When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don't the Democratic strategists see this?.......Well ranted.
The Foley scandal exploded without any proof of a documented sex act -- unlike the case of the late congressman Gerry Studds, who had sex with a page and who was literally applauded by fellow Democrats when they refused to vote for his censure. In the Foley case, there was far more ambiguous evidence -- suggestive e-mails and instant messages... What does it mean for Democrats to be agitating over Web communications, which in my view fall under the province of free speech? It's a civil liberties issue. We can say that what Foley was doing was utterly inappropriate, professionally irresponsible, and in bad taste, but why were liberals fomenting a scandal day after day after day over words being used? And why didn't Democrats notice that they were drifting into an area which has been the province of the right wing -- that is, the attempt to gain authoritarian control over interpersonal communications on the Web?....
And with the Democrats' record of sex scandals, what the hell were they thinking of? For heaven's sake, after we just got through the whole Clinton maelstrom! What Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was far worse than any evidence I've seen thus far about what Foley did with these pages.... There was a time when feminists were arguing, in regard to sexual harassment in the workplace, that any gross disparity in power cannot possibly produce informed consent. All of a sudden, all of that was abandoned for partisan reasons in the Clinton case.
Lots more at the link (on many subjects).
UPDATE: Paglia's statement about Studds is incorrect, as a commenter pointed out. Studds was censured, with only 3 Democrats voting against it. As for the Democrats' attitude at the time, here's the 1983 NYT article:
... Mr. Studds walked to the well, where he stood facing the Speaker with his back to the other members as the censure was read. He appeared grim but stoic as he turned without a word and sat down in the front row where colleagues from Massachusetts shook his hand....
The emotional debate echoed with appeals for morality and mercy. Supporters of the milder penalty argued that the two members had suffered irreparable harm already, and did not merit further humiliation.
''They must live with their shame, their actions indelibly recorded on this nation's history,'' said Representative Louis Stokes, the Ohio Democrat who heads the Ethics Committee....
''The idea of a reprimand was not strong enough for the American people,'' said Representative Bill Alexander, Democrat of Arkansas. ''After all, these guys molested minors. I was out in my district over the weekend and I was overwhelmed. The reaction was brutal.''
Some lawmakers who supported the milder penalty were bitter at the House action. Later, one California Democrat called the vote ''disgusting'' and said the representatives were ''trying to show how pure they are.'' Another West Coast Democrat added that a vote for the harsher penalty would be ''easier to explain'' to constituents.
Posts
49 comments:
Why should the Democrats give a damn if there are negative ramifications for gay men?
George Bush has shown that gay bashing wins elections. Please give me one valid reason why Democrats shouldn't do the same? So they can keep losing?
Dumb reason. Try again.
Well Seven - How about when he called for sodomy laws (against gays only of course) to be vigorously enforced in 1994.
That's gay bashing in my book.
Can we also put it on record that Camille Paglia is either a liar or senile.
unlike the case of the late congressman Gerry Studds, who had sex with a page and who was literally applauded by fellow Democrats when they refused to vote for his censure.
That statement is a complete lie. And Ann should really correct it, because it's a propagation of a falsehood. What Democrats is she talking about exactly? Studds was censured by a vote of 420-3. He was also stripped of his chairmanship of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Studds did receive a standing ovation, but it wasn't from Democrats. It was from his fellow citizens at his first town meeting following his congressional censure. Since when do ordinary Massachusetts citizens get to "vote for censure".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Wow seven. You really are a moron. Because you obviously don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.
I still think Glenn Reynolds is an anti-gay bigot. And as a gay person, I'm in a better position to judge who is being anti-gay than you are. Sorry. Try again.
And I'll say it again. Glenn Reynolds consistently links to Clayton Cramer - whose rants against gay people are the equivalent to KKK rants against blacks and neo-nazi rants against Jews. And if anyone doesn't believe me - they can read Clayton Cramer's blog.
Oh wow, what a surprise, Democrats and Republicans aren't really that different--both will use any incident for partisan advantage; they will jetison long-term fidelity to ideals for short-term political gain.
This is not news.
Seven - I repeat - you are a moron. That's my opinion of course. But you seem incapable of following a very rational line of thought.
Paglia said "literally applauded by fellow Democrats when they refused to vote for his censure."
3 people voted against censure. I assume Studds was one of those 3 as well.
Is Camilla implying that the two who voted against his censure were the ones who "literally applauded" him? Please provide one piece of evidence for that.
The applauding you are alluding to was not from Democrats. It was from residents of his district.
Wow they really are telling the truth when they say that Republicans are not reality-based. They just make up their own facts. And if they repeat it enough they'll believe it.
Iraq has WMD's...
George Bush never said "stay the course"....
We are not war with Eurasia. We have never been at war with Eurasia....
Etc., etc., etc.
Just admit it - you're wrong.
DTL asserts Bush "called for sodomy laws (against gays only of course) to be vigorously enforced in 1994."
Source, please? Somehow I seem to have missed the 1994 sodomy crackdown you recall so vividly.
More DTL: "I still think Glenn Reynolds is an anti-gay bigot."
Words fail me. Having used up all his anathemas on someone who actually supports gay marriage, I can't imagine what ammunition DTL would have left for a real bigot.
Still more DTL: "And as a gay person, I'm in a better position to judge who is being anti-gay than you are."
AS another gay person, I think I'm in an equally good position to judge when shrill extremism turns into self-parody.
And Seven thinks he can refute me by linking to an Air America story quoting 10,000 cheering supporters.
Nevermind that several posts BEFORE that, I said "Studds did receive a standing ovation, but it wasn't from Democrats. It was from his fellow citizens at his first town meeting following his."
So somehow - Seven thinks that REPEATING what I already stated is somehow a refutation for what I said.
On the contrary - it's an example of Seven's third grade reading comprehension. Oh wait - that's not fair to third graders . . .
And as a gay person, I'm in a better position to judge who is being anti-gay than you are.
As an intelligent person, I'm in a better position to judge who is being a complete idiot than you are.
Seriously, that was a stupid thing to say. You don't have to be a chef to know when food tastes like crap and you don't need to be gay to know a bigot.
You're simply *wrong*.
Sure TJL - Here's your source on the 1994 Sodomy laws.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer
"Gubernatorial candidate George W. Bush on Friday promised he would veto any attempt by the Texas Legislature to remove from the state penal code a controversial statute outlawing homosexual sodomy."
And TJL - I'm very aware that Glenn is in favor of gay marriage. That's nice. But he also has an extremely negative attitude towards gay people - with a condescending attitude towards any gay person that does not swallow the Republican agenda wholesale. And he links often to one of the most dangerous anti-gay bloggers out there - Clayton Cramer. Why?
Glenn "claims" to be a libertarian, so of course he opposes the gay marriage laws. But that doesn't prevent him from despising gay people in real life. The two are not inconsistent. And I have not seen one post that actually recognizes that gay marriage might be valid, because gay people are being harmed. All of his arguments stem from the fact that the government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business.
The end result is the same (which is fine by me), but he shows a great disrespect for gay people as individuals.
Well jimk - why don't you answer the freaking question?
Why does Instapundit link to Clayton Cramer - a well known homophobe.
If Glenn were to link to a noted Holocaust denier for his economic opinions - then I would be right suspect he was an anti-semite as well. He doesn't (as far as I know), so I haven't made that accusation. But he does link to the rabidly anti-gay Clayton Cramer.
You really don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion - do you?
"Adolph Hitler is an anti-semite" is going to be an opinion, no matter who is saying it.
"Hitler was born in 1889" is a fact.
Thank you Ann for the correction.
So I'll get back to the original subject.
I think the general thrust of what Camille Paglia has said is true. Gay people are going to be harmed by this. But only a little bit, becuase it is hard to get much worse than it already is.
I vote Libertarian anyway. And I have seen the Republicans use gay-bashing to win elections. And it works. And they have not been held to task for that. So I fail to see why Democrats shouldn't resort to the same successful (albeit more subtle) gay bashing.
They are out to win elections. And Republicans cannot hold the Democrats to task, because they do the same thing.
Democrats are not stupid. They want to win. And if they have to do it in a Rovian fashion, they will.
As someone who does not support either party - I find this amusing to watch. And I'm not too worried about the negative ramifications towards me, because I'm extremely aware that 70% of the country already hates gay people (based on the results of the various gay marriage votes). I'm confident the other 30% will continue to stand up for our rights.
Divine Ms. Althouse, you do the conservatives/Republicans proud in failing to also cite the elected Republican who was dealt with at the same time as Studds was. I'm not surprised. I was pointing this out at least three weeks ago. You must be quite busy or dense.
Here's thelink. As you can see, Dan Crane is always left out, but there. If you scroll up, you can see that the Republican party has a history of living the family values American dream, but meeting and sodomising boys part-time.
Lastly, Paglia as a current influence on anything. Lame as they come.
Why should the Democrats give a damn if there are negative ramifications for gay men?
From a pragmatic standpoint they shouldn't -- and, in fact, they don't, just as they don't give a damn if a policy is bad for blacks. They know who's on their reservation, and they know those people aren't jumping to the Republicans unless the Republicans make them a better offer.
Paglia is arguing from the (incorrect) position that the Democratic Party wants equality for gays. They don't, of course -- if gays ever achieved full equality they'd no longer have any reason to favor one party over the other, and the Democratic Party would lose the gay vote. It is therefore in the Democrats' interests to simply be slightly less homophobic than the Republicans. Which is why the 2004 election was between a man who wanted to ban gay marriage and a man who wanted a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"Gubernatorial candidate George W. Bush on Friday promised he would veto any attempt by the Texas Legislature to remove from the state penal code a controversial statute outlawing homosexual sodomy."
Bush's promise was content-free posturing -- in 1994 there was absolutely zero chance that the Texas legislature would have repealed Sec. 21.06 of the penal code. Bush's pledge is certainly not admirable, but it falls into the category of pandering to the base in the same way as practiced by all politicians.
The pledge was doubly meaningless in that 21.06 was never enforced.
tjl - So "Lawrence V. Texas" was just a fairy-tale case the Supreme Court took on?
That sodomy law was indeed enforced. And it took a Supreme Court to overturn it.
And yes - I realize Bush was pandering. But it was pandering via gay-bashing. Guess what? The Democrats are pandering on the Foley matter as well. And you can call that gay-bashing as well (Paglia did).
Same difference. And that was my point.
Not to denegrate the dead, but the Wikipedia article cited often by Downtown Lad is a total whitewash on Studds. Studds was totally defiant about his censure. Just read his obit in the Times.
In addition to having gay sex with minor page, Studds also was an outspoken critic against missile defense and opposed helping the Contras in Nicaragua. Two subjects he was clearly wrong about.
Well Studds is entitled to think he shouldn't have been censured. Who really cares.
But let's stop propagating the lie that Democratic members of the House supported him. I have seen that lie mentioned about 500 times in the last few weeks. And it is false. Chris Matthews mentioned on his show that Tip O'Neill was absolutely furious when he found out about Studds. And all but 3 of his colleagues voted to censure him.
If the Democrats had their way - he would have been tossed out of the House. But they don't. The citizens of Massachusetts had that decision and they re-elected him.
So if you want to talk about Studds, please deal with the facts as they are - not with the facts as you "wish" them to be.
No matter how many times you say it, his Democratic colleagues in the House NEVER applauded him immediately after the censure.
"So "Lawrence V. Texas" was just a fairy-tale case the Supreme Court took on?"
Having practiced criminal law in Houston all through the 90s, I never saw a 21.06 charge filed. Even in circumstances where it could have applied -- such as sexual conduct in parks or the Y -- the charges were always filed as public lewdness. The prosecution in "Lawrence" was basically a fluke.
And with the Democrats' record of sex scandals, what the hell were they thinking of? For heaven's sake, after we just got through the whole Clinton maelstrom!
um, maybe they were thinking of hypocrisy? there's an added news/political element here of a representative of an anti-gay party trying to have a gay relationship in a seedy way.
why does this totally fly over the heads of paglia and so many others?? if a dem would've done it, there'd be less of the you-are-what-you hate angle (but it wouldn't have be less inappropriate).
tjl - I'm not disagreeing with you. I think George W. Bush probably likes gay people in real life. Kind of the opposite of Glenn Reynolds is my hunch.
But I'll go by people's public statements. So I respect Glenn more.
But if I had to work for one of them - I'd go with W.
Exactly Chris. Why should Republicans get to play by one set of rules while Democrats have to play be a stricter one.
Screw consistency. This is about winning elections.
[Instapundit] also has an extremely negative attitude towards gay people - with a condescending attitude towards any gay person that does not swallow the Republican agenda wholesale.
Only if "any gay person" is code for "Andrew Sullivan". Even in that case he shows Sullivan much more respect than Sullivan shows to people *he* disagrees with.
And he links often to one of the most dangerous anti-gay bloggers out there - Clayton Cramer. Why?
Because Cramer sometimes makes valid points when the subject isn't homosexuality, and sometimes Instapundit links to him when he does so. But any degree of familiarity with Instapundit (or a simple search of the archives) shows you that the only reason he ever links to Cramer on the topic of homosexuality is to disagree with Cramer's homophobic stance.
And I have not seen one post that actually recognizes that gay marriage might be valid, because gay people are being harmed
So it isn't enough to support gay marriage and think it should be legally recognized -- you also have to buy into the cult of victimization, or you're a homophobe.
All of his arguments stem from the fact that the government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business.
That's categorically false. He has repeatedly stated that he thinks gay marriages should be recognized by the state and has repeatedly criticized all of the arguments that it would destroy the institution of marriage, harm society, promote immorality, or any of that sort of thing.
And this is the man you claimed was one of the biggest homophobes in the blogosphere. As usual you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Man, the poison this Foley affair has unleashed. I think the Democrats clearly benefited -- at first. But if this discussion is any kind of sample, it appears that it has mostly pissed people off at their own respective parties. Only the cynical political pros, the Democratic equivalents of Rove, who are feeling joy at this moment, because they believe the poison within the Republican camp keeps more of their true believers home on election day than will be the case with the Democratic camp. But I think they're going to be disappointed.
Remember when elections turned on stunning new proposals, revealing gaffes, or significant news developments? Instead of this worthless shit?
Downtownlad: Gay people are going to be harmed by this. But only a little bit, becuase [sic] it is hard to get much worse than it already is. (emphasis added)
When you say things like this it makes it impossible to take anything else you say seriously. Our enemies, the radical Islamists, readily demonstrate how much worse life can be for gay people. Get a grip.
seven nachos,
paglia obviously implies his fellow democratic congressmen. dont be such a hack.
Remember, Foley resigned for much less. That's what Republicans do when they've brought dishonor upon themselves, their office, and their party.
yes, foley showed utmost nobility by resigning when his repulsive and possibly criminal behavior was made public by ABC News, what a hero. just like Tom Delay and Bob Ney -- oh wait, they didn't resign? well, this is awkward.
Late to the party - busy of late (very late - check the timestamp.)
I agree with Seven Nachos - what an absolutely brilliant piece. I was nodding along for all five pages, excepting the parts about the Iraq war.
But reasonable people can disagree, and she is very reasonable. If only the rest of the Democratic party were level-headed.
And it's a pity she doesn't blog - if she did, she would be instantly attacked by the Kos attack dogs, and driven into the welcoming arms of the conservative blogosphere!
When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all heterosexual conservative males under a shadow and makes people distrust them.
Fixed Paglia's typo...
Seven Machos said..."Aren't you working under the assumption that "fellow Democrats" means "fellow Democrats in the House"? If other fellow Democrats applauded him, which an authority no less than Air America claims, then doesn't that make the statement "his fellow Democrats literally applauded him" true?"
I am making that assumption, consciously and properly, because the Paglia quote in the original post is "fellow Democrats when they refused to vote for his censure." The only Democrats who were making a decision about how to vote on censure were the ones in the House.
All the stuff about Glenn Reynolds and Clayton Cramer in this thread is pretty ridiculous. Glenn Reynolds links to a lot of people and he can't be assumed to be vouching for everything they write. He's obviously in favor of gay rights. And DTL, you're entitled to your opinion on this point, but you've written it over and over. It's getting boring.
The Paglia interview has tons of interesting things in it to talk about and you've gotten people to talk only about that one sentence about Studds. It's ridiculous.
Let's talk about what she said about Clinton!
it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don't the Democratic strategists see this?
Because they don't give a shit about gays. They exploit gay issues for political gain and would flip on any minority group they supposedly "protect" in a split-second, if they thought it'd help them politically. See Clinton.
Sad thing is, they suffer no consequences for it, and these groups continue to vote for them.
Remember, Foley resigned for much less [than Studds' behavior].
Do we really know the entire truth behind what caused Foley's resignation?
I'm not excusing anything, but I don't think the story is finished.
Paglia is so damn refreshing because she actually thinks for herself.
Re Air America, the interviewer should have concluded he was talking to a fantastic candidate to host a liberal talk radio show. Because Paglia is not the prototypical, wheenie, doctrinaire, kumbaya lib . But at least she has gonads. And can aregue and defend a position with facts and logic and humor ala Rush.
Paglia: (Yow!)
"I take the European view that any government official has the right to conduct as many sexual affairs as he wishes -- off government property. But Clinton, with all his power, somehow couldn't figure out a way to discreetly meet his chosen women at the mansions of his many friends.
and
"But to use the hallway off the Oval Office for those encounters -- to be serviced by a young woman to whom he gave no other dignity and whom he used like a washrag -- he turned that hallway into a sleazy mosh pit!""
The reason I became a conservative in the first place, and shook loose from my Democrat life of 30 years, was this propensity for Democrats to throw any principle under the bus whenever it served their plan for power. I came to see that there were in fact no underlying principles being upheld at all, except for love of the State, a view cofirmed by Clinton's abuses and the response by Democrats.
Revenant, howevermuch I disagree with him elsewhere, has I believe correctly decoded this mess.
And P.S. People would stop bringing up Clinton if (1) he went away, and (2) the errors it wrought in feminism were ever actually addressed, and 3) the desire for political use of cases like Foley didn't trump the knowledge that it would automatically dredge up Lewinsky, Studds, and the rest.
Two and a half cheers for Paglia!
Two and a half cheers for Paglia!
I think the piece is very blog-worthy, as she snorts disgusts and great quotes so frequently. I love the rips into Woodward and Franken.
Re Clinton:
What would have happened had feminists turned against Clinton?
Gore runs, Gore wins.
All the Dem criticism of Saddam plays out just as it did.
Gore (maybe with more finesse) is forced to defang Saddam.
Repugs reluctanntly support 'war' effoert and then quibble.
Sunni/Baathist/Wahabi revolt against their loss of power.
etc., etc.
Re: "He has gone away."
Really. Then call Bill Clinton, because there's some guy pretending to be him that's in the news all the time!
And he's good at it, too, the doppleganger.
Re: "He's already gone, you just can't fathom it yet."
Maybe he's entering the next phase, as beautifully sung by by Ben Folds:
"He's forgotten, but not yet gone"
(Fred Jones, Pt. 2)
Derve, if only you were correct and Clinton really had gone away. Don't you remember the FoxNews kerfuffle of just a few weeks ago? The man keeps putting himself out there, making a spectacle of himself. Don't tell us not to watch, tell the MSM not to cover him, and see how much luck you have with that.
Bill Clinton is more relevant than any other past president because his wife has presidential aspirations herself. How ever would she govern with him running around and shooting off his mouth? Would we have (arguably another) "co-presidency"? The thought is chilling.
I think it's great that Bill Clinton is out and about. It gives many potential Hillary voters pause. Is that forward-looking enough for you?
Regarding the interview, Paglia is witty and tough. Her assessment of Air America was hysterical. She's wrong about the war, of course (she wants an immediate pull out), but at least she's living in the real world and not the state of pervasive denial so many others on the left are in.
If Derve wants to argue that night is day, let him. There's plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. It doesn't change the fact that night is still night, and Clinton had not gone away. Amazing that, a decade later, people are still defending him. The man was that charming, eh?
Well, Camille Paglia calls herself among other things - a Clinton Democrat, a liberal Democrat, a radical 60's Libertarian.
She can carp all she wants on Democrats, but her views on prostitution, recreational drugs, pornography, support for NAMBLA, will never bring her into the mainstream of any party. I suggest she give the dinosaurs and oligarchs at the Republican Party a good try, say 4-5 years, and get back to us how that went.
Ann, Paglia said she see life through the eyes of a rapist, I doubt highly her brand of feminism aligns with yours, and I also doubt you want an open debate on her views on Clinton outside this interview. Do you?
When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don't the Democratic strategists see this?.......
What a complete pile of horse excrement! First, "people" here is a bit overbroad--it includes people who already distrust gay men, so it's not likely to get worse from their perspective. But I am not so sure it includes anyone else.
The "gay distrust" claim assumes that the "people" in question buy into the conservative propaganda that the problem with Foley is that he's gay. But that's not the actual problem with Foley--Foley abused his position to have inappropriate, by most measures, contact with considerably younger men (boys, if one prefers to call them that). That includes three separate problems--1) abuse of authority and trust, 2) hypocrisy, as Foley represented himself as a protector of children, and 3) cover-up by Foley's superiors. In these three elements, the Foley scandal is remarkably similar to the pedophile Catholic priest scandal. Has there been a new wave of distrust toward Catholic priests?
Foley's homosexuality is complitely peripheral to the three root causes of the scandal. If Foley behaved similarly with 16 year old female pages, the problem would not have been any different, although a few more heads might rolled in the Republican leadership.
But my point is that the number of people whose attitude toward homosexuality will be qualitatively affected by the Foley scandal is going to be very small in number. Those who despise/abhor/hate/suspect homosexuals will continue practicing their beliefs, with the only effect being that they now have a new, easily identifiable weapon in their arsenal. Those who don't have a problem with homosexuality, for the most part, will easily recognize the Foley factors and their attitude will not change either. The only ones possibly affected by the scandal will be those who are deeply conflicted about homosexuality. These are few in number to begin with, since those who merely tolerate homosexuality are really not conflicted at all--they are still bigoted to the core, but recognize certain civil norms that have evolved to include tolerance.
So why should the Democrats--or anyone else--care that a handful of nutjobs and loony religious fanatics will get more vociferous about homosexuality? Their insane activities are only likely to move a few people disgusted with their conduct in the opposite direction. So any possible movement in the direction of suspicion that Paglia alleges will be counteracted by these idiots.
Before you think I am off base, take a look at some Iranian rallies, or some other rallies in Muslim countries. Unless one is already a believer or a follower, these rallies are likely to cause no sympathy among observers. Whatever their cause, it certainly will not spread to those who don't agree with the message to begin with (or are susceptible for some other reason).
Then compare these rallies to the "civilized" version--Focus on the Family gatherings, various evangelical revivals and rallies, the anti-aboriton protests, etc. These people are just as nutty and their message is similar. Their targets might differ and they may not call for immediate destruction of infidels, but, for the most part, the messages are coincident. Unless one is already predisposed to fall in with this crown, he will find the proceedings revolting.
But Paglia's construct falls apart along other seams as well. The comparison with Gerry Studds simply does not fly: Studds, however reprehensible some might find his conduct, was accused of a single affair with not only consenting, but initiating youngster (and Studds was 20 years younger than Foley when the affair is supposed to have taken place, making the age difference less of an issue, although still beyond the norm). Foley, in contrast, was not just creepy--he was always the initiator and fit the classic profile of a predator who was only looking for an opportunity to excercise his predatory skills with impunity once he was beyond the law's reach. Studds, in fact, violated no laws, given the nature of the affair and where it occurred. He should have known better, but the circumstances were quite different in the early 1970s than they are now.
Paglia doesn't just make a mistake about the vote. There is no parallel between Studds and Foley other than the fact that both were homosexuals. It might have been "well ranted", but the rant is wrong on virtually all counts. Paglia's rant is no different from rants by Dobson or Robertson. It contributes nothing but more errors to the Foley discourse. I find this to be a really sad statement.
And DTL, you're entitled to your opinion on this point, but you've written it over and over. It's getting boring.
I agree. I only bring it up because Seven keeps challenging me on it. Like I said - Glenn is publicly in favor of gay rights, which is all I really care about. Personally, I think he doesn't like gay people in real life. But he's entitled to have that viewpoint. That's his prerogative. And yes, I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Just like you have a better sense of sensing sexism Ann than I do, because you are female.
But I don't believe in political correctness. I'm fine with prejudice as long as people admit they have them. I readily admit that I have lots of prejudice against religious folk. It would be nice if others were just as honest about their prejudices.
Paglia got her facts wrong, because the lies about Studds have been repeated hundreds of times throughout the blogosphere. I don't blame her for thinking it was true. If you tell a lie enough times, people will believe it.
Just like the lie that Studds "turned his back" on Congress. In reality, he was just facing the speaker. But it has been turned into an act of defiance, something which Studds himself denied.
I'm not defending Studds. Just report the facts as they happened. Studds had sex with a 17 year-old page in 1973. 10 years later, after a Republican Congressman was found to be sleeping with a female page in 1983, the Republicans went looking for a Democratic scandal and found the one about Studds from 10 years earlier. Studds was censured by Congress, as was Dan Crane, which was the strongest punishment even handed out for sexual misconduct. Both ran for re-election. Studds won and Crane lost. End of story.
That does not put Studds in a good light. Why do we have to embellish the truth by saying things like "Democrats in Congress applauded him" and "he turned his back on Congress"? Just report the facts. He still comes across as predatory scum.
"Oh and don't forget Daylight Savings tomorrow: less night, more day."
Actually, Daylight Savings time ends tomorrow morning; it's Daylight Wasting Time that starts. I for one am not a fan of DWT; I'd rather have the extra daylight in the evening, not at 6 a.m.
Post a Comment