Blue Crab Boulevard

I Wasn’t Going To

But I kind of feel like I have to write something about this sudden ruckus in Colorado. There has been a burst of media - and a blog storm - about Ted Haggard. I really know nothing about the man. He is supposed to be a big evangelical Christian leader and may well be. (I don't get out much in those circles). But he has been accused of having relationship with a gay hooker. The media ran this story on what evidence?

Why, the word of the gay hooker.

Not one, single report has given even a single bit of any other evidence but the unsubstantiated word of the gay hooker. Not one. And the accused denies it completely.

I sincerely apologize to Ted Haggard to even have to mention his name here, but there is no other way to write about this. And the media has demonstrated that they have absolutely no standards left whatsoever. This is a career-ending charge based on one person's word. Yet they reported it with no hesitation at all. No corroboration, no evidence. In other words, no ethics and no standards. Then the Denver Post compounds the damage to the person being accused by saying he had "resigned". What he did, as the paper itself reveals, is place himself on administrative leave so an investigation could be conducted in complete transparency. Unlike the media, he did the right thing.

I could not care less about anyone else's sex life, gay or straight. I care very much that our media has no standards and ethics at all anymore. To report this, with no evidence other than the word of a self-admitted hooker (gay or straight) makes this a political hit piece four days before an election. The truth or falsehood of the charges matter not a whit to the press. it is all about the accusation. And they cooperated.

Media, Politics | Gaius Thursday, 2 November , 2006

By Ed, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 8:17 am

Maybe some of the coverage has to do with this, since the President wants to ‘dance with the one that brung ya”.

According to the Wall Street Journal in 6/21/2005:

Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.
By Pug, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 9:56 am

If you were accused of having a gay prostitute on the side for three years I would think the logical reaction would be to immediately resign from your job and go into seclusion. Especially if there was nothing to the charge.

Right?
By jpe, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 9:59 am

The accusation coheres with what we know about self-righteous evangelicals, though. And the proof will be in the pudding when this guy divorces his wife, becomes a Unitarian Universalist, and writes a memoir.
By Gaius, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 10:07 am

So, the proof is the accusation for you? That’s pretty sad. It says rather more about you than I think you realize.
By BubbaB, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 12:12 pm

I have a confession to make: I am an Evangelical. I am not self-righteous - I believe there is only One who can make me righteous, and I sure ain’t it. And I have never, ever, ever, had the teeny-tiniest little inkling to get a gay hooker. Ever. Period.

jpe, we’re everywhere. We live our lives, work, go to school, and we go to church. We will talk to you about God, when you want to, otherwise, we just try to live a life that glorifies Him. We are failures. We know it. We are tempted to do things that are wrong, and we do them. But He still loves us and forgives us.

I believe that I am saved, not by my own works, but by Christ, through his compassion (what we call, “grace”.) I also believe that God has called me to live a life of high standards. That includes the big, and the little. (No, I won’t kill anybody, but I also won’t keep that extra quarter that the cashier gave me, either.)

I have found that those who are most vocal about the “self-righteousness” and “hypocrisy” of Christians are usually the ones who have not spent much time with us, or who are actually convicted about their lifestyles by being around us (How many felt a twinge when I wrote about “the quarter” in the last paragraph?) I have known folks who will say something in front of me, like, “Oh, those Christians are so hypocritical” and immediately turn to me and say, “But not you, of course.” Do you see the irony in that? It is a form of stereotyping that goes deeper than intellect, emotion, or even subconscience: It goes to the heart of what human beings are, and what we were designed to be.

Yes, we are all hypocrites, Christians and non-Christians alike. We give ourselves credit for our intentions, but we hold others to the standards of what their actions are.

And I won’t be divorcing my wife, or become a Unitarian. I may write a memoir, but it will speak of the grace that God has shown me.

—BubbaB
By jpe, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 12:16 pm

It’s not proof of truth, but proof of a reasonable possibility of truth, such that a media entity could reasonably rely on it. And as I say that, the guy has resigned his post and admitted to doing something (what, he won’t say…yet) with his hooker.

If I’m told a dog barked last night, I don’t need to get independent verification before I’ll accept it as true or probably true. Why? It coheres with my pre-existing set of of beliefs. Mutatis mutandis, this story is likely true.
By Gaius, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 12:21 pm

THe publication did not meet the basic standards of journalism. That it meets your (or the reporters) preconceptions does not alter that fact. Nor does any information that comes after the fact. Too bad you can’t see that.
By mokus, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 1:06 pm

Juanita Broaderick said Bill Clinton raped her. The charge was never proved, but it is consistent with what we know about other accusations made by other women, Paula Jones among the many. Additionally, the accusation coheres with what we know about self-righteous hypocritical Democrat rapists.

That’s not proof of the truth of Broaderick’s allegation, but proof of a reasonable possibility of truth such that unbiased observers could reasonably consider the possibility Bill Clinton raped her.

That being said, it is perhaps revealing that Clinton has already admitted to inappropriate misconduct (he won’t say exactly what he did…yet) with a young female intern. He had lied repeatedly about the scandal over several months and eventually was forced by the the prospect of DNA evidence to admit his guilt, and that only after he went on TV, wagged his finger and lied like a dog to the nation.

If I’m told a dog barked in the oval office, I don’t need independent verification before I’ll accept it as true or probably true. Why? It coheres with what we already know about Bill Clinton. Mutatis mutandis, Juanita Broaderick’s story is likely true.
By blogenfreude, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 5:29 pm

Thatâ€™s not proof of the truth of Broaderickâ€™s allegation, but proof of a reasonable possibility of truth such that unbiased observers could reasonably consider the possibility Bill Clinton raped her.

It’s not often you get bad logic and bad construction in the same sentence.

And if all you wingnuts can do is pull out tired accusations against a guy who has been out of office for six years, you’re utterly through. Pastor Ted confessed to buying drugs and getting a massage from a gay escort, and if you think he’s not capable of lying about what happened, you learned nothing from Monicagate. Face it - one of the chief peddlers of the Bush hate agenda is a hypocrite.

Now watch your beloved Republican party get destroyed at the polls this Tuesday. This kerfuffle won’t be the only reason, but it sure helps!
By Gaius, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 5:36 pm

If the party loses some seats, it will not, as you say, be destroyed. It will have lost an election. It is that thought process you displayed that alienates a lot of moderates. So, by all means, keep talking.
By mokus, Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 7:55 pm

“Itâ€™s not often you get bad logic and bad construction in the same sentence.”

Point taken, I can do better: Juanita Broaderick’s allegation doesn’t prove Bill Clinton raped her, but since she immediately told a friend about the attack, and she was treated for injuries consistent with a strong-arm rape, it’s most likely had Clinton not been a major political figure, he would have been arrested and charged.