Katsnelson indicated he hoped his victims could take something “positive” away from the experience of being sexually assaulted. “When asked what that might be, he suggested that maybe she will now know to keep her doors locked,” the pre-sentence report stated.

Anti-rape blogger Cara Kulwicki wasn't surprised by Katsnelson's comments; she encounters disgusting sentiments like that one every single day. But she was surprised to learn that mainstream media outlets reacted with disgust to the "lock your doors" lesson. After all, when victim-blaming tips are handed down by anyone other than a convicted rapist, nobody seems to bat an eye. Kulwicki writes:

And far more than I’m surprised by his comments, I’m surprised by the fact that the media seems to be almost as appalled as I am. The statement isn’t just printed in the article, it’s featured in quite a few headlines. His words are referred to as “startling” and the “revulsion” of listeners is carefully noted. And while relieved that for once publications aren’t just parroting back the victim-blaming excuses and framing of a rapist and his attorney, I also simply cannot help but ask myself: where the hell are they the rest of the time?

Where is the shock and outrage when it’s argued that a victim shouldn’t have gotten into a car or entered a building with her assailant? Where is the outrage when it’s argued that if women didn’t get themselves so drunk, rapists wouldn’t rape them? Where is the outrage when it’s essentially stated that sex workers can’t be raped? Why is it not a cause of shock and source of headlines when a sexual assault is explained away as verifying the genitals of a person the assailant suspected was trans? Where are the expressions of horror when those who failed to stop the reported and ongoing rape of a woman with a mental illness declare themselves to have not been negligent? Where are the editors shaking their fists when a defense attorney goes out of his way to note that an alleged victim was a drug user? Where is the anti-rape media perspective when the assault of a child by an adult is being referred to as “sex”? Where are they? Because nine times out of ten, they’re turning the other way.

As far as victim-blaming sentiments are concerned, Katsnelson's comments were far from extreme. Last fall, a series of sexual assaults were reported inside a freshman dorm at the George Washington University. In October of last year, a University of Maryland student entered the residence early in the morning, prowled for open doors, and then sexually assaulted several women, placing his hands down their pants and forcibly kissing them. In response to the attacks, G.W. student newspaper the Hatchet—the leading media source on campus—performed an act of victim-blaming nearly identical to Katsnelson's. The assaults, the paper's editors wrote, served as a “valuable reminder of the necessity for students to lock their doors at all times and to take responsibility for guests you bring into residence halls.”

When a rapist blames his victims, we're appalled. When we do it, we're just being "realistic," "concerned," "protective," "responsible." Why are we outraged when rapists blame their victims, but not when we blame them? Because while it's unseemly to blatantly support the sorry excuses of a convicted rapist, we're still invested in supporting a culture of victim-blaming that shifts the responsibility of eliminating rape away from society as a whole, and onto individual victims. When Katsnelson tells his victims to "lock their doors," he's shifting the responsibility for the rape off of the rapist. When the G.W. community tells victims to do the same thing, it similarly excuses the campus of taking any meaningful action against sexual assault.

But when rapists start using the same victim-blaming arguments we do, it makes it a lot harder for us to keep up the narrative of blame without being identified as rape apologists. One solution to this problem is to tell those rapists to shut up, because it's making us look bad. So we call out a rapist for revealing himself to be—gee, who would have thought!—a rape apologist, and we draw a line in the sand that helps to protect our own right to victim-blame. We use the same tactic to excuse our own casual homophobia and racism. Our homophobic slurs and racist jokes are just "ironic" and "anti-PC" and "social commentary," but when a gay basher or a white supremacist uses the same words, well, that's just socially unacceptable. The reason we are allowed to use these words, we tell ourselves, is because we are not truly homophobes, or racists, or rape apologists.

In other words, the only people who are allowed to blame rape victims are people who don't really, truly believe in their heart of hearts that the victim is at fault. This clever little set-up helps keep victim-blaming alive while preventing any victim-blamer from actually being identified as a bad person. It's also inspired the use of the very popular construction, "I'm not blaming the victim, but [enter victim-blaming sentiment here]."

In the end, the only people who are allowed to use the language of rapists are the millions of people in this country who haven't actually been convicted of the crime. How is this not a rape culture again?

The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of automatically capitulating to the boner pressing against your back?

This week in college sex columns, it's all about George Washington University student newspaper The Hatchet's sex issue. Weeee! In this edition of University Sex Columns, find out why "GW is the total opposite of Afghanistan"; how college kids can delay sex by "looking at the stars"; what to do when your number one hook-up falls for an Ed Hardy guy.

* On students who abstain from sex:

Sex Tip: We don't have to take our clothes off: "When she is out on dates, senior Ogechi Ajaegbu is bubbly and enthusiastic, admired for her eager personality and kind attitude. Some of her favorite activities with prospective boyfriends, she says, include chatting, going to dinner, walking around, and looking at the stars . . . But when the evening comes to an end, she and her date say goodnight and part ways—without a kiss and without spending the night."

Life Lesson: "Sex has a procreative function, it's the greatest form of love that two people can experience," Junior Andrew Buonopane told the paper. "In our society, sex has been used to express either lesser love, temporary affectionate feelings or a means to an end, a way to just feel good."

Progressive Meter: I'm glad the Hatchet is giving some face time to students who think about and experience sex and relationship differently than many of their peers. It would have been nice, however, to hear a bit from an opposing viewpoint, particularly when the students interviewed explicitly claim that their peers are having bad sexual experiences:  "[Leticia] Tientcheu said she chose not to have sex at a younger age when her peers were getting pregnant or contracting sexually transmitted diseases—even when they attempted to protect themselves. She said she is happy not to be in the positions some of her friends have found themselves in."

—

* On bad sex, from a female perspective:

Sex Tip: Veteran G.W. sex columnist Layla talks about making lemonade out of midnight boners. "I couldn't help but internally groan when I woke up to [my pseudonymous sex partner] the Energizer Bunny's erection pressed against my back," she writes. "Deciding against my better judgment, I gave him a second go-around. After all, practice does make perfect, right?"

Life Lesson: Never listen to Cosmo. "The Energizer Bunny killed the mood from the start, excitedly pouring so much lube out of the bottle that I felt like I had just gone swimming in a bed of oil, wax and sweat. And if you've never tried such ridiculous positions featured in the magazine Cosmopolitan—such as the 'Passion Pretzel' or the 'Torrid Triangle'—then keep it that way," she writes. "I didn't think people actually took the magazine seriously, but the Energizer Bunny did, wanting to show off his knowledge of every move possible, a few of which had to be fictional."

Progressive Meter: I'm sad that someone who seems as sex-positive as Layla would feel the obligation to satisfy that boner. So when talking about really terrible sex, it can also be helpful to discuss some exit strategies. Layla, who writes that she's no longer hooking up with the Bunny, almost gets there. "[E]ven though I consider myself a professional when it comes to escaping awkward situations, I struggled to make up an excuse to leave in the middle of the disastrous sex I was experiencing," she writes. "Especially before sunrise."

—

* On bad sex, from a male perspective:

Sex Tip: In its Sex Issue, the Hatchet debuted a new male sex columnist who goes by the pseudonym "Mr. Jones." Jones' idea of terrible sex isn't navigating a surfeit of lube in the boudoir. Nope, Jones is more concerned about how terrible it is when one of his many casual hook-ups decides to hook up with someone else. "Last semester I was fortunate enough to be presented with a number of sexual opportunities," he writes. "Throughout my escapades it never occurred to me that the girls on my booty call list could be using me as well, that the girl I call Number One might have a list of her own."

Life Lesson: Girls you have sex with have inner lives! "I had been thinking of girls like On-Demand television—there when I wanted them and otherwise just waiting around for me to call," he says. "But that is simply not the case, as I found out all too well."

Progressive Meter: In Mr. Jones' conclusion, he writes: "In the end, when it comes to potential hook-up situations, girls have just as much control as boys. They are not sitting at home waiting for a call. . . . So do yourself a favor and talk to your potential partner. You don't have to put a ring on her finger, but you do have to communicate." I'm all about communication, but I'm not sure that just talking this out would have solved Jonesey's underlying problem here. How is that conversation going to go: "I'm having sex with tons of women, all of whom I expect to be waiting around to exclusively service my dick. I hope you understand"?

—

* On G.W.'s on-campus sex resources:

Sex Tip: This item is chock-full of tips on how to take advantage of G.W.'s official resources for sexual health, sexual assault, and student counseling services. Hot tip: "[Student Health Services] annually offers testing for sexually transmitted infections in the Marvin Center and also provides testing at its offices by appointment."

Life Lesson: The more you know.

Progressive Meter: It's wonderful to make students aware of the resources available to them on campus, but I wish the Hatchet would be clearer on how students can contact these resources. I also wish the paper would take a critical eye to how G.W. could make its services better, or speak to students who have attempted to navigate these systems; this reads like a love letter to a school that could actually use a lot of work in supporting its LGBT communities and sexual assault survivors.

—

* On the sex politics culture shock experienced by some of G.W.'s foreign students:

Sex Tip: Different strokes: "With scantily clad men and women on television and couples engaging in public displays of affection in plain sight, the sex culture at Western colleges and universities can challenge the beliefs of international students."

Life Lesson: "GW is the total opposite of Afghanistan," GW student Faisal Rahimi told the paper.

Progressive Meter: I love that the Hatchet is looking at sex and sexuality on campus through different cultural lenses; I just wish there were even more lenses presented here. It would have been interesting to get the perspective of some foreign students who found the sexual culture in the United Sex to actually be more repressive than what they're accustomed to, for example.

Photo via State Library and Archives of Florida.

Freddie Fackelmayer, a 2005 graduate of the George Washington University, wants everyone to know that he's not a "womanizing jerk." Fackelmayer just finished up a stint as fake boyfriend to reality television star Whitney Port on MTV's "The City," a fake show about Port's real life working in the fashion industry, a career she secured by virtue of being a reality television star. Anyway, Fackelmayer recently granted an interview with the G.W. Hatchet about how his fake relationship with a reality television star was totally misrepresented on the T.V.!

"They can still make you look however they want," Fackelmayer told the Hatchet. "They made me be this sort of womanizing jerk, which is not really who I am," he said. How does that work? According to  Fackelmayer, MTV "never asked the cast to say or do anything, but the editing that followed skewed what actually happens." He adds: "You know they cut it up [into] little bits and they pick what they want to make it as interesting as possible and it's tough not to look like a jerk, I think."

I want to believe Fackelmayer that he's not the kind of jerk with a fake tan who summers in the Hamptons and cheats on his girlfriend for the purposes of a reality TV show, but how can we know for sure? Let's check out the other facts about Fackelmayer revealed in the story:

- He was on a reality television show

- He majored in finance

- He still acts like a GW kid [Full disclosure: I went there]. "When I first saw him I thought he was a bit of an Adonis, tan, beautiful, he's a real switch-up," one GW student told the Hatchet. "At first I was shocked to hear he was a GW student, but after I heard him talk and watched him for a while, it made a lot of sense. I feel he fits into what a GW student would be."

- He works for a commercial real estate company

- He was in a frat

- He recruited one of his frat friends to corroborate his story: "It's just that you can't really find out who someone is through like 17 minutes, or however long it is."

- This: "Fackelmayer, who said he arrived to GW in his khakis and flip-flops from Connecticut, soon became accustomed to jeans, Georgetown and the lifestyle D.C. has to offer."

- He's writing a novel. "I'm speaking with agents, and that's actually something that actually has been helpful, because agents, if you're a first-time writer, its really difficult to get your foot in the door, but I sort of skipped those really difficult first steps because most of them had heard of me."

Hmm. I don't know. Womanizing jerk, or victim of the media? You be the judge.

"Both of these incidents exemplify ways that GW can improve security on its campus," the Hatchet editorial informed students. According to the camps paper, the bathroom hammering reveals how the university needs to "better expedite information in response to major security threats on campus." The sexual assault, meanwhile, "shows that students have a responsibility to keep themselves safe."

Perhaps it was not the best choice of words.

Both incidents, which occurred on Friday, Oct. 9, involved an assault upon students in a private on-campus facility. The male graduate student suffered a "non-life-threatening head injury" after he was "using a urinal when the suspect . . . came out of one of the stalls, stood behind the student and hit him in the back of the head with a hammer." Earlier that day, several G.W. freshman awoke to a strange man sexually assaulting them in their private dorm rooms. The paper, disappointingly, softens the man's actions as "sexual advances":

One female student who lives on the eighth floor reported that the man woke her up by trying to kiss her, and "attempted twice to place his hands down the front of her shorts," according to the police report. The female began screaming and the man ran across the hallway to another room, where he woke up another girl. She said he told her he had met her at Josephine, a popular nightclub.

"That's when I knew I didn't know him—I've never been to Josephine," the second female student said in an interview. "Then he grabbed my head and tried to kiss me."

In the editorial following the incidents, the Hatchet board wrote that the sexual assaults constituted a "valuable reminder of the necessity for students to lock their doors at all times and to take responsibility for guests you bring into residence halls."

These general safety precautions—lock your doors and don't leave your guests unattended—are good to know, but it doesn't take a G.W. Hatchet editorial for students to finally understand the arguments in favor of locking doors. Actually, a sexual assault on campus is not a "valuable" public service announcement, nor is it an appropriate opportunity to inform victims that they're lacking in personal responsibility. The Hatchet noted that the assault victims had "accidentally left the door unlocked" before they went to sleep. Compare that lapse in "responsibility" to the guy who illegally gained entrance to a private dorm, climbed to the 8th floor, and systematically sexually assaulted a hallway full of sleeping women. Oh, well. At least he taught those girls a valuable lesson!

Why doesn't the Hatchet see the a student getting hammered in the head as a "valuable reminder" that using a public urinal puts men in a vulnerable situation to a surprise attack? And why is the campus' latest head injury victim not reminded that he has a "responsibility to keep himself safe" from deranged criminals? Maybe it's because that sort of teaching moment works to place the blame on the guy who's just taking a piss, instead of the unpredictably violent guy with the hammer. Take away the hammer, unlock the door, and turn the bathroom victim into a hallway full of sleeping women, and all of a sudden, nobody's responsible for your sexual assault but you.

The G.W. Hatchet is writing to a pretty small campus community. The women who were sexually assaulted read that editorial. They know that their experience is being used by the campus press as a "valuable reminder" of campus irresponsibility. I hope they write back.

Criticisms of D.C.-area student sex columns, however, rarely take the form of the right-wing, anti-sex diatribe. At local colleges and universities, sex columnists are more likely to catch heat for furthering sex-negative sentiments, antiquated gender roles, or sloppy writing.

Last month, the American University Eagle's anonymous sex column was criticized for trivializing rape, ignoring LGBT students, and discouraging women from pursuing sex. Also this month, Georgetown University student journalist Juliana Brint accused her campus' sex columns of being "backwards, anti-feminist screeds" based on "outdated, belittling generalizations about the female psyche." How progressive are our local student sex writers?

—

Student Paper: The G.W. Hatchet

Columnists: Mr. Darcy, an anonymous heterosexual male; Layla, an anonymous heterosexual female.

Areas of Coverage: In Darcy's inaugural column, the male sex columnist posed an Austenian dilemma: Shall he choose the nice girl who gives a satisfying blow job, or the freaky one into semi-public window sex? Answer: Looks like he's sleeping (with both of them) on it for a little while longer. In Layla's latest go-around, she describes her unorthodox relationship with a "best friend" from out-of-town: They do it all the time, but they're not dating or anything, and it's awesome!

Progressive Score: 6. Both Darcy and Layla describe their personal experiences with casual sex with multiple partners—and they do so with respect for themselves and for everyone else involved. In college, that can be difficult—it's hardly edgy, but I'll take it. The problem with first-person sex columns from two heteros, though, is that the LGBT experience is completely shut out of the paper.

—

Student paper: The American University Eagle.

Sex columnists: Three anonymous writers—one female, two male, sexual orientation undisclosed. Their porny bylines: Amber Sparkles, Buster Darkhole, and Maxwell Hillcrest.

Areas of Coverage: The trio got off to a controversial start last month when they posited this hypothetic sexual experience—"It’s three in the morning. You have it inside you right now. It kind of hurts. You’ve had one too many cups of jungle juice"—as a normal AU hookup. In their follow-up column, Sparkles, Darkhole, and Hillcrest winked at the controversy as they moved on to another taboo campus topic. "It’s 3 a.m. and he has it in you right now. It hurts," the column read. "You are two sober, consenting adults who have just embarked on the journey of anal sex."

Progressive Score: 7. While the first column from the threesome was extremely ill-advised, this servicey anal sex primer—don't use silicone lube with silicone toys!—imparted some helpful and open-minded advice for dorm-dwellers embarking on an anal excursion for the first time. It also made a stab at inclusiveness: "Gay, straight, bisexual—it doesn’t matter," the column reads. "Anyone can enjoy the feeling that comes from anal stimulation, no matter their gender or sexual orientation."

But while the column worked to dispel the "taboo" against straight men enjoying ass play, it failed to tackle the pressure many straight women feel to do anal. It also only addressed the anal pleasure derived from massaging the prostate. Not everybody has a prostate!

On the other hand, the threesome managed to stir up some conservative ire for the column—always a good sign. "I am appalled at the content of the Eagle’s new column," wrote one commenter. "I find this particular article vulgar."

—

Student Paper: The Georgetown University Hoya.

Sex Columnists: Colleen Leahey

Areas of Coverage: According to Brint, who writes for the Georgetown Voice, Leahey's "backwards, anti-feminist screeds" come from a long line of conservative Georgetown sex columnists (Julia Allison was the first). In Leheay's first column, she declared that "The quest for 'Prince Charming' consumes the lives of most 20-something females." The odd advice in her second column wasn't so much gender-specific as it was stalker-specific: "After shouting their name, you wait for them to come running into your arms. Instead they ask, 'Why are you following me?'"

Progressive Score: 4. Leahey may very well have her hands tied at this particularly conservative student rag, which is lucky to have a sex column at all. "“[V]ulgarity is discouraged through all sections in The Hoya,” Hoya Managing Editor Marissa Amendolia explained in an e-mail to Brint. “[W]hen it comes to editing for style, vulgarity—and, depending on the situation, this may include sexual explicitness—is subject to editing as long as the editor maintains the author’s viewpoint.” That being said, Leahey doesn't have to get vulgar to become a bit more open-minded. It would behoove her to direct her columns to all members of the campus community, not just heterosexual females she deems "desperate."

Nevertheless, I give Leahey and the Hoya major points for refusing to hide their sex coverage under a pseudonym (even a pseudonym as inspired as "Buster Darkhole"). The Hoya's sex talk may be low on the sex, but at least they own it. If there's nothing wrong with talking about casual sex and anal experimentation, why keep your identity under the covers?

Note: I couldn't find any current sex columns at the UMD Diamondback, the Howard University Hilltop, or, uh, Catholic University. If you know of any other local student sex writers, let me know!

An initiative called Phelps-A-Thon, similar to that at my high school, donated about $12 per minute to Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, an organization that works to counter all forms of hate-motivated violence. According to Phelps-A-Thon organizer Chris Mason, the event raised over $550. The group plans on sending a thank-you note to Phelps, telling him how much money he raised for LGBT equality.

I wonder how much money Phelps has raised so far for AIDS research, gay marriage, and hate crime awareness? This guy is a saint.

The counter-protest was organized by Colin MacDonald and Ian Goldin, GW students who were joined by "between 80 and 100 people" in raising signs, chants, and face-locks against the church. At the height of the action, Freshmen Paige Medley and Lauren LaMonte kissed "to show their support for gay rights." It looks like there might have been some tongue, but it's too close to call.

For those also interested in, ahem, showing their solidarity, check out Hatchet photographer Marie McGrory's shot of the kiss here.

On September 13, 2008, Belok attended a party at Beta Theta Pi, a fraternity which he later pledged, when two other midshipmen [MIDN], Dave Perry and Squad Leader Nick Trimis, said they saw Belok kiss another male on the lips.

"In the basement of Beta Theta Pi, MIDN Belok introduced me to another male, who he referred to as his 'special friend,' " Trimis wrote in the Performance Review Board report. "Within five minutes of this introduction, I witnessed MIDN Belok kissing this individual on the lips. I decided I needed to leave after this encounter."

Belok says he's still determined to become a Navy officer—after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed. Belok has, however, now pledged Beta Theta Pi.

After the jump, I tally the argumentative stylings of this Prop 8 manifesto:

"I'm coming out of the closet: As a Californian, I voted yes on Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage." Plus five. While some might find this comparison unsavory, I think it's pretty snappy. Seduce the reader with the lede, and it's smooth homophobic arguin' thereafter.

"Not because of religious reasons and not because the Bible tells me to—rather, for entirely secular reasons. . . . The 1964 Civil Rights Act gave individual human beings of all colors the fundamental human rights to equality that our Creator endowed to all of us upon birth." Minus six. Bad form to express ambivalence to religious argument then turn around and invoke the capital-C word.

"In contrast, the gay marriage movement is seeking rights for 'couples,' a vague societal concept that is formed much later in life and easily made or broken." Plus one, only because I don't care for marriage of any kind.

"Anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and laws that protect individual homosexuals against discrimination based on their sexual orientation are one thing. Pushing to legalize gay marriage and the rights of couples is quite new and quite another thing." Minus one thing. Be specific, Clark! Win us over with the details!

"[T]heoretically, a gay person and I have the exact same right under California law: We can marry someone of the opposite sex who is older than 16 if we pay 40 bucks and get tested for HIV. That gay person can't marry a man, but I can't do it either. So am I being discriminated against? Is he?" Nice use of rhetorical questioning to prove a point. Next time, though, work on making the question more difficult to immediately and definitively answer (Hint: the answer is "yes"). Plus only two.

"Yes, I realize that this is odd back-door logic, but you see my point." Minus 10. Come on, Clark! Don't take the time to set up a perfectly unreasonable argument and then throw it away in the very next graf. Get your head in the game!

"They don't want just the couples' rights. They want the whole tamale, title of marriage and all." Mmm, tamales. Plus ocho!

"So when gay rights activists want to pursue actual rights, let me know. Until then, I'll be voting yes to ban gay marriage." Plus one, if only because the final abrupt turn here made me giggle out loud. And I'm the last person to begrudge a throwaway joke at the kicker!

Point total: Even! I didn't plan this, I swear!

"I don't think that is my calling, to be a drag queen," said Rozenberg, who is currently applying to law schools where he plans to study international financial law next fall.

Drag-queen-until graduation Rozenberg will be shedding a lot of ruffles, come law school: he's also a director and performer for G.W.'s annual production of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

* Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville says a cat's place is in the cleavage:

this morning, after [the cat had] been driving me bananas for about an hour with this new routine, I tucked the bottom of the tanktop I was wearing up under my boobs to create a little pouch, then stuck her inside, where she promptly fell asleep for about three hours.

And yes, there is a photo.

* Over at The New Gay: A David Foster Wallace obit, from the perspective of someone who's never read a book by David Foster Wallace.

* The District cracks down on clubs that have different age requirements for men and women, the G.W. Hatchet reported last week. Metro News Editor Alexa Millinger writes that it's "not uncommon for bars and clubs to advertise events with a minimum entrance age of 18 for females and 21 for males," and writes that ABRA community resource officer Cynthia Woodruff-Simms "said she knows of a few places in Adams Morgan, U Street and the Southeast Waterfront that use these practices"—all of which seems unnecessarily vague. Can we get the skinny on the effect on those "few places"?

* Via Feministing via Boing Boing: Sexist men make more money. Writes Vanessa:

Most of my friends who make a lot of cheese (finance, technology – all male-dominated fields mind you) seem to have experienced or witnessed more sexism than others. (The corporate world alone is enough to make one nauseous.) And what is there to be said for women who believe in traditional gender roles making less money than women who don't?

* Via Slate: How the "Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood" made the case that "Bratz" dolls—along with "explicit music," "rap videos," and M&M flavored "lip gloss," contribute to "eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression and poor sexual health."

* Larry Craig is back: The Idaho senator has started a legal defense fund to aid in his attempt to overturn his guilty plea from a June 2007 "misdemeanor disorderly conduct" charge, the Idaho Statesman reports. Last February, the Senate Ethics Committee admonished Craig for spending over $200,000 of unused campaign funds to try to reverse the plea; now, he's accepting donations after the fund, dubbed "The Fund for Justice," was OK'd by the Ethics Committee.

* Larry Craig extra: While perusing the Senator's Web site, I came across this page, wherein Larry Craig debunks common Internet rumors for his constituents. The page features a totally creepy photo of Craig who, through some feat of dark magick, appears to be balancing a man-sized Fabergé egg in his palm. My favorite of Craig's "fact or fiction" crusades for truth, filed under "Tax on email":

Some folks have contacted me about a possible five-cent tax on email. This is a hoax that began circulating on the Internet several years ago. An email message warns people that "House Bill 602P" will levy a five-cent surcharge on every email sent. It goes on to say that the bill is sponsored by Congressman Tony Schnell, and the funds would go to the U.S. Postal Service. Further, it refers to an "editorial" in the "March 6 issue" of The Washingtonian supporting the tax. . . . Let me assure you, there is no Bill 602P. There is no Member of Congress by the name of Tony Schnell, and the United States Postal Service has nothing to do with delivering email. The Washingtonian is a monthly magazine, and does not even have a "March 6" issue. It is highly unlikely that a measure like this will ever come to the Senate floor for debate.

Glaring omission: That pesky Larry Craig gay rumor.