National Homophobic Frenzy
Hopefully my last post on the matter, though in my last post previous I said the same thing.
I am going to assert that it's all over, because Foley was a decent fellow and had "sex" only once in his life and that was cyber sex in a series of 52 IMs drawn out of him by the little sleaze bag Jordan Edwards and there's nothing much more that will come out.
And I'll assert that what congressional leaders told Foley about the first fellow who complained about the emails was this: "Stay away from the little guy, he's poison".
And I'll mention that I knew a man once who lost his profession because of a false charge of child molestation. He beat the charge, the girl and mother shown to be fabulists, but lost his profession. He lost all faith in his colleagues who had abandoned him. He couldn't endure.
I assert something of this nature has happened with Foley. A decent guy, a little odd, set upon by those who are viscous, and utterly too innocent to avoid the trap.
Evidence for all this? Am I dropping a lot of "facts" in order to make my assertions? This is my argument: "Wait, and we'll see." --It is my understanding that there is one person connected to those IMs; and one person connected to those emails. There were no "victims", there were no "children". And I would very much like to see those new pages who have come forward submit to a polygraph.
What I note is hysteria. A national hysteria. I've not seen this before. There are bloggers doing good work, though they too condemn: "No one is defending Foley" they say, "I too am righteous," and having insulated themselves from shrieks and howls, they continue on and concern themselves with the provenance of the messages; but then, they are cramped within the mob, if they're without the proper snarl their work would be dismissed.
National, homophobic frenzy. Quite something, that, I say.
.....................
Note:
After posting the above I made a note in my journal before going to bed. I've decided to include that:
6:13 --Got this off at 6:03. The rewriting did take quite a while. The tone in a couple of lines isn't quite right. Maybe I'm just tiered. But the point I'm making is simple: There's an awful lot of condemnation for so little evidence; the condemnation is clearly of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with "protecting the children" and very little to do with outrage at a violated trust. It's just plain flat-out detestation at seeing a verbal expression of intimate homosexual interest.
This is a congressman. A Republican congressman. This is not a Democrat, this is not a subculture. This is a national culture, and that's what conservatives can't face. We've made sexual orientation a protected status. We pretend they're "just like us", but then when we see intimacy verbalized we see that they're not, and we can't face it, and so the presumption has to be that Foley is somehow unique, uniquely "abhorrent", a pedophile, a pederast, a predator, a creep... He's a homosexual, that's all, that's it, and it's not much. Either make him illegal or get used to it.
It would be useful to recognize that sexual identity is not the entirety of identity. I'm a heterosexual. I note I don't lust after my mother. My identity as a son supersedes that of heterosexual. This separation is true within a thousand ways. It could be true too of any decent man, even a homosexual. Will Foley be shown in time to be so hideous as everyone now asserts? I just rather doubt it. --Of course my argument is based totally, and only, on my unrighteous and insensitive presumption that he's a decent man.
(2:54 PM)
I am going to assert that it's all over, because Foley was a decent fellow and had "sex" only once in his life and that was cyber sex in a series of 52 IMs drawn out of him by the little sleaze bag Jordan Edwards and there's nothing much more that will come out.
And I'll assert that what congressional leaders told Foley about the first fellow who complained about the emails was this: "Stay away from the little guy, he's poison".
And I'll mention that I knew a man once who lost his profession because of a false charge of child molestation. He beat the charge, the girl and mother shown to be fabulists, but lost his profession. He lost all faith in his colleagues who had abandoned him. He couldn't endure.
I assert something of this nature has happened with Foley. A decent guy, a little odd, set upon by those who are viscous, and utterly too innocent to avoid the trap.
Evidence for all this? Am I dropping a lot of "facts" in order to make my assertions? This is my argument: "Wait, and we'll see." --It is my understanding that there is one person connected to those IMs; and one person connected to those emails. There were no "victims", there were no "children". And I would very much like to see those new pages who have come forward submit to a polygraph.
What I note is hysteria. A national hysteria. I've not seen this before. There are bloggers doing good work, though they too condemn: "No one is defending Foley" they say, "I too am righteous," and having insulated themselves from shrieks and howls, they continue on and concern themselves with the provenance of the messages; but then, they are cramped within the mob, if they're without the proper snarl their work would be dismissed.
National, homophobic frenzy. Quite something, that, I say.
.....................
Note:
After posting the above I made a note in my journal before going to bed. I've decided to include that:
6:13 --Got this off at 6:03. The rewriting did take quite a while. The tone in a couple of lines isn't quite right. Maybe I'm just tiered. But the point I'm making is simple: There's an awful lot of condemnation for so little evidence; the condemnation is clearly of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with "protecting the children" and very little to do with outrage at a violated trust. It's just plain flat-out detestation at seeing a verbal expression of intimate homosexual interest.
This is a congressman. A Republican congressman. This is not a Democrat, this is not a subculture. This is a national culture, and that's what conservatives can't face. We've made sexual orientation a protected status. We pretend they're "just like us", but then when we see intimacy verbalized we see that they're not, and we can't face it, and so the presumption has to be that Foley is somehow unique, uniquely "abhorrent", a pedophile, a pederast, a predator, a creep... He's a homosexual, that's all, that's it, and it's not much. Either make him illegal or get used to it.
It would be useful to recognize that sexual identity is not the entirety of identity. I'm a heterosexual. I note I don't lust after my mother. My identity as a son supersedes that of heterosexual. This separation is true within a thousand ways. It could be true too of any decent man, even a homosexual. Will Foley be shown in time to be so hideous as everyone now asserts? I just rather doubt it. --Of course my argument is based totally, and only, on my unrighteous and insensitive presumption that he's a decent man.
(2:54 PM)
posted by mouse at 6:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home