People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

O The Outrage

My my my. Such indignation. Such revulsion. Such mindless idiocy. All you people who emailed me to make the distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality - some were well-written and avoided personal attacks - as they relate to the Mark Foley scandal, should take into account the following:

1) According to Andrew Sullivan, it was well known in the gay community that Foley is gay.
2) The page receiving the text messages was 16, the age of consent in Washington DC where he worked.
3) Pedophilia: Sexual attraction to children
4) We therefore have an adult male homosexual sending lewd messages to a young man. Please, skip the pedophilia argument.

So where does that leave you? Bashing gays. Can this get any better?

On a separate note, to those of you who are revolted by Speaker Hastert not acting on that which he knew nothing about but should have, I provide a bit of history:
Gerry Studds represented the 10th U.S. House District of Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997.

On July 20, 1983, Gerry was censured for having an affair 10 years earlier with a male page. He
turned his back as the charges against him were read. Gerry held a press conference with the page and admitted to a relationship. They each firmly stated that what had gone on in their bedroom was their business, and absolutely no one else's.

Gerry was easily reelected in 1984, making him the first openly gay member of Congress and the first gay member of Congress to be reelected. He won 5 more terms after that, and retired in 1996. (

When Studds announced his intention to ignore the uproar and to run for re-election, he received a standing ovation from the Democrats then in Congress. I remind you, this came after Studds had sexual intercourse with a page (though perhaps if he had text messaged the young man, you and they would be outraged - finally).

So spare me the clenched fists. And keep the invective out of my inbox. You're all hypocrites. Or Democrats. Same difference.

More Hypocrisy

The New York Times editorial staff has decided to renounce its attacks on the Boy Scouts of America for the latter's decision to put a barrier between homosexuals and its vulnerable young men.

Well, no. They'll never do that.

But they will blame the Republican Party for not putting a shield between a homosexual member of Congress and a young man working in their midst:
Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda?

The more the House Republican leaders try to defend themselves on the Congressional page scandal, the worse it looks. They still do not seem to appreciate how serious this is, especially for a party that poses as the arbiter of morality. And they appear to be trying harder to deflect blame from themselves than to get to the bottom of what actually happened.
Wow, do you suppose they mean it this time? Well, here's a tipoff to the depth to which their feelings run:

The F.B.I. has begun investigating, but that will be a prolonged process, and the voters have to render a verdict in five weeks. There is evidence emerging that they should consider.
Ah, scandal as political ploy. Democrats' method of almost winning elections. Makes perfect sense now.

If you're unprepared to take a stand on any real issues, I guess this is the only tactic you have remaining.

As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap

Here's the message you need to take away from this whole Mark Foley scandal:

If those of you residing here in Virginia wish to send a message to those in our midst who consider it acceptable for homosexuals to prey on young men, send that message loud and clear on November 7.