February 25, 2005
Transparent stinging . . .
As most readers know, I have no rules here applying to comments, which I only delete if they are spam, or use too much foul or clearly abusive language. That does not mean that I have to read, much less answer, comments. You can say pretty much anything you want, and if you want you can even put words in my mouth, argue with the words you've placed in my mouth, and declare victory. I don't have to reply, and usually I won't bother, because I'm not blogging for comments. Still, I do reserve the right to reply if I really feel like it, and occasionally, I'll get a gem, as I did today.
Thanks to today's comment, it's at last been officially confirmed that I am financed by the evil Republicans:
I stand by my implication that you may be financed by the Republicans. Your refusal to adhere to the "Classical Values" to which youObviously, anyone who stands by his implication is a man of strongly implied convictions. And I love it when people put words in my mouth -- especially the accusation of my "refusal to adhere to 'Classical Values.'"
But this puts me in a quandary. While I've already admitted that the Republicans are financing this blog -- by paying me a dollar a hit (plus ten dollars for every angry leftist comment), now on top of that there's the issue of adhesion. I can't very well accuse Mr. Raging Bee of refusing to adhere to "Classical Values," can I?
Then there's the issue of names:
And you're still using "Jeff Gannon's" name when you quote this clearly unreliable source. How much more transparent can you get?I cited a blog called Jeff Gannon.com. If that's "transparent," um, isn't it just as transparent for me to cite a commenter who might also not be using his own name? It worries me, because this same commenter accuses me of refusing to take "dual hypocrisy" seriously. Dual hypocrisy is defined as:
While the expressed concerns about White House security are admirable, I've seen no evidence at all that Gannon was a security threat. How is a pass holder's "gay porn past" evidence of "hypocrisy"? Is it because the president is against gay marriage? The president is against abortion too. Are press pass applicants' medical records being screened to see whether they've had abortions?
I really think this whole Gannon flap is a lot of hot air. Nothinggate.
Those who think it's a real "scandal" ought to think again. Especially about hypocrisy.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: One last thing: I didn't imply that there's an anti-gay witch hunt. I have stated clearly that I think there is one. Because it's directed against non-leftist gays who dare to speak up, it might not appear to be directed against all gays. But the identity politics doctrine behind it -- that if you are a homosexual you must be a socialist or a Democrat -- would relegate gay people as a whole to the status of sheep instead of free citizens able to make up their own minds. Isn't that as degrading as any other anti-gay stereotype?
"The real scandal is the blatant use of homophobic rhetoric by the self-appointed Savonarolas of homo-left-wingery. It's an Animal Farm moment: the difference between a fanatic on the gay left and a fanatic on the religious right is harder and harder to discern."Hard to disagree with what I've been thinking for years.
posted by Eric on 02.25.05 at 02:05 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood