I must confess that I didn't even know about Matt Lauer's interview with Senator Larry Craig because I don't watch Lauer, and even if I did, I would have no interest in watching Craig deny that he is gay. Lauer, by most accounts, was lobbing up softballs at Craig, lest he be perceived as bashing homosexuals and probably was most uncomfortable doing the interview. But hey! Craig is a Republican, so he is fair game. He could have gone down to Louisiana and interviewed William "Cool Cash" Jefferson regarding his bribery arrest (a topic Lauer's network has all but ignored). But then, Jefferson is a Democrat. We get it,Matt.
I did listen to excerpts of the interview on the John and Ken radio show on KFI (Los Angeles) because I am a John and Ken fan and I knew it would be good for laughs. And it was. To someone with a cynical sense of humor as mine, Craig's staements were hysterically funny. Other than that, I am ready to turn my attention elsewhere-as long as Craig resigns. I must state, however, that Craig has now made a claim that is laughable on its face and must be addressed. Now he is asserting that he is the victim of profiling, and now he understands the victimization of innocent people by profiling.
Profiling? Wait a minute. First of all, when we speak of profiling these days, most folks bring up racial profiling, that is, stopping someone based on their race. Is that what happened here? Did the Minneapolis Airport police spot Craig, a 60ish white male, grey hair, dressed in a suit and figure he fit the profile of someone that might be looking for sex in a public bathroom? Obviously not. I doubt that there is a racial component to that activity.
As a retired DEA agent, I have some familarity with the topic of profiling. Law enforcement will tell you (and many people are not convinced) that true profiling is based not on race, but behavior that is typical of a certain type of violator. For example, suspected drug couriers flying around the country carrying drugs and/or cash proceeds have been checked out based on things such as type of ticket they were carrying, luggage, behavior etc. With vehicle stops that lead to a search, it is based on what details the officers develop during the stop that leads them to form reasonable cause to believe there might be drugs in the car. Any stop (in either situation ) based on race would never pass muster in court.
In Craig's case, he was not detained based on any profile, he was detained and arrested based on his actions. Let's remember that it was Craig who initiated contact with the undercover officer-not the other way around. The cop was already in the restroom and in the stall when Craig entered and focused his attention on the cop. Prior to that (as far as we know) the police had not even observed Craig. So for Craig to claim entrapment and profiling is ludicrous.
All in all, this man is continuing to make a laughing stock out of himself and humiliating his wife in the process. No one (except possibly his wife and children) care a whit whether he is gay or not. That is not the point. The point is that such behavior in a public restroom is against the law-and properly so. The public, especially children who use those restrooms, should have the right to enter without having to step over two people having sex in a public place-an activity that even most gays would consider disgusting.
So now Craig is going back on his resignation, trying to get his plea erased and hold on at all costs to his Senate seat. To me, this is typical of the self-centered narcissism of politicians today. But as long as he insists in holding on, the longer he will be the butt of the late night comics.
No comments:
Post a Comment