home

Curiouser and Curiouser

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:59:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Regardless of Mike Jones' credibility (discussed here), Ted Haggard made some self-incriminating statements this morning.

This morning, Haggard said he had never had sex with Jones but said he did buy methamphetamine out of curiosity.

Curiosity? Haggard claims he threw the drugs away. He was curious about what meth looked like? That's a hard one to swallow. (Jones, you'll recall, claims that Haggard used the meth to enhance his sexual experiences with Jones.)

Haggard says he was massaged by Jones but denies having sex with him. Make of that what you will. (More about Haggard in this 2005 profile at Harper's.)

< Report: Pentagon Speeding Plans for N. Korea Attack | A Bird For the President Leads to Bus Driver's Termination >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Curiouser and Curiouser | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Escorts (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    Let me get this straight, he hired a masseuse/escort and never had any sexual activity?  I have a masseuse that I go to on a regular basis.  She charges me $60 and I live in a very expensive city.  Of course there is no happy ending, and a quick check on craiglist and an escort site tells me that a massage with a happy ending will run $200. Coincidence?

    I'm not a consumer of those services (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    so I have no direct knowledge*, but the common complaint I've seen posted about Craigslist w4m is that a lot of those saying they're w are really gay men cruising.

    When I need my back straightened out, my physical therapist is about $60/hour....  More money than that, IMHO it's likely not legit physical therapy being advertised.

    -
    * I was gonna say "first-hand experience", but this thread is teetering on the edge of dissolving into laughing insanity so as it is....

    Parent

    masseur (none / 0) (#7)
    by nolo on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    not masseuse.  "Masseuse" means a female massage-provider.

    Sorry to be a nitpicker, but I can't restrain myself.

    Parent

    It's Ok, the hotel referred the masseur (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    Silly me.  The hotel referred the hot gay guy with 2% body fat, to massage the overworked meth man of god.  

    I say we start arresting concierges for their participation in the moral corruption of straight ministers.  

    Seriously, I want to know if the good reverend is a top or a bottom.  I am certain Rush Limbaugh will support me fully in that a top is not really gay, more like a frat guy playing a prank.

    Rush here (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    I heartily agree. I mean, what Delta or Omega among us hasn't buggered a dude or two in the heat of a little wrestling or horselplay?  This isn't homosexual activity, it's just what the Greeks used to do back at the gymnasium when they'd workout in the nude.  And that has a lot to do with the times of Jesus, and the region where the Savior and his disciples spread the Good News.  And that is why the good Reverand SHOULD have been curious.  B

    Now regular gay people (democrats), and all those pride parades, and Project Runway parties, and all that nasty stuff, that's totally different.  They're evil and will all rot in hell.

    It's just that simple, people.

    Parent

    He's not really a druggie... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by roy on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    ... he's just meth-curious.

    classic (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    lol roy...meth-curious

    2006 has proven a banner year train wreck election season...first Foley, Kerry the Komic, now one of Bush's right hand Jesus men on a meth/gay hooker binge...what's next?  We've got a few days left.  Is there an underground harem in the White House?  A hydro grow room in the Capital Dome?  

    Stay tuned.

    Parent

    Denver Craigslist (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    Wow, you can get a massage with a happy ending for under $100.00  And there are lots of women advertising in there as well as gay men.  $200 is an awful lot to pay for just a "massage".

    Those poor kids.  Bad enough to have captain jesus as your pop, turns out he is a complete fraud.  He is worried about the sanctity of marriage?  The protection of marriage?

    What is really cool is that he has a weekly call with the White House.  Out of curiousity, are there any Muslim leaders that have that courtesy?  Any Buddhists?  Any LDS?  Any Wikkans?  Catholics?  Or just "christians"?

    curiouser, still (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    Rev. Haggard today said, on video, he'd only bought meth once.  But, as Aravosis points out, his voicemails said he wanted "more".

    Think maybe he's fibbing about just how much and how often he consumed?

    And, "false in one, false in all" applies outside a courtroom, too....

    OW! (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    That's gonna leave a mark.

    Hypocrisy, Power, Psychology (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:08:51 PM EST
    When this kind of repression and self-hatred translates into spreading blind hatred, you get a keen and disturbing sense of the nature of a certain kind of power.

    What's really interesting is how you never really see this case in reverse.  You never see a real, bleeding heart, dyed in the wool liberal exposed as a closet right-wing conservative.  Joe Lieberman analogies aside, that is.

    Corruption on both sides?  Of course.  But this kind of revelatory psychological, sexual and ideological unmasking?  It's strictly a right to left phenomenon it seems.

     

    Re: in reverse (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    You never see a real, bleeding heart, dyed in the wool liberal exposed as a closet right-wing conservative.

    Heh! Be pretty hard to fake, I would think. ;-)

    Parent

    Dadler (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    But this kind of revelatory psychological, sexual and ideological unmasking?  It's strictly a right to left phenomenon it seems.

    Interesting point.

    I think it has something to do with the right believing that some things are just plain wrong - despite fighting natural inclinations to want to do them - and the left believing fewer things are just plain wrong.

    So, you got more people on the right striving but failing to live up their goals than people on the left living up to goals they don't have.

    Or something like that.

    Now, if you want to talk about what I sense this is really about - people who really need/want power, and what they do that's illegal and/or immoral to get it - well, that's a different subject...

    Parent

    The Right and wrong (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:49:03 PM EST
    To me it has nothing to do with what's right or wrong.  Being gay is not a moral issue, no marginally rational argument can be made that being gay translates into anything thing other than...being gay.  Claiming it harms other people based on ancient writings that have been rewritten countless times by countless people with countless agendas upon revision, well, that flies in the face of logic and reality.

    This is about hating people you don't know because of your own psychological issues.  

    Period.

    As for striving for goals, the only people who need to strive not to be homosexual are people who ARE homosexual, but feel compelled to hide because of various social pressures, religion certainly being a strong one.  

    And I don't think you meant the left doesn't have goals they strive for, since the only one I can think of that matters ultimately is do unto others, and who among us doesn't really believe that when confronted with it in reality?  Perhaps the left simply has an easier time dealing openly and honestly and maturely with human sexuality and all its complexities, and doesn't demonsize sexuality as the right has and continues to do so in too many segments of its party.  That would certainly seem an obvious distinction to me.
     

    Parent

    Right/Wrong, etc. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    To me it has nothing to do with what's right or wrong.  Being gay is not a moral issue

    Dadler, I wasn't talking about you. And I was talking about many more things than homosexuality.

    the only people who need to strive not to be homosexual are people who ARE homosexual

    Are people who find 16 year-olds attractive, and who successfully strive not to engage in sex with them, pedophiles?

    Are people who feel an urge to, say, take something that's not theirs, but successfully deny the urge, thieves?

    And, no, I'm not saying the left approves of pedophilia or thievery...and I think we're getting OT...

    And I don't think you meant the left doesn't have goals they strive for,

    Of course not, and I said nothing of the kind. I've tried several times here to say what I meant more clearly, but I'm unable. Please reread what I wrote.

    And remember, we, or at least I in my comments, are referring to much more than merely homosexuality.

    Parent

    can you hear me now? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    Perhaps we're on slightly different frequencies here, and forgive me if I'm still coming in fuzzy, but being an averted shoplifter on one or more occasions is certainly, to me, a much different and less vital thing than a person's fulltime sexual identity and struggle with it, denial of it, repression of it, destructive hatred of self because it.

    The analogy just isn't a good one, since stealing involves taking from someone  else, and is criminal to boot, where being gay has no effect on anyone else and certainly isn't criminal or shouldn't be.  So the striving to not steal is good and accomplishes a good thing.  Striving to not be gay, if you genuinely are, is NOT good and accomplishes bad things.  And that is the entire reason why there is no foundation but illogical empty prejudice to all the anti-homosexual preaching from the pulpit.

    As for the pedophelia comparison, I'm uncomfortable with it right off the bat because of the subtextual connection to the homosexuality issue, of which there is none.  Being gay is nore more an indicator of being a child molester than being five feet six.  However, I would say anyone genuinely fighting the urge to molest a kid, or who fantasizes about it, but doesn't do it, they certainly to a psychologist would be a pedophile, but simply one who hasn't committed a criminal act because of it, and to be thanked for it, but continually treated and monitored in the future nonetheless.

    Homosexuality is a unique and imcoparable issue in society.  It isn't like stealing or molesting children, it affects no one but the homesexual person themself.  And the continued demonizing of homosexuality, considering it wrong and harmful, is wrong and harmful itself on many levels, spiritual and intellectual.  

    As for Haggard, this guy is the president of 30 million evangelicals and preaches inanity and intolerance and hate and all kinds of anti-homosexual nonsense, and he's had a certain amount of power and influence that now are revealed to be the workings of a tormented and self-hating soul.  That's really the point to me.  That he's entirely full of sh*t, and that the people who follow his lead, his congregation, his flock, are full of that same sh*t as a result.  Will this lead them to a more nuanced understanding of life, human sexuality, real spirituality?  I don't know, but I doubt it.  That he and they (or enough of they) might be brick dumb to start with, which you can grasp from this clip, is another matter, tho certainly relevant -- and perhaps AS relevant as his massive psycho-sexual issues.

     

    Parent

    Now I hear you loud and clear (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 09:06:44 AM EST
    is certainly, to me, a much different and less vital thing than a person's fulltime sexual identity and struggle with it, denial of it, repression of it, destructive hatred of self because it.

    Is this who you know Haggard to be?

    You may be right, what the hell do I know, I never even heard of the guy until TL's frist post on him.

    But you have knowledge that your description above is who Haggard is?

    Parent

    train wreck coming (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    I've been trying to give Haggard the benefit of the doubt, but trying to purchase meth when he said on the 9 news video he has never done drugs, not even pot, makes him a liar.  He ought to shut up now, he's only going to make it worse.

    rain wreck happening... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    Sounds like he's got some serious denial (addiction?) going on.

    Parent
    It's inevitable (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    When someone is in the process of publicly destroying themselves from within they don't always have the ability to stop.  I think he's past a point of no return, is in such painful denial, and will keep talking like this until he faces the reality of his denial, delusion, hypocrisy, self-hatred, anger, rage, you name it.

    Reminds me of the student body president at my evangelical Christian high school (the biggest in the country -- imagine Jesus Camp High School, with textbooks from Bob Jones University Press), who was as "straight" as they came, worked for TBN, played the part of good Christian young man so well, but turned out to be gay and incredibly tormented and twisted by having to hide it in such a place.

    But Haggard's case is much more disturbing, for the way his f'd up psyche, his raging Id, has spread hatred and nonsense from such a large platform.

    Parent

    train wreck - "he said, he said" on CNN (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:35:23 PM EST
    CNN, from the crawl at 3:35 ET, linked here thru HuffPo, has on it a video interview with the other side in the Haggard story, in which he says:
    We had sex;
    I didn't provide him meth, though I initially gave him contact ID where he could get some;
    He absolutely did meth in my presence.

    Parent
    Dope, but no sex... (none / 0) (#18)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:12:32 PM EST
    Haggard said he had never had sex with Jones but said he did buy methamphetamine...

    Well sex is much worse than meth to these primitives.

    sex is much worse than meth (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    And meth is one of the ugliest, and maybe just plain evil, drugs there are. I've seen people dig a pit for themselves so deep it takes years if ever to climb out of with that stuff, and do it in just 2 or 3 weeks. Incredible that someone can have such a twisted view of sex.

    Parent
    Sheesh (none / 0) (#23)
    by dutchfox on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:44:16 PM EST
    Golly, people, a whole heckuva lotta more important stuff to talk about. Redux: threads and comments about Foley. Again sex trumps what's really important: Iraq, healthcare, loss of our rights, education, voters rights. Why are y'all obsessed with these 2 sad individuals??

    what i mean is... (none / 0) (#24)
    by dutchfox on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    there have been 22 (not including mine) on this "news story."

    Parent
    Everyone needs (none / 0) (#27)
    by Maggie Mae on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    to take a break now and then from the important stuff.  This is a water cooler, coffee room, quick chat while putting on lipstick in the ladies room, run out of things to say on the way to the airport kind of topic.  Kerry was their momentary diversion, Haggard is our momentary diversion, but it's just a short one.

    Parent
    Repercussions (none / 0) (#25)
    by mreyn on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:50:00 PM EST
    Pastor Ted's disclaimer today was depressingly reminescent of  those  rendered by Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker and--yes, Big Dog Clinton when they found their furtive peckers under the glare of the halogen. The fallout  in Colorado Springs should not be underestimated--it will reach well beyond that odd little faith-filled burg's limits. Haggard  is hooked into so may platforms in the Religious Right machinery that the consequences are toxic--at many levels--from Dobson & the Arlington Group to Peter Wagner's operations. The purge will be immediate and harsh--marked by nervous looks over several proescutorial  shoulders.

    to me it's self-evident (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    You know plenty.  And I am, of course, only speculating, but quite strongly it seems.  I just have a lot of experience with dysfunction and f'd up people.  And I'm ever reminded here of the student body president of my evangelical Christian high school (largest in the nation, Jesus Camp H.S. basically, with Bob Jones University Press textbooks), the most straight Christian young man there was, a leader on campus and off, interned at TBN (the Trinity Broadcasting Network), captain of the debating team...and it turned out he was gay, and needless to say had been a tormented and repressed soul for years having to hide it in such an environment.  And I vividly remember that the football team liked him because he told bar none the most twisted gay jokes in history.  Just thinking back, I can see him now leading the Wednesday campus chapel services like a televangelist in the making.

    Last post for Sarc (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    Last post for Sarc.  It was a reply to his reply to my reply, etc.

    Dadler (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    fwiw, go grab today's (Saturday) LA Times. I don't have an online subscription, only hard copy, so I can't link or cut and paste it for you.

    Anyway, they describe Haggard basically as a very much a moderate on homosexuality and many other things evangelical.

    For instance, if I remember the article correctly, he supported the (I assume recent) Texas decision to srike down their anti-sodomy laws, among other relatively pro-gay statements/actions.

    He also seems to feel that global warming is a bigger issue than gays in direct contrast to, and conflict with, much of the evangelical leadership, if that means anything.

    The Times doesn't seem to think he's quite the ogre you've portrayed him as, although I'm sure that's very much in the eyes of the beholder...

    Parent

    Curiouser and Curiouser | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment