There’s also the matter of hiring and paying money to someone not authorized to work here. (Babeu’s brother also hired him to work in his 2010 campaign for Justice of the Peace.) A bad law, maybe, but one Babeu enforces against other people with relish.

TampaZeke, Babeu did post pictures of his genitalia. New Times just declined to publish them. My understanding is that they belie the claim about 7 inches.

Perhaps we have a basic disagreement about what is or should be embarrassing to a public official.

When talking about embarrassment in this manner, there is a strong element of shame and shameful behavior – that which has been done (often in secret) which no right-thinking person thinks acceptable or proper. Scandal, shocking, outside of normal convention.

This is not firmly defined but depends on community and societal attitudes.

And I want to be careful to distinguish between being embarrassed and bringing embarrassment. Tyler Clementi was embarrassed but he did nothing that would bring embarrassment on anyone.

Personally, I think there is nothing inherently shameful about joining a gay social media site. Even a site that is designed for hooking up. And while it is embarrassing to have ones measurements printed in a newspaper, I personally do not think it shameful nor that it brings embarrassment to his department.

And, again, this standard varies. Some of his constituents find being gay to be shameful. Sixty years ago his position would only have been filled by a married family man associated with a Protestant church for decorum’s sake.

But so far, his fellow officers don’t seem embarrassed. They seem so far to support him and be indignant about the story.

This membership hasn’t been introduced into any investigations. It hasn’t been the focus of community outrage. And even his political rival who is running on family values has said it is a failure of judgment but did not even hint that it violated the State Code of Conduct.

So far, the only one asserting that it is inherently shameful – that is, that this membership brings embarrassment and dishonor on the face of it – the only one saying, in essence that belonging to a gay dating site such as adam4adam and posting info the is so wrong that it ceases to be a private matter and becomes a cause to fire a public official (and that is what they are saying) is New Times.

Not AFA, but the New Times. Not the local GOP, but New Times. They are the only ones who see his a4a membership and profile in terms of the State Code.

I cannot help but wonder if they would make the same argument if this were a favored politician. Would they suggest that someone else be fired for such a membership?

Perhaps. But if so then they have values that I do not share. I just don’t find joining a4a to be a fire able offense that is a violation of the code.

No doubt some of our readers share their values. If you say that you share their values I won’t debate it.

But I’m too old-fashioned small-c conservative to think that this should be public information or that it is an embarrassment to ones associates.

The New Times thinks that it has exposed shameful behavior. I think they have behaved shamefully.

To me it’s like running up and pulling down someone’s pants and screaming “I can see your underwear! Shame, shame.”. Had Babeu posted the info in public, it would be shameful. But when he posted in private and someone posing as someone else lied to gain access then abused that trust by printing the info PUBLICLY on the world wide web, I don’t see them as the admirable ones.

There are PLENTY of other issues with which to hang Babeu, not least of which is why he threatened his boyfriend with deportation and ruining his business and, quite hypocritically, harboring an immigrant who he knew was violating the terms of his visa.

New Times was pretty specific in the limits of their parallel. It was not that Babeu ran a porn site, but that he did something that, like the other case, may violate the state code of ethics, and that officers “whether on- or off-duty, in uniform or not,” are bound to not do anything that “bring(s) discredit or embarrassment.” Babeu’s claim that it was his personal life might not fly, because it didn’t fly with a former officer in a police department Babeu previously served in. I thought the limit of the parallel, which New Times specified, should be pretty obvious to anyone who bothers to read the piece.

And if the information that New Times published “bring(s) discredit or embarrassment,” then it was not New Times that did the embarrassing. It was the person who revealed his preferred sexual position and that he has a seven inch circumcised cock on the World Wide Web who did the embarrassing. What other politician or public official has done that? And can you imagine any reporter, upon finding that. sitting on it because, oh, “it’s just his private life”?

Whether Babeu finds it embarrassing or not is up to him. I think any private gay citizen, if they were sudddenly thrust into the public eye, and then had their adam4adam profile with similar details made public, they would be embarrassed. But they are not public officials, and I’m sure they might feel as though their privacy was invaded.

Babeu is, on the other hand, a public official, and a higher bar is set for him because of it. But he’s not being singled out. The list of embarrassed and embarrassing public officials is long. A public official who does not assume that every move is watched, every text message and email is saved, every web profile gets discovered, every text message gets passed along, and every microphone and camera is live, risks being discovered and potentially embarrassed — and becoming an embarrassment to those who are associated with him.

The list of politicians who got caught up in similar situations is very long. I urge you to refrain from trying to put Babeu into a special case. Unfortunately, his case is actually all too banal.

But if Babeu and Orozco were running a webcam porn site then let me know. I’ll definitely agree with New Times and their comparison if that is the case.

I’ll definitely agree that the profile contains sexually explicit info. The kind one only sees when logging into a website like adam4adam. And had they said that, I wouldn’t quibble.

Ya know, before this is over I might buy Babeu as villain and Orozco as victim. At first blush I assumed that Babeu was, at least, a cheating lying bastard.

But since the story dropped, nothing has gone as expected. Babeu didn’t follow script by retaliating or outing Orozco. Nor did he quietly slink away.

The evidence of a crime seems very weak and limited to Jose’s attorney responding to an impression of a threat – but neither the correspondence leading to that letter nor the response to it has been presented. I’m not sure at this point whether it hold up.

But I’m not yet ready to let Babeu off the hook on that. And if the investigation reveals abuse of power, then prosecute him.

As for the New Times… they seem to have different policies about distinguishing fact from opinion than I am accustomed to seeing in a press organization. Perhaps an advocacy blogsite, but not from the indie press.

I really am beginning to get the impression that they saw an opportunity to embarrass Babeu and – for whatever reason – placed it as a higher priority than either journalistic integrity or what harm it could cause my community. I really could be wrong on that. It may not be the case at all. And it’s only a fledgling idea so don’t give it much credibility.

But I would be happier if they didn’t use language that plays on the biases and encourages the bigotries of people who suddenly have a new reason not to like Paul Babeu. Ultimately it harms us all.

*awkward crickets*

How many straight elected officials do you know would escape the “sexually explicit” tag with a profile that says “vers/top, 7″ Cut. Safe Sex Only, HIV Negative”?

As for the “puritanical approach,” isn’t that the state Code of Ethics for police officers setting that standard?