I try to resist quoting messages that merely exemplify, rather than explaining or effectively advocating, points of view that I think are wrong-headed or bigoted. But every now and then....
Here is a message from a lawyer who is the "name partner" in a firm in the Dallas area. He objects to my saying that people at the Fox News/Google debate were wrong to boo a soldier now serving in Iraq, after the soldier said he was gay and asked about the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy -- and that the candidates on stage should have said something about the incident. The lawyer sympathizes with the booers and says:
>>They weren't booing his "service." They were booing the fact that the United States military now has sacrificed the ability to effectively defend us to accommodate someone's fetish.
Of course, the irony is, that by basically doing away with national defense, we make it much more likely that our gay "soldiers" will be killed by some sharia compliant morality goons back home once we have succumbed to the anti-Semites we saw at the UN [during the Abbas and Netanyahu speeches]. (I'm sure your old boss, Jimmy Carter, couldn't wipe the grin off his face thinking about establishing a Judenrein Israel.)<<
Lawyers make their living by their skill in drawing distinctions and their precise use of words. If you'd like one who thinks and writes this way, I can steer you to him.
For an alternative hypothesis, here is one from an American reader:
>>Perhaps it is a small and very silly fantasy but suppose a gay Navy seal announced himself and it turned out to be the man who shot Osama?<<
*In response to some puzzled queries: the most gratuitously coarse part of this video will make more sense if you think about the problems that the candidate on stage during the "soldier-booing" episode, Sen. Santorum, has had with Google.
This article available online at: