Monday, February 14, 2005

To Out or Not to Out?

[You'll also find this entry posted at Rox Populi.]

Blogdom is going wild over AmeriBlog's expose on Jeff Gannon/James Guckert --the "reporter" for Talon News. Here's the gist:

Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

None of this is by accident.

Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?

Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy? Not to mention the hypocrisy of a "reporter" who chooses to publish article after article defending the ant-gay [sic] religious-right point of view on [the] gay civil rights issue.

There's a part of me that takes more than my share of glee in the toppling of another gay neo-con who gives head to BushCo. Then, there's the other part of me who doubles-over, sickened, when we, the righteous, put more emphasis on the prurient than the relevant when it comes to these sordid tales. Depending on the day, you could catch the "evil" Roxanne or the "good" Roxanne.

As a hetero, I've always felt that because I don't have a dog in the fight, the act of "outing" an enemy isn't up to me as much as it's up to the lesbian/gay community. When I first read the AmeriBlog entry cited above, I have to admit that I was a little put off. On the other hand, Jeff/James seems like a real wanker.

What do you think?

Related Reading:

No comments: