La Cage Aux Foley

Says he's in rehab now, so I guess that means he's contained. I don't know about you, but I think most 16 or 17 year old boys are quite capable of taking care of themselves, so while I understand the concerns involved in this scandal, the speed at which it's growing and the calls for resignations of congressional leaders (Hastert says he's not going anywhere, by the way) is quite a surprise. It's not like Foley raped a 12-year-old or anything.I can understand the concerns of parents who send their kids to Washington to gain the valuable experience of being a page. They don't expect that they're providing fresh meat to Capitol Hill predators. But even so, if I didn't think my kid was capable of taking care of himself I wouldn't send him there.So while I understand the rage at someone like Foley who was obviously taking advantage of his position, I don't quite get it when it comes to Hastert, Reynolds, Boehner, et. al. As yet at least, this isn't a rape scandal. Does anyone else think the republicans are going overboard?So now I suppose I should pinch myself. These are republicans we're talking about, after all. The family values people. They seem to be feeding on one another now. It's fun to watch.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Oh I promise you, I'm enjoying the hell out of it. I hope it keeps up 'til election day, as it looks like it almost certainly will. I just don't get it. The family values crowd seems to have the most complicated set of morals I've ever heard of.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I suppose if it isn't already a crime for a member of Congress to hit on one of the pages it should be. But I still say that you and many of the republicans are going overboard with this. We have a few older teens (and I think it's safe to infer that those in the page program are mature beyond their years) who were hit on by a Congressman. That Congressman clearly abused his power and may have committed some other crimes, but I can't for one minute believe that any of those 16-year-old boys have been permanently scarred by the experience.Meanwhile, we have a grossly and perhaps criminally mismanaged war going on where scores of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters are being killed or maimed every day. The negligence and arrogance of this administration is literally killing people, yet in this fucked up country the only thing that can take power away from these sociopaths is a sex scandal in which - so far as we know - no one was even so much as touched inappropriately.For God's sake, what kind of people are we?

---

W.W.E.D.?

crashfrog writes me:

quote:

---

Oh? You talked to them? Assessed their mental status?

---

Those are silly questions. I would've expected better from you, crash.I was 16 once. In recent years I've known four or five 16-year-olds pretty well, and I have a nephew who will be 16 in just a few months. Neither I nor any of these others was so immature at that age that we could have possibly been scarred by an unwanted sexual advance from some old lecher like Foley.If, certainly by the age of 16 if not by the age of 2, parents have done nothing to prepare their kids for that sort of thing then as far as I'm concerned those parents are negligent. If those same parents sent such an unprepared and immature kid to live among other kids with a politician in loco parentis in a distant city, I'd call them criminally negligent.None of this is meant to excuse what Foley did in any way. But all this caterwauling about those poor, damaged kids is just so much bullshit.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

Why? Other than people are making an issue out of it, why is it actually an issue? Especially one requiring legal action?

---

We've had this argument before, a long time ago. Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica was the immediate subject, I believe. It looks like neither of us has changed our positions.I said "I suppose" because I'm not entirely convinced that it should require action of the law enforcement sort. But I am absolutely convinced that any sexual activity between some sort of intern or low-level employee and one of his or her ultimate superiors is necessarily an abuse of power on the part of the superior. I don't think it should be tolerated in any work environment.

---

W.W.E.D.?

quote:

---

BTW- Check out the last cartoon in the link I gave Omni.

---

Love it! Thanks.

---

W.W.E.D.?

brennakimi writes me:

quote:

---

if you equivocate over what makes a minor a minor, then we have serious issues. it's not a matter of maturity or intelligence. it is a matter of experience and it's a matter of contract law.

---

As I understand it in most states 16 is considered the age of consent. I think that's reasonable. If you want to debate whether or not that should be changed by federal law then perhaps a new topic is in order.We allow 16-year-olds enough freedom that it's unreasonable to believe that we can directly protect them from any unwanted sexual advance. The way to protect them is indirectly, through education and preparation in their younger years. So I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with you. I think it very much is an issue of maturity.

quote:

---

he is a criminal. that is why he is being "pestered".

---

I said before that I was in no way defending Foley. What he did was a gross abuse of power. Why isn't that enough? When we have a perfectly reasoned, logical basis for outlawing something we consider bad, why must we resort to morality?

---

W.W.E.D.?

This is too silly.crashfrog writes me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

When we have a perfectly reasoned, logical basis for outlawing something we consider bad, why must we resort to morality?

---

​

Who has, Berb?

---

You, for one, in your very next paragraph:

quote:

---

He broke the law by soliciting minors for sex.

---

That's apparently true, from what I've seen, but it's a law based on morality. I don't see the case that making a pass at a 16-year-old would likely cause damage to the youngster. Saying it would is a moral judgement, irrespective of religion. If you can show me some scientific study that refutes this then please present it. As it is, I think treating this as an abuse of power is the best course to take.I don't see the need to outlaw making passes at kids who are beyond the age of consent. If at 16 most kids are too fragile to handle an untoward advance then maybe the age of consent needs to be changed.ABE: Sorry, missed your last question, crash.

quote:

---

I don't see it as a witchhunt to point that out, or to urge that the leadership who knowingly helped him get away with it be investigated. Can you explain it to me?

---

I don't believe I used the word 'witchhunt'. I think I called it overkill. And I fully support investigating all of this further. But from what I know at this moment I think it's going a bit far to call for Hastert's resignation. Just my opinion.That said, let them call for it from the mountaintops! These are republicans, after all. On MSNBC, they've been referring to the republican leaders as a "circular firing range". It's all so much fun to watch!Edited by berberry, : provided within

---

W.W.E.D.?

Well then I think Florida law is a bit draconian. I don't write the law, but if it were up to me to set the age of consent I'd set it at about 16. Many (I'd say most) 16-year-olds are sexually active. It's not unusual for them to be attracted to someone older, and so long as their development hasn't been stunted I think they're old enough to make their own choices about sex.But whenever a teacher, boss, coach or a mentor of any sort is involved, be it online or by direct contact, we have an abuse of power and that's what I'd prefer to see prosecuted.

quote:

---

i'm not talking about morality. read what i said. this is child sexual law.

---

But at some point the child is - sexually, at least - no longer a child. Setting any sort of age of consent at all requires some sort of moral judgement. I'm much more comfortable when such judgements can be backed up by scientific knowledge. As I understand it (and I could be wrong about this - if so I'll adjust what I'm saying accordingly) most psychologists say that kids of 16 or older are able to have healthy sex lives. Therefore, setting the age any higher would be a moral judgement that isn't supported by reason.But I see your point that Foley should be bound to the laws of his state. Anyone else would be; I agree with you about that.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I don't see the connection between signing contracts and having sex. By that logic, we should also make them wait until 18 before they're allowed to drive. Or perhaps we should make them wait until 21 before they can do any of it - have sex, sign contracts or drive cars. After all, they have to wait 'til 21 to drink or visit a casino.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Perhaps if you'd try reading you'd get it, crash. There are at least two outright lies about me in your post. I have not talked about "innnocent flirting", I've talked about abuse of power. I have not once said that what Foley did wasn't wrong. And I made it clear very early on that by courting the so-called "values voters" I believe the republicans brought all this morality crap on themselves. Therefore, although I might not like the way this scandal is developing and some of the reasons people are calling for resignations, I won't stand in the way because I think these idiots deserve it.Once again, for you and any other ADD types, I regard what Foley did as an abuse of power. If you equate that with saying that I "dont think what he did was wrong" then I'm afraid you need far more help than I can give you.

---

W.W.E.D.?

No, you look you lying asshole! I'm tired of you misrepresenting what I've said. If you read my posts, then why did you say something as stupid as: and Both statements are outright lies. I never said anything close to what you deliberately and inaccurately inferred.Look, crash, I don't have time to waste on a lying son-of-a-bitch like you. So go to hell.

---

W.W.E.D.?

On reviewing all of this, I wanted to comment on something holmes said upthread:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or have you not noticed that the "attacks" are mostly coming from the right?

---

​

I don't see this as true. I regularly visit a number of news sites that are generally aligned with dems/liberals. They are going nuts on this.

---

But are democratic Congressmen going nuts? I haven't seen it. I haven't been paying particularly close attention so I'm sure I've missed a few details (which is why I've been careful to frequently include qualifiers in my comments), but I haven't been hearing a lot of criticism from democratic politicians.From what I've heard, by far the loudest voices (within Congress, at least) calling for Hastert's resignation have been republicans.

---

W.W.E.D.?

quote:

---

My read on your posts is pretty damn accurate, which is why I imagine you're resorting to playground name-calling instead of a legitimate rebuttal.

---

There is no rebuttal to be made to your bullshit. You're making stuff up and arguing with yourself, just like Donald Rumsfeld. As for the name-calling, fuck you! I've had enough of your crap and I'm not reading another sentence of your drivel.In my very first post to you, I treated you with complete respect. I only addressed you directly once, to say that I thought you and many of the republicans were going overboard in calling for Hastert's resignation. I also said, about Foley: To which you responded with the condescending:

quote:

---

Oh? You talked to them? Assessed their mental status?

---

I tried to continue being respectful toward you in my next post, saying nothing harsher than: When I dared to aver that most kids of 16 are sexually aware and quite capable of handling an unwanted, even graphic soliticitation from someone much older without being permanently scarred by the experience, you insulted me with:

quote:

---

The enthusiasm for sex with minors that Holmes and now you seem to radiate is quite creepy.

---

You then assumed an argumentative stance in agreeing with me that the Foley case is an abuse of power. In light of your attitude I wanted to publicly laugh at you for that, but on the odd chance that some degree of civility might still reside in you I let it pass.When I said that I felt parents should begin preparing their kids for dealing with potential predators by age 2 and the process should be complete by age 16, you gave me this bullshit:

quote:

---

Hey, here's a guy you might get along well with:

​

quote:

---

quote:"As for the alleged abuse, it's time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" - Catholic League president, Bill Donohue.

---

​

That bitch was just asking for it, wasn't she? If it had been rape she would have fought back. That slut. And the way she was dressed...

---

I had already said a number of times that my comments were based on the notion that no rape or even inappropriate touching had occurred. This also I regard as an outright lie, since it's a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my statements.As it happened I ignored that post entirely, wishing you'd just go away. But of course you didn't.In my very next post (to bren, by the way, not you), I said: You responded:

quote:

---

Who has, Berb? I don't see anyone in this thread who has resorted to crucifying Foley on religious grounds.

---

I don't believe I've once said anything about religion in this thread, unless perhaps within some reference to the so-called "values voters". I certainly never brought it up as a basis for crucifying Foley. Or are you of the opinion that morality can only come from religion?I began to get testy, but still tried to remain respectful in this post, but by the next round I was sick of you. I may get suspended for what I said, but so be it. I stand by it.You can respond to this if you wish, but I don't believe I'll read it.Edited by berberry, : corrected a word

---

W.W.E.D.?