Skip to main content

An article in the Huffington Post about this  Raw Story article says that Gannon now has in some ways hooked up with Michael Rogers, a big time political outer.

 

This Rogers/Gannon thing makes an odd couple for sure. 

>. . .  perhaps the most stunning of Gannon's comments was his assertion that he supports "outing" gays who live one life and vote another. Gannon - who himself was "outed" as a former sex worker without his consent - said that he supported the outing of erstwhile Virginia Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA), who resigned in disgrace after Rogers posted tapes of him soliciting gay sex on the Internet.<

But there are limits for Gannon.  For example as to Rogers' outing of Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) communications director by a few months ago

>"What was done to Bob Traynham I think was despicable," Gannon remarked. "That was just a smear campaign intended to hurt Rick Santorum. The net result of this was: How many Republicans now are going to hire people they know or think are gay? And what gay people are going to go and work for Republicans, because of the fear of being outed?"<

>"It's identity politics," he said. "I'm against that kind of thing, because it's been used to destroy people's careers."<

Gannon no longer pretends to be reporter covering political news in Washington but rather has an opinion column in The Washington Blade, a DC area online gay publication, where he deals with issues more in his area of expertise.  For example he has a recent column Brokeback's albatross that talks about Hollywood's 'year of the gay' with Brokeback, Capote and Transamerica. 

While those later two deal with an effeminate intellectual and an trangendered drag queen, it is Brokeback that Gannon feels goes "over the line" by

>Making icons of American masculinity the central figures in a same-sex tryst, complete with on-screen anal intercourse<

He sees this sort of thing as providing "red meat"  for the

>"family values" merchants that issue dire warnings about the "homosexual agenda."<

There may be some truth in this, but still one would have thought that a gay man who once promoted himself as a sex worker who was also an "ex-Marine jock"  would on a personal level by pleased that Brokeback outed this aspect of the gay world to an American public that in large part still thinks of  "gay" just in terms of Capote and Transamerica.

Be this as it may, Gannon seems just the right sort of  person to have an opinion on this.  However he may just be taking a bogus contrarian view to try to promote himself  After all he seems to have assumed false roles in at least some of his earlier careers.  It may be that the "real" Jeff Gannon is whatever works at the moment for self promotion.

Originally posted to Fred in Vermont on Sat May 06, 2006 at 05:51 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Self Promotion... (8+ / 0-)

    ...is the alpha and omega of Jeff Gannon.  This is a man with no talent or expertise, and one not wedded to honesty (he never was a Marine).

  •  I liked the quotes around 'real' .... (6+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure there is a real Jeff Gannon (or rather, James Guckert) in there.

    "The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected." --Thomas Paine

    by billlaurelMD on Sat May 06, 2006 at 06:04:26 AM PDT

  •  are you going to put out a tip jar, Fred? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fred in Vermont, Arken

    you should.  

    Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

    by moe99 on Sat May 06, 2006 at 07:44:12 AM PDT

  •  The most effective weapon against these people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fred in Vermont, grrr

    would be a Seinfeld(sp?)-type disclaimer like, "not that there's anything wrong with that."  If nobody cares if you're gay, the outing is useless.  Less than useless.  It would taint the "outer," not the "outee."  (I just gave my Spell Check a sprained brain!)

    "The light which puts out our sight is darkness to us." Thoreau

    by NancyWH on Sat May 06, 2006 at 08:17:50 AM PDT

    •  These are not easy questions (0+ / 0-)

      If nobody cares if you're gay, the outing is useless.  Less than useless.  It would taint the "outer," not the "outee."

      Right.  The only way to justify it is to find some link to hypocrisy.  In the case of a congressman doing gay baiting legislation that is easy.  It gets to be a harder case when you have someone working for such a one.  And the case of Gannon itself could be argued both ways.  Does being a conservative journalist, even a very poor one, make one fair game for outing, or does it take more than that?  These are not easy questions.

  •  Outing stinks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fred in Vermont

    As a gay man, I know the drama associated with outing oneself.  I know these men are hypocrites and whatnot, but attack them some other way.  I cannot accept that public humiliation is the way to go here.  It's lowering yourself.

    Oh, and one small point, the DC Blade is printed weekly and I believe the Blade actually has papers all over the country, though maybe they all just call themselves the (Place) Blade.

    "No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown (-4.75, -7.13)

    by AUBoy2007 on Sat May 06, 2006 at 08:26:46 AM PDT

    •  I disagree. (5+ / 0-)

      As another gay man, I can't agree with you.  I'm definitely against outing unwilling members of the general public, or even unwilling politicians in general.  But nobody is forced to publicly take stands against gay rights or to publicly make comments denigrating gays.  I think it is completely fair game to out a politican once they start using homophobia to further their own political careers.  Short of that, I can see your point, but once they voluntarily cross that line, the safe harbor disappears.  Perhaps it's "lowering yourself" to out them, but it's lowering yourself by less than they are trying to lower you through their hypocritical, anti-gay actions.

      Quo usque tandem abutere, George W., patientia nostra?

      by Mr Futomaki on Sat May 06, 2006 at 08:34:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fred in Vermont

        If the gay person is clearly specifically actively engaging in destroying people's lives such as supporting racism, homophobia, or - worst of all - republicans (of the wingnut variety) - I can't feel sorry for them.

        I'm struggling with my harshness, but I can't get past the feeling that people who destroy others' lives can't be allowed to get away with it - particularly when they dare to defend lies and hypocrisy because it's "OK to break impossible inhuman rules (eg - don't be gay) as long as you do it secretly and you're part of the elite"

        •  Extortion of a federal official? (0+ / 0-)

          If the gay person is clearly specifically actively engaging in destroying people's lives such as supporting racism, homophobia, or - worst of all - republicans (of the wingnut variety) - I can't feel sorry for them.

          Well I am glad to hear that fighting homophobia is not the only issue you feel is important enough to use this "nuclear option" on.  But once you start to use it to fight racism, wingnuts, and Republicans the playing field opens up big time.  Do you think that one should give these sorts of low life a chance to mend their ways before you strike them down?  Or might that start to seem too much like extortion?  But if you didn't give them a chance to defend themselves you might make some sort of mistake.  This all gets to be very difficult on moral and even legal grounds.

          We all know it is a crime to buy a congressman's home for 3 times what it is worth to get them to direct defense contracts to your company.  It is called bribery of a federal official.   But would it be a crime to tell a congressman that you will out them unless they support same sex marriage?  What could you call that except extortion of a federal official?  Would you be any better than the guy busted for corrupting the Duke?

           

          •  Extortion? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fred in Vermont

            I do not think this qualifies as extortion.  The definition of extortion (at least in California, which I'm taking as an example because I don't have the federal statute in front of me) is:

            1.  Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his

            consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer,
            induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of
            official right.

            1.  Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a

            threat, either:
              1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the
            individual threatened or of a third person; or,
              2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or
            member of his family, of any crime; or,
              3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace
            or crime; or,
              4. To expose any secret affecting him or them.

            So, outing a politician isn't meant to get property from him, nor really to get him to perform an official act.  If you said "vote X on bill Y," then perhaps, but simply outing someone for being a hypocritical homophobe doesn't qualify as intimidating them into performing an official act.

            Secondly, the "fear" certainly doesn't come from threatening injury or criminal accusations.  It doesn't come from threatening to expose or impute to him "any deformity, disgrace or crime," unless you count homosexuality as a "deformity" or "disgrace" (it's not a crime anymore).  And it's not a "secret" if he's been seen at gay bars, had lovers, etc. -- an "open secret," by definition, isn't a secret.  So I think it fails to qualify as extortion in both of those ways.

            Whether it is moral or not is another story, but it is not criminal.

            Quo usque tandem abutere, George W., patientia nostra?

            by Mr Futomaki on Sat May 06, 2006 at 10:01:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  when is a secret not a secret (0+ / 0-)

              If you said "vote X on bill Y," then perhaps, but simply outing someone for being a hypocritical homophobe doesn't qualify as intimidating them into performing an official act.

              You have got that part right.  But almost any threat or warning, even if related in only a general way to the target's actions, would probably qualify as "extortion" under most definitions.  It is good to understand, as a background to this whole thing, that we are dancing right along the edge of a crime against our political system.

              And notice that even "outing" a politician with no warning at all, might in the proper case constitute qualify as extortion of other lawmakers in a similar position and if the "outing" was accompanied with a statement that it was done "because" of some official act.

              Secondly, the "fear" certainly doesn't come from threatening injury or criminal accusations.  It doesn't come from threatening to expose or impute to him "any deformity, disgrace or crime," unless you count homosexuality as a "deformity" or "disgrace" (it's not a crime anymore).

              Good point.  But isn't there a contradiction in suggesting that outing is a useful tool for dealing with gay bashing hypocrites and relying on the argument that homosexuality is no longer a "disgrace" to say that doing so would  not be extortion?

              And it's not a "secret" if he's been seen at gay bars, had lovers, etc. -- an "open secret," by definition, isn't a secret.  

              Sort of a riddle here:  When is a "secret not a secret"?  Answer -- when an extortioner finds out about it.

          •  yes, it is harsh (0+ / 0-)

            I think it is a decision that has to be thought through...you are right that I hold people who are minorities to a higher standard  - they of all people should know better what it means to be thrown into the underbelly

            -- but we cannot stand by and allow someone to destroy countless other lives to protect them and their chance to transform, can we? It should be one of the last options, but I think it needs to be an option...

            •  danger of finding oneself on the dark side (0+ / 0-)

              you are right that I hold people who are minorities to a higher standard  - they of all people should know better what it means to be thrown into the underbelly

              I am sort of confused.  I thought that I was one suggesting that gays should hold a higher standard, understand how confused and damaged some of their number are, and resist using this particular tool to punish political opponents.

              -- but we cannot stand by and allow someone to destroy countless other lives to protect them and their chance to transform, can we?

              That is sort of an extreme way to put it.  I think you take these bogus political wedge issues a little bit too seriously.   They are bad, hurtful, even evil, but I don't think that they rise to the level that requires gays to fight against them "by any means necessary".

              And it is not just about protecting "their chance to transform".  It is also a question of how using this tool would "transform" those who use it and also those on whose behalf it is used.  I have been trying to suggest here that there is a real danger of one finding oneself very much on the dark side as a result of  employing such tactics.

               

      •  Right with you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fred in Vermont, Mr Futomaki

        As a gay man myself, I respect the need for individuals to control the pace of their own coming out.  

        But I draw the line with closeted public officials who use their power to oppress those of us who have come out.  Fuck em.  They are hypocrites, and the most dangerous enemies to human freedom that exist.  They do not deserve the protection which they deny to others.  I say out every last one of them...at that point we might not have any die-hard enemies left.  

        •  seems a very dangerous road to go down (0+ / 0-)

           They are hypocrites, and the most dangerous enemies to human freedom that exist.

          This bothers me.  This makes being gay almost like some sort of cult where the one unforgivable sin is one against the cult itself.  Is not admitting ones sexuality and trying to cover it up by pushing to the head of an existing rat pack really the most dangerous thing a congressman can do?  It makes being gay sort of like being a Scientologist or something where one who breaks with the cult becomes "fair game" and beyond the usual rules of morality and honesty.

          It people who attack gays are that dangerous would it not be "fair" to frame and then "out" even ones who were not gay.  Or are only people who really are gay evil enough to deserve to be hit like this?  This sounds like special rules for certain types of people who are different from the rest of the population.   Shouldn't a gay congressman have as much right to keep his sex life to himself as anyone else?  Why is it more evil for a closeted gay to bash gays than anyone else?

          And if gays are not worse, then we should try to "out" non -gays too if we can figure out how.  This seems a very dangerous road to go down and something that could give all homosexuals a bad (or worse) name.

          •  If I'd had the opportunity to 'out' Roy Cohn (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fred in Vermont

            I would have gladly done it as a service to freedom, morality, justice, and karma.
            And then, like any self-respecting gay man, I would have delighted in the irony.  

            Roy Cohn used his own knowledge of gay people to harass, intimidate, and destroy their very lives. He then carried on to a broader struggle against free society, threatening vulnerable minorities of all kinds. And then later on, after he's dead, we come to find out he, too, was "one of them".  

            Roy Cohn was, simply, one of the most dangerous sociopaths the Republican Party has ever employed.  He was one messed-up motherfucker.  

            The danger with these types is in their own fear and self-loathing, and the temptation to take out their hostilities on other gay people — open examples being the most obvious targets.  I see no reason to allow someone in a position of public power and influence the right to use the closet as a sniper's perch.

            This seems a very dangerous road to go down and something that could give all homosexuals a bad (or worse) name.

            Something that could give all <ahem> "homosexuals", as you call us, a bad name? Did I miss some snark there?

            •  What about this blackmail thing? (0+ / 0-)

              Roy Cohn was, simply, one of the most dangerous sociopaths the Republican Party has ever employed.

              According to the Wikipedia article he was a Democrat. <snark> I assumed that we were only talking about outing Republicans here so perhaps he is not a good example </snark>

              But seriously how about that?  If Roy Cohn was a congressman, and you got pictures of him en flagante  with some of the underage male prostitutes he favored (an ugly image for sure), would you out him even if it meant the Democrats would fail by one vote to gain control of Congress in 06?

              But it probably would have taken pictures like that to have brought down Cohn.  Right from the start many people knew, or at least believed he was gay.

              Cohn's homosexuality was an open secret during most of his career. His public response to all questions on this subject was sometimes evasive and sometimes a flat denial; he encouraged rumors of a relationship with his longtime friend Barbara Walters, who publicly stated that she thought he was heterosexual. Though his closeted sexuality was far from unusual at the time, it was arguably in tension with his public life in right-wing politics. Cohn and McCarthy targeted many government officials and cultural figures not only for suspected Communist sympathies but for homosexual tendencies, sometimes using sexual secrets as a blackmail tool to gain informants.

              I assume it is in part the fact that he and McCarthy used gay blackmail in this way that makes you see him as a uniquely "dangerous psychopath" and I will not defend him. But don't you see an irony in this?  What about this blackmail thing?  Suppose you went to Cohn to show him the pictures just to see him squirm before you exposed him, and he offered to trade you those pictures for other pictures that he had of other politicians, many more important than him, in similar settings?  Would you do the deal or would it be more important to get him than all those other closeted hypocrites? 

              BTW in the above picture Cohn clearly shows the wasting caused by the AIDS that was to kill him a few months later in 1986 at age 59.  Perhaps you should have use your picture to blackmail him to get some names of people not about to die.

              This seems a very dangerous road to go down and something that could give all homosexuals a bad (or worse) name.

              Something that could give all <ahem> "homosexuals", as you call us, a bad name? Did I miss some snark there?

              Well of course it is a big time snark but also deadly serious.  A lot of irresponsible political outings could be like what Jews call  "shenda fur de goyim" (shame before the gentiles) where the whole group is put in a bad light by the actions of a few members.  For gays it would be "shame before the straights".   The image of politically active gays using extortion and entrapment to get more names to control so as to get their way in congress would provoke a lot more backlash that Brokeback Mountain.

              •  you're talking about means (0+ / 0-)

                I'm talking about ends.  You say that political outings are "irresponsible".  I say it is immoral to allow haters of any stripe in public office.  Just because they are gay themselves doesn't make them friends of mine — far from it — and it certainly cannot justify or excuse their actions.  These people are hypocrites, pure and simple. If they are "outed", or "discovered", and in the process lose the trust of the homophobes who elected them, and thus lose their public power...well, I see that as karma and democracy hand in hand, doing the people's good work.  As far as I'm concerned, those who live by the sword deserve to die by it.  

                As for the "shame before the straights"...if I really gave a rat's ass about straight people's generalizations about gay people, it would likely have been enough to dissuade from ever coming out in the first place.  Like I believe the Democratic Party should do, I believe gay people should pursue their ideals, and let the political and public relations issues resolve themselves accordingly.  I think those issues — at the core — are quite simple; in the end, I believe they will resolve themselves in favor of self-determination and respect for the rights of others.  

                •  Just admit to yourself that you are very angry (0+ / 0-)

                  You say that political outings are "irresponsible".

                  Sort of.  I am saying that they could easily become such unless people think hard about what the rules are to be.  And I think a lot of the people most enthusiastic for outings have not thought it through enough to ensure responsible behavior.

                  I say it is immoral to allow haters of any stripe in public office.

                  I am saying that extremism in attacking haters can itself be immoral as well as counterproductive.

                  Just because they are gay themselves doesn't make them friends of mine — far from it — and it certainly cannot justify or excuse their actions.

                  I am not saying that you should forgive them because they are really gay, I am wondering why you seem to want to attack them more.  You seem to think it would be immoral not to fight haters, but it seems that among that large group it is just those who are themselves gay that you feel obligated to harm.  Would you be just as eager to play dirty tricks on straight haters as on gay ones?  Would you try to think up ploys to make their wives and children hate them?  Would you try to frame them for crimes? 

                  And if you would draw the line at any of that stuff, don't you at least need to consider where you draw the lines in attacking people over being homosexual?

                  As for the "shame before the straights"...if I really gave a rat's ass about straight people's generalizations about gay people, it would likely have been enough to dissuade from ever coming out in the first place.

                  Now that is really scary.  You may not care but a lot of gays do.  I thought the whole reason for trying to win some of these political battles and getting congress to do the right things was to get the American people to think more clearly -- and more favorably -- about homosexuals.   It sounds like you want to justify doing some drastic and potentially harmful things by saying you are doing them to advance the cause of gays, but you think you should be free of all restraints in the way you do this because  you don't think you need to give a dam about what straight people think about gays.  It sounds like you could do a lot of damage to any cause you tried to help.

                  What I would suggest Mr Bandido is that it might be better if you just admitted to yourself that you are a very, very angry guy and you like to hurt people and think you have a right to do so.  Then  you will not feel this need to claim to be some sort of gay liberation road warrior. 

      •  Why only about gay issues? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AUBoy2007

        I think it is completely fair game to out a politician once they start using homophobia to further their own political careers.

        But you see that would be using blackmail to try change the way they conduct official business. I mean I don't think passing laws attacking gays is a proper way to do public business, and yet blackmail about someone's sex life is also not a proper way to conduct politics.

        Would you be willing to use a threat of outing against a congressman to, say, get him to vote to end the war in Iraq, or not to support a draft?  I mean where would you draw the line?  And if fighting homophobia is the only issue important enough to you to justify this drastic action, isn't that sort of a narrow view of what is important?

        •  You raise good points, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fred in Vermont

          and I haven't thought this through so deeply, so I could be swayed, possibly... but my first response is to say, no, I wouldn't use it to get them to vote a certain way on other issues.  Seems to me like a politician is entitled to be wrong, even horribly wrong (the remedy for that is to vote them out of office), but a politician is not entitled to abuse the political process itself (either by lying, being corrupt, etc.).  To me, crowing about "one man one woman" and how the "homosexuals are destroying America" while trolling Internet chat rooms for boytoys is clearly hypocrisy, which when the hypocrisy isn't known to the public and the politician affirmatively relies on the public not knowing about it and takes advantage of the public not knowing about it, is a variety of lying.

          Quo usque tandem abutere, George W., patientia nostra?

          by Mr Futomaki on Sat May 06, 2006 at 05:32:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, Caution: Deep Water (0+ / 0-)

            You raise good points,...and I haven't thought this through so deeply

            I hadn't either, but you are right.  The water gets very deep very fast here.

            my first response is to say, no, I wouldn't use it to get them to vote a certain way on other issues . . . a politician is entitled to be wrong, even horribly wrong . . .  but a politician is not entitled to abuse the political process itself

            OK sort of like the difference between disagreeing strongly with something and seeing it as a corruption of the process itself.  So just to be the devil's advocate (or the fundamentalist's advocate perhaps) could it not be argued that being wrong one way or the other on gay rights is within the political process,  but that using "outing" to change a position of someone is an "abuse of the political process itself."?

            To me, crowing about "one man one woman" and how the "homosexuals are destroying America" while trolling Internet chat rooms for boytoys is clearly hypocrisy

            That would be a correct, though somewhat clerical,  way to describe it.  I would prefer calling  it a probable sign of a dissociative type of personality disorder of the kind often seen in societies like ours with pervasive homophobia.

            which when the hypocrisy isn't known to the public and the politician affirmatively relies on the public not knowing about it and takes advantage of the public not knowing about it, is a variety of lying.

            Right though he may be lying to himself too of course -- the mind is funny in these areas.  (That is one reason the risk of suicide is so high when people like that are outed.)

            But I see your point.  The person who disagrees with you on Iraq or the draft can be honest but wrong, while the closet homosexual against gay rights must be living a lie almost by definition.   But I suppose the question becomes is that "lie" really a public mater in the way the votes on these political issues (upon which reasonable and honest people can disagree) are public maters?  Or does opening such a thing become the sort of personal attack designed to change votes that constitutes an "abuse of the political process" as well as being a serious and dangerous breach of another  person's boundaries?

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AUBoy2007

      I cannot accept that public humiliation is the way to go here.  It's lowering yourself.

      I can hear you.  And it also puts one in the position seeming to blackmail a public official, perhaps even by threatening to expose someone close to them. I think the whole political outing movement teeters on a very slippery edge and makes me feel like I need a shower.

      It is really rather mind-blowing that Gannon says he can support it in the case of law makers.  But then perhaps he does not really have an opinion himself on this  but is just striking a false pose to get attention.

  •  He's a fake (0+ / 0-)

    It's all just a play for attention.  I say ignore the media whore motherfucker...

  •  also (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fred in Vermont

    So Jeff Gannon is worried that no Rethuglican will hire a gay person. Well, SO WHAT? Being gay means having an opportunity to be in two worlds - the "mainstream" with its illusions -  and (often secretly to some extent) in the underbelly of the mainstream - where violence towards the outcasts is OK ... the combination when processed maturely allows people to come out of it with compassion and creativity...that to me is what gay pride is really about.

    (Not being gay doesn't prevent this transformation of course...Anyone who dares to face the underbelly - like many of us on Kos - will come of the encounter with more compassion and deep creativity)

    just my opinion, of course...

    •  terrorism toward others who may just be starting (0+ / 0-)

      to be in two worlds . . . - the "mainstream" with its illusions -  and (often secretly to some extent) in the underbelly of the mainstream - where violence towards the outcasts is OK ... the combination when processed maturely allows people to come out of it with compassion and creativity...that to me is what gay pride is really about.

      Well yes.  And I suppose this idea is at the root to the idea the we should expect more of gays in politics. 

      But the way you put this makes it clear that it is only in the end that the experience may lead to something better.  The problem with the outing stuff is that it attempts to decide who is and who is not moving along that path fast enough and punish some people in a public way that constitutes an act of terrorism toward others who may just be starting down a path that may lead them to compassion and creativity.  Thus it may do more harm than good.

       

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site