Yellow tomato gazpacho with herb croutons
Some would argue that it’s a teensy bit early in the tomato season for gazpacho. Lo, and I would say unto them: at least it’s never too late to complain about old news.
I mean, why-for all the hubub about this Gannon/Guckert dude’s day job as a "gay prostitute"? Big whoop, so he’s gay. The real news is that a fake reporter/partisan hack is implicated in both the Valerie Plame thing and Tom Daschle’s losing senate race, but all anyone cares about is that he’s a homo? Jesus H Christ!
Media–and I do not disinclude the "reality-based" bloggers (or at least the people who leave comments on their blogs; even the supposedly gay ones seem to be just as homophobic as the next fucktard)–sure do love to revel all titillational whenever they get to append the prefix "gay" to some shifty criminal. "Gay" adds an extra-crispy layer of scandal. Kinky! Perverse! Illegal!
What chaps my hide is, whenever a situation departs even slightly from the heterosexual white male European default model, i.e. "the norm," the Establishment perceives the difference as deviant. The patriarchal mandate is that the difference be identified and emphasized, and preferably overstated and mocked.
"Mocked?" you ask. Well, check this out: in Dripping Springs, Texas, in the year 2005, the high school has two teams.
Lady Tigers. Fighting Tigers.
Of course, Mr T could take’em all in a barfight.
11 comments
Steve Pick
March 16, 2005 at 11:02 am (UTC -6)
To be fair, the term “gay prostitute” becomes relevant in the Gannon/Guckert case because it’s so obviously not the type of thing the Republicans profess to support. If they hate gays, and they hate prostitutes, why would they allow a practicing gay prostitute to be their shill in the Press Room?
If they still wrote cool pulp fiction, there would be room for a Mr. T battles the Lady and Fighting Tigers novel. I pity the fool that doesn’t want to read that.
Dean Minderman
March 16, 2005 at 2:59 pm (UTC -6)
Yep, the issue is not Gannuckert’s gayness, but the hypocrisy of a gay man shilling for a political party that reviles people like him and attempts to deny them their basic humanity.
That, and the fact that said unqualified shill from a partisan propaganda outfit apparently got special treatment resulting in access to the White House press room without undergoing the usual security checks.
Also, prostitution, gay or straight, is illegal in most states. If Laura Ingraham or Anne Coulter were doing “escort” work on the side, it would be a legitimate news story.
True, a certain snarkiness about gays can be found in portions of the liberal blogosphere. But that’s not necessarily why they’ve seized on the Gannuckert story.
Also, I’m pretty sure the guy who does Americablog.com, which has been all over Gannuckertgate, says somewhere on his site that he himself is gay, and he doesn’t seem like the self-loathing type.
Dean
just stopping by and tossing in $.02
Twisty
March 17, 2005 at 8:23 am (UTC -6)
I grasp the reasons invoked by some lefty bloggers for zeroing in on the gay thing–neocons hate gays, yet here they are kissing a gay hooker’s ass in some nefarious dealings, gotcha!–but calling attention to sexual orientation in an effort to discredit people is exactly what the religious right try to do all the time, and it’s way lame. It is not significant that the Guckert is gay, only that he is a liar and a sleaze.
Still: From the Raw Story, hahaha:
“Jackson Lee said Gannon had engaged in a possible ‘penetration of the White House’.â€
Dean
March 17, 2005 at 9:54 pm (UTC -6)
> calling attention to sexual orientation in an effort to discredit people is exactly what the religious right try to do all the time, and it’s way lame. It is not
significant that the Guckert is gay, only that he is a
liar and a sleaze.
Look, Twisty, I hope you know by now that I stand firmly against homophobia, and discrimination of all sorts. (Heh, I said “firmly”.) That’s not what’s going on here, or at least not the only thing.
As a thought experiment, take teh gayness out of the story completely, so the headline becomes: White House Reporter Got Special Privileges, Worked as Prostitute.
Immediately, many readers, and any editor worth his or her salt, will want to know about the nature of the prostitution activities.
Yes, it’s sensationalism, but in another sense, it’s also routine police-blotter, reporting 101 stuff as applied to Washington DC. Who were his clients? Was he banging the wives of Senators and Congressmen while the husbands were off screwing the country? Or were Gannuckert’s clients people who might inadvertently reveal national security secrets, or be blackmailed into doing so?
Either way, it would be news. And once you begin examining the nature of said illegal prostitution, gayness is back in the story, and we’re right back where we started.
If Gannuckert had merely advertised for dates or companionship on a gay personals site, it would not, in my judgment, be a legitimate part of the story.
There’s nothing illegal, unusual or newsworthy about being gay, or looking for dates online. It’s the illegality, as well as the hypocrisy, combined with the other elements of the story, that makes it news.
Dean
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 at 3:16 am (UTC -6)
As I was writing my “down low” post, I thought to myself: Yanno, I should check in on Twisty’s blog, because I’ll bet there’s something posted RIGHT NOW in a similar vein. I didn’t check, but it’s still relatable.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 at 3:16 am (UTC -6)
And why do my comments post twice? Annoying!
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 at 3:17 am (UTC -6)
And why do my comments post twice? Annoying!
Becker
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 at 3:17 am (UTC -6)
And why do my comments post twice? Annoying!
Becker
becker
March 18, 2005 at 3:18 am (UTC -6)
And why do my comments post twice? Annoying!
Becker
becker
March 18, 2005 at 3:23 am (UTC -6)
And why do my comments post twice? Annoying!
Becker
Twisty
March 18, 2005 at 3:42 pm (UTC -6)
It sure would be nice if Becker would leave a comment once in a while.