SPOKANE, Wash. – A Republican state legislator from southwest Washington had sex with a man he met at an erotic video store and then told police he had been targeted in an extortion attempt, according to police documents released Tuesday.

State Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, who on Monday declared, “I have not had sex with a guy,” told police he was the victim in an extortion attempt by Cody Castagna at the posh Davenport Tower hotel on Oct. 26, search warrant documents said.

In his only public comments, Curtis told The Columbian newspaper of Vancouver, Wash., that he did not solicit anyone for sex and was not gay.

“I committed no crime,” Curtis told the newspaper Monday. “I did not solicit sex. I was trying to help somebody out.”

Curtis, a former firefighter, declared, “I am not gay.”

The sordid details of the police report:

Richard had walked into the bathroom and was there for several minutes.  The male in the Home Depot jacket told ______ “He always takes a long time because he’s putting on lingerie.”  A few minutes later _____ saw Richard exit the bathroom wearing long red women’s stockings and a black sequined lingerie top.  Richard went up to the second viewing room, which is upstairs in the boutique.  _____ walked upstairs, walked past the second room and saw a 40-ish year old white male with a cane performing oral sex on Richard.

Later…

Richard asked _____ what was up.  _____ told Richard he had lost $40 at playing cards earlier that evening.  _____ said he used his last $10 to get into the boutique to view the porno movies.

Richard told _____ that he would give _____ some money and help him out.

Richard directed _____ to meet him at the Davenport Towers Hotel.

_____ asked Richard what he did and Richard told him, “I work to help people out.”  Richard also told _____, “If I told you, I’d have to kill you.”

Richard said his wife knew that he liked being with guys when they got married, but she was not into that, so he only did that when he was out of town.

Richard got out a tube of lubricant and _____ was now naked and began masturbating on the bed.  Richard told _____ that he liked to be submissive and role play because he has a job where he’s always in charge.  Richard told _____ that _____ was in control.  _____ stated he got a flavored condom which Richard had on the nightstand next to the bed.  _____ put the condom on and performed anal sex on Richard.

I’ll stop here, but there’s much more if you want to read it.

It ends up as a he said/he said case of did Richards pay for sex with the guy or did the guy try to extort money from Richard?  We’ll have to wait and see on that.

But based on the police report and the hotel videotapes that confirm Richard was with a guy in the hotel, I think we can assume Richard enjoys gay sex.

But he says he’s not gay.  He’s just a guy that likes to dress up in lingerie, go to porn theaters for blow jobs from men, pick up men and take them to his hotel room for anal sex.

Gay?  Who’s gay?  Certainly not this Republican member of the Washington State House of Representatives.

Why is Rudy Giuliani such an asshole?

He actually said this a couple days ago:

“This is the world we live in. It’s not this happy, romantic-like world where we’ll negotiate with this one, or we’ll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we’ll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we’ll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House,” Giuliani said.

“Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball,” he added.

They guy is wack. 

Would a Democratic candidate say something like that?  One might say that Giuilani and Romney are debating whether to model their presidency after Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, and that’s pretty bad.  But to match Giuliani’s crazy talk, one would have to say that Giuliani and Romney are debating about modeling their presidency after Mussolini or Hitler.

You gotta love the French. Not only to they make the best damn bubbly wine in the world, they also know a war criminal when they see one.

Donald Rumsfeld, the former U.S. secretary of defense, is facing criminal charges in France for ordering the torture of prisoners in Iraq and at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Last week, some of the world’s leading human rights law groups filed a complaint before a French court charging Rumsfeld with authorizing and ordering torture.

The complaint was registered at the office of the prosecutor of the Court of First Instance in Paris when Rumsfeld was in the city for a talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine.

“We will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in torture are brought to justice,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a non-profit human rights law firm in the United States.

“We will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in torture are brought to justice,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a non-profit human rights law firm in the United States.

Ratner and his colleagues in France’s legal community contend that Rumsfeld and other top U.S. officials are subject to criminal trial because there is sufficient evidence to prove that they had authorized the torture of prisoners held on suspicion of involvement in terrorist acts.

“France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld,” said FIDH president Souhayr Belhassen. “It has no choice but to open an investigation.”

Okay, so it was an American in France that registered the complaint, but the French government agreed to investigate.  That’s a whole lot more than what we’re getting from our government.

Well maybe not.  Maybe the French are two busy with their wine and cheese to seek justice.  This update from the Center for Constitutional Rights website:

Despite the fact that the plaintiffs’ attorney in Paris personally informed the Prosecutor in charge of the case a day in advance of Rumsfeld’s presence in Paris on Friday morning, no action was taken by the Prosecutor to serve Rumsfeld with a witness warrant or to prevent him from leaving the territory.

We’ve been watching this guy for about seven years now, and just when we start thinking that there’s probably not much more he can offer in the way of verbal gaffes or stupid statements, he comes up with this:

I try to make sure that when I’m with foreign leaders, there’s a pretty picture of the two of us walking down the colonnades, or something like that, to send a good message.

I watched the clip on last Thursday’s “Moment of Zen” and I couldn’t believe it.

Watch.

According to the Register, women around the world are mailing their panties to leaders in Myanmar to protest the militant crackdown on citizens…

Ladies’ smalls sap generals’ vital energy
– By Lester Haines
“The Burmese military is facing an unexpected threat from female opponents to its regime – a deluge of panties dispatched to the country’s embassies in a “in a culturally insulting gesture of protest” against its recent crackdown on protestors.”

You can join the movement here!

Edit –
“This, just in: Junta leader Gen Than Shwe has vowed to sniff out the perpetrators and bring them in for a thorough debriefing.”

During her Friday visit to Moscow and after meeting with Vladimir Putin, a critical Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, “In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development.”  Rice went on to criticize Putin for usurping so much power from Russia’s judiciary, legislature and media.

Her concern is well placed but many of us wish that she would shout the same warning in the White House.  Now that our Rasputin has vacated the premises, our president could be instructed on the parallels between his amassed power and the activities of his “soul mate” in Moscow.

Or perhaps she doesn’t recognize the irony of her statement.

Maybe Republicans’ failure to grasp irony goes to that research showing that flexibility is an unknown attribute in the brain of a conservative.  I used to assess early kindergarten admissions by a test of the child’s ability to engage in reciprocal reasoning.  If a boy had a brother, he would be asked, “Does your brother have a brother?”  To the chagrin of many doting parents who knew that they had a genius on their hands, most would say “no.”  Usually the parents would interrupt the child to correct the answer.  Jean Piaget’s research on brain development indicated that this quality of “reciprocity” didn’t develop until about age 6.  Maybe it never develops for some.

Bruce Springsteen appeared on 60 Minutes last Sunday night, and during the segment he expressed some of his political views, including:

“We’ve see things that have happened over the past six years that I did not think anybody ever thought they’d ever see in the United States. When people think of the American identity, they don’t think of torture. They don’t think of illegal wiretapping. They don’t think of voter suppression. They don’t think of no habeas corpus, no right to a lawyer, you know.”

Anyone who knows anything about Bruce Springsteen knows that he’s been expressing political thoughts in his music for decades.  It’s nothing new for him.  What’s unusual is that he granted a TV interview to 60 Minutes.  He hasn’t given many interviews over the past 30 years or so.

Well Bill O’Reilly watched the segment, and he thought Springsteen was full of “bull.”   During his “top story” of the night, he discussed Springsteen with Kinky Friedman.  O’Reilly said that Springsteen has a “responsibility” to appear on The Factor or other shows like it to explain himself; not just do “drive-by stuff.”

He went on to say that if Springsteen did come on his show, he would “wipe him out,” and that he knows he won’t come on because he “couldn’t stand up to the questioning.”

That’s some invitation isn’t it?  And just what does he mean by “drive-by stuff”?  That doesn’t even make sense.  Springsteen was invited to appear on 60 Minutes, he agreed to be interviewed, and he responded to a question about the content of his new album.  That’s “drive-by stuff”? 

But that’s not all.  O’Reilly laid $25,000 on the table and said that if Springsteen came on his show, he would donate the money to Habitat for Humanity.

Can you believe that?  First off, if Springsteen wanted to donate $25,000 to Habitat for Humanity or any other cause for that matter, he’d just write a check.  Secondly, if O’Reilly thinks it’s a good idea to give $25,000 to Habitat for Humanity, then he should just do it.  He shouldn’t make it conditional – especially on the condition that someone who very rarely appears on television come on his show.

You can read a transcript of O’Reilly’s show here.

Here is a link to the video, but for some reason it doesn’t seem to work like other links to videos do, so if you want to watch the O’Reilly show, you’ll have to go here and scroll down to the In Case You Missed It section and click on “Scorn to Run.”