For a fresh perspective on my favorite gay journalist and sometime political pundit, Andrew Sullivan, freelance journalist Norah Vincent offers another perspective in her timely news story in The Los Angeles Times.

On Tuesday of this week, Vincent's article Sex: the Public Versus the Private tells us that there are at least two circumstances under which journalists have both a right and an obligation to publish details about a public person's private life; first, if the behaviors or events in question are illegal or immoral; and second, if it can be shown that the subject lied publicly about them.

Vincent tells us that anything a journalist writes about any person, public or private, must have a verifiable basis in fact. This goes without having to be said. However, if you glance through various newspapers and online outlets these days, you might be persuaded few people agree about what is fair game for news and commentary. How true that holds for gossip tabloids serving the gay ghetto.

Signorile, back on May 25th, set out to expose Sullivan as a hypocrite. Andrew Sullivan calls himself a Liberal; that is, a Liberal in the Classical context. But, in the gay ghetto, where anyone to the right of Leon Trotsky is branded a reactionary, Sullivan is demonized as a conservative. Sullivan has written in passionate support of gay marriage and commitment and has been very critical of the subculture of the gay ghetto. Thus, in the grand tradition of setting up straw men, Signorile has deluded himself and duped a few others into thinking he has unmasked Sullivan as a Mr. Goodie Two Shoes pervert. In fact, all Signorile has done is sling mud at a self-declared enemy.

Vincent puts Signorile's case to the journalism criteria above. Did Sullivan do anything illegal? No. What's more, he did nothing morally reprehensible,
since he both disclosed his own HIV status and sought others who shared that same status. Unprotected sex between two consenting adults who are both HIV positive is not a crime. Unprotected sex is a crime when a perpetrator has a sexually transmitted disease and fails to inform his partner of it. Sullivan did neither. And so, by our first criterion, his escapades are emphatically --- none of our business!

What about lying? Again, Sullivan is innocent. He has always been candid in print about his sex life, and when confronted with Signorile's accusations -- which to anyone would feel unjustifiably intrusive -- Sullivan admitted the truth, which is more than we can say for our immediate past president. So much for our second criterion.

It is strange that Signorile chided Sullivan for his judgmental attitude toward Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings. There is a fundamental distinction here that Bill Clinton's apologists and Sullivan's foes, often the same people, conveniently miss. Most people didn't think Clinton should have been impeached because he lied about it to the media. None of these is an impeachable offense. Rather, they thought Clinton should have been impeached because he broke the law. He commited perjury. It didn't matter what he'd lied about. It was the fact he'd done it under oath. Ordinary people go to jail for perjury. Clinton should have, too.

When Clinton lied to the media about Monica Lewinsky, he didn't break the law, but in this case, our second rule applies. Because public and private citizens should be accountable as journalists for the truth of what they say, Clinton's public lie justified subsequent exposure of the facts, however personal those facts were. If, however, Clinton had merely said "no comment" or if he had made it clear that he would not answer questions about his personal life except under lawful subpeona, then reporters would have no right to pry. They would have pried anyway, but we're talking about how journalists should behave, not how they do behave.

Andrew Sullivan, like Bill Clinton, has made a lot of enemies. But, unlike Bill Clinton, he has done nothing wrong. He has been more forthright than most politicians, and he took no oath of office. Sullivan's private foibles, if they can be called such, are not ours to address.

As I succinctly pointed out in an earlier posting of mine, the issue was never really about Andrew Sullivan per se. The subtext of my posting was to point out how Sexual McCarthyism has become the standard for what passes as journalism in the gay ghetto tabloid press these days.

Norah Vincent's timely Los Angeles Times article earlier this week (June 12) underscores why Signorile's practice of Sexual McCarthyism plagues the gay tabloid press. It is fitting such tabloids are viewed with deep suspicion and contempt as we do the same for The National Enquirer.

[ June 14, 2001: Message edited by: SunDogg ]

[ June 15, 2001: Message edited by: Horndogg ]

"As I succinctly pointed out in an earlier posting of mine, the issue was never really about Andrew Sullivan per se. The subtext of my posting was to point out how Sexual McCarthyism has become the standard for what passes as journalism in the gay ghetto tabloid press these days. "

Please, doggy. The only reason you can make that claim is that the "other doggy" reopened my original string on Sullivan afer bolting it closed. Then you were able to edit and delete posts in which you ranted from a very different perspective -- specifically that the allegations were untrue to begin with. Once you'd done your revisions but still were losing the argument, the entire string was deleted. Now you claim you had a perspective from the beginning you didn't. More of Chairman Mao's revisionistic method.

And I see that the "other doggy" already eliminated on this string a copy of a much more reasonable essay from The Nation, in which Sullivan AND Signorile are both taken to task. But such complexity is too daunting in a universe of black and white, I suppose. Specifically, the piece was about sex-phobia. It's another piece of wonderful irony -- I hope the media folks are noticing -- that it was deleted.

I have not witnessed Andrew Sullivan admit to anything significant in print regarding this issue. I also do not agree with SunDawg's comments about Bill Clinton. What happened to him was not about breaking the law. Similarly, what I see happening in here does not seem to be about breaking any rules.

Perjury - giving a false statement either in writing or orally; violation of an oath; a willful falsehood; a lie.

Ordinary private citizens have gone to jail for perjury, a criminal act at both the state and federal levels of government.

Bill Clinton broke the law by committing the crime of perjury. He was subpeonaed by a Federal Court to give a sworn statement in the form of a written deposition in the civil suit filed by Paula Jones. The deposition Clinton gave in writing in that civil suit contained perjured statements made by Bill Clinton. The Federal Judge in that case later determined, as a matter of law, that Bill Clinton had indeed provided perjured statements in his deposition. Bill Clinton was subsequently fined thousands of dollars for providing perjured statements in his deposition.

In law, it does not matter what is lied about. It is the fact that he lied while under oath to tell the truth. A sworn deposition compels a person to affirm the truthfulness of their statements under the penalties of perjury for giving willful false statements.

When you signed your tax return for 2000, you signed your name on your tax return. You signed that tax return, under penalties of perjury, by declaring your tax return and accompanying schedules and statements was examined by you and to the best of your knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.

The President is expected to set the moral tone for the nation, including exemplary honesty, religious faith, and integrity. The question of Bill Clinton's moral leadership assumed greater importance as both the media and the public examined the private life of Bill Clinton with closer scrutiny. As many people correctly concluded, Bill Clinton's moral leadership was seriously flawed by his lack of honesty and personal integrity.

There is an old saying, "You cannot see the forest for all the trees."

I think that when you get caught up in the fundamentals of anything, you are inviting trouble. Even lawyers consider the context of situations when viewing circumstantial evidence. The balance of law is contingent on how fairly it is applied. This is determined by many factors including the context of the situation and the level of the threat the alleged crime poses to society.

A law on a piece of paper is only a patch of words. It takes human beings to manipulate it into action. Therefore, applying laws as fundamental givens in every situation regardless of the context of the situation can be deadly.

If we are to follow a rules are rules mentality, we must rationalize that a man stealing a slice of pizza out of hunger is just as much a criminal as a man who kills for sheer pleasure. Both have broken the law. Both have violated the clearly spelled out rules. Both are criminals by fundamental definition of the law. But, both men present entirely different situations.

Similarly, a man who lies when asked about his private sex life while being investigated has broken the law. A man who lies about government actions that can impact global relations has also broken the law. Which one is the greater threat?

Finally, rules are made by men. Men can be wrong. They can be biased. Sometimes laws need to be reevaluated based on their ineffectiveness and selective application. The law and rules can be just as unfair as the men who apply them. This is why men get wrongly sent to prison and murderers sometimes go free.

You cannot ignore bias, prejudice, manipulation, and unfairness even when it comes to laws and rules.

The way that the law was used to incriminate Bill Clinton made us a laughing stock in just about every country outside of the U.S.A. Diplomats, government officials, and prime ministers offered their support and sympathy to Clinton during the Starr trials. They also siezed upon the opportunity to use the trial as an example of the Puritanical and backward ways of Americans when dealing with sex. If anything, the Clinton episode brought a huge wave of compassion for him and a bitter rejection of American moralizing from most of Europe.

It was by no means a victory or a shining moment in American history. People outside the US were either laughing or disgusted that a man like the President could be seriously investigated and charged for lying about consensual sex with another adult.

Clinton can hold his head high abroad. But, the way America reacted to him and the entire trial has made many people outside the US even more hostile towards Americans.

This is nothing to boast about.

[ June 15, 2001: Message edited by: MAC62 ]

Compare that also with our local chief on his first ever trip to europe [what a well rounded individual] spoke of the problems of the "country" of africa.

Were it not so sad, it would be laughable.

Sunny just don't get it. Nobody will disagree that the law can be used to harass people guilty of trivialities, like lying about sex. Yes, Clinton was guilty of lying about sex.

The law is also an interpretive instrument. It is not the voice of Yaweh. Thus guilt and punishment are determined and meted according to all kinds of cirumstantial factors. Indeed, pardons can be issued (remember Ford's?), executions can be stayed. Stupid laws are routinely ignored. (By Sun's logic, gay men in applicable states should be thrown into jail for breaking the sodomy laws. After all, the law is the law.) It ain't the black-and-white situation you depict it, sunnyboy.

More specifically: You seem in your rants about Clinton to miss a very salient point: He was not convicted in the impeachment effort. If you're going to be such a hardass about The Law, you need to pay equally slavish homage to its process.

The renowned English philosopher John Locke believed that if we were to understand the nature of power we must first examine the origins of it. Locke felt that Nature is a state of perfect equality amongst all men. In this state, no one man has more power or jurisdiction than any other man. However, Locke also stipulated that a person who was out to harm himself or others should not be given equal rights under the law.

Locke's stipulation recognized that if one is to act in such a way that appears contrary to the natural laws, it is the right and responsibility of all men affected by these actions to judge and punish the offender. In this sense, each man will be the judge of whether his "rights" as described by nature, have been violated. The right of each man to interpret and enforce the laws of nature as they see fit may be a source of much chaos. So, in order to regulate the implementation of these laws of nature, man agrees to a social contract, under which all men are governed by one common ruler.

John Locke was a practical man. He saw that man is incapable of governing himself. In his Two Treatises of Government Locke argues the function of the state is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, primarily to protect the right to property. Locke's social contract thus became an implicit agreement between everyone in a society to respect a legal authority, a supreme sovereign, so as to enable the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, relied heavily upon John Locke's Two Treatises of Government.This provided, in large measure, the philosophical justification for our break with Great Britain. In Jefferson's own words, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness cannot be taken away. Governments, which get their power from the consent of the governed, are created to protect those rights. When a government fails to do so (protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) the people have a right to abolish it and create a new form of government.

Perjury is a crime. Bill Clinton, as President of the United States, committed the crime of perjury. He lied when he gave a written deposition in a civil law suit. He willfully gave false statements which were found to be not truthful. When a Federal Judge makes a determination that a person willfully made false statements, either orally or in written form (deposition), the crime of perjury is substantiated by the evidence itself.

Should Bill Clinton have been impeached from office for breaking the law (Perjury)?

If ordinary citizens have been deprived of their liberty and imprisoned for the crime of perjury, then why do we not remove a President from the Office of the Presidency when that office holder violates his oath of office by committing the same offense (perjury) ?

If we are going to dissemble the language of the law and then apply the law unfairly and unequally, we might just as well tear up the social contract between ordinary citizens and any legal authority to govern.

No, Blingo, I do get it. What you have never understood is that you must follow the rules for posting to this board. You were mistaken in the belief that you had the right to post to these boards. In fact, you were given the privilege to post here provided you observed the rules. After having many of your postings edited or deleted in their entirety, you still haven't learned the value of being civil. Just as a newpaper editor has the obvious power and advantage of newsprint ink to bury their critics, the administrator and moderators have the power and advantage of the keyboard to do the same. A valuable lesson learned don't you think?

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: SunDogg ]

+Yawn+

Thankfully we have a jury system. Despite the hypocritical stances in the house by fellow adulterers like Gingrich, the jury decided that such SEXUAL MCARTHYISM would not be allowed to bring down a president. [You might need to know that we are talking about the US senate here, dogg. I only mention this because your previous inability to grasp the meaning of the term "non-partisan" makes me think that I must explain everything to you]


Continue to whine about Clinton. In case you haven't noticed, he no longer leads the country. But the contest for 2004 seems to be wide open at this point. Looks like another Bush one termer for obvious reasons.

I have read your posts in this thread and in some others. I do not understand why you are SunDawg and SunDogg in the same thread. I also do not understand why you, a fellow poster, seem to feel that you have the authority to explain to other posters how they can or cannot maintain the privilege of remaining here. Are you the moderator? You certainly sound like you think that you are. Who put you in charge?

Within a span of less than three weeks, you have already flamed me and others several times here. You speak of rules and maintaining civility. Yet, you refer to the poster bongo as bingo as if you are exempt from name-calling rules.

I think I understand why people are getting so angry at you and the tone that your posts create. You make what seem to be deliberately inflammatory statements. You appear to desire instigating others while assuming a role of authority and condescending separateness. Surely, it is reasonable that this would provoke quite a few people. Yet, you seem to remain unscathed while those who react to you are penalized by the moderator.

This must be part of the source of much of the resentment voiced here.

"No, Bingo, I do get it. What you have never understood is that you must follow the rules for posting to this board. You were mistaken in the belief that you had the right to post to these boards. In fact, you were given the priviledge to post here provided you observed the rules. After having many of your postings edited or deleted in their entirety, you have learned the value of being civil. Just as a newpaper editor has the obvious power and advantage of newsprint ink to bury their critics, the administrator and moderators have the power and advantage of the keyboard to do the same. A valuable lesson learned don't you think?"

Hahahahahhaahhahaha!!!! Gotcha again, didn't I, Old Boy?

How does the above follow out of your regurgitation of the usual libertarian speech about Locke? In case others here are unaware, Sun is just repeating what he reads on libertarian sites when he has these flights of language (just as he co-opted ideas from others in the Sullivan argument after revising himself rapidly when Sullivan confessed). I suspect your knowledge of Locke ends and begins with a web page.

Locke is a philosopher that sad group of people called libertarians pirated as their grandfather. Libertarians are skilled at adopting the dead -- in the way they incredibly refer to the Federalist Papers as libertarian documents. Please, Sun, simply because Locke avered something doesn't make it true. He's one of three important empiricists but there are many thinkers, namely the Continental rationalists, who have plenty to say about Locke.

I suppose everyone noticed that, as usual, Mr. Doggy didn't address the substance of posts but ranted in his usual beside-the-point way, ignoring that his fundamentalistic notion of the law is a fantasy, just stamping his rhetorical foot via John Locke.

But I am most amused by his lecturing me about my posts being edited by the moderator, who just today ASSURED me that he has often edited Sun. So, I hope the moderator notes that Sun agrees with me that he has singled out my posts, like Jake's, for editing and deleting. (Surely, if the Philosophical Sun felt equally culpable he would not be making this argument!) I also note, the moderator leaves the rewrite of my name as "Bingo" extant after deleting a post in which I called Sun by his many, many screen names.

A madhouse, really.

Back to you and your "Locke for Beginners" lecture, Sunny. By the way, your bad spelling takes the sting out of your, um, brilliant appropriations of others' thinking. Actually, it's when you're not, um, rewriting other people that your spelling breaks down most conspicuously. I love it when you pound your shoe on the desk but can't get the words out right! Learn to spell renowned, privilege, etc, Comrade!

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: bongo ]

I was watching Sullivan on one of the news programs the other night. He was whining like most of the left....that the death penalty is not fair and that it is society's revenge. For someone who is very far to the left...it is strange that many people on this board try to paint him as a right-winger. I think the only reason so much contempt exists for Mr Sullivan is because he is more honest and open in some ways about the gay lifestyle...and is willing to point out that it and gays are not perfect as some in the community would have the world believe. Many problems exist in the community and he has "suggested" some way to handle these problems but it the old method "kill the messenger...don't deal with the situation" that we have seen time and time before.

This thread really should be closed down. This is the first post in recent days which has discussed Sullivan. The rest is Bongo and this group (one person or several?) and Sun going at one another. Discussions of our disgraced former President (Mr Clinton) and John Locke and unfounded attacks on President Bush.....who is currently leading any mentioned democrat (but not democratic, democrat and democratic are two completely seperate things) contenders by at least 10 points.....but so early polls are of no value. I guess some of the "people" (keeping a civil tongue in my head, LOL) will forward their $300.00 tax refund checks to some gay-rights organization...so as not to be hypocrites.

This threat is no longer about Sullivan...its Bongo attempting to demonstrate his "intellectual superiority" which exists only in his mind.....and Sun attempting to counter Bongo....which can't be done because Bongo enjoys trying to put people with whom he disagrees in their place (the place he thinks they belong if they have the gall to disagree with him or his far, far, far-left wing thoughts). I can call people a left-winger and still be civil, can't I?? I don't really consider it an insult as the left has some interesting arguments...its just the rest of society does not like the elitism that the left and its parrots often displays.

The moderator is correct on this one. I have tried to be polite and not attack anyone...including Bongo or Sun. Bongo has numerous times implied or maybe outright stated that he believes Sun and me to be the same person...we are not, but he takes exception when some of his "opposition" suggest that maybe he uses more than one handle on this board.

This thread has run its course and its time that it die a natural death....if not maybe take it to Terre Haute and give it a lethal injection!

Just out of the Hospital, and Home again after having surgery. Have to wear a Pee Bag for a while. LOL I just filled the bag reading the last few posts......LOL.

I can see this is going to be a interesting recovery........LOL

Anyone need a used Pee Bag? in good condition, under 100 fills, filled by a little old man in Canyon Country.

Grandpa

Bummer, Dessert. Hope you have a speedy recovery!


Mamo, dear, I have never seriously thought you and Sun were actually the same person -- just perspectival equals. As to your claim that I am trying to prove my intellectual superiority, I think I can understand why you'd feel that way.

Glad you have provided further evidence, albeit backhandedly, to the moderator that, contrary to his claim, I have been edited far more than Sun. And, by the way, your posts in the original Sullivan string, in which you ranted that I was lying, were hardly "polite." Unfortunately, the evidence of that is gone, since the moderator deleted the string.

Getting the picture, Mr. Moderator?

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: bongo ]

This post was filled with bingo's and we were not singing the childs song. No name calling, you can repost with right name.

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: Horndogg ]

I won't bother to rewrite your name into something similarly unflattering Mr.Doggy, since I know it will instantly prompt the moderator to delete my post. It amuses me mainly to watch you continue to incriminate yourself by:

A. Engaging in the same level of ad hominem insult of which you accuse me.

B. Failing repeatedly to address the substance of posts, instead, just stepping aside and launching a barrage of new accusations.

Your characterization of "me" is just another regurgitation of material you've picked up on other sites. Although I can certainly be characterized as someone who questions the normalization of queer desire, I can hardly be called a universalizing opponent of gay assimilation.

In short, you're once again trying to start an argument, as you did in your silly claim of sexual McCarthyism, that is tangential to my own concerns.

I think Mamo is right, though. Engaging in argument with you is pointless. You really don't ever stay with the posts. Take this as a victory if you like.

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: bongo ]

Bongo....I have never been rude to you...not to say that you have not deserved it from time to time. I just don't understand why you feel you need to be at war with the moderator. If you don't care for this site there are several others out there that will accept your rantings and insults and illogical conculsions...since the other sites do not have nearly the popularity of CFS they will probably even welcome your convoluted logic and attacks.

These postings have nothing to do with Sullivan....and I noticed that Bongo did not address the fact that Sullivan is far from right-wing as he likes to present Mr Sullivan. Please refer to my previous post in which I told of seeing Mr Sullivan on television the other night and he was whining along with the other liberals on the show that it was "unfair" what happened to "poor Mr McVeigh". The federal government is going to execute another killer this week...lets hope this comes to be a regular thing both by federal government and state governments....its time to clean out some of these death-row inmates and give them what the jury and appeal(s) said was their due.

One other point...I had read Mr Sullivan's writings for some time and I am in general agreement with much of what he has to say...I do want to ask how anyone can say that this man is attractive.....??? In my opinion and I know everyone has different taste...this man is FAR from attractive.

This thread should be ended......give it a shot or a jolt or whatever but it has outlived it usefullness...and it is now mostly only a forum for Bongo and we have all heard enough from him to last a lifetime.

Why do you continue posting if you want the thread to come to completion, Mamo? How is it that the thread is supposed to be ended but I am also to respond to your request that I reply to your strange characterization of Sullivan? Which is it, man? Converse or end the thread?

I think my last post effectively said I agreed with you that there's not much more to say.

I am not in a "war" with the moderator, by the way, or I hope not, anyway. Since we have been exchanging email, I presume his interest is in reaching some mutual understanding despite our equally mutal temperamentality. I think any reading of these latest posts demonstrates, by your and Sun's own description, who's being edited here. In case yoiu didn't know, I started a thread in the complaints forum to air this stuff, rather than clogging up discourse of substance here. So may I respectfully suggest you follow your own advice or at least stop demanding I pursue two mutually exclusive paths.

Geeze: I guess I should save my dance card for another thread.

Thanks Bongo your words of support are refreshing.