« UK Election Watch | Main | The Fundamentalist Left Invades Hollywood Sets »

Spokane Newspaper "Outs" Republican Mayor After 3 Year Investigation

In a stunning admission of partisanship the editor of the Spokane Spokesman Review, Steven A. Smith, admits in print that his paper has adopted the tactics of the fringe homosexual activists who've led a campaign to out conservative legislators and officials. Most prominent gay organizations have specifically condemned the outing campaigns carried out on blogs like BlogActive and AmericaBlog, whose tactics the Spokesman Review appears to be imitating.

In a series of headline stories today, the Spokesman Review details a three year investigation into the private life of Spokane's Republican mayor Jim West.

For a quarter century, the man who is now Spokane's mayor has used positions of public trust - as a sheriff's deputy, Boy Scout leader and powerful politician - to develop sexual relationships with boys and young men.

One man claims in a court deposition that Jim West molested him in the mid-1970s when he was a boy and West was a Spokane County sheriff's deputy and Boy Scout leader. A second man also accuses West of sexual abuse during the same era, including an incident at Camp Cowles, a Boy Scout camp on Diamond Lake.

In addition, an investigation by The Spokesman-Review has revealed that 17 months after leaving the state Legislature, West has used the trappings of the mayor's office to entice and influence young men he met on a gay Web site.

To which the mayor replied:
Today a series of articles in The Spokesman-Review leveled allegations against me about my private life. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I believe my public record of service stands on its own merit.

Allegations about my private life were two-fold. I categorically deny any allegations about incidents that supposedly occurred 24 years ago as alleged by two convicted felons and about which I have no knowledge. The newspaper also reported that I have visited a gay chat line on the Internet and had relations with adult men. I don't deny that.

Most illuminating is the timeline of the papers investigation.

Follow the logic of that timeline. The Spokesman Review has two allegations from convicted felons they received via the whisper vine, for which there's no corroborating evidence nor apparently any criminal investigations. The paper has these two allegations shelved for several years, before mounting an online sting operation to prove that the mayor is gay. Once their sting establishes that the mayor is in fact gay (or bisexual), they use his homosexuality as an excuse to also report on the uncorroborated charges from 24 years ago. Is the paper stereotyping homosexuals as child molesters to make its case?

In case you think that's the only shocking display of questionable journalistic ethics, here's the real appalling part of the story. Spokesman Review editor Steven A. Smith adopts the logic of homosexual activist Michael Rodgers (in his BlogActive GOP outing campaign) in his defense of the newspapers work (emphasis mine):

Through the use of public records, court documents, first-person accounts and a forensic computer expert, the newspaper has uncovered evidence that West has led a secret life for more than 25 years. Beyond the serious allegations of sexual abuse, West had been using his position in the Legislature to block gay-rights legislation. And he has been trolling the Internet for young lovers while while serving as mayor of Spokane, offering gifts and favors.
At BlogActive such language implies that closeted GOP members who don't toe the line in supporting the homosexual rights agenda deserve their outings.

Has a major US newspaper just employed that same justification for a story? It sure looks like it.

You can ask Smith here - Spokesman Review Ask The Editors Blog

Update: A Clear Voice looks at the charge that Jim West is a hypocrite.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spokane Newspaper "Outs" Republican Mayor After 3 Year Investigation:

» The Southern California Law Blog linked with Six Pix from SoCal

» Jeff Blogworthy.com linked with Spokesman-Review 'outs' another Gay Republican

» Say Anything linked with Gay Witchhunters Out Another Victim

» Homocon linked with Smearing Jim West

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Exposing Hypocrits - Updated!

Comments (63)

Yes, that awful liberal rag... (Below threshold)
Washingtonian:

Yes, that awful liberal rag, the Spokesman Review. Give me a break, Kevin! Once again, the evil homosexual agenda rears its ugly head. This time at the most conservative paper in Washington state.
Rain water and grain alcohol, my friend. Got to protect those precious bodily fluids!

If a guy who was trying to ... (Below threshold)
Pantal:

If a guy who was trying to pass a law against owning chickens secretly had 20 chickens in his basement, would reporting that be good investigative reporting or a hideous invasion of privacy? Would it mean that the reporters had a pro-chicken owning agenda or perhaps that they secretly hated chicken owners and sought their downfall? Would we even ask these questions?

Some on the left are obsess... (Below threshold)
sue:

Some on the left are obsessed with homosexuality. They are so uninformed/bigoted about conservatives that they think that "outing" republicans will create a wedge in the conservative community. They don't understand that most of the conservatives that do not condone/agree with homosexuality do not personally attack people who are gay. Just because some Republican politicians are gay does not mean that they will not vote for Republicans. And if they are like me (who used to be a democrat until several years ago), they will not vote for democrats because of their immature, angry, vile actions and speech. "Outing" being one of them.

Pssht! This guy co-sponsor... (Below threshold)
Patrick Meighan:

Pssht! This guy co-sponsored a bill in the 80's that would've barred gays from state jobs, and another bill that would've required closeted gays to publicly and officially acknowledge their homosexuality as a pre-condition for state employment. And all the while he, himself, was a state-employed closeted gay.

This isn't about "toe(ing) the line in supporting the homosexual rights agenda." It's about plain old hypocrisy.

Some on the left are obs... (Below threshold)
Patrick Meighan:

Some on the left are obsessed with homosexuality... They don't understand that most of the conservatives that do not condone/agree with homosexuality do not personally attack people who are gay.

Right. When Fred Phelps shows up at AIDS victims' funerals with a "God Hates Fags" sign, that's not a personal attack. It's just, um, er... constructive criticism!

Patrick, Read my post compl... (Below threshold)
sue:

Patrick, Read my post completely before making stupid comments. I did say MOST. You've listed ONE out of how many ? republicans.

Actually, I don't think Phe... (Below threshold)

Actually, I don't think Phelps is even Republican. I recall reading that he was calling down hellfire on them as well for not getting with his program. Personally, I think we should pump him full of roofies & drop him off west of St. Ann on Bourbon St. (But then, I've always been an evil bastard...)

Heck, in Washington State, ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Heck, in Washington State, they consider you "Republican" if you're barely to the right of Trotsky...

What sue wrote (^^) and (^^... (Below threshold)
-S-:

What sue wrote (^^) and (^^).

This is quite disappointing, but again, he is who he is if you accept what homosexuals declare about their behavior (they don't chose it, they are compelled to engage in the behaviors, etc.).

Liberals and gay activists can't perceive of anyone being a conservative and apparently gay, from this guy's story. I think that's the issue.

About "homosexual rights," there aren't any as to behaviors, so until there's an astounding eye opener as to announcing that homosexuality is a handicap and protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act, that's the going understanding (no "rights" to be homosexual exist, no "rights" are merited based upon homosexual sexual acts and behaviors, etc.).

I don't condone the guy's (private) behavior. But I also don't condone that homosexuals seem intent on ruining other homosexuals based upon their homosexuality. The message they are sending is that if you're committed to engaging in homosexuality, you HAVE to be a Democrat and hop on the DNC platform of "gay rights" causes, or, you're ruined.

They're engaging in a form of professional/public ruination of any homosexual who dares to have a unique idea apart from their political process/platform -- seems criminal to my view.

"The message they are se... (Below threshold)
Patrick Meighan:

"The message they are sending is that if you're committed to engaging in homosexuality, you HAVE to be a Democrat and hop on the DNC platform of "gay rights" causes, or, you're ruined. They're engaging in a form of professional/public ruination of any homosexual who dares to have a unique idea apart from their political process/platform -- seems criminal to my view."

Yours is a strawman argument. No one insists that each gay has to be a Democrat or "hop on the DNC platform of 'gay rights' causes." All I, personally, ask is that a closeted gay public servant not co-sign legislation banning closeted gays from public service.

Is that really, truly, so much to ask?

Not referring specifically ... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Not referring specifically to this case (there are crimes being alleged), whatever happened to the notion that unless criminal activity WAS involved, a person's private life was just that--private? Or am I being hopelessly naive?

Patrick Meighan: ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Patrick Meighan:

You just answered your own question and confirmed my point: you have an expectation (enacted as 'demands' by others behaving more aggressively about the same issue, however) that "gay" people reason, vote and think as you do.

Everyone isn't one permutation of some master oneness in that sense. People have individual opinions and perspectives about most things.

And, about what you've written, the guy in Washington State wasn't "closeted" as per what he's been doing or says about it. He was in an elected office and I dare say that Ted Kennedy hasn't made it highly public as to what he's been doing throughout his lifetime and with whom, among many others.

"Gay" activists have this expectation that everyone is going to feel just fine and dandy about naming names from wherever, whenever, and publicizing behaviors just because, and people just don't behave that way, unless you're Michael Rogers.

It's not about "hypocrisy," it's about individual opinion. Even among "gays."

The guy in Washington State... (Below threshold)
-S-:

The guy in Washington State was, also, almost certainly elected into office by many voters with an expectation that he would legislate, for the most part, as he has. Thus, he appears to have been legislating as per what his constituents expected. Which is to his credit.

Otherwise, change party all... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Otherwise, change party alliance and start campaigning for the DNC. Who, however, does not, either, support "gay" rights and "gay marriage."

So, I'm still not sure where the outrage here is...other than the offensive suggestions by the felons, which is also highly suspect.

I hope that someone somewhe... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I hope that someone somewhere sues Michael Rogers and others like him for a huge amount of money. Even if he doesn't have it, just restrict his ability to ever profit from the misery he is proliferating.

"You just answered your ... (Below threshold)
Patrick Meighan:

"You just answered your own question and confirmed my point: you have an expectation (enacted as 'demands' by others behaving more aggressively about the same issue, however) that 'gay' people reason, vote and think as you do."

You're wrong. I don't expect every gay person to reason, vote, and think as I do. First of all, I don't happen to be gay. So there's that. Second of all, I recognize that those who ARE gay do have wide ranging views on myriad political subjects (including, yes, the subject of civil rights for gays). For example, I don't expect every gay person to oppose DOMA. So, okay, can we now please put your strawman argument to bed?

All I ask (of this or any gentleman) is that one not publicly support outright discrimination against others as a function of their (perfectly legal) behavior, when you, yourself, are secretly engaged in the exact same behavior.

Barring homosexuals from public service for no reason other than their homosexuality is discrimination. That's bad enough. But to be a (secretly) homosexual public servant yourself, signing that legislation that bars other homosexuals from public service... that's hypocrisy. Like, straight outta the dictionary hypocrisy. How can you legitimately claim otherwise?

"And, about what you've written, the guy in Washington State wasn't "closeted" as per what he's been doing or says about it."

Jim West has been an active bisexual since college (according to he, himself, in one of his gay.com chats, now posted in their entirety at the S-R website). He's kept his gayness secret, however, never mentioning it in more than 20 years of public life. Isn't this the very definition of "closeted"?

"Gay" activists have this expectation that everyone is going to feel just fine and dandy about naming names from wherever, whenever, and publicizing behaviors just because, and people just don't behave that way, unless you're Michael Rogers.

Wait a second. James West *proposed marriage* (to his now ex-wife) from the floor of the State Senate in 1990. Kind of a "publicizing behavior," no? But now you write as though, gosh, this is just a private, personal, shy dude. You see how silly that sounds?

Face it, he's a conservative Republican who happens to be a closeted gay person. Nothing wrong with that. Except when he supports legislation that is intentionally designed to keep others from doing what he, himself, is doing: holding a state job while being gay. Then it's hypocrisy, neither more nor less.

I think what your objective... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I think what your objective is, Patrick Meighan, is to argue about "gay marriage" and why you think it "should be" legislated into "reality" (yours) and to denigrate any point made about anyone, gay or not, who doesn't support your initial premise: that everyone should think and vote and opine as you do (with the addendum of "is that so wrong"). Yes, it's wrong, and it's also non productive.

I really have nothing to argue with you about, nor any interest in doing so. I do read that you insist that anyone not in agrement with your position also is "closeted" as to being "gay."

You'll just continue to use the thread to dispute anything and you 've been able to paste endless content about gaydom. I don't see the point, as I wrote earlier.

We could always amend ad in... (Below threshold)
-S-:

We could always amend ad infinitum the definition of "hypocrisy" but this isn't Wikipedia.

Here's a suggestion: homos... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Here's a suggestion: homosexuality is the hypocrisy of sexual intimacy.

And, copying the comments w... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, copying the comments written earlier by someone other than yourself is the hypocrisy of commenting.

People know what they've already written. The only reason to retype it is to hypocrisize what's been written...

Message: Violating a man's ... (Below threshold)

Message: Violating a man's privacy and making libelous allegations in print is justified in exposing hypocrisy?

A legislator who has smoked cannot support a smoking ban?

A legislator who has patronized a strip club cannot support a ban on lap dancing?

A legislator who speeds cannot support tougher penalties for speeders?

A legislator who has had an abortion cannot support pro-life issues?

Hmmmmm.You know wh... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmmm.

You know what's really amusing about all this?

The argument against devout Christians as politicians, or even judges, is that they'll filter all their political work through their judgemental beliefs. I.e. they would apply their personal beliefs to their job, which is supposedly to be a neutral conduit for the voters.

On the other hand.

If you're a gay Republican then you CANNOT be a neutral conduit for the will of the voters and you MUST filter all of your work through the filter of pro-gay agendas.

Quite the hypocrisy there fellows.

Wavemaker,Libelous... (Below threshold)
Sabre:

Wavemaker,

Libelous allegations are never OK. If these allegations are libelous (the way that they were reported, they clearly are not), then that's a civil offense that West will sue the paper over. However, reporting allegations of misconduct, especially by public officials, is the stock in trade of just about any newspaper.

As for privacy, and your examples. If a legislator presents a bill against abortion and *then* gets pregnant and has an abortion, I think that's pretty relevant, and I'd think that people on both sides of the debate would be well served to know this. If the legislator belonged to a chat room talking about post-abortion medication and a reporter got on there and discovered her identity, then I think that's a legitimate story.

Of course the legislator can continue to hold her opinions, but she'll have to explain why having an abortion was OK for her, but she now wants to make it illegal.

The speeding example is even more clear cut. If a legislator supports additional fines for speeding or a lower speed limit and has 50 citations for speeding, I'd like to know that if I'm for or against the tougher law. Sure, he could later get up and say that he's made mistakes and his experiences reinforce the idea of the law, but I'd have to wonder why he didn't just say that *before* he was outed as a serial speeder. And it would be a very legitimate news story. As would the follow up talking to two guys that claimed that he ran over their sister when he was 18 while speeding. Perhaps that's why he hates speeding so much.

In my youth, this topic was... (Below threshold)

In my youth, this topic was taboo for public discussion, and repression ran deep.

Reading this thread makes me miss those days...

-S-,I don't think ... (Below threshold)
sabre:

-S-,

I don't think you're arguing the same point as Patrich Meighan. His claim was that West co-sponsored a bill that would have banned homosexuals from public service. I don't know if this is true or not, but if if it is, than I think you'd have to admit that he was "professing a belief" that he did not "hold or posess," (the definition of hypocrisy from dictionary.com) since he was a homosexual public servant. If he believed what he was saying, he should have quit.

Then you come back with, "homosexuality is the hypocrisy of sexual intimacy," after saying that this wasn't Wikapedia? Dude -- invest in a dictionary.

Jim West has been a great c... (Below threshold)
Pat H:

Jim West has been a great conservative and Republican here in WA State. When he was in the legislature, he was a great man to have on your side and a great defender from the excesses of the Washington communi...er...democrats. I hope the criminal allegations are false and that he can continue to be an effective conservative in a state that needs them so badly. Who cares about his sexual orientation? Not I, and probably not most other fellow conservatives. I wish he was mayor here in the People's Republic of Seattle.

My bad Patrick (I missed th... (Below threshold)
sabre:

My bad Patrick (I missed the second news story earlier, not to mention typo'd your name).

"Their 1986 bill, which failed, would have barred gay men and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. It called for screening prospective employees for sexual orientation and firing employees whose homosexuality became known."

While the particulars of that bill are somehwat less hypocritical than the original generic description, because he presumably could have kept his job as a gay man, since it didn't involve children (only 18 yr old interns), wanting to "fire employees whose homosexuality became known" and "screen employees based on sexual orientation" seems pretty hypocritical for a closeted gay man.

The paper says:Th... (Below threshold)

The paper says:
Their 1986 bill, which failed, would have barred gay men and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. It called for screening prospective employees for sexual orientation and firing employees whose homosexuality became known.

So it would have banned gays from working for the state WITH CHILDREN, and only if their homosexuality became known, not if they were closeted.

Now it would be interesting to know how they determined their homosexuality. If they had someone sort through their trash or something, that's one thing. They are trying to expose people in the closet. However, if they were only concerned with gays who openly admitted they were gay, that's another. Certainly in the 80's, and even today, there's people who don't want to expose young children to non-traditional sexual orientation because they think that it's inappropiate to be talking with children about any kind of sexual thing.

Of course, that's assuming the paper reported it correctly, and since I can't find it anywhere else and the paper reported on another bill in the same story inaccuratly, it's suspicious.

By the way, even my mother,... (Below threshold)

By the way, even my mother, who is disgusted that 2/3 of her children became conservatives, has expressed to me that while she has absolutly no problem with, say, homosexuals in the legislature, she wouldn't want openly gay people teaching children under a certain age.

Ah yes Raina, closeted = "e... (Below threshold)
sabre:

Ah yes Raina, closeted = "everything's OK", openly gay = "let's discriminate". As a closeted legislator, it's not hypocritical at all to want to pass laws to deny jobs or even fire people who are openly gay. As long as you can remain closeted and encourage others to do the same, it's OK to discriminate against those who don't. People can keep their jobs as long as they're not found out. Of course, if you, as the legislator gets found out, that creates some interesting and complicated situations, as West is discovering.

Message to gay community -- just stay closeted and everything will be OK. Get found out and pay the price. Have the shame that you should, be careful, shut up, and you can keep your job. This is America, land of the free, home of the brave.

Please tell me what the "ho... (Below threshold)
Scott H:

Please tell me what the "homosexual" agenda is? From all I've ever heard or read, it seems all that's being asked for is to enjoy the same rights as other groups that have historically been discriminated against when it comes to housing, employment, adoption, marriage. Did I miss something?

As for Jim West, well he's a hypocritical politican...which is sort of redundant. But is it newsworthy? You bet! The public loves stories of its officials being caught with their pants down or their hands in the cookie jar...and the media loves to expose that because it sells advertising.

And is "outing" acceptible as a political tactic? Absolutely, calling into question your opponent's character is legitimate because it speaks to their qualification to be a leader. Whether it's a gay pride group outing a Republican or a conservative group attacking Kerry's war record, it's legitimate. And it's not new.

At the end of the day, whether it's West or Kerry, the voters decide if the politician has the qualities it looks for in a leader.

The only comment I would add is that the fact West felt, for whatever reason, to remain in the closet speaks volumes about what it means to be gay. I can only surmise that he felt the personal or political risks of coming out were greater than the risk of being exposed as a hypocrite.

Scott

Regarding his conservative ... (Below threshold)
Fran:

Regarding his conservative stance on the issues.

I'm sure he'll be re-elected by his supporters, because they're not homophobes.

Actually, I don't think ... (Below threshold)

Actually, I don't think Phelps is even Republican. I recall reading that he was calling down hellfire on them as well for not getting with his program.

You are correct, sir. After reading the exchange between Patrick and Sue, I was going to post that the Phelpsies hate Republicans almost as much as they hate gay people.

Openly gay bad if you're WO... (Below threshold)

Openly gay bad if you're WORKING WITH CHILDREN. West is NOT working with children.

And I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying that it is an opinion that many people hold, and it's not hypocritical for a gay person to hold that opinion, particularly 20 years ago.

Most of you don't quite get... (Below threshold)
Scott:

Most of you don't quite get it do you? He took a pious position to win conservative votes.

Don't blame the gay community for defending itself from people like West. He used gays as a battering ram to win votes during the day but enjoyed the perks of the community at night.

He's a cynical politician who got burned.

And for pete's sake, I don'... (Below threshold)

And for pete's sake, I don't even like the guy. For example, his bill to ban sex for teenagers under age 18 sounds butt stupid to me. I don't think him hitting on an 18 year old should be illegal, but it is creepy. All I'm addressing is whether it is possible for him to be gay (or bisexual) and hold the opinions and try to pass the legislation he has passed without being a hypocrite. I think it is.

And, by the way, that doesn... (Below threshold)

And, by the way, that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. But it does mean that there's no proof that he is one.

Hmmmm."Please tell... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

"Please tell me what the "homosexual" agenda is?"

The agenda? Gay is good, non-gay is bad. How are gays portrayed in movies and on tv? Witty, urban, successful. How are Christians portrayed in movies and tv? Nasty idiotic hypocritical bigots.

The agenda isn't just "enjoy the same rights". It's a ideological push to gain ascendence. You can't teach Christianity in public schools. You can't even have your child pray in one. But they're trying to teach homosexuality to second graders.

That's the agenda.

For my part I generally couldn't care less about gay people. However the continuous in-your-face pushing is decidedly putting me into very irritated throw-them-in-irons category.

"The public loves stories of its officials being caught with their pants down or their hands in the cookie jar"

How does this show Mr. West as being either with his pants down or in the cookie jar? Was he having an adulterous affair with someone he placed in government service? A la New Jersey? Did he steal money?

"Absolutely, calling into question your opponent's character is legitimate because it speaks to their qualification to be a leader. "

Being gay is a character defect?

"speaks volumes about what it means to be gay."

Or it could be that he is a private individual who chooses to keep his private life private. I'm a heterosexual but you don't see me running around screaming "I hump women".

Frankly, I'd suggest you try again.

Raina, If you want t... (Below threshold)
sabre:

Raina,
If you want to be an openly gay man, and push the legislation to bar gay people from being teachers, more power to you. I can't remember anyone ever actually doing that, but I'd have to respect that open and above-board policy choice. However, if you want to be a closeted gay man pushing the same legistaltion while claiming to be straight, that's Jimmy Swaggart-level hypocrisy.

I'm wondering whether you think it's bad to be openly gay and work with children because that's exposing children to the gay lifestyle as a viable choice or whether you're more along the lines of potential sexual abuse, like potentially occurred with Jim West working with the Boy Scouts. If the latter, I think the occurrance of this type of abuse from closeted gay men far surpasses that of openly gay men.

Of course, West's bill didn't require that they be openly gay to be discriminated against. They could be as closeted as West, or even more so, found out, and fired, based on his bill.

Of course, West's own defense is not that he was a closeted gay man. It's that he's not gay at all. From the story:

In a wide-ranging interview Wednesday night, West acknowledged he’d recently begun to seek out young men on the Internet and said he couldn’t explain why. "I don’t want to go into the whole issue, but I wouldn’t characterize me as ‘gay,’."

No, no. Of course not Jim. Looking for young men on gay.com and propositioning them for sex doesn't make you gay.

ed-Thanks for clea... (Below threshold)
Scott H:

ed-

Thanks for clearing up the gay agenda! All these years I thought it was the godless communist jew heathen Demoncrats who controlled the media, denigrated good God-fearing white Christian folk and kicked the One True Faith out of skool...now I understand it was just the limp-wristed lavendar scented fruits.

And also a thnaks for pointing out that it's an "ideological push to gain ascendence". Golly, can you help me out here and let me know where I can find their manifesto? I mean the commies had Das Kapital and Hitler had Mein Kampf...so I'm sure them queer boys must have one too. I'd sure like to find it so I can tell all my friends.

Oh, and do you know where they have their meetings? Just in case I wanted to...you know...monitor their activities.

And I agree, all that darned "in-you-face" stuff gets to me too! Why the next thing you know they'd be wanting to be able to hold hands and kiss just like normal folks. It was one thing when them nig...bla...african-americans started getting all uppity (and not to mention them bean...wet...chic..oh hell you know who I mean); but having to think about, let alone see, them disgusting preverts is one step too far. (and between you and me I heard their kind likes being thrown in irons, so we might want to come up with something else).

Oh, and thanks for clarifying that West (was his partner Artemis Gordon, btw?), wasn't caught with his pants down or his handsin the cookie jar. Of course he was engaging in cybersex, so we can't be too sure about this now can we? Come to think of it, that's another disgusting gay image...burned in my brain along side Bill, Monica and box of Cuban cigars.

Being gay isn't a character defect...except in the audience who think it is. And from the looks of things that would include Jim West, which is a good example of self-loathing too.

As for keeping his private life private...well I think he gave that up when he decided to become a PUBLIC official. By the way, is "hump women" or "bang broads"? I could never get that straight.

Hugs and kisses

Scott


Remember, it is not about t... (Below threshold)
JD:

Remember, it is not about the GAY PORN COCK, it is about the HYPOCRISY !!!

It's actually a really inte... (Below threshold)
me:

It's actually a really interesting issue. Yes, it is news if a chicken-lover is arguing anti-chicken. But realistically, if you are ok with outing some, you should be ok with outing any. I mean, the truth will set us fre...

sabre: you missed the poin... (Below threshold)
-S-:

sabre: you missed the point of that comment of mine, this thread, earlier. I am not, not at all, surprised or puzzled that you would, however. In fact, I anticipated the comment being over the heads of some, and you confirm that it was/is.

I don't see any useful purpose in going on about the point, however, since there's not room enough here to explain it to you. It was simple enough in it's point as/when originally written, and you missed it.

Something I've been wonderi... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Something I've been wondering about, however, that no one here has discussed (even mentioned), was how, specifically, this "process" of "exposing hypocrisy" by the gay activists took place.

They write that thay devoted 'three years' to their process and yet then go on to "expose" this guy's use of computing.

How is it that they are aware of what a person does with their computing time?

Unless the legislator was using office network/s and time to arrange his escapades, I am puzzled why it's anyone's business and how they made it so that they became aware of what the guy did while online otherwise.

I know that there's a group of homosexual activists in the Justice Department but I'd hate to think that Hoover's Justice Department rendition is again alive and well. Otherwise, explain the process here because a lot of citizens are interested.

"Actually, I don't think... (Below threshold)
-S-:

"Actually, I don't think Phelps is even Republican. I recall reading that he was calling down hellfire on them as well for not getting with his program."

You are correct, sir. After reading the exchange between Patrick and Sue, I was going to post that the Phelpsies hate Republicans almost as much as they hate gay people.

Posted by: McGehee at May 6, 2005 11:18 AM

My turn to be in the dark here, McGehee because I don't have the foggiest idea of what it is you're expressing there (^^). If you're referring to MY earlier comments, I don't and never have used the name, "Sue". Not in print anywhere, not in use anywhere, don't use it.

I don't understand your point, however. I'm also not (at all) supportive of anyone who harasses anyone else about who they are, what they do, and htat includes gay activists and hate mongers.

The Bible does instruct that homosexuality is morally wrong to a serious point. I believe the Bible. And, to the extent that some engaged in that moral wrong go to demean and diminish those who feel otherwise, I think there's good evidence that the Bible is correct about the issue.

"Actually, I don't think... (Below threshold)
-S-:

"Actually, I don't think Phelps is even Republican. I recall reading that he was calling down hellfire on them as well for not getting with his program."

You are correct, sir. After reading the exchange between Patrick and Sue, I was going to post that the Phelpsies hate Republicans almost as much as they hate gay people.

Posted by: McGehee at May 6, 2005 11:18 AM
---------------------

My time to not understand here, McGehee because I don't have the foggiest idea of what it is you're expressing there (^^). If you're referring to MY earlier comments, I don't and never have used the name, "Sue". Not in print anywhere, not in use anywhere, don't use it.

I don't understand your point, however. I'm also not (at all) supportive of anyone who harasses anyone else about who they are, what they do, and htat includes gay activists and hate mongers.

The Bible does instruct that homosexuality is morally wrong to a serious point. I believe the Bible. And, to the extent that some engaged in that moral wrong go to demean and diminish those who feel otherwise, I think there's good evidence that the Bible is correct about the issue.

Yes, -S- we know you're bus... (Below threshold)
sabre:

Yes, -S- we know you're busy being the stalwart sycophant of Wizbang, so I'm not surprised that you don't have the time and space to "explain" your intensely clever misunderstanding of the word 'hypocrisy' to the jaded, unwashed masses like myself. Please just revel in your self-proclaimed superiority. I know Jesus loves that Pharisee shtick.

sabre...O.K., I got it a wh... (Below threshold)
-S-:

sabre...O.K., I got it a while ago that you are: gay, hate Jesus Christ and Christians and are a very not nice person. It has nothing to do with your gayness, but it does prove that by being gay, some people are still creeps.

Which you are. I doubt that you know what Jesus loves and doesn't. I really, really doubt it.

Another thread derailment: ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Another thread derailment: sabre's hateful screed.

True story. I don'... (Below threshold)
fatman:

True story.

I don't remember exactly how long ago it was--probably two decades or more--a residential street in my city located near two major universities had a real problem with homosexual men loitering and cruising their street, drinking and urinating in public, engaging in lewd acts (use your imagination) and being loud and rowdy at all hours of the night. The residents complained to City Council. City Council passed (over the strident objections of the ACLU and local homosexual activists) an anti-cruising ordinance. The aforementioned activists sued and got the ordinance tossed. So the city put up a strategically placed No Left Turn sign that made it virtually impossibile to cruise that street and the cops went in and started arresting people on whatever charges applied.

The point to this story? Just that the homosexual and lesbian agenda isn't always just about equal rights; it frequently is about being allowed to do that which would get a straight censured or even arrested in a New York minute.

I think it's also a pretty good example of hypocrisy.

-S-,I'm sorry to s... (Below threshold)
sabre:

-S-,

I'm sorry to see that you have such a serious case of thin skin. Perhaps you can go see a dermatologist while you're out getting that dictionary.

I seriously hope that you're don't have any responsibilities where logic or judgment are prerequisites. Seeing the amount of time you send posting to WizBang, though, I doubt that's much of a concern. If you want to have discussions where your beliefs will not be questioned, you might want to try the message board on the children's magazine, "Highlights."

Point 1 on this subject: I'm heterosexual, so I guess your conclusions about me being gay and what that implies are seriously off. If I was gay, I'd proclaim it proudly. I'm no Mayor West.

Secondly, I have no hate for Christ or Christians. I think that Christ was a great philosopher with a lot of good advice for living that is applicable to this day. I've read all of his teachings, and many of them I try to apply to my daily life, though only from a secular standpoint. I can certainly appreciate others that try do the same, from a religious standpoint. You however, seem determined to turn his words from great strength into bloody...what word am I searching for here? It starts with 'h' and has two 'y's in it. Oh well, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Finally, I'm glad to see that I can derail a thread with my ultra-powerful posts. Or perhaps it is the intellectual weakness of my opposition that grants me that power...

fatman,Interesting... (Below threshold)
sabre:

fatman,

Interesting story. I agree, this would be a great example of hypocrisy except for one major detail. The ACLU has fought and defeated several anti-cruising ordinances in several towns that had nothing to do with gays. Most of the ordinances were aimed at young hetrosexual men (especially minorities). Here are a few examples:

Salt Lake City, UT

Sioux Falls, SD

Milwaukee, WI

I'd also like more detail on the particular city and ordinance that you're referring to and how exactly they determined that their problems were due specifically to gay men. Also, public lewd acts aren't illegal where you live? No noise controls? Public urination isn't illegal?? We have laws against all of those where I live. If these were the problem, why not pass time tested laws against that specific behavior and arest the people breaking those laws instead of making cruising illegal? That just doesn't make sense.

sabre:The city was... (Below threshold)
fatman:

sabre:

The city was Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, PA. The time was sometime in the mid-eighties (I think). I do distinctly remember that City Council CONSIDERED an anti-cruising ordinance, but I'm no longer 100% certain that they passed it; they may have caved in to pressure from the ACLU (and I should have said that).

Frankly, the anti-cruising ordinance was an attempt to solve the problem on the cheap (my opinion). The city was on a tight budget and didn' t want to put on extra police patrols--through overtime or hiring more officers--or divert manpower from other, more pressing needs. And the Allegheny County jail was under federal mandate not to let jail population exceed 540 inmates, with a $1000 fine for every inmate released to meet that limit.

Yes, Pittsburgh does have noise ordinances, and ordinances against performing lewd acts and urinating in public. We even have open container laws out here in the boonies. Trying to find a cop to enforce them at 2:00 AM CAN be a little difficult, especially on a Saturday night.

As for how the residents knew that these were homosexuals, it might have something to do with the fact that some of them were caught engaging in lewd acts by the residents.

I should also add that the same homosexual activists who opposed the anti-cruising ordinance also opposed the city's subsequent actions, though far less successfully. Don't know if the ACLU was involved in that.

fatman,Thanks for ... (Below threshold)
sabre:

fatman,

Thanks for the explanation.

In any event, I think my point stands about opposition to the anti-cruising ordinance. The ACLU fights a lot of these, not just for gay men. There's certainly no hypocrisy from their angle on that score. The gay rights activists weren't seeking to make the illegal behavior you describe legal. They weren't asking to be "allowed to do that which would get a straight censured or even arrested in a New York minute." On the contrary, they were asking to do what was totally legal: drive around the block. Of course, they also opposed the "left turn" solution, because it criminalized the same behavior, just not as generally. However, they lost that fight, because this solution was not an overreach of power, like the cruising law was.

When cities take legal behavior that a certain group is engaged in and try to make it illegal, there’s generally a fight from the people engaging in that behavior to keep it legal. Why would you call that hypocrisy? In my town, we just enacted a smoking ban in bars. Non-smokers were generally in favor of the ban and smokers generally opposed it, but that seems perfectly logical, not hypocritical.

Sabre:If I confuse... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Sabre:

If I confused you (no insult intended) with the way my original post was worded, I apologize. I should have stated more clearly that the hypocrites, IMHO, were the activists, not the ACLU. I have issues with the ACLU, but that's a debate for another day.

As for the notion that homosexuals were being singled out or treated differently, I don't buy it. As I recall, the (proposed?) ordinance would have been used to prohibit cruising in other parts of the city as well. Not just by homosexuals and not just on that street. We do have our share of straight males who cruise certain neighborhoods looking for drugs or prostitutes or both. But I don't recall a single straight male coming out (uh, sorry about that) in opposition to the ordinance. I also have issues with laws prohibiting those activities, but that's REALLY a debate for another day.

As for your point that the homosexual activists weren't trying to make illegal activity legal, maybe not. What they were trying to do is prevent the city from placing restrictions on their legal behavior that would have made it far more difficult to engage in their illegal behavior. And instead of a team of undercover detectives and decoys to arrest them, one uniformed cop with a ticket book or two would have sufficed. Now the city did manage to at least make it far more difficult to cruise that street with a couple of signs and a uniformed cop with a ticket book or two, but what about streets with high volumes of traffic where keeping traffic flowing in an orderly manner makes that unfeasible?

Finally, your analogy between a ban on cruising and a ban on smoking actually works against you. Your city is taking a legal activity like smoking and enacting a ban against it in certain places, just like my city tried to do with cruising. Even if you buy the premise (I don't) that second-hand smoke is more of a threat to the well being of non-participants than cruising and the activities engaged in by the cruisers , that isn't, or shouldn't be an issue

The hypocrisy--and I believe that's an accurate word-- is that the homosexual activists in my city wanted to facilitate behaviors that are illegal for straights. In your city's case, the hypocrisy would be if your city does not then devote their share of all revenues derived from federal, state and local--if any--taxes on sales of cigarettes, cigars, pipes and pipe tobacco to reimbursing bar owners for any revenue losses which might occur because of the ban. Which we both know isn't going to happen.

I'll try to take your point... (Below threshold)
sabre:

I'll try to take your points in order, but some overlap.

1) You say, "the (proposed?) ordinance would have been used to prohibit cruising in other parts of the city as well." I think you mean "could", not "would". By passing the resolution in response to the complaints as they did (and especially placing the no-left-turn sign where they did, once that was overturned), the council made it pretty darn clear where the "cop with a ticket book' was going to be once the ordinance was passed. It's not that the law was selective. It's that the enforcement was going to be selective and everyone knew it. That should also explain why it was mostly gay men protesting. Even so, I'd imagine there were at least some straight people who came out against it, solely based on ACLU action/notification on the cause.

2) When you place this restriction on legal behavior, it would make it more difficult to engage in some of the illegal behaviors (though, public urination? were they pissing out of their car windows?). True. However, it also makes it more difficult to engage in perfectly legal behaviors. All your posts make it seem like every last gay man in the area was guilty of continuously breaking the existing statues while cruising. If only a percentage of them did, then surely you recognize the right of the rest to protest this type of action and be free from any hypocrisy or bad intentions at all. They just want to keep on doing what they have been doing legally and above board -- thus my smoking analogy.

3) Your main point is that "the homosexual activists in my city wanted to facilitate behaviors that are illegal for straights." That should read "illegal for everyone" as you already pointed out. You're just tarring every single cruiser with the actions of, at least potentially, a small percentage. For any gay man who just wanted to see and be seen in the hot and happening area while cruising around, you're saying he can't and then calling him a hypocrite when he objects.

4) On the other hand, let's take the example of the gay man who isn't responsible, loves to go down to the area, be drunk and disorderly, screw in a back alley, and then piss in a doorway. If he thinks that's appropriate behavior for any man and woman in the city, that's not hypocritical. It's bizarre, but totally internally consistent. This gay man protesting the ordinance here would be more like Al Capone bribing police: he does it because it's effective to allow his lawbreaking to continue. Hypocritical? No.

5) The dictionary definition of hypocrisy (from dictionary.com) is "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess." So, what belief do the people who protested the cruising ordinance have that they're not being totally open and honest about?

I'll try to take your point... (Below threshold)
fatman:

I'll try to take your points in order, as well.

1)You say that "enforcement was going to be selective and everyone knew it". Actually, since the ordinance was never, to my knowledge, enforced, then there is no way to predict that. Now if the ordinance HAD been selectively enforced, then the ACLU and the activists would have had a point. As for straights coming out in open opposition to the ordinance, I'll concede the possibility, particularly among ACLU members and supporters. I just don't remember any.

2)It is possible to engage in illegal acts such as public drunkness, drunken driving, violation of noise ordinances by blowing your horn to get someone's attention or stopping the car to engage in loud, boisterous conversations, obstructing traffic, sidewiping a parked car and leaving the scene or engaging in lewd acts without getting out of (or even stopping)the car. And I almost forgot littering. And to paraphrase your immortal words, it may even be possible to piss out a window, providing your willy is long enough.

3)The "hot and happening area", as you put it, was and (I think) still is one block of a city street, with the rears of a bank and a large apartment building on one side and private homes on the other, with no restaurants within two blocks and no bars or nightclubs within a half-mile at least.The only thing that made this such a hot and happening place was that it was dimly lit.

4)I agree that your example does exhibit extremely bizarre behavior, but I didn't call him a hypocrite; I called the activists hypocrites. They made a defacto attempt to legalize behavior by homosexuals that be would illegal for everyone ELSE, by opposing an ordinance that they would have ignored or even supported had it been aimed at straights. And if you can speculate as to motives of those who supported the ordinance, then I can speculate as to motives of those who opposed it.

5)See #4.

This will be my last post on this thread. Not because I think you're right (you aren't) or that you're getting to me (you're not). But there's really nothing more to be said. You're not going to change your mind and I'm not going to change mine. And I doubt if there are very many fence-sitters left reading this exchange.

Is there something wrong wi... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Is there something wrong with your software?

The date at the top of the post says May 5, but this story broke today (May 9). We wouldn't want the appearance of impropriety here, would we? (That's the Royal We, of course.)

Oops. My mistake. I didn't ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Oops. My mistake. I didn't click through to the full story.

-S- wrote"[The ... (Below threshold)
Big Kahuna Burger:

-S- wrote

"[The Spokane Review printed] that thay devoted 'three years' to their process and yet then go on to "expose" this guy's use of computing."


Typically wingnutty evasive understatement. This guy was using his computer to wheedle his way into the ass of a 17 year old which, to the best of my knowledge, translates to using his computer to commit statutory rape.

In and of itself, this isn't particularly noteworthy. I think American age restrictions on sex are set a little too high and could be lowered to 16 (as is the norm in most European countries) without adverse effects, and there's nothing wrong with solicting consenting partners over the internet.

However, what makes this incident so noteworthy was that this closet case was an opponent of gay rights. He was a "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrite of the worst kind, using his legislative power to oppress people just like himself, such was his discomfort with his own identity. His disregard of age of consent laws strongly indicates that, had the restrictive laws he championed taken effect, he would have studiously ignored them.

Like a black klansman or a shitfaced prohibitionist, this guy was an utter, utter hypocrite. His hypocrisy makes him untrustworthy and undeserving of his position. It also makes him contemptable.

Still, wingnut hypocricy is de rigueur these days and, while it would once have been shocking, is now as banal as a 'naughty' Victorian postcard.

Absolutely.It's no... (Below threshold)
Norah:

Absolutely.

It's not TEH GAY that bothers me, it's the hypocrisy. I don't give a crap who he sleeps with, but he pretended to be something he wasn't so he could oppress people who had enough balls to be who they are. It really rankles, and that's the truth.

fatman,1) Your ini... (Below threshold)
sabre:

fatman,

1) Your initial characterization of the ordinance was that the residents complained and the city then took action. Cause and effect seems pretty clear cut here from your description. As I pointed out last time, that's also where they put up the no left turn sign when the ordinance was overturned, so I think my case is pretty good, at least on a circumstantial level. The ordinance was never enforced, but the "no left turn" was installed and enforced, so it gives us a pretty good idea of how the other one would have gone. After the cruising ordinance, where else did no left turn signs spring up?

2) Thanks for expanding the list of illegal behaviors. True for all, as I noted in my last post. I was merely making a humorous aside about the public urination. Your list totally fails to address the main point of #2, though. It was that the cruising law also obstructed perfectly legal behavior that was all that a percentage (perhaps a large percentage) of the men were engaged in. That was the main point of #2 and #3, but you didn't deal with this very relevant topic at all. All you do to address this is say that you're free to speculate on their motives (see #4b).

3) So all this could've been avoided with better streetlights? There’s a lesson there, somewhere.

4a) “They made a defacto attempt to legalize behavior by homosexuals that be would illegal for everyone ELSE.” I think we’ve dealt with this before. Even with all your examples of behavior, there isn’t any of it that was or would have been legal for gay men and illegal for everyone else. And how can they possibly be making an “attempt” to “legalize” anything? They didn’t introduce any legislation. They merely fought against what others were introducing. You’re logic turns the whole thing on it’s head. The city was passing an ordinance and they reacted. The city ordinance was explicitly going to criminalize the legal behavior of cruising to make their job of enforcing illegal behavior easier. Your logic is like saying opposing gun control laws is attempting to make liquor store robberies legal.

4b) So your "pretty good example" of hypocrisy actually boils down to pure speculation on the activists motives? I'm certainly willing to end the discussion with that capitulation if you are.

Thanks for the open and honest exchange.

Cons are obsessed with sex.... (Below threshold)

Cons are obsessed with sex. They have come to see such things as statues of justice and paintings as sexual objects. Perhaps they are just not getting enough because they think it is bad. In their sexual ignorance, they have come to conclude that gays are nothing but sexual objects. Like the person who said she doesn't want children taught by gays, they view gays as people who do nothing but have sex, completely ignoring the fact that they are actual people who have actual jobs.

Something is only sexual if that is the way you view it. The "homosexual agenda" as cons call it is trying to get people to view gays as people rather than sexual objects. That is all. Like anything, it has its extremists. Unfortunately, cons are blinded by their ideology and are unwilling to try to understand anything that doesn't fit neatly into their gated communities. And like I said, I think if they'd just start having more sex, they wouldn't have to look upon such things as statues with lust in their eyes.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy