Men's room etiquette 101
So, another family values politician has been caught with his pants down, if not quite red-handed.
Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho has pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct in a men's room in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. This is the kind of disorderly conduct that is sometimes described as "lewd.''
According to the arresting officer, Craig sat in the stall next to his and reached his foot under the partition until it touched the officer's foot.
And then, continues the officer's report, Craig proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.
Craig says now that he should not haved pleaded guilty, that it was all a big misunderstanding.
Let's try to give the esteemed senator the benefit of the doubt.
It might be possible...just barely..to accidentally touch the foot of the guy in the next stall, particularly if, as Craig maintains, according to the story in Roll Call, he has a "wide stance when going to the bathroom.''
But how do you accidentally reach your hand under the stall partition?
I never wave to guys in the men's room, but maybe that's just me.
What if he dropped some change or it fell out of his pocket and rolled?'' a friend suggested.
"That change is gone, as far I'm concerned,'' I responded.
It seems to me that the only reason your hand should ever reach that way is if it is followed by an immediate request to borrow some toilet paper, and even then, simple etiquette demands that you politely ask before grabbing.
Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho has pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct in a men's room in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. This is the kind of disorderly conduct that is sometimes described as "lewd.''
According to the arresting officer, Craig sat in the stall next to his and reached his foot under the partition until it touched the officer's foot.
And then, continues the officer's report, Craig proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.
Craig says now that he should not haved pleaded guilty, that it was all a big misunderstanding.
Let's try to give the esteemed senator the benefit of the doubt.
It might be possible...just barely..to accidentally touch the foot of the guy in the next stall, particularly if, as Craig maintains, according to the story in Roll Call, he has a "wide stance when going to the bathroom.''
But how do you accidentally reach your hand under the stall partition?
I never wave to guys in the men's room, but maybe that's just me.
What if he dropped some change or it fell out of his pocket and rolled?'' a friend suggested.
"That change is gone, as far I'm concerned,'' I responded.
It seems to me that the only reason your hand should ever reach that way is if it is followed by an immediate request to borrow some toilet paper, and even then, simple etiquette demands that you politely ask before grabbing.
posted by Michael Riley at 9:53 AM
26 Comments:
How wide is your stance?
This guy's excuses are going to go down in history as the biggest bunch of BS ever contrived. The only thing that could have been funnier would be if he had admitted to having puffed but that he didn't inhale. ::grin::
Worse, he pled guilty and now says he wants to withdraw his plea because he didn't have the benefit of council at the time. Excuse me, but as a US Senator, isn't he a LAWMAKER? And a LAWYER to boot? And yet he wasn't in a position to understand the situation before he pled? What a joke.
I'm glad you clarified the story. I mustn't have read the whole article, because I thought he was arrested because he was tapping his foot, which the article said was a signal for an encounter...I thought to myself if people get arrested for just nervously tapping their feet in a public restroom, then maybe a lot of us are in trouble...but it was MORE than just tapping a foot.
Margaret
He was in a position to understand alright. A compromising position.
He was actually looking for Jim Mcgreevy at the Howard Stern rest stop on the turnpike.Must have made a wrong turn.
Remember the Tony Orlando and Dawn song:"Knock three times on the ceiling if you want me..twice on the pipes if the answer is no"
"Worse, he pled guilty and now says he wants to withdraw his plea because he didn't have the benefit of council [sic] at the time." -- Ray
Here's hoping that you, Ray, someday make enough money to be able to actually hire legal "counsel," as opposed to just being able to merely vote for the members of your township's local "council".
I think pat is a closet homo.
Well it seems that the Ol' Spookmeister has had to resort to pointing out typos in my posts instead of dealing with the substance of them.
This is an interesting irony considering how Spooks complains about ad hominem attacks from others. What's up, Spooks? Having a really, really bad day at home? Are you angry that God didn't let you win the lottery? Are you PO'd that all of your proselytizng and whining about Christians being under attack didn't pay off for you?
anonymous wrote:
"I think pat is a closet homo."
Could be. I understand he's got a rather "wide stance" on the issue.
"I think pat is a closet homo." anonymous
Wow, the brilliance of anon's statement along with Ray's humor brings the level of intelligence here to a MUCH higher level.
What was that? Middle school classroom humor?? Yup, that about covers it.
Margaret likes to pretend that she's above such things yet recently she wondered if I like dog-fighting.
Middle School, you say?
Margaret probably has gay dogs. Woof!
Yeah, you're right, 'middle school humor' is giving you both a big compliment, and elevating the humor to a much higher level than it actually is.
And Ray, I asked you if you were into dog fighting because of that strain of viciousness that frequently rears its head here in the blogs. Don't go reading something into the question that wasn't there.
Gay dogs...well, there you go. An interesting comment, anon.
Margaret wrote:
"And Ray, I asked you if you were into dog fighting because of that strain of viciousness that frequently rears its head here in the blogs. Don't go reading something into the question that wasn't there."
Mud, by any other name, would sling just as sweet.
Your holding me to a higher standard than yourself.
M
You're missing the point. YOU complain about viciousness even as you participate in it. The difference is that I can participate in it without complaining about it while pretending not to participate in it. That's the issue.
But you just did complain about it. What a convoluted answer.
And, perhaps YOU'RE missing the point because you want to. It is easy to separate the one question I asked from the nastiness that ensued prior, by you. I am not blog hunting to find the specific quotes prior to my question. I am not as zealous as some who wish to prove a point with you.
I got mad. It's as simple as that. What, anger and sarcasm cannot be afforded to Christians, only to atheists?
If the question, which was sarcastic, hurt you, then I am sorry that it did. I assumed that one who could dish it out so well would have a thicker skin. I will be more careful next time.
Margaret wrote:
"But you just did complain about it. What a convoluted answer."
As always I have to explain my answer to Margaret. No, I didn't complain about it. Far from it. I let it go but then you made your comments about others being vicious so it was appropriate to mention it. Once again, the issue is hypocrisy, not name-calling in and of itself.
"I got mad. It's as simple as that."
Fine, get as mad as you like. Just don't pretend to own a high horse.
"What, anger and sarcasm cannot be afforded to Christians, only to atheists?"
What, hypocrisy is okay for Christians but nobody else?
"If the question, which was sarcastic, hurt you, then I am sorry that it did."
It didn't. See above.
"I assumed that one who could dish it out so well would have a thicker skin. I will be more careful next time."
My skin is so thick you wouldn't believe it. With my world-view, it has to be, doesn't it? Again, the issue here is hypocrisy. You need to see the need to apply the same rules to yourself that you apply to others.
This blog is obviously an outlet for you, Ray. If it helps you in your quest for...? Whatever it is, then so be it. Have a nice day.
You just can't acknowledge that you've been caught in the hypocrisy you've accused others of, can you?
Caught? Are you kidding? Have you been trying to catch me in hypocrisy, Ray? Have you been lying in wait for me to "screw up"?
You're really going off about this because you've got to prove to everyone here how hypocritical anyone of faith is. It's so important to you that it's scary.
I notice how zealous you are in stating over and over again how gullible (or ignorant) I am. For what purpose? To diminish me?
Ray, you have some good points. I have read around and through some of your less than kind stuff and gotten some of your points. Some of them are well taken. But more often than not they're at the expense of someone else. And not even on point Why?
It's supposed to be funny, that's right. You're the extreme Don Rickles of blogland, and that has just never entertained or amused me. So from now on, for the sake of coexistence I will try very hard to ignore the barbs. Because I'm not leaving. Mr. Riley writes some good stuff and I like it here.
Many times before in this blog I have said we are all hypocrites at one time or another, and that includes me. Give it a rest.
M
Margaret is a hypocrite, Ninny ninny poo-poo.
Let's all get in a hot tub, sing "kum by ya" and have few brewskies. Can't we all get along??
I'm only the Don Rickles of blogland if I call you a hockey puck.
And no, I haven't been waiting for you to screw up -- I didn't have to wait at all.
Smugness becomes you.
Post a Comment
<< Home