La Cage Aux Foley

I agree with your assessment. This really isn't that huge a deal, and it seems to be growing way out of proportion (and I will add Dems to the list of blowers as well).But I suppose this has its roots way back with Clinton, and maybe Gary Hart. For some reason age difference became an issue with people that were clearly adults. I don't remember how many reps called Lewinski a child. If that goes for Lewinski, what does that mean for 16-17 y.o.'s?And the kicker on this one being that it's homosexual. Anyone know what this guy's position was on gay issues?Of course I am torn on this. While I am amused, and would be glad to see this take out republican power in Congress (and believe it would be justice given the topic), I am worried this will only justify and so escalate such scandal building in the future.Hmmmm, justice v honesty.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

nevermind, got answers I was looking for from berb's post in the joke thread.Edited by holmes, : nevermind

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheheh... but to be fair he could consider 16 as something other than a child. And there is also a difference between using a person in a publication for mass amusement, and two people engaged in amusing each other.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Not that we have to get OT, but I don't understand what you mean. You put gags and say it was your first reaction, but I don't see anything in my post which could elicit that reaction.All I did was suggest why Foley could have made the statement he did in crash's quote, and not believe it related to him. Isn't that possible? And why is that suggestion revolting?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree with much of what you say (along with berb). I haven't seen anything yet that is patently illegal.That said, he probably did commit a procedural error, that is he violated a workplace ethics rule.In 1983 two congressmen, a rep and dem, were censured at the same time for having sex with pages about the same age as Foley's page, one female and one male. Thus there certainly was precedent for knowing sex with pages was an internal issue.It might be noted that the gay dem congressman ignored the censure, did not resign, and went on to be re-elected 5 more times.Maybe Foley should have taken a lesson from the dem playbook.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Unfortunately I missed that part. Now it makes even less sense. Like I said, I agree. This is wayyyyyyy out of proportion, even given precedent.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I absolutely agree with your points.I believe one of the biggest problems the US has is an obsession with sex, such that it eclipses real issues. I guess its more fun to talk about, and one doesn't need any logic to support it.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

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.You can also see this within liberal media outlets (such as the Daily Show as berb posted in the other thread).What appears to be happening is that Reps are reacting for damage control and/or to pull themselves out of the frying pan. Dems are charging in to attach as many people to Foley in order to sink them all. Edited by holmes, : new to news

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

It seems to me that gatsby, and I know I, feel the "view" should be of the more important points on your list. The question is why focus on something as stupid as this? Isn't that what reps consider reps that don't go after dems in the same manner? I get your point but its a vicious cycle. In the end both sides must continue in this manner.The electorate can stop it by demanding something more important to focus on. I honestly cannot put any hope in a candidates willing to profit specifically on this issue, that they will do any better in office. They will go in with their hands tied to the same rudder of meaningless power politics.I mean really, what would this mean for any of them dealing with sexual issues as a representative? It sets it as a higher issue, which other things must be set aside for. And always in a negative hyperbolic fashion.Not to mention concerns for personal privacy.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I wish you success whatever the issue is. Heheheh... I admit that I am crossing my fingers hoping that almost anything will happen to make reps lose control of the legislature. And if this does so then so be it.However I would much prefer them to fall for so many other reasons. Heck, the way you pitched the reason for Foley and others to fall in this mess is much higher ground then what I am actually hearing out there by dems. That all makes sense. So why then are dems and other liberals focusing almost solely on how repulsive foley is and what he did, trying to demonize everyone with hyperbole about the actions themselves?You can see that in this very thread. His actions have been equated to actual rape, and the coverup being reps not doing enough to "protect children".You have shown the higher road, but the low road is being taken. I can be thankful that reps might get ousted and so return balance to gov't, but I have little hope that REASON will be restored to gov't or the people. Here is a link to a good political cartoon page. The last cartoon sort of illustrates the feeling I'm getting about this. Ironically, the GOP were shielding a gay member from attack. And intriguingly much of his stance was not Bush-republican. The guy did help gay rights and abortion rights.While conservative GOP voters might take this opportunity to ditch a "liberal" rep, my guess is they are not going to look to the dems for a replacement.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Why? Other than people are making an issue out of it, why is it actually an issue? Especially one requiring legal action?Earlier in the thread I pointed out that in 1983 a member of congress was censured for actual sex with a page, who was legally a minor in his state. He ignored the censure and went on to be re-elected 5 more times by his constituency. He and the page went to the media, since they were the pnes hyping it and said it was none of their business.I agree that a work environment should be free of harassment of any kind. Hitting on people is a human foible, and of little consequence. Repeated and pressured hitting on someone is something that ought to be dealt with. But I don't see where simply making passes at someone, especially if it is consensual activity is something meriting legal action.I think the democratic legislator took a bold stand in 1983 and he was evidently rewarded for it by the people he represents. That sort of underlines the idea that we shouldn't be forcing people into legal boxes. If his constituency doesn't care, that is enough. He is an elected official, they can take him out of his position.BTW- Check out the last cartoon in the link I gave Omni.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Neither have you. And wouldn't you agree that the IM's don't exactly indicate a nonconsensual, or traumatic, relationship?In any case, I am unaware of any evidence for PERMANENT SCARRING, which is what berb talked about, occuring through long distance media. Indeed as far as I am aware the only long term trauma suffered by sexual crime victims is due to more immediate violence within the acts, or perhaps in some longterm cases the inability of a person to escape abuse.And by longterm, it is not the length of a page's stay on capitol hill where the person really can escape any time they want. Certainly a 16yo knows how to hang up. Right, people could stay away if they wanted, or leave if they found out later. That people don't like a person and warn others to stay away from that person, does not indicate the person has done anything criminal, or in some other way demanding punishment except in a social ostracism sort of way. That is an assertion.The question of whether a nation should invade another which does not pose a direct threat, and is not acting in a threatening manner, is to my mind quite simple. The question of what constitutes harm, sexual exploitation, and what counts as "underaged" is much more complex.In fact we had laws in place that barred something like Iraq when it happened. We do not have clear laws to address what Foley did. Even dems are questioning whether any laws were actually broken.Ironically years back he could have been tagged for simply being gay, and then someone could have made the same statement you just made using that as the "misconduct". The concept of sexual misconduct is primarily a moral and subjective one and differs in definition across the nation.The fact that people are dying and that a right held by all (for centuries) is being lost is not a matter of subjective opinion, and it effects many more people.I get the hypocrisy angle you've developed, both for Foley and other reps that might be involved. Indeed I am interested in more quotes and legislation by him that focus directly on his own actions. I suppose they could be chalked up to a person hating himself, or trying to hide, rather than a reason to believe the legislation he created was correct and so should be held against him. Kind of like a white congressman that was against integration and miscegenation while having relationships with blacks. But it does raise the eyebrow.Of course he resigned already, so as gatsby suggested the story is pretty much over, and as berb suggests, there are much more important issues to be focusing on.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

1) What on earth do legal contracts have to do with having sex? There are plenty of other activities which we allow people (minors) to do without applying that level of restriction to them. To pick out sexual activity is arbitrary and based on subjective morality, not reality.
2) Why does age 18 vs 16 vs 14 vs etc have any intrinsic or objective value regarding the ability to sign contracts. You seem to think any state or nation which opposes your view regarding such an age is mistaken, why?
3) Contrary to your opinion, Minors CAN sign legal contracts... with the consent of their parents or legal guardians. Proscriptions against sex with minors have NOTHING to do with contractual law. You are simply making it up. Read histories on how they began. It was specifically to stop prostitition of minors. It used to say people of the same sex were not capable of making that choice. It used to say people of different races were not capable of making the choice. I really loathe when liberals turn around and violate THEIR own principles by suggesting existing law should not be questioned or that it holds some sort of virtue by being a law.In any case, this doesn't have to be a sexual rights thing, in fact I don't think it is.The POINT I think berb was trying to make as well as gatsby and I would agree is that this is a NONPOLITICAL and INSIGNIFICANT issue. Especially during these times. This is derailing extremely important political discussion, and setting a tone for looking at politics which is not helpful.Let's pretend for a second that Foley violently raped babies and gave them HIV. Something so outrageous I don't even think NAMBLA would want to try and defend him. This would STILL NOT be worth the amount of energy being put into it. While he should be pursued as a criminal and punished severely. As far as political discussion goes... SO WHAT? That is a PERSONAL CRIMINAL ACT. It does nothing to this nation and changes nothing with regard to the american way of life.It would be the role of the criminal justice system to address it and not Congress, not my political representatives. Same goes for anyone who might have helped him do so.The issues of Iraq and wiretapping and secret prisons and torture and tribunals have to do with US. That is a national issue and something we should really be worried about. That is what our representatives should be spending time on, and steering public attention toward.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Damn, berb beat me to the punch, but here your response is to suggest his alternative would be unreasonable? Please check out me response to your same post. I break it down point by point and I would like to see your "reasonable" answers.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Clearly we are more in agreement than disagreement in this thread. Here is a source of disagreement. While I can't argue against it in any factual sense, we just hold opposite opinions. I will try and make my position clear.I agree that harassment should not be tolerated at work. I think procedural rules in the workplace should take care of it, and so not be a legal issue... unless a person is showing that they have made a complaint and it was not addressed.I don't believe people in superior positions having sex with those below them should be chucked into a box of patent or intrinsic abuse. I don't think its realistic or humane. There are people drawn sexually to persons of power, and people in positions of power do not suddenly become eunuchs. The only question I find pertinent is if power was used to get or sustain sexual activity, and if there is a complaint regarding such.Lewinsky pursued Clinton as much as he pursued her and there was never a suggestion that he used his power to have her engage in sexual conduct.The case of Foley may be different. I find it sad that crash is so self-absorbed he misses the fact that I am open to more info on what actually happened. I disagree with his hyperbole and assumptions based on age, but there could very well have been an abuse of power. I have yet to see evidence of that, but maybe more evidence is coming?If so then he not only deserves condemnation (to my mind) for an ethical breach, but should face some legal repercussions.That said, and what I explained in a previous email, that still doesn't warrant this much national attention by political leaders. Hand it to the police if it is a police matter. Once the police have concluded their work, then deal with ethical violations of anyone who remains in Congress (has not retired).I might ask what you think about Studds (the ironically named dem congressman from 1983)? It was definitely a page and they definitely had sex. Given that they came out together to tell everyone it wasn't anyone's business and the congressman was supported by his constituency, doesn't that argue (at least a little) that superior-subordinate relationships are not intrinsically negative?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)