Sunday, August 05, 2007

For the record

It has come to my attention that someone (perhaps more than one) out there labors under the misapprehension that I have something against male homosexuals. So, for the record, let me state once and for all that I have noting whatsoever against male homosexuals or female homosexuals either. Indeed, I believe they should be allowed to be married, at least in civil ceremonies, should they desire. If various churches don't want to let them marry in their churches I guess that is their business. I find most religious beliefs and practices so bizarre I assume their beliefs about homosexuals are simply a part of their totality of strange beliefs and practices.

I think the genesis of this misapprehension about my beliefs stems from the fact that I have been fascinated by the strange case of Gannon/Guckert. Recall that Gannon (Guckert) was passed off as a legitimate White House News Correspondent when he in fact had no qualifications for such a post. He was obviously acting as a shill for the Bush/Cheney administration, asking misleading questions at the right moments and so on. This pandering for the administration finally became so blatant he came under the press corps radar. This was only the beginning of this fascinating tale. It turned out that Gannon/Guckert was a known male homosexual prostitute, "a strictly on-top guy," according to his own ads, which featured nude photos of him in a gay magazine. If his presence on the press corps was not strange enough it also turned out that he was given access to the White House on many occasions when there was no ostensible reason for him to be there. He did not always sign in or out properly, he stayed for various amounts of time, and seemed to have priviledges not granted to other reporters. No one knows where he spent this time in the White House or with whom. In order for this to happen he would have to have had the support of someone very powerful or influential in the White House. We do not know to this day who was sponsoring him or why. I have always found this strange affair completely fascinating and I would certainly like to know the answers to (1)who was his sponsor, (2)where did he spend his time when in the White House, 3) who was he with, and (4) what was the purpose of his visit. I certainly do not believe that wanting some answers to this puzzling situation make me in any way anti-gay. I do not understand how the party that spent more than forty million dollars obsessing over Bill Clinton's penis could simply ignore these questions - but they have (do) since the beginning. Someone very powerful kicked this under the rug and everyone acted as though it didn't even happen. I would like to know who it was (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to why).

The grapes are not yet ripe but the turkeys are already at them. In spite of my best efforts the deer were in the garden again. It remains much hotter than normal and for a much longer period of time. The garden suffers. We suffer. Life at Sandhill is reduced to a battle between us and nature. Nature is winning.

LKBIQ:
"It is no use dealing with illusions and make-believes. We must look at the facts. The world...is too dangerous for anyone to be able to afford to nurse illusions. We must look at realities."
Sir Winston Churchill

1 comment:

Bubblehead said...

So your implication seems to be that there's someone in the White House who is homosexual. "Turd Blossom", perhaps? Are you one of those "progressives" who thinks that all homosexuals should be required to be Democrats? Shouldn't they have a say in the matter? Aren't all cranky old guys from northern Idaho supposed to be Republicans?