Bill O'Reilly's girl

So, Dumbledore's gay, is he? I didn't need to know that. Some things are best left to the reader to decide. Anyway, here's a response I wrote to an article about Dumbledore's outing on the Sun-Sentinel's webpage (yuck! I think I'll only read their editorials when I need a good laugh!):

"Chauncey Mabe is upset over the wrong thing. Ms. Rowling can think of Dumbledore in whichever way she wants; it's her character. However, there was no reason to announce a character's (any character's) sexuality when the subject is children's literature. I know, I know, we're all adults here and we all love the Harry Potter series, but this was made for young people. Kids don't need to have sexuality and sexual issues thrown at them every which way they turn. And I'm not just talking about homosexuality; I mean sexuality in general. Who cares what Dumbledore is? This whole thing was just too much information that I didn't need to know. It doesn't help me enjoy the stories more or understand them any better. It doesn't improve or worsen the quality of the series. This was just J.K. Rowling trying to shock/impress her audience. The mainstream media and all the 'Hollywood types' need to wise up and start looking out for the kids, instead of only thinking about themselves."

Pretty good, huh? I put my name as "No-spin". Me taking Bill's stance and trying to defend what's right reminded me of a line in HP6. Harry says to Scrimgeour "I'm Dumbedore's man, through and through." Well I'm O'Reilly's girl, through and through.