Joan, it is our emotions that are telling in this case. Almost as much as Craig's lewd behavior. (By the way, someone should say loudly and clearly that homosexuals don't habitually in any way shape or form engage in the type of behavior Craig evidenced.)

But we are born and raised, Joan, and with good reason, to look up to high ranking officials. Craig looks the part and don't be misled that this isn't crafted just because the man's from Idaho. Craig has put together the persona we aspire to with great shrwedness. Masking all the while much more than just Republican shortcomings. Some of the comments you made are valid. Republicans have problems with diversity, duh? But beyond that what's really going on is a very telling fact about our society. We can't get to the facts in America like we used to.

Republicans exploit that circumstance like none other, and, to their own detriment. But they also have piled up road block after road block to everyone else's progress as well.

Idaho is microcosmic in that sense, man.

Not big enough to stop some serious ill effects of an ethic of wrapping the flag around false pretenses. But big enough to make a whole lot of noise when that baby finally unfurls!

In other words, Senator Craig is oh, so, revealing!!!

Damn!, I would've thought the only hoods in Idaho would be the one's attached to their parkas.

Who knew?

Hey, check this out man. In no way shape or form is there anything positive to exposing oneself in a house of excrement, ok?

I knew this was coming though. You string a ton of anectodes of celebrities engaging in perversion and attempt to pass it off as a fact of life. The only thing proven by this tactic is that these individuals have been given more credit than they ever deserved.

So what, there are alternate lifestyles visa via sexuality? That doesn't give perversion equal status. (Perversion being defined clearly as acts that put one at risk when other avenues exist to attain stated goals.) Bathroom sex isn't sex in any way except name. Be it engaged by homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and/or those even engaging in bestiality.

That's right. Bestiality would've been included in this universe of a higher plane you claim to be making us aware of it were valid. But it's not, and simply because when someone uses intimacy to further urges that are anti-social enough at some point is enough.

Find another site to peddle your nonsense.

Leave the editors of Salon alone, why don't you!?

Or as they say in the real world, the one you're obviously having problems with, "Go fuck a goat!"

Joan, I was greatly offended by the story Salon recently ran regarding trolling for sex in public bathrooms. This site did so mainly for business reasons. You stirred up a hornets nest Joan, and only to draw people to this site so they can argue.

That was marketing news which is just another form of exploiting facts. Censorship is only one form of using the press for corporate purposes. It cuts both ways, man. You can't use any derivative of the age old tactic of saying, "We didn't report this salaciousness; we only covered the reporting we felt was disproportionate."

Truth be told, I find the explotation of Senator Craig's conduct much more out of bounds then the outright censorship of the Washington Post. Joan, quite frankly, we all know WP has an agenda of corporate interests. Salon is supposed to be the next generation of news and when it resorts to the same old standards at a minimum hypocrisy is the result.

For some time now I've wanted to say this, and it's hard to have to be this blunt because I consider the Salon community as friend, but obviously Salon is becoming a career for those who work for your site with many times only all the narrow self interests that implies. Keep in mind please, newspapers in America were polemics first. They were unabashedly pro a point of view and stood in that direction regardless of business success. Now we have journalists and "standards" and a continous play on words!

Don't sell me anything Joan. Just tell what you see and why.

I'll buy if you do, I'm done with you guys if you don't

You've so confused the political with the legal that the entire point of your argument is without force. Craig and Vitter are both under legal investigations. There is no difference between the two in that regard. Some may even say that the ethics investigation for Vitter is more binding. Craig's legal situation will probably be pleaded and/or dropped all together.

Politically, however, there is a world of difference. Craig has a Republican Governor running his state, and, therefore, a way to make sure the Republican count in the Senate doesn't suffer. With the Republican's ship taking on water by the fathom, it's just strategy pushing him aside. The same can't be said with respect to Vitter because just the opposite would result. They'll want to do away with Vitter come next November though.

You're indignation is without merit. You've accepted the strategy of those who argue via allegation and hope the results will be what you wish for. Trying to manipulate the facts is a dangerous business. Sooner or later what is has to be dealt with. Craig is a homophope who needs to be swept out of public life. Redemption awaits him, sure. But the priority is to remove him from positions that affect national interests.

Period.

Trying to assuage facts, and make claims of other's wrongdoing to avert the central issue is actually a form of sophistry great for jibes with friends. Stimulating cocktail party humor. Other than that it's bound to at best waste skills needed elsewhere.

To hell with Craig. Craig's out because Craig's unfit. The only issue is why didn't we see that much, much earlier.