Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Foley

Here's the Wall Street Journal's take on the lesson of the Foley scandal:
But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?...Yes, Mr. Hastert and his staff should have done more to quarantine Mr. Foley from male pages after the first email came to light. But if that's the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.
Translation: None of this would have happened had we as a society never come to see homosexuals as actual people. And to think that this passes for respectable journalism in many circles...

Hat Tip: Andrew

Posted by Kingston

3 Comments:

Blogger PWN said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:10 PM  
Blogger PWN said...

generally like the Wall Street Journal, but their social commentary is as shallow as a puddle of rain. They somehow equate Foley's pedophilia with homosexuality? Have they gone mental? Some old guy fondles a young girl and I'll bet $100 that the Wall Street journal never raises issues of the old man's troubled heterosexuality. ridiculous.

3:11 PM  
Blogger PWN said...

It's also convenient for the WSJ to ignore evidence that Hastert was informed that the boy felt uncomfortable back in 2005.

4:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home