Skip to main content

The only apology that Charles O. Walter, Richard M. Bauer, and John E. Jenkins are likely to receive...

... comes from me, which means it probably isn't worth a damn to any of them, but that doesn't change my obligation as a Delaware citizen.

Walter, Bauer, and Jenkins (who range in age from 50-77) were the three men whose names the Snooze Journal felt obligated to print when they were arrested for loitering for engaging in or soliciting sexual activvity [the 77-year-old also got charged with offensive touching] in the Newark PD sting this past weekend in Folk Park.

Here's a large chunk of the article, because, strangely enough (possibly due to my own ineptitude) I cannot find it online:

Illegal Sexual Activity Moves from Iron Hill to Folk Park

by Angie Basiouny [I usually don't do writer's names, but in this case I wanted to be sure to avoid slandering any of the competent reports on the WNJ staff, and there are several.]

[Nor could I resist editorializing just the slightest bit.]

Newark police officers are dealing with an old problem in a new place.

For the past month, they've been cracking down on illegal sexual activity
[in their off moments from selectively enforcing noise ordinances against bikers] that seems to have migrated north [presumably, as fast as the 77-year-old's walker could get him there] from the county-owned Iron Hill Park, just south of I-95, into the city-owned Folk Park next door.

Three
[elderly, let's not forget elderly] men have been arrested in separate cases, accused of approaching male undercover officers and soliciting them for sex.

"It's basically been developing since the county police started doing enforcement in Iron Hill Park," Newark Capt. Rick Williams said Thursday. "Right now, this is the only [city] park that we know of with this problem."

For decades, Iron Hill Park had a reputation as a clandestine spot for men to meet other men, and was listed on Internet sites that identify places to "cruise" for sex....
[I'm sure a lot of 77 year-old-men go web-surfing for pick-up pointers]

But Newark Mayor Vance Funk said he thinks heavy police patrols in the city park will bring a quick end to the issue.

"I never dreamed they [those despicable, elderly queer criminals, I think he means] would start using Folk Park," he said. "It's not a big concern with me because we actively patrol that area and anybody who would use that park for illegal means would have to be nuts. They must want to be caught."
[so they're masochists, too, huh, Mr. Mayor?]...

Several residents living in nearby Villa Belmont apartments said they were unaware of any criminal activity at the park. Those who did said they were confident police could stop it.

"I do hope they get control of it," said Ruth Shipley [obviously uncertain of the Newark PD's ability to hand three elderly gay men]. "I know a lot of people like to use the walking trail..." [She] said she hates the idea that the crime has simply moved across the interstate....

Newark Councilman Paul Pomeroy said he wants to make it clear the city is not stepping up patrols because the reported crimes are between two men.
[so, Paul, you admit the undercover officers were interested, eh?]

"I think that sort of sexual activity in a public park, no matter who is doing it, is not appropriate and not what we are looking to promote," he said [confident that no teens or college students had ever kissed, groped, or penetrated each other in any fashion in a Newark park, ever].


Here's the apology: Mr. Walter, Mr. Bauer, and Mr. Jenkins, on behalf of myself [because I have my doubts about finding anybody else who'll do it], I'd like to apologize for the News Journal deciding to publicly humiliate you by specifically blocking your names as potential sex offenders on the front page of the Local Section. I'd like to apologize for the Gestapo-like tactics of the Newark Police Department (and apparently the Newark Council) for criminalizing your sexual orientation and any attempt to hook up with another consenting adult.

As for those of you who are going to go the route of defending the Newark PD because this is a public park and it's obviously inappropriate [God knows I'm coming to hate that weasel word with a passion] to engage in any form of sexual behavior in any slightly public place, let me put it to you as simply as I can: screw off.

You liberals have participated in the sexualization of society to the point where it is acceptable for a pre-teen girl to wander around that same park wearing Abercrombie & Fitch come-on shorts and T-shirts, and have marginalized concerned parents who object to the process by lumping them in a social conservatives....

You conservatives have tried for Taliban-like restrictions on access to birth control and abortions, and have consistently supported the idea that gay people are too twisted and disruptive of the morale of us normal God-fearing folks either to get killed in Iraq or become tourists in South Carolina....

This is what you all agree on? Elderly gay men should be criminalized for seeking sex with consenting adults?

Walter, Bauer, and Jenkins--the Newark Three--are the victims in this case.

As I said once before, I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out who I think should be considered the perps.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Did you ever think that any of these men might be married with children? In that case, they have no right to be sleeping with ANYONE other than their wives. If this is really how they feel, they should have done something about it earlier because it probably would have been a lot easier for all others involved. They don't need an apology, they need to apologize to their families.
Anonymous said…
Did you ever think that maybe one of these men was a CHURCH LEADER? Not only was he a father and husband but a church leader as well. What a shock this was to his congregation. He needs to apologize to them.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...