Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Saturday, March 19, 2005
And another open thread, since you've exhausted the last one
Be sure to check my commentary on the NYT interview with GG, in the post below.
Read the rest of this post...
The NYT interview with GG
It's online. Thank Will Bunch at PNIOnline.com for the heads up.
It's practically not worth dissecting the same half-truths and deflections over and over and over again. But just in case a real journalist (other than Anderson Cooper, who rocked in his interview with GG) decides to do a REAL interview with GG, here a few questions to ask him next time. You can read the interview first, then come back for the analysis:
1. Why shouldn't your work as a prostitute be relevant to your being granted access to the president of the United States and possibly classified information during war time? You obviously had no problem using sex as part of your other profession, so why is it so outrageous for people to ask if you did the same in your current profession?
2. You have written a number of articles biased against gays, including one posted on your Web site just a few days ago. Your gay-subject articles are very often biased almost exclusively to the religious right point of view on gay issues - i.e., gays are bad (in one recent article on gay marriage you cited 6 anti-gay religious right sources and only one pro-gay source) - so why isn't your own gayness relevant when there's such a glaring hypocrisy between who you are as a gay man and the hatred of gays that you help others promote? And ironically, hatred that is promoted on behalf of people who loathe gay prostitutes even more than than they loathe gays.
3. You complain about the politics of personal destruction. You you had no problem trying to destroy a South Dakota reporter and newspaper with a series of stories that the executive editor of that newspaper said were often "either not true or manipulated to leave the impression that we were biased in favor of Daschle." And wasn't it Talon News, your employer, that helped promoted the fake story that John Kerry had an affair with an intern? (Yes, it was.) Did you cry out against Talon News when they indulged in the politics of personal destruction last year? And are you now repentant of indulging in your own politics of personal destruction against the South Dakota newspaper last year? Or is this just more evidence of your "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy on every issue from gay rights, to prostitution, to the treatment of journalists and politicians?
4. You say you quit your job at Talon News to protect your mother who was being harassed. If that's the case, then why did Talon News remove all of your old articles off of their Web site? Isn't that a sign that Talon News had/has some kind of problem with you and your work, and possibly fired you? And, if you were concerned about the impact on your mother of all the publicity surrounding the growing scandal, then why, rather than dropping out of the public eye, did you immediately start granting more and more interviews to media outlets large and small, and even set up your own blog taunting your accusers? You are hardly trying to stay out of the public eye - in fact, you seem to be enjoying the publicity, and willingly provoking the very reaction from your critics that you claim you are trying to avoid in order to protect your family.
5. When asked about the rightwing's attacks on gays, you respond: "I am more interested in national defense, taxation and immigration than in personal issues." What you appear to mean is that you care more about national defense, taxation and immigration than gay issues, i.e., you aren't that concerned about the GOP's attacks on gays, their rights, their privacy, their families and their very existence. Fair enough. But your biggest complaint about the recent scandal is that YOUR private gay life is being attacked. I'm confused. Do you or don't you care about attacks on gay people and their private lives? Or do you only care, do you only speak out, do you only think it's wrong and outrageous when the gay being attacked is you?
You also say "I would like people's personal lives to be behind the barrier once again, like they used to be." How is holding down a job as a prostitute your
"personal life"? I assume you paid state and federal taxes on your prostitution income, since it was business income. How is business income your "personal life"?
And isn't it hypocritical of you to now be a champion of the "personal lives" of gays and prostitutes when you chose, and still choose, to work on behalf of a wing of the Republican party that has declared all out war on not only obscenity, but on people with the very "personal lives" you now wish others to defend (i.e., gays and prostitutes)?
6. You say that "We do have tremendous freedoms in this country, and one of the drawbacks of that is that people are free to take images of me and manipulate them however they want." How were any pictures of you manipulated? In fact, didn't people simply link to live images that were on live commercial Web sites that you knowingly and willingly published online with the intent of getting the largest audience possible in the hopes of making even more money? Isn't the real story here that rock solid proof has been unearthed that you worked for years as a gay male prostitute, had a "John" as late as 3 months before you were first seen covering the White House, and that your Web profiles continued to solicit for prostitution up until only a few weeks ago?
7. You also say "At some point in the future, everyone is going to have a picture on the Internet that they are unhappy about." How does that have anything to do with the main concern people have about you, namely, that you have been working as a male prostitute yet somehow managed to get around White House security (by getting the kind of regular ongoing access that only reporters with a 3 month FBI background check can get), get access to the president, and possibly access to classified information regarding the Valerie Plame affair? Are you suggesting that "everyone" in America will some day willingly post naked pictures of themselves online with the intent of running an illegal prostitution business while they get access to the president and classified information? That would seem unlikely. Read the rest of this post...
It's practically not worth dissecting the same half-truths and deflections over and over and over again. But just in case a real journalist (other than Anderson Cooper, who rocked in his interview with GG) decides to do a REAL interview with GG, here a few questions to ask him next time. You can read the interview first, then come back for the analysis:
1. Why shouldn't your work as a prostitute be relevant to your being granted access to the president of the United States and possibly classified information during war time? You obviously had no problem using sex as part of your other profession, so why is it so outrageous for people to ask if you did the same in your current profession?
2. You have written a number of articles biased against gays, including one posted on your Web site just a few days ago. Your gay-subject articles are very often biased almost exclusively to the religious right point of view on gay issues - i.e., gays are bad (in one recent article on gay marriage you cited 6 anti-gay religious right sources and only one pro-gay source) - so why isn't your own gayness relevant when there's such a glaring hypocrisy between who you are as a gay man and the hatred of gays that you help others promote? And ironically, hatred that is promoted on behalf of people who loathe gay prostitutes even more than than they loathe gays.
3. You complain about the politics of personal destruction. You you had no problem trying to destroy a South Dakota reporter and newspaper with a series of stories that the executive editor of that newspaper said were often "either not true or manipulated to leave the impression that we were biased in favor of Daschle." And wasn't it Talon News, your employer, that helped promoted the fake story that John Kerry had an affair with an intern? (Yes, it was.) Did you cry out against Talon News when they indulged in the politics of personal destruction last year? And are you now repentant of indulging in your own politics of personal destruction against the South Dakota newspaper last year? Or is this just more evidence of your "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy on every issue from gay rights, to prostitution, to the treatment of journalists and politicians?
4. You say you quit your job at Talon News to protect your mother who was being harassed. If that's the case, then why did Talon News remove all of your old articles off of their Web site? Isn't that a sign that Talon News had/has some kind of problem with you and your work, and possibly fired you? And, if you were concerned about the impact on your mother of all the publicity surrounding the growing scandal, then why, rather than dropping out of the public eye, did you immediately start granting more and more interviews to media outlets large and small, and even set up your own blog taunting your accusers? You are hardly trying to stay out of the public eye - in fact, you seem to be enjoying the publicity, and willingly provoking the very reaction from your critics that you claim you are trying to avoid in order to protect your family.
5. When asked about the rightwing's attacks on gays, you respond: "I am more interested in national defense, taxation and immigration than in personal issues." What you appear to mean is that you care more about national defense, taxation and immigration than gay issues, i.e., you aren't that concerned about the GOP's attacks on gays, their rights, their privacy, their families and their very existence. Fair enough. But your biggest complaint about the recent scandal is that YOUR private gay life is being attacked. I'm confused. Do you or don't you care about attacks on gay people and their private lives? Or do you only care, do you only speak out, do you only think it's wrong and outrageous when the gay being attacked is you?
You also say "I would like people's personal lives to be behind the barrier once again, like they used to be." How is holding down a job as a prostitute your
"personal life"? I assume you paid state and federal taxes on your prostitution income, since it was business income. How is business income your "personal life"?
And isn't it hypocritical of you to now be a champion of the "personal lives" of gays and prostitutes when you chose, and still choose, to work on behalf of a wing of the Republican party that has declared all out war on not only obscenity, but on people with the very "personal lives" you now wish others to defend (i.e., gays and prostitutes)?
6. You say that "We do have tremendous freedoms in this country, and one of the drawbacks of that is that people are free to take images of me and manipulate them however they want." How were any pictures of you manipulated? In fact, didn't people simply link to live images that were on live commercial Web sites that you knowingly and willingly published online with the intent of getting the largest audience possible in the hopes of making even more money? Isn't the real story here that rock solid proof has been unearthed that you worked for years as a gay male prostitute, had a "John" as late as 3 months before you were first seen covering the White House, and that your Web profiles continued to solicit for prostitution up until only a few weeks ago?
7. You also say "At some point in the future, everyone is going to have a picture on the Internet that they are unhappy about." How does that have anything to do with the main concern people have about you, namely, that you have been working as a male prostitute yet somehow managed to get around White House security (by getting the kind of regular ongoing access that only reporters with a 3 month FBI background check can get), get access to the president, and possibly access to classified information regarding the Valerie Plame affair? Are you suggesting that "everyone" in America will some day willingly post naked pictures of themselves online with the intent of running an illegal prostitution business while they get access to the president and classified information? That would seem unlikely. Read the rest of this post...
If GannonGuckert implies he wasn't working as a whore, then how did he live on next to no salary in DC for two years?
Ok, color me confused. GG keeps doing softball interviews where he keeps trying to mislead people about his past and present. The problem is, what he's saying just doesn't add up. Fortunately for him, he's been interviewing with slaps like Tucker Carlson.
GG to the NYT:
1. You worked in Washington, DC, one of the most expensive cities in America, for what you yourself call next to nothing.
2. You say you're not whoring anymore. Tthis was all your "past" - and in fact, you imply that you never worked as a prostitute at all, calling all these allegations "very inaccurate information." This, even though numerous Web sites selling you as a prostitute were still online up until the story broke last month, and even though someone updated the record for your militaryescortsm4m.com URL just last November (a few months ago), a URL that you say has been misinterpreted, even though it's not clear to anyone what other interpreation one could have from that URL other than male prostitution.
3. We know that you're in default on $20,000 owed to the state of Delaware in back taxes, so it's not like you're independetly wealthy or have any great nest egg of money to support yourself in an expensive city without any other income.
4. So how exactly did you live in DC for the past 2 years on relatively no income? Even a studio apartment in this city on Capitol Hill, where you live, can go easily for $1000 a month. Groceries are expensive. Taxes are high. Where exactly did you get your money from, since you pretty clearly imply you weren't working as a prostitute?
Just asking because you're still clearly trying to convince every interviewer who talks to you that you weren't working as a whore, ever, when all the evidence says you have.
You keep saying these were just nude photos of you, when in fact they were entire Web sites where you were selling yourself for $200 an hour and $1200 a weekend as a gay hooker.
We even have lengthy reviews from satisfied customers, and they're STILL LIVE ON THE INTERNET. Yet you still tell every interviewer that there's lots of disinformation out there about you. If you weren't a hooker, then say so. And if you were, then it was your business, and a crime, and hardly a private personal bedroom issue.
But let's for a moment assume your insinuations are correct, and you weren't working as a hooker up until 3 months before you stepped foot into the White House, like your most recent client on record has said, and all of this "very inaccurate information" is wrong. Then how did you afford to live in DC the past two years on no income?
If you're going to keep doing these interviews, and the mainstream media like Tucker Carlson, and apparently the New York Times (we'll find out tomorrow), are going to refuse to do their job, and instead they let you roll right over them with, at best, half-truths and Clintonian deflections ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S A CRIME, then we deserve to finally get a straight answer out of you.
Were you running a criminal enterprise 3 months before you entered the White House and/or while you were given regular access to the White House and even access to the president? And if you don't think that someone running a criminal enterprise, and who apparently is now desperately trying to hide that fact, isn't a security risk, then please explain WHY they're not a security risk. Because in the world of security risks, a guy trying to hide evidence of an embarrassing criminal past or present is about as risky as you get. Read the rest of this post...
GG to the NYT:
He quit his job at GOPUSA/Talon News last month, although in the Times interview he reveals that it was not much of a paying gig, as he only “received a kind of stipend.”GG to Tucker Carlson:
I don't ask anybody to be responsible for -- for my past, for personal issues, anything that I've done prior to this. And I wouldn't ask anybody to defend those things. That's my responsibility. I will do that at some point in time when I'm able to clear the air and counter some -- some of this very inaccurate information that's out.Ok, so now I'm confused.
1. You worked in Washington, DC, one of the most expensive cities in America, for what you yourself call next to nothing.
2. You say you're not whoring anymore. Tthis was all your "past" - and in fact, you imply that you never worked as a prostitute at all, calling all these allegations "very inaccurate information." This, even though numerous Web sites selling you as a prostitute were still online up until the story broke last month, and even though someone updated the record for your militaryescortsm4m.com URL just last November (a few months ago), a URL that you say has been misinterpreted, even though it's not clear to anyone what other interpreation one could have from that URL other than male prostitution.
3. We know that you're in default on $20,000 owed to the state of Delaware in back taxes, so it's not like you're independetly wealthy or have any great nest egg of money to support yourself in an expensive city without any other income.
4. So how exactly did you live in DC for the past 2 years on relatively no income? Even a studio apartment in this city on Capitol Hill, where you live, can go easily for $1000 a month. Groceries are expensive. Taxes are high. Where exactly did you get your money from, since you pretty clearly imply you weren't working as a prostitute?
Just asking because you're still clearly trying to convince every interviewer who talks to you that you weren't working as a whore, ever, when all the evidence says you have.
You keep saying these were just nude photos of you, when in fact they were entire Web sites where you were selling yourself for $200 an hour and $1200 a weekend as a gay hooker.
We even have lengthy reviews from satisfied customers, and they're STILL LIVE ON THE INTERNET. Yet you still tell every interviewer that there's lots of disinformation out there about you. If you weren't a hooker, then say so. And if you were, then it was your business, and a crime, and hardly a private personal bedroom issue.
But let's for a moment assume your insinuations are correct, and you weren't working as a hooker up until 3 months before you stepped foot into the White House, like your most recent client on record has said, and all of this "very inaccurate information" is wrong. Then how did you afford to live in DC the past two years on no income?
If you're going to keep doing these interviews, and the mainstream media like Tucker Carlson, and apparently the New York Times (we'll find out tomorrow), are going to refuse to do their job, and instead they let you roll right over them with, at best, half-truths and Clintonian deflections ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S A CRIME, then we deserve to finally get a straight answer out of you.
Were you running a criminal enterprise 3 months before you entered the White House and/or while you were given regular access to the White House and even access to the president? And if you don't think that someone running a criminal enterprise, and who apparently is now desperately trying to hide that fact, isn't a security risk, then please explain WHY they're not a security risk. Because in the world of security risks, a guy trying to hide evidence of an embarrassing criminal past or present is about as risky as you get. Read the rest of this post...
Tucker Carlson gives GG a blowjob
Good God, Tucker. I gave you more credit than this.
This is the only real question Carlson asks. Then check out GG's answer:
And as for "And as we know on the internet, things never disappear," your last client that we know of was 3 months before you stepped foot in the White House. Yeah, real long time ago.
Carlson is a shill. He shouldn't have a show on PBS unless he's going to act like a real journalist. He's clearly going to make this CrossFire without the crossfire. It's his own personal right-wing puff show, care of PBS. More reverse liberal guilt from the "liberal" media, trying so hard to be fair they're now conservative.
And this:
Oh, and one more thing about your "past," Jeff. Who updated your military prostitution Web addresses this past November, 2 months before we wrote out story about you? According to the public records, someone updated the records on those addresses just a few months ago - and the only person who can do that is someone who owns those addresses or works with them. Was that you? Hope not, because then you'd be lying again to yet another real journalist. And oh yeah, Web addresses have to paid for every year or so, depending on how you registered them. When is the last time you paid to keep the registration on militaryescortsm4m.com? I sure hope it was BEFORE you stepped foot in the White House, otherwise, AGAIN, you'd be lying by saying this was all stuff in your past. Read the rest of this post...
This is the only real question Carlson asks. Then check out GG's answer:
Carlson: Jeff Gannon.com your website is owned by the same person or company that owns a couple of websites with pornographic sounding nargese military stud.com or whatever got a lot of press. I'm not going to ask about those sites beyond what they apparently are. Here's my question. Isn't it obvious to you that that's sort of discrediting in the eyes of a lot of other people? Why would you have any tie at all, if you want to be a mainstream journalist or -- regardless, a legitimate journalist, to websites with names like that?Really JeffJames? MilitaryEscortsM4M. So, these weren't URLs for military-type prostitutes for gay men? What were they? Walk-me-home-at-night services offered by off-duty military personnel for gay men afraid to cut through a dangerous neighborhood all alone on foot on their way home from the bars?
Gannon: First of all, people misunderstand what those names represented. They're just website names, domain names. Years ago I was doing website development and these names were reserved for a private client. They were never hosted. Nothing was ever on them. And as we know on the internet, things never disappear. These are all things that are from a long time ago that people have dug up just to destroy my credibility and damage my reputation.
And as for "And as we know on the internet, things never disappear," your last client that we know of was 3 months before you stepped foot in the White House. Yeah, real long time ago.
Carlson is a shill. He shouldn't have a show on PBS unless he's going to act like a real journalist. He's clearly going to make this CrossFire without the crossfire. It's his own personal right-wing puff show, care of PBS. More reverse liberal guilt from the "liberal" media, trying so hard to be fair they're now conservative.
And this:
Carlson: You've got a quote in your website that struck me. You said for decades gay difficultists have insisted that government stay out of the bedroom. Now we know they didn't want anyone in their way when they invaded the bedroom. To them, it's a one way street and a principles to -- principle to be easily abandoned when it doesn't suit your agenda. I understand people -- the implications, because may be gay, that you shouldn't have access to the White House.Very simple answer. Get used to it. You guys and your party declared war on us. Now we're fighting back. Don't like it? Call it off.
Gannon: The hypocrisy is stunning. If I were -- hypocrisy is stunning. Because I'm a conservative, it seems to be that there are no rules and we can -- those people can leave their principles behind about personal privacy and sex doesn't matter and diversity and inclusion. They can leave all those things behind if it's useful to attack a conservative.
Oh, and one more thing about your "past," Jeff. Who updated your military prostitution Web addresses this past November, 2 months before we wrote out story about you? According to the public records, someone updated the records on those addresses just a few months ago - and the only person who can do that is someone who owns those addresses or works with them. Was that you? Hope not, because then you'd be lying again to yet another real journalist. And oh yeah, Web addresses have to paid for every year or so, depending on how you registered them. When is the last time you paid to keep the registration on militaryescortsm4m.com? I sure hope it was BEFORE you stepped foot in the White House, otherwise, AGAIN, you'd be lying by saying this was all stuff in your past. Read the rest of this post...
Best comment in response to a post
"I was raised Catholic, but I gave it up for Lent...."
Read the rest of this post...
The gift that keeps on giving
GG is doing an interview in the Sunday NYT. I wonder if newspapers that host male prostitutes get a Catholic funeral?
Read the rest of this post...
Mike's Blog Roundup
For those smaller and less-read blogs that should be larger and more-read.
Read the rest of this post...
The looming disastor on the Mekong
Blinded by either cheap labor or financial assistance, the world is turning a blind eye to the ecological problem that China is creating along the Mekong. Obviously not happy enough with the mess created along the Yangtze River, China is jamming through their multi-dam project on the Mekong which will have a strong impact downriver in countries such as Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia and Thailand. With the exception of Thailand (who wants more trade with China) the others are lining up to receive financial assistance (often through their military) from China. The net result is that the governments are ignoring the impact on their own river communities and looking instead to the financial assistance and possibilities of the project.
Internationally it's not much better. The US, who has recently given a firm "screw you" to ANWR and can't do enough business with China, completely wimps out and dishes out the pathetic excuse of "if we don't help, it will only be worse." Considering the source and our own environmentel record this isn't saying much. France is cashing with with EDF who will be constructing at least one of the dams and like the US and the rest of the world, is addicted to the lure of cheap labor and business opportunities with China.
Is there a country out there that will stand up to China and not be blinded by money? Read the rest of this post...
Internationally it's not much better. The US, who has recently given a firm "screw you" to ANWR and can't do enough business with China, completely wimps out and dishes out the pathetic excuse of "if we don't help, it will only be worse." Considering the source and our own environmentel record this isn't saying much. France is cashing with with EDF who will be constructing at least one of the dams and like the US and the rest of the world, is addicted to the lure of cheap labor and business opportunities with China.
Is there a country out there that will stand up to China and not be blinded by money? Read the rest of this post...
Anthrax-mania gone, but never solved
Who could forgot the media feeding frenzy about anthrax just a few years ago? Yes, those were exciting times for the MSM since they could terrify the living hell out of the population and help maintain that fear that has has served the administration so well over the years.
Now that the MSM has moved on to new bullshit stories, I'm still wondering what ever happened to that anthrax investigation. It's tempting to think that it's been burried because it was an American acting against other Americans (so it doesn't fit with the "let's single out those fuzzy foreigners while ignoring our own" campaign that the administration enjoys such as the Texas oilmen involved in the UN food for oil scandal) but then again, I'm still wondering what ever happened to Osama. With the exception of that miraculous bin Laden story that broke just before the election (oh the shock) we seemed to have lost Public Enemy #1. Read the rest of this post...
Now that the MSM has moved on to new bullshit stories, I'm still wondering what ever happened to that anthrax investigation. It's tempting to think that it's been burried because it was an American acting against other Americans (so it doesn't fit with the "let's single out those fuzzy foreigners while ignoring our own" campaign that the administration enjoys such as the Texas oilmen involved in the UN food for oil scandal) but then again, I'm still wondering what ever happened to Osama. With the exception of that miraculous bin Laden story that broke just before the election (oh the shock) we seemed to have lost Public Enemy #1. Read the rest of this post...
Wingnut abstinence program meets reality
Another myth that won't hold water. I sure hope federal funding for these programs has been completely removed, because I'm sick of wasting money with this rubbish.
Read the rest of this post...
God Bless the New York Times
This is their coverage of the San Diego bishop refusing to perform a gay man's funeral. Note the next story they insert right after this one - and without even a hard-return between the two stories!
CALIFORNIA: BISHOP DENIES FUNERAL RITES The Roman Catholic bishop of San Diego has denied funeral rites to a man who owned a bar and a dance club popular with gays, saying his business activities clashed with church teaching. The owner, John McCusker, who was 31 and gay, died of congestive heart failure on Sunday, his family said. Arrangements had been made for services at his alma mater, the University of San Diego, until Bishop Robert H. Brom intervened. "The bishop concluded that to avoid public scandal Mr. McCusker cannot be granted a funeral in a Catholic church or chapel," the diocese said. A church official said the decision was not related to Mr. McCusker's sexual orientation.(AP) CALIFORNIA: ARCHDIOCESE LOSES ABUSE SUIT The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco knew or should have known that one of its priests was molesting boys in the 1970's, a jury decided. The jury now decides how much to award the victim, Dennis Kavanaugh, 47, who sued the archdiocese, accusing the late Rev. Joseph Pritchard of molesting him. Mr. Kavanaugh's was the first of more than 750 suits against California dioceses to go to trial since the state temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for sex-abuse claims. (AP)Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
