Since I got several letters on this subject, I figure I ought to address it publicly.

Some people were upset/perturbed/offended that I quoted James Baker dropping an f-bomb in this post without somehow editing said f-bomb to minimize its impact or offensiveness. First, let me say that to anyone who was offended at being confronted with this vulgarity at our normally family-friendly blog, causing offense was not my intent.

Now, let me explain the thinking behind my editorial decision. The Baker comment is shocking, and shockingly offensive. The fact that this gray eminence of the American foreign policy establishment would stoop to deploying such low rhetoric is jarring. What’s more, is there any doubt that if he once said “Ef the Muslims,” “Ef the gays,” or “Ef the blacks,” institutions like the New York Times and Andrew Sullivan would demand his permanent exclusion from any role in the policy-making club, let alone the current pinnacle of import that he now occupies?

The Baker quote, especially given its author’s current prominence, is stunning. That’s why I thought it should be run in its full glory, without offering any editorial cleansing that would lessen the comment’s impact. He said it, he owns it, the country should be aware of it.

For readers who worry that having sampled the forbidden fruit of printing a curse word on a Townhall blog, I now will be unable to resist typing a profanity whenever one pops into my mind - worry not. I’ve been teaching ten year-olds on Saturdays for 15 years now and have never sworn in front of them. What’s more, I don’t think a chronic use of obscenity strengthens one’s writing. Their usage should be extremely sparing, so when deployed they actually stand out. As happened yesterday.

HEY, DID I MENTION ANDREW SULLIVAN? Curses! Didn’t mean to do that.

But since I brought him up, I do have a quick point I want to make regarding his new word about which he is so proud – “Christianist.” Obviously a slur, Andrew nevertheless defends the word as not being a slur because he is only “deploying a word in a manner that makes sense to me” and naturally his heart is true and the way the sane world interprets his word is an issue he cannot be bothered with.

As a thought experiment, my heart is also true, so I’m going to invent my own word – “Homosexualist.” The Homosexualist agenda will include support for gay marriage (which I do in fact support), full equal rights for gays (which I do in fact support), and an obsession with the Pope’s fashion sense (which in truth I’m rather indifferent to).

Once again, the preceding was only a thought experiment. I would be surprised if anyone of good faith didn’t find the term “homosexualist” enormously offensive. How someone as bright as Andrew could fail to see the obvious parallel between the fanciful term “homosexualist” and his own neologism “Christianist” is truly baffling.

UPDATE:  The great and good Ace of Spades beat me to the term homosexualist by many moons.  It just proves that great minds think alike, just that his thinks a little faster.

Complaints? Compliments? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.