I'm not sure why I keep checking the blog of that dirtbag who outed one of Rep Mark Foley's victims, but it sure is good for some amusement. (See here and here for the background.) The latest consists of more whining; this time because right-winger Michelle Malkin has denounced the outing. Now when I hear Malkin's name, the phrase "highly ethical" isn't exactly what comes to mind -- her latest book was an apologia for WWII internment camps for crissakes -- but even she can see what's wrong with the "conservative outing mob" as she calls it. Because of her reaction, dickhead whines that he has been "thrown under the bus". Actually I think Malkin was pretty tepid. I guess wingnuts just aren't accustomed to anyone on their side of the fence ever disagreeing with them.
But the best part is how dickhead excuses the fact that the kid he outed was 17 at the time the IMs from Foley started. Mind you, this rather important fact makes his whole "gotcha" story totally irrelevant, and it's one that up to this point he's never even acknowledged. Let's see what happens when he finally does:
Third, When he was 17 and 18 years old, Michelle can you prove when the IMs were made and can you prove that they have not been altered by anyone before they were published by ABC NEWS? No you can not. If you will look at the IMs you will notice that the time stamps are not in sequential order and ABC NEWS does not even provide a date stating when the emails were made.From this we learn two things. First of all, William Kerr has the writing skills of the average fourth grader. And secondly, he has the reasoning skills of the average first grader. Can anyone prove that the IMs weren't altered by ABC News? Of course they can't. It's also impossible for anyone to prove that the entire correspondence wasn't invented out of thin air by God. And no one can prove that Mark Foley -- heck, the whole Congress -- isn't just some figment of our collective hysteria, or that the Detroit Tigers haven't been replaced by super powerful robots.
What we can say is that anyone who believes these things without very strong evidence is a flagrant moron. The burden of proof isn't on anyone to show that ABC News didn't alter the IMs. The burden is on dickhead to show that they did. And of course he has no evidence, he's just grasping at straws. Until he comes up with something more substantial than simply figuring out the kid's name, here's the evidence we have: The kid explicitly said he was under 18 in at least one of the messages, and the time stamps show that they were from before his 18th birthday. Therefore, any non-retarded person should provisionally accept the fact that he was under 18 at the time.
It gets stupider:
Fourth, "obliterate the young man's privacy" he is 21 now! He is a public figure if it is found that the young man as you like to call him was 18 during all of the IMs or has made the whole thing up will you defend Mark Foley's right to privacy?Apparently, not only does William Kerr not know how to construct a proper sentence, he also doesn't know what "public figure" means. It doesn't mean "anyone over 18". This is an important distinction in slander or defamation lawsuits (which Kerr may find himself on the business end of), as public figures, unlike normal citizens, are considered to be fair game for the press. So who is a public figure? Anyone who has chosen to thrust himself or herself into the public spotlight. That would include celebrities, activists, and most importantly, politicians. It doesn't include a page who was solicited for sex by a dirty old man and has since remained quiet and tried to get on with his life.
And then we have the absurd insinuation that he "made the whole thing up". Yeah, him and the half dozen other pages. Who else was in on it? It had to have been Mark Foley, who resigned in disgrace and admitted having sent these messages. And of course it would include the several lawmakers who have admitted to knowing about Foley's problem for years. Kerr's evidence that the kid made the whole thing up consists of the fact that he... was able to figure out the kid's name!
It keeps getting worse:
Fifth, "The young man was the prey, not the predator." Can you prove that Michelle? No you cannot.More of the same. I mean, can anyone really prove that the people Ted Bundy killed weren't the real criminals? Ignoring Bundy's testimony and all other available evidence, why should we assume that the serial murderer is the predator, and his victims the prey? Isn't it sometimes the other way around?
My advice to Kerr: Please, please, please don't ever become a prosecutor. You'd endanger us all. Stick with flipping burgers, it's more your intellectual style anyway.
But in spite of the sheer numbskullery of his post, William Kerr does manage to get one thing right:
I believe you Michelle are acting more like a liberal than me...An unintentional compliment, of course.
