Planet Utah

Help for whom? And why?

President Bush is proposing a few measures that will alleviate the pressure on homeowners at risk of foreclosure. Here's one version of the story.

Two things about this strike me as odd. First, at least in the story to which I linked, there's no mention that Bush's proposals are also designed to help mortgage lenders. They don't want to get stuck with a bunch of houses, which they will then have to sell at less than market value. So where's the mention of the business interests/angle?

Second, the story says that the Bush plan will assist "...hundreds of thousands of borrowers hard hit by the housing slump." Huh? This may be a case of genuine ignorance on my part, but I don't see how the housing slump has anything to do with the pickle in which these people find themselves. They borrowed too much, and/or they borrowed on unfavorable terms, and now--big surprise--they're unable to make their mortgage payments. Is it any more complicated than that? And if not, why is the federal government acting as a safety net?

You want answers?

Slate explains some of the nuances of gay sex in public places.

Update: my initial read on the Slate story was that Larry Craig had followed, word for word--or perhaps move for move is a better description--the script for initiating anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

Then, today, the transcript of his interview with the cops was released. To me, here's the smoking gun: "Ah, your foot came toward mine, mine came towards yours, was that natural? I don't know. Did we bump? Yes. I think we did." That's Craig talking.

Now, here's what Slate says about how these things normally work: "Generally, one person initiates contact by tapping his foot in a way that's visible beneath the stall divider. If the second person responds with a similar tap, the initiator moves his foot closer to the other person's stall. If the other person makes a similar move, the first will inch closer yet again."

Keep in mind that the Slate story was written before the interview transcript was released, so there's no way that Slate could have tailored its story to the interview.

Now, in the next example, the gun isn't smoking, but it's definitely hot to the touch. Here, Craig is trying to explain what his hand was doing underneath the stall: "I remember reaching down once. There was a piece of toilet paper back behind me and picking it up."

Okay, now come on -- who in God's name is going to pick up a piece of toilet paper on the floor of a public restroom EXCEPT the guy who gets paid to do it, i.e., the janitor? The idea that Craig was just trying to Keep America Beautiful is ridiculous.

One more example. In this one, the gun isn't smoking, it's not even hot, but it looks like it would fit really comfortably in Larry Craig's hand. The cop asks him why, if he was picking up a piece of toilet paper, his palm was up, touching the bottom of the divider. Craig says, "I don't do those things."

To me, this is a slip-up. It's Craig denying that he engages in the rituals that precede an anonymous gay hook-up. Of course, he probably wouldn't know about such rituals--"those things"--unless he had participated in them before. It's important to note that, prior to the "those things" comment, the officer did NOT tell Craig that "your behavior was consistent with that used to initiate gay sex." In that context, it would have made sense for Craig to talk about "those things." But he comes up with "those things" anyway, absent the context. Very suspicious.

Footnote: I believe that Larry Craig is lying through his teeth here. However, I believe he is lying to save his marriage, not his political career. I suspect that his wife has zero familiarity with the culture of gay restroom pick-ups, and so can be fooled by his denials. The sophisticates of the political class, however, know exactly what he was up to. He can't lie to them, but he can lie to her.

Anklenote: I think the officer in this case handled himself with class and dignity. He is obviously not a homophobe, or a power-hungry Napoleon. He's conducting himself as well as he can with a man who is obviously lying to him, and therefore insulting his intelligence.

Your world frightens and confuses me

There's so much about the Larry Craig scandal that I don't understand. For example, what's the big deal about placing your luggage so that it obstructs the view of anyone who might look under the stall? It's not like you're walking into an airplane hangar -- where else are you going to put your bags? In the breakfast nook? In the two-car garage? Also, while I think it's pretty weird that two strangers would engage in sex in a public restroom, it's double-secret SUPER weird that someone would want to watch them under the stall door. And another thing -- what happens if the guy responds favorably to your foot-tapping overtures? Do you get in the same stall and get down to business? Is there room in there? Sitting or standing? And aren't you going to be self-conscious about other people hearing? I don't get it. Also, and maybe this one is just me, but I generally don't feel erotic stirrings when I'm in a public restroom. Actually, that's about the last place in the world I'd want to have sex. So, what's the appeal? It's not like there aren't other places for a couple of gay strangers to hook up. Why don't you just go to a bar, like everybody else? If sex in public is your thing, fine -- do it in a park, or behind a bush, or wherever. Why a public toilet? But if that gets your mojo working, why not go all the way? Why not do it suspended, in a rapturous embrace, in the effluvia at the local sewage treatment plant?

Now for a serious question.

If Craig hadn't been arrested and charged, would the stories of previous behavior of this sort be considered newsworthy? In other words, let's say that you had irrefutable proof that Larry Craig was gettin jiggy with guys in public restrooms on a regular basis, but had never been arrested. Is that something you would consider legitimate fodder for a media story?

Now back to the less serious questions.

I'm wondering what the pop culture meme for this incident will be, if any. (I'm also wondering if I used "meme" correctly there.) If you go back to the Lewinsky case, there were a few jokes/phrases that emerged: 1) depends on what the meaning of "is" is; 2) cigars being put in places where God and Fidel Castro never intended; and 3) the idea that certain kinds of sex aren't really sex.

I suspect that Larry Craig's profile isn't high enough for anything to work its way into popular consciousness on this one. But if something WERE going to do that, I would expect it to be the "wide stance" defense, for two reasons. First, you can't help but smile at its brilliant absurdity. Second, technically speaking, when you're sitting you don't have a stance. That's why I see the "wide stance" showing up at urinals -- two buddies peeing side by side, one touches his right foot to the other's left foot, the touchee says "What are you doing?", the toucher says, "Sorry, I've just got a wide stance." They laugh out loud, and pee splashes everywhere.

A second choice might be, "What do you think about that?" after flipping down your business card.

Any other nominations?

UPDATE: and what about the whole question of Craig's supposed hypocrisy? Is it actually hypocritical to be gay, or at least engage in homosexual sex acts, and not support legislation promoting gay rights? I don't think so, any more than it would be hypocritical to be black and not support minority contracting set-asides. There might be a fitting word for this sort of thing, but "hypocrisy" isn't it.

At least the winters are nice

Somebody remind me -- why does anyone live in the Midwest?

Footnote: this snarky comment was brought to you by the Associated Press.

The point of the Iraq war

I've been reading Fiasco, which is a book about all of the things that went wrong in Iraq -- starting way before the decision to go in. It's infuriating.

Of course, any book named Fiasco is going to accentuate the negative. Heavily. The book isn't dripping with anger and vitriol, however. The tone reflects frustration more than anything else. And, by the way, the chief villain of the piece is Donald Rumsfeld. He hoped for the best, planned for the best (though not particularly well), and then didn't really know what to do when he got the worst.

All of this got me thinking -- at this point, is there any positive "take-away" from the Iraq war? I think we need to remember that this is only the second major operation of what is expected to be a very long war -- the war against radical Islam. (I'm not going to call it the "War on Terror"; I don't give a squirt what the Basques are doing in Spain.) When we started the last long war--the cold war--we made some serious mistakes, and had to do some serious improvising. Think of Korea. The Berlin airlift. "Losing" China. The Marshall Plan. As you roll forward through the years, you have various crises in Berlin, the solidification of the Eastern bloc, brush fires lit by communist insurgencies around the globe, Sputnik, the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Prague, and on and on and on.

Things were never smooth, predictable, or easy.

Fast forward to Iraq, and a different long-term conflict. While we had a right to expect the Iraq war to go much, much more smoothly than it has, we had no right to expect it to be a quick, easy win. This is a new kind of war for us, and we are learning how to fight it. As in the cold war, we will have some successes and some failures. We will get lucky, and we will catch some bad breaks. We will be caught off guard, and we will see plans executed with great success.

So, again, with Iraq having been botched as badly as it was, let's hold our leaders responsible for their deplorable mistakes, but let's also remember that we're at the beginning of a very long struggle. The important thing is to learn the lessons of Iraq and make sure we do not repeat them in the next conflict.

Footnote: lesson number one: "Optimism is not a plan."

Interesting development in the Vick case

You probably read here that Michael Vick's guilty plea will not include an admission of having: a) gambled, or b) killed any dogs. Admitting to one or both of those things likely would have invited severe punishment from the NFL. But admitting to participating in interstate commerce for the purpose of dog-fighting? Heck, that's not so bad. A lot of people probably don't even know what that means.

The interesting question is how far Roger Goodell will push his own investigation. Two of Vick's co-defendants have accused him of doing the two things that Vick is now denying -- gambling, and killing dogs. It's entirely possible that Goodell will say, "I realize that Mike Vick denies having bet on the dog fights that he financed, or having participated in the killing of dogs that were considered under-performers. In my judgment, however, the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Accordingly, I'm going to impose a five-year suspension on Michael Vick, consistent with the gravity and offensive nature of his behavior."

Then the war will start. You'll have an OJ/Pete Rose/Barry Bonds sort of phenomenon, with the world dividing into two camps, with lots of investigative reporting, prosecutors and grand jury members talking on background, sensational books being written, documentaries, and so on. Vick will deny everything as long as he can, until the evidence no longer allows for plausible denial. At that point he'll recant. He may even, like Pete Rose, write his own book. It just depends on how desperate he is for money and forgiveness.

UPDATE: well, it's a little more nuanced than I thought. Vick is still saying that he didn't gamble on individual dog fights. He is, however, acknowledging that some dogs died as the result of the "collective efforts" of himself and his two cronies. (Roger Ailes would have advised him to say, "Mistakes were made, dogs were killed.") And Roger Goodell has responded appropriately: with an indefinite suspension.

And now, the bad news

Think the surge is working? Read this.

P.S. I don't know whom to believe any more.

Contrarian thought: it IS the heat

In recent months I've spent considerable time in Phoenix, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Nashville, and Knoxville. Phoenix is the only one of these cities that can claim a dry heat. The other cities are hot--not as hot as Phoenix, but hot just the same--and humid. In the abstract, then, Phoenix weather is considered preferable. (Just check out the "comfort index" for Phoenix on this website.)

I beg to differ. Phoenix is the only one of the listed cities in which one walks outside and says "What the FUCK!" It's like stepping out of your refrigerator and into a pizza oven. It's like having your lungs filled with pepper jack cheese. It's like putting your mouth around the rim of a volcano. It's horrible.

In any of the other cities, you walk outside and say, "Yeah, it's hot, but you know, it's not terrible." If you walk around for a couple of hours, then you'll pronounce it terrible. You'll be sweating, but because of the humidity, your sweat won't evaporate. You'll feel like a dog left in a car, with all of the windows rolled up. (Dohhh! Moment of silence for Bandit...) But if you just walk to your car, or the end of the driveway to get the paper, or to the bar from the parking lot, it's no big deal.

Bottom line: "it's a dry heat" is a scam.

Footnote: I should add that I was in Tennessee during a heat wave. Temperatures were above 100 degrees, and dew points were in the high 60s. Still, Phoenix is worse. Yeah, I said it.

Anklenote: what the hell are the cops doing naming a police dog "Bandit"?

Stephon Marbury, philosopher-king

You may have caught Stephon Marbury's comments today about the Michael Vick situation. They were iconoclastic. And quite stupid. But were you aware of his proclamation that "the world needs more people like me"?

Repent before you're caught, or don't repent at all

I'm sure that when we finally hear from Michael Vick, he'll offer us some heart-felt thoughts about putting his life back on track, about making amends for the pain he has caused to people and animals, etc.

So, where were these sentiments six months ago?

I suppose it's possible that when people get caught in outrageous, illegal, or otherwise morally unacceptable behavior, it forces them to do some introspection. Maybe that introspection leads them to some moral conclusions they had not arrived at before, simply because they had not reflected on their actions earlier.

It seems more likely to me, though, that there's a standard script public figures run through when they're caught with their pants down, literally or figuratively. You mouth the words because you have to, even if you don't mean them. It's a pre-condition to public forgiveness.

Just once, I'd like to hear someone say, "I'm not really sorry for what I did. After all, I did it for years behind closed doors, and I never considered it a big deal one way or other. Having it all come out in public doesn't really change that. Why would it? Truth is, what I'm REALLY concerned about is what's going to happen to my career, my money and all of my stuff, all of the readily available sex, the freebies, the special treatment...you know, the whole package. Will all of that still be there for me when the furor dies down?"

Now THAT would be refreshing.