|
|
|
October 06, 2006
Outing closeted gays is good.
But outing anonymous accusers is despicable! When I wrote about "outing" yesterday I hadn't read this post, which has a very different view of what the word means. While I thought the term involved disclosing the homosexuality of someone who was trying to be discrete and wouldn't want it disclosed, here it seems to involve disclosing the identity of a 21 year old, self-described "political junkie" who has accused a congressman of homosexual dirty talk in a huge national scandal. Is that "outing"? It might be, if the accuser was discretely gay, and wanted that fact kept private. But the "outing" alleged here makes it pretty clear that he was not gay. Disclosing the identity of an anonymous accuser is not the kind of "outing" I was talking about. Regardless of whether such a thing is a good idea, once the identity has been disclosed, it's news. In this case, it was reported as news, and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that a blogger named Wild Bill was responsible for the discovery and disclosure of information apparently gleaned from examining ABC's web site. To my mind, commenting on what has already been reported is not outing, nor is it immoral in any way. I agree with James Joyner that this is a legitimate inquiry: The point of the original post was that one of the "victims" of Foley's instant messages was a then-18 and now-21-year-old and that ABC falsely lumped them in with messages sent to 16-year-olds. That's certainly newsworthy and relevant. Further, while my interest in this matter is in the conduct of a middle aged Congressman rather than the degree of consent given by the targets of his affection, there are some legal and moral distinctions between coming on to a grown-up versus an adolescent.Once the identity had been made public, Glenn Reynolds, Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon, Newsbusters, this blog, and countless others behaved no differently in commenting on it than the site now accusing everyone else of "despicable" conduct. (Pot. kettle. black.) Oh, but the latter didn't provide the link. Instead, they merely named the site so even the dimmest dimwit could find it, and provided a picture of the traffic the site has gotten. I think the identity of the accuser is highly relevant, especially because whether or not a crime was committed depends upon his age and his credibility. How on earth could anyone determine the age or evaluate the credibility of an anonymous accuser? I don't see how. Unless, of course, this is supposed to be a scandal which dare not be discussed, but which guilt is determined based on anonymous accusations. A lot of people seem to want it that way. UPDATE: More news not from bloggers, but from NewsOK.com (the Oklahoma Journal's web site). Not only does the accuser work for the flagging Istook gubernatorial campaign, but his attorney is apparently a campaign contributor: [Attorney Steven C. Jones]Jones confirmed he has been in contact with the FBI and that Edmund has left Oklahoma. Jones, a $5,000 contributor to Istook, said he is not being paid by the Istook campaign.More non-blog (and therefore not "despicable") news here. While I don't think the latest Oklahoma news is particularly explosive, it does show that reporting it is hardly part of the blogosphere's "right wing agenda." MORE: Via a reader's email, a link about book deals. (Whether it actually documents anything of interest is of course a mystery to me.) UPDATE (10/07/06): Out all night and just woke up to see that Glenn Reynolds has linked this post in a roundup of "THE INEVITABLE FOLEYGATE CONTRARIANISM"! Thank you Glenn, and welcome all. Contrarian that I am, was out so long I didn't realize how much original and incisive thinking has been generated by the Foley scandal, and I'm trying to get caught up just reading the great posts Glenn links. I'm honored to be considered a part of it. But Roger L. Simon? Outing himself? Who'd a thunk it? I've met Roger twice, and I'd have never known. Bruce at GayPatriot didn't see a need to out himself, but he has a great post about liberal witchhunts, and hypocrisy at HRC. Bob Owens continues to be ignored and censored by ABC for asking the same basic questions he's been asking (What did Brian Ross know and when did he know it?), and AJ Strata raises serious questions about the emails -- especially the delays. There's a lot going on we do not know, and as I said before, I think there's a media scandal within the apparent scandal. Read them all, and thanks for coming! posted by Eric on 10.06.06 at 09:14 AM
Comments
lyssa: Don't know about 'the timing' (except to say, if the Democrats had tried to 'time' this it horribly backfired) As for the second paragraph, Yes! I wonder what kind of penises Mohammed Atta was talking about before they stuck him on the board. We may never know. RiverCocytus · October 6, 2006 04:51 PM A few facts exist that you should consider. 1) The emails from a year ago were sexual harassment against a 16 year old House employee. 2) There were other underage House employees who were sexually harassed by Foley. 3) Hastert knew about the sexual harassment for at least 3 years. 4) David Corn wasn't outing anyone. 5) David Corn was reporting about a list prepared by Republicans for the purpose of purging lgbt Republicans from that party. libhomo · October 6, 2006 06:43 PM rivercocytus You mean Khalid Shiek Mohammed don't you. As to penises, he was probably thinking about his own, and its 72 virgins. Or maybe all the ones here that keep his opponents so well distracted. lyssa · October 6, 2006 07:25 PM Actually, NewsOK.com is a joint venture of The Oklahoman and KWTV (the Oklahoma City CBS affiliate). The Oklahoma Journal never had a Web site, inasmuch as it folded in 1980. (During the middle 70s, I earned pin money hurling it somewhere near people's porches.) CGHill · October 6, 2006 10:12 PM All Hastert saw were E-MAILS. There's a HUGE difference between e-mails and instant messages. No one anywhere has proved that Hastert saw anything but the e-mails that were totally innocent, nothing sexual at all in any of them. As soon as Hastert saw the instant messages like the rest of us, Foley was out. JeffBatt · October 7, 2006 09:28 AM Hey, RiverCocytus, JeffBatt · October 7, 2006 09:32 AM The first email was not asking for "vacation Pictures". You need to go back and read it, he asked for a picture of the kid, told the kid another page had a "great body", asked him how old he was and what he wanted for his birthday. If any 52 year old emailed this to a 16 year this would definitely be a red flag. This was not "over friendly". Now it is certainly not illegal but the kid did refer to it as "sick, sick, sick" and told his parents about it. So obviously the kid thought is more than just "overly friendly" jon · October 7, 2006 12:18 PM "And the investigation would of been going to the accuser and telling him to know it off." Sorry my last email was incorrect-I meant to say the investigation would of NOT been to just go to the accused and knock it off. jon · October 7, 2006 12:21 PM Hey, jon, jeffbatt · October 7, 2006 12:56 PM I hate to sound like a partisan hack who will defend anything from their party but I just don't understand what anyone thinks Hastert should have done differently. There was nothing in these initial emails that would have been worthy of launching a criminal investigation, there was no sexual harrassment. Does anyone honestly believe an entire political party's leadership should resign because of the actions of one member, who may not have even broken any laws? There was absolutely no sexual contact by anyone and I find it a little disingenuous how the Democrats are acting. They never tried to force out Barney Frank whose boyfriend ran a prostitution ring out of his house or Bill Clinton whose sex was with a woman only two years older than this kid. jeffbatt · October 7, 2006 01:15 PM 1) There's no evidence that the kid was 16 when the IMS occurred. Shut up. Just stop spreading the lies. 18 is more likely, given that the emails are 2-3 years old and he is 21 now. 2) The emails are 2-3 years old. Read it again! 3) Foley had the class to resign. Did Studds? Did Clinton? Frank? 4) Hastert is not going to resign, so save yer breath. InRussetShadows · October 8, 2006 02:28 PM Wild Bill has PROVEN that Foley is innocent. writemalkin@gmail.com White and RIGHT · October 9, 2006 05:09 AM I think the interesting part of this story will be when we find out that the Democrats knew about this since at least in 2005 and sat on the story until right before the midterm elections in 2006. Don't bet that they'll resign like they're demanding of Hastert. It looks like the Democrats and ABC were thought they could hide a lie by playing the juvenile victim card. Maybe that's why when they claim to have uncovered a crime they didn't go to the FBI they ran to ABC. But of course the elections will be long over by the time this gets unraveled and the truth is known. The truth is what everything is all about and I personally applaud Wild Bill for uncovering ABC's lie. The fact is that Edmund is 21 and that sheds doubt on the whole premise of ABC's story. I have no doubt if Wild Bill had uncovered that the victim of Foley's emails / IM's was actually a underage page he would have told us that and declined to name the source. Apparently the Democrats get their panties in a wad when the government reads terrorists emails and IM's but they think Hastert should resign because he didn't wiretap Foley. Personally I've thought for a long time that NeoCons are actually undercover Democrats, they sure spend our tax money like they are. Edmund could have gone to the cops if he was a crime victim and I'm not so sure that he was a victim or innocent at this point. His hiring Stephen Jones, who although he is is a Republican sure doesn't act like one, makes me very suspicious of the whole deal. If Foley sent sexually suggestive (or worse) messages to underaged kids he needs to go to prison for a long time but I object to the Democrats making political hay over this anywhere except Foley's district. Buzzy · October 9, 2006 11:58 AM Minor point: If you're going to use the terms repeatedly, please review the difference between "discreet" and "discrete". Other than that, I pretty much agree. Shelby · October 9, 2006 12:16 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• The right to be irrational?
• I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts • art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Election coming up...NIE, record casualties, just suspended habeus corpus and legalized torture....What would the voters be talking about right now if someone hadn't brought up this dirty old man's so-called sex life?
Old news, but just now it gets leaked; dubious accusations, on a suspicicious website, no lawbreaking, but...sleazy sex! Did I mention sex?
I wonder if people will keep talking about penises right up till they find themselves waterboarded in some secret prison or blown up by religious radicals. and be surprised.