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 you
allude doesn't prove my implication, but it does raise serious questions about your motives. Also, if the Republicans supported Ralph "Lenin Lite" Nader, they would have no problems supporting any other pretender who happened to suit their interests.
Obviously, 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:
  • 1. allowing anyone to enter a highly sensitive and secure location using a fake name, thus bypassing long-standing security procedures while screaming about security and terrorist threats; and
  • 2. giving such latitude to a person with a gay porn past while openly pandering to anti-gay bigotry.
  • 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?

    UPDATE: Via InstaPundit, I enjoyed Andrew Sullivan's take

    "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










    Comments

    I did not say that "if you are a homosexual you must be a socialist or a Democrat;" I said that the Republican party's pandering to anti-gay bigotry is hypocritical as well as wrong. It never seems to occur to the Republican establishment to say "Hey, wait a minute - there's lots of homosexuals who share our values, like Mary Cheney and 'Jeff Gannon,' so maybe we should take a firm stand against this wholesale trashing of homosexuals, before it blows back on people we like."

    Raging Bee   ·  February 25, 2005 2:23 PM

    I disagree that this is "nothinggate".

    As your ADDITIONAL THOUGHT clearly shows, there is a real scandal here--the relentless and brutal thrashing of a man for the crime of being gay while conservative. (Every other accusation against Gannon doesn't pass the laugh test and has been sufficiently factually debunked elsewhere--see, for example, Andrew Sullivan's comment linking Instapundit's explanation, which links Daivd Corn's thoughts.)

    As someone who cares about gay rights, I think it matters.

    byrd   ·  February 25, 2005 2:45 PM

    Funny thing "B"

    During the runup to the election the "pandering to anti-gay" bigotry seem to come exclusively from the "Hey, did you know Dick Cheney has a LESBIAN daughter?" Kedwards crowd.

    Gimme a break. As the Wead tapes have demonstrated (and which really seems to chap Left-cultist buns) is that GW is not a gay bigot or basher. Even at the risk of angering some of far-right religious, he wasn't going to bash or fire gays.

    And REASONABLE PEOPLE can agree/disagree on the FMA without being bigots because one is discussing a PUBLIC insitution and PUBLIC policy.

    I realize that the problem with the Left-cult is the dogmatic adherence to the 70's tenet the personal is the political whereby gay/women/blacks cannot be "authentic" unless they submit to the cult. Non-Leftists don't think that way. We take it for granted that private behavior/values are separate from politics and public policy.

    That's why there is such asymetrical attack rhetoric from the Left ... it's not enough to hound Gannon (it's his professional name, meshugga schmuck, I don't run around footnoting every time I use "Mark Twain", "Rock Hudson", "Sandra Dee", et al) out of applying for DAY PASSES ever again, no it's an all out "We must DESTROY Gannon in order to SAVE JOURNALISM" (sound of glorious trumpets) Good lord, you have some sort of Larry Flynt in drag offering a $10,000 "reward" for DNA evidence of Gannon "servicing" someone in the White House (along with all the 7th grade locker room tittering about who is/is not a double-secret gay ... ooo! McClellan may have visited a gay bar! Now THERE'S proof!)

    Gannon/Guckert is an apostate to the Left-cult that claims him as one of their own.

    And we know (look at Islamists) how cults deal with apostasy.

    Darleen   ·  February 25, 2005 10:21 PM

    Darleen is absolutely right (again). This is just a typical Communist smear tactic. Communists have always persecuted homosexuals in their own countries, and they merely use the alienation of homosexuals in this country as fodder for their revolution. Actually, they could hardly care less whether homosexuals marry or get stoned to death by Muslims. Any homosexual man or woman who refuses to toe the Party Line gets "outed" and smeared.


    April 2011
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
              1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30

    ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
    WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


    Search the Site


    E-mail



    Classics To Go

    Classical Values PDA Link



    Archives



    Recent Entries



    Links



    Site Credits