom in Minneapolis.  Apparently, a bathroom in this particular airport is a known meeting place for gay men to meet complete strangers and engage in sexual activities in a public place.  To initiate the sexual contact, one simply sits in the stall next to the stall in question, and engages in a "series of intricate foot gestures".

On this particular date, a police officer familiar with these details sat in the "hook-up stall" and waited for someone to solicit him.  According to the officer, Senator Craig first spent about 13 minutes attempting to peak in a crack in the stall door from the outside.  He then proceeded to occupy the stall next to the "hook-up stall", and performed the known "series of intricate foot gestures."  Finally, the Senator simply reached his hand under the divider to the adjoining stall, and the police officer promptly arrested him.

Ironically, Senator Craig is a conservative Republican well known to be harshly "anti-gay" in his politics.  That's pretty much the pot, in a glass house, calling the kettle black, while throwing stones!

This story not only amuses me for pure content; apparently the Senator had the balls to deny the story when it first came to a head (I assure you, the puns were accidental).  At first, the Senator attempted to claim that he simply had a "wide-stall stance".  This is, in and of itself, a hysterical idea... as any straight guy can tell you.  Unfortunately, most of us are so homophobic that we can't even occupy the stall next to another man if there is another option.  Later, the Senator changed his story, claiming that the police officer was a large man, and intimidated him into the whole thing.

Now let me get this straight - Senator Craig claims he was 'intimidated' into soliciting sex in a public restroom.

I don't know about you, but when I'm scared, I generally run like hell.  Sucking on another man's penis is typically not my initial response.

I remember the "Fight or Flight" response from school.  I must have been napping when my teachers mentioned this third option.  But then again, "Fight, Flight, or Suck a Dick!" doesn't have the same ring to it.

I can only imagine going to a horror movie with Senator Larry Craig:

ME: "Wow, Larry, did you see that?  Jason just jumped out of nowhere with that bloody ax and… LARRY WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!!!" 

The Church

I’m a recovering Catholic.  I went though Catholic school, which involved my going to church every day but Saturday for 13 years or so.  I had a lot of time to ponder a lot of things during my time in the pew.  Here are a few of my favorites:

A)    I don’t care if it is the blood of Christ.  Drinking the wine is a bad idea.  300 people drinking from the same glass?  Unless Jesus’ blood is 140 proof or greater, it’s not killing any bacteria.

B)    The priest used to put the wafer directly on our tongues.  Now, we get the option for the priest to put the wafer directly in our hands – about half the people still go for the tongue.  Is it really any more sanitary for the priest to stick his hand in only half the congregation’s mouths, and then hand you a wafer without washing his hands?

C)    Catholic’s believe that the wine and wafer are actually the body and blood of Christ. Does this mean that somebody gets an ‘ass’ piece? I’m guessing Hannibal Lecter was a Catholic…    

D)    Why does Jesus on the Cross always have six-pack abs?  Does that come with the whole Son of God schtick?  And for that matter, why do Catholics make an image of Jesus being tortured as their icon?  I know there is a need to be reminded of his sacrifice, but that can’t be pleasant from Jesus’ perspective.  Jesus looking at the Cross has to be similar to Joe Theisman watching his career ending injury played over and over on ESPN.

“Ah, for Christ’s (my?) sake.  I’m getting tortured up there!  You people are seriously twisted.”

Here’s my question to you – if I say a prayer and God doesn’t answer, aren’t I using his name in vain?  You’ll excuse me if I refrain from breaking the first commandment by praying.

Michael McDonald     

“Ain’t no mountain high enough?  Ain’t no valley low enough?  Ain’t no river wide enough?

The Proclaimers

On a similar note – “I would walk 500 miles, and I would walk 500 more, just to be the man who walked a thousand miles to fall down at your door.”

Dee-Light

The Smurfs

One hundred smurfs and only one smurfette?  You’ve gotta be smurfing me!

Stories Behind the Music 1-18-2008:  Bob Dylan’s ‘Hurricane’

Edited from Wikipedia, and other sources:

Hurricane is a protest song by Bob Dylan co-written with Jacques Levy, about the imprisonment of Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter. It compiles alleged acts of racism and profiling against Carter, which Dylan describes as leading to a false trial and conviction.

Dylan's album Desire opens with Hurricane, arguably the most popular song on the 1976 release.  Named after former middleweight contender Rubin Carter, Dylan had been inspired to write it after reading Carter's autobiography, The Sixteenth Round, which Carter had sent him "because of his prior commitment to the civil rights struggle."

Carter and a man named Joh Artis had been charged with a triple murder which occurred in the Lafayette Grill, Paterson, New Jersey in 1966.  Widely reported as a racially motivated crime, Carter and Artis were found guilty of committing the murders, and both were sentenced to four consecutive life sentences.  In the years that followed, a substantial amount of controversy emerged over the case, ranging from allegations of faulty evidence and questionable eyewitness testimony to an unfair trial.  In his autobiography, Carter maintained his innocence, and his story eventually led Dylan to visit him in Rahway State Prison in Woodbridge Township, New Jersey.

Dylan had written topical ballads before, including, 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol' and 'The Death of Emmett Till', but according to Jaques Levy, he wasn't sure that he could write a song:

"He was just filled with all these feelings about Hurricane. He couldn't make the first step. I think the first step was putting the song in a total storytelling mode.  I don't remember whose idea it was to do that. But really, the beginning of the song is like stage directions, like what you would read in a script: 'Pistol shots ring out in a barroom night.... Here comes the story of the Hurricane.' Boom! Titles.  You know, Bob loves movies, and he can write these movies that take place in eight to ten minutes, yet seem as full or fuller than regular movies."

After meeting with Carter in prison and meeting a group of his supporters, Dylan began to write Hurricane in a "cinematic" style.  This song was one of Dylan's few protest songs of the 1970's and it was one of his most successful singles of the decade, reaching #31 on the Billboard chart.

Dylan was forced to rerecord the song, with altered lyrics, after concerns were raised by Columbia's lawyers that references that Alfred Bello and Arthur Dexter Bradley "robbed the bodies" could result in a lawsuit.  Neither Bello nor Bradley were ever accused of such acts.  Because there was too much leakage on the multitracks to make a vocal "punch in", Dylan decided to re-record the entire song.  At this time, Dylan was already rehearsing for his upcoming tour, and the musicians from the Rolling Thunder Revue were still at his disposal.  Dylan took them back into the studio, and a new, faster version of Hurricane was recorded again with Don Meehan at the board, with Ronee Blakely providing a harmony vocal.  There were no edits in the song that ran over seven minutes.  Even though some offending lyrics were rewritten, the song still drew some legal action, from eyewitness Patricia Graham Valentine.

Even with the revised lyrics, Hurricane still raised controversy; detractors criticized the song for omitting any reference to Carter's criminal history as well as documented evidence of his antagonistic rhetoric and violent temper.  There were other inaccuracies, including Carter's description as "the number one contender"; according to the May 1966 issue of Ring Magazine, he was ranked no higher than ninth around the time of his arrest. Mike Cleveland of the Herald-News, Robert Christgau, and a number of other critics questioned Dylan's objectivity at the time of the song's release.  The Herald-News reporter Cal Deal, who covered Carter's case between 1975 and 1976 and interviewed Carter in August and December of 1975, later accused Dylan of a strong bias towards Carter while employing a significant amount of artistic license.

During the fall tour preceding Desire's release, Dylan and the Rolling Thunder Revue played a benefit concert for Carter in New York City's Madison Square Garden.  The following year, they played another benefit at the Houston Astrodome.  Hurricane ultimately raised enough funds and publicity to help Carter take legal action. Despite winning the right to a new trial, Carter and Artis were once again found guilty.  On February 9, 1976, Carter was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.  Dylan, and the other high-profile supporters, did not attend the trial.  Carter was released on parole in November of 1985, and the original indictments against him dismissed by prosecutors in 1988.

Dylan has not performed Hurricane since January 25, 1976 in Houston, Texas..

John had hidden under the stacks of hay in the loft of the old barn innumerable times before, but this time was very different.  He didn't feel the normal nervous, giddy thrill of adrenaline as he struggled to remain quiet; this time the chemicals coursing through his veins seemed to want to explode through his skin, putting pressure on his chest, constricting his breathing.  He tried desperately to control the volume of the rasps of air entering his lungs by breathing very slowly, but the individual straws of hay were tickling at his nose, threatening to turn his slight wheezing into an audible cough - an audible cough that could give away his location and possibly get him killed.

John wasn't sure he didn't deserve to die.  He was just so scared - he didn't think back at the house, he just reacted.  He'd always hoped that he'd be heroic if it ever came down to it, but when the improbable finally happened, he sprinted away from danger without a second thought for his parents' safety.  And now those thoughts were plaguing him as he hid.

John tried desperately to reconstruct the events that led him to the hayloft.  The farm house was quiet today, almost serene, and serenity was something that was very precious in his family's home.  Each time they had run before, there was an almost palpable sense of anticipation… even in the quietest of moments.  When you've been running for a very long time, brief moments of calm feel like being caught in the eye of a hurricane.  You know the moment can never last.

But this time, it had lasted.  Days turned into months.  Months turned into years.  Even his father's constant vigilance seemed to have dimmed.  It was nearly six months since Dad last caught him the hallway, pulling him aside, hidden from his mother, to cryptically remind John yet again "Johnny… if anything happens, run, and don't look back.  No matter what…"  The terror slowly faded, and John's memories seemed more like a bad dream that was so very close to being forgotten.

John had been getting ready to go over to his friend Mike's farm.  Mike was John's first real friend in a very long time, and John was desperate for a friend.   John's father wouldn't let him make new friends - they were in hiding after all - but Mike was an inherited friend.  Dad knew and trusted Mike's father, and by a quirk of fate his family was squatting in a farm house near where Mike's parents were hiding.  Yes, Mike was a friend by circumstance… but John couldn't have chosen a better friend.   

The family's two cats attempted to catch John's attention as he pulled his coat from the closet near the front door on his way out.  Pandora, a small, thin cat with a black, brown, and red brindle coat was rubbing against John's leg.  He recalled slowly running his fingers through Pandora's coat, and letting his finger's trail across her three-quarters of a tail.  The missing portion of tail, along with a cloudy grey area of scar tissue on the surface of one of Pandora's green eyes, were reminders of ancient battles with larger animals. 

Alexander, an enormously fat grey cat with black and white stripes and large blue eyes flopped directly next to Pandora, eliciting Pandora's warning hiss.  Alexander thought of John as his personal possession, and always hurried to push the smaller Pandora out of the way with his bulky body when John gave her attention.  Alexander immediately went into a submissive position on his back, exposing his fat belly to the smaller cat; in the end, Pandora was the alpha cat of the two.  John continued to pet Pandora with one hand while tickling Alexander's belly.  Alexander responded by playfully nipping at John's hand, while Pandora lowered her back and raised her ass high in the air, releasing one quick, satisfied, trill of a purr.

"Dear God Dad," John remembered calling back to his father in the living room with a grin. "How the hell did these cats ever evolve?  Alexander exposes his belly at the first sign of danger, and Pandora is 'presenting' herself to the wrong species!"

John never had time to hear his Dad's return answer.  It happened so suddenly - there was no warning.  There was no knock at the door, no sound of footsteps crossing the half-acre open yard that led to the farm house.   The doors to all three entrances to the house had burst open simultaneously, two men at each door.  In each case one man had knocked the door down leading with his shoulder; the lead man at all three doors had stumbled awkwardly into the house and fallen down in almost identical fashion, the second man trailing afterwards. 

His brain barely had time to process the scene.   John's father reacted first, instantaneously leaping up from the couch where he'd been serenely reading an old book one second earlier, as if he'd been expecting the unwelcome intrusion.  Ignoring the lead man on the floor at the front door, his dad crossed the distance from the couch to the door and tackled the second man much faster than John could have believed, propelling both of them outside the house and down the front steps.  John got the fleeting impression of a crimson red stain spreading on the back of his Dad's white sweatshirt as if in slow motion, a marked contrast to the violent speed in which the two men toppled down the small stairway to the front porch.   

By pure chance John was right next to the front door as it burst open, in perfect position to take advantage of the opening his Dad had created.  His body moved without conscious thought; he immediately bolted out the front door and raced desperately across the unbroken sightline of the lawn in his front yard, only looking back once at the now limp figure of his father on top of the second man.  Somehow he knew instinctively to suddenly change directions once he was out of sight at the tree line.  

Only one thought had been in John's head - to hide.  And the only place he could think of was the hayloft in which he had hidden when he was younger.  He skirted the yard, sure to stay hidden in the trees, making his way to the backyard towards the old barn.  Now he hid once again in the hay, keenly aware he was no longer a child, yet still hiding never the less.  John couldn't even reconstruct the scene at the house in his head well enough to hazard a guess as to what had happened to his mother, but fear still kept him hidden under his suffocating warm blanket of hay.

With the release of the Mitchell Report, I’ve been thinking alot about the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in the United States.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Mitchell report, the "Mitchell Report" is the result of former United States Senator George J. Mitchell's investigation into the use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone in Major League Baseball (MLB). The 409-page report, released on December 14th, 2007, covers the history of the use of illegal performance enhancing substances by players and the effectiveness of the MLB drug testing program.

In the Mitchell Report all of the gathered evidence linking particular players to steroid use was provided, but no conclusions were drawn as to innocence or guilt.  The players were provided an opportunity to refute any evidence linking them to steroids; at the urging of the players union almost all players implicated declined to cooperate.  In some cases, the evidence linking a particular player to steroids was flimsy when compared to legal standards of evidence - in essence “I overhead Bob talking about using steroids once or twice.”  In other cases, the evidence was much more substantial. 

Since the release of the Mitchell Report, sports pundits and legal analysts in the media have been crying to anyone who would listen about “Reasonable Doubt” and the concept of “Innocent until Proven Guilty” in the United States.  They claim that the standards of evidence in this Mitchell report could never be used in court of law.  After listening to this whining for roughly four weeks, I felt moved to speak out against this lunacy.  Seriously people, you’re lawyers… perhaps you should have paid a bit more attention in your law classes. 

First of all, the Mitchell Report never states conclusions.  Mitchell’s investigation was intended to unearth any evidence of steroids use; the Mitchell report is a detailed accounting of that evidence – both weak and strong.  Despite the media hoopla, the Mitchell Report does not state Roger Clemens used steroids.  It instead accurately reports the assertions of Brian McNamee, Clemens' former trainer, WITHOUT drawing conclusions.  This is exactly what Senator Mitchell was charged to do – with a limited budget and no subpoena power, collect and report all evidence of steroid use in Major League Baseball in an unbiased manner.

Secondly, the Mitchell Report BEARS NO LEGAL WEIGHT, and is therefore not subject to the same standards of evidence.  Even if the Mitchell report had legal ramifications, the concepts of “Reasonable Doubt” and “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” bandied about in the media are radically different than the practical application of these concepts in a courtroom.  Here’s the deal – even in a courtroom, “Reasonable Doubt” and “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” are determined on a sliding scale.

Using a personal example, I have been cited twice for urinating in public (UIP) without ever having committed the crime.  In the one instance, I was waiting for a friend to finish his 'business' behind a building.  I didn’t want to stare at my friend’s penis, so I faced the wall next to him.  When a cop came up and saw us both facing the wall, he cited us both.  My second ticket for urinating in public was under similar circumstances.  I fought both tickets in court, and lost… and I completely understand why.

In both UIP cases, I was innocent.  In both cases, there was certainly reasonable doubt – the officers even admitted to the judge they never actually saw my exposed penis or my ‘urine stream’.  Yet if the judge had let me off, the government could never give anyone else a UIP or a parking ticket.  We simply don’t have the resources as a society to hold ‘UIP’ tickets up to the standards of “Reasonable Doubt"; A UIP is a 75 dollar ticket, and its simply not worth the trouble to gather the evidence.  Instead, we accept the officer's interpretation of the events.  Yes, this means that occasionally people get bogus tickets, but this is a tradeoff we are willing to make in order to create ‘enforceable’ laws.  In these small cases, the offender is guilty until proven innocent by necessity.  

As the penalty for a particular transgression increases, the burden of proof increases.  O.J. Simpson was not convicted in a criminal courtroom; the evidence was deemed insufficient to condemn a man to life in prison.  He was, however, found guilty in a civil courtroom and asked to pay reparations to the victim's family for his crime.  The civil courtroom is based off of the standard 'preponderance of evidence', i.e. the jury felt there was a greater than fifty percent chance that OJ was guilty.

Although the Supreme Court has struck down all attempts to quantify ‘the percent chance of guilt’ that “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” entails, post-hoc analysis of jury decisions puts the number between 75 and 90 percent.  Whatever the true number may be, we accept as a given that a few innocent people will be punished for murders they did not commit in order to make sure that the majority of murderers are punished.  This is a necessary evil to maintain a functioning society.  Since the punishment for murder is so drastic, in these cases we tend to err on the side of caution… and more murderers get off unpunished to protect the innocent.

Now let’s put this information in the context of the Mitchell Report.  We must answers the following questions:

1)       What is the likelihood that a truly innocent man was implicated in the report?

2)       What are the negative consequences to said player?

3)       Are these negative consequences offset by the positives of shedding light onto the steroid era of baseballs?

Question 1:  What is the likelihood that a truly innocent man was implicated in the report?

In answer to Question 1, the one thing the Mitchell Report underscores is that there were no innocent parties.  Not the commissioner of baseball, not the teams, the owners, the managers, the trainers, and especially, not the players.  Yes, some of the players named in the Mitchell Report may not have used steroids… but ALL of them were aware of the problem, aware of others who were breaking the rules, and didn’t turn them in.  And YES, that is part of the players’ obligation to baseball, as stated EXPLICITLY in their contracts.

Question 2:  What are the negative consequences to said player?

For the most part, the MLB teams continue to sign players implicated in the report to large quantities of money.  Yes, there are a few fringe players who may not be signed because of their association with the report.  All of the players involved continue to make a living WELL above the poverty line, and continue to be able to provide for their families.  The damage that has been done is in terms of reputation and ‘place in the history of the game’. 

‘Reputation’ and ‘placement in the history of the game’ are difficult concepts to quantify.  Some baseball enthusiasts maintain that nobody was guilty of steroid use, or simply don’t care if they were.  Others baseball fanatics think the sport has been forever changed, and an asterisk should be placed by all records achieved during the ‘Steroids Era’.  These negatives are regrettable, but nowhere near as life altering as a 'death sentence' or 'life in prison'.  Therefore, it is reasonable that the standards of evidence should be less.

Question 3:  Are these negative consequences of naming names in the Mitchell Report offset by the positives of shedding light onto the steroid era of baseball?

This is the most difficult concept to quantify.  Baseball was at an all-time high in revenue prior to the Mitchell Report.  However, the Barry Bonds investigation, coupled with the pitiful performance of Mark McGwire, Raphael Palmeiro and company at the 2005 congressional hearing had tainted baseball.  As baseball ‘fandom’ is based more on statistics than any other professional sport, the long-term consequences of not investigating the prevalence of steroids in baseball cannot be understated.

 Steroid use is a thorn in the side of baseball that if left unaddressed will continue to fester.  The only way to adequately protect against future steroid misuse is to understand what went wrong in the past, and draw attention to the issue.  Naming names in the report was the only way to draw the national attention necessary to get the problem addressed.  Considering the proliferation of new drugs that cannot be detected, placing names in the report was absolutely necessary to discourage future misconduct.  MLB needs potetial offenders to believe that even if they aren't caught and punished immediately, they will never be completely off the hook for missed transgressions. 

In my opinion, the benefit of the Mitchell report drastically outweighs any of the negatives.  Simply put, no one has been ‘convicted’ of steroid use; instead the evidence, along with the sources, has been detailed.  In some cases that evidence is strong; in others, the evidence is hearsay and conjecture.  As with all things, individuals should look at the strength of the evidence themselves before drawing conclusions.  In all cases, more investigation is warranted before suspensions or other punishments are levied.       

I’m a little behind the current news cycle, and just learned the following story:

On June 11^th 2007, Idaho Senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in an airport bathroom in Minneapolis.  Apparently, a bathroom in this particular airport is a known meeting place for gay men to meet complete strangers and engage in sexual activities in a public place.  To initiate the sexual contact, one simply sits in the stall next to the stall in question, and engages in a “series of intricate foot gestures”.

On this particular date, a police officer familiar with these details sat in the “hook-up stall” and waited for someone to solicit him.  According to the officer, Senator Craig first spent about 13 minutes attempting to peak in a crack in the stall door from the outside.  He then proceeded to occupy the stall next to the “hook-up stall”, and performed the known “series of intricate foot gestures.”  Finally, the Senator simply reached his hand under the divider to the adjoining stall, and the police officer promptly arrested him.

Ironically, Senator Craig is a conservative Republican well known to be harshly “anti-gay” in his politics.  That’s pretty much the pot, in a glass house, calling the kettle black, while throwing stones!

This story not only amuses me for pure content; apparently the Senator had the balls to deny the story when it first came to a head (I assure you, the puns were accidental).  At first, the Senator attempted to claim that he simply had a “wide-stall stance”.  This is, in and of itself, a hysterical idea... as any straight guy can tell you.  Unfortunately, most of us are so homophobic that we can’t even occupy the stall next to another man if there is another option.  Later, the Senator changed his story, claiming that the police officer was a large man, and intimidated him into the whole thing.

Now let me get this straight - Senator Craig claims he was ‘intimidated’ into soliciting sex in a public restroom.

I don’t know about you, but when I’m scared, I generally run like hell.  Sucking on another man's penis is typically not my initial response.

I remember the “Fight or Flight” response from school.  I must have been napping when my teachers mentioned this third option.  But then again, “Fight, Flight, or Suck a Dick!” doesn’t have the same ring to it.

I can only imagine going to a horror movie with Senator Larry Craig:

ME: “Wow, Larry, did you see that?  Jason just jumped out of nowhere with that bloody ax and… LARRY WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!!!”  

Sadly, being a gay man is now going to be associated with soliciting sex from strangers in a public place thanks to this hypocritical jackass.