La Cage Aux Foley

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.?

Good post, berb. I've spent the last 24 hours trying to figure out how to say what you just said. As a college instructor, the possible violation of professional and work-place ethics bothers me greatly, but beyond that it seems to be more a matter of the usual "Family Values" hypocrisy.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

or you can be unreasonable.

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)

When the reputation of a party member is stained when he commits a crime that he was involved in passing - that *is* political. When that same politician seeks treatment and releases a mitigation statement, that is political issue. When, just before a vote, a safe seat for the party in power is in jeopardy because his name is going to be still on the ballot we have ourselves a political issue.A public servant in a party that crusades on the moral ground being involved in a sex scandal is always political and significant. It often spells the downfall of that party in the next election.What has been argued is that it is less significant and less political than other issues.That it is a personal criminal act does not mean it is not a political issue. When a public servant commits a criminal act - especially a criminal act that is so contrary to the message of the party in question - it affects the confidence people have in that party, swing voters might vote the other way. Other support voters might not turn out at all. This could begin a shift in the clichingly named political landscape. When other members of the party don't report a crime, and try to pervert the course of justice...there is a big abuse of power that may be prevalent. That's going to affect the country because it will effect the balance of power, in a potentially surprising area.The politicians should be focussing on their jobs for sure - and not scandals. The media though, is right to call this as newsworthy...though as always it has all the sensationalist spins left, right and centre

Whether it is or isn't doesn't seem to me to be the topic of the thread. If this is what you wanted to discuss all along, you should have said so. Open a thread if that's the conversation you wanted to have.On the topic of this thread, the fact that the law might be based in one person's subjective morality is irrelevant, because as one of the supporters of the legislation, the law was based in Foley's morality. If he thought it was morally proper to solicit 16-year-olds for sex, he shouldn't have supported legislation to make it illegal. You continually, and inaccurately, seem to protray this as just innocent flirting between two adults.When I was 16 I was living in Italy, and I'd traveled pretty extensively before that. So I was no sheltered teen, by any stretch of the imagination. And I have no difficulty imagining that, as a 16-year-old, if I had had a boss who was also a very powerful politicial figure, and that boss made it abundantly clear that my future career rested entirely on my decision to allow him to fondle me sexually, I would have found that a very disturbing, a very violating experience.The kind of dichotomous experience that divides your life into two sections - before and after. And you're trying to tell me this was just harmless fun? This was sexual predation. Well, Mark Foley did. Obviously we can debate about whether or not anybody should be held to anybody else's standard. But surely there can be no debate that Mark Foley should be held to his own standard? Why? If he covered up a crime and then lied about it, which he has certainly done, why should he be allowed to remain in the most powerful position in the Congress? Remember that this is a guy that's only one pretzel and one heart attack from the highest office in the land. So, you don't defend Foley, but you don't think what he did was wrong; you don't think Hastert should resign but you support calls for his resignation?I don't get it.

Let me try to be more clear, what was done by Foley was not political and not significant. His activity, even if counter to a law he passed, was not a gov'tal policy statement nor effecting the legal system.I think what has happened is an equivocation. If you mean political in the sense of social politicking, or simply "scandal involving politicians", then your point is well taken. I was referring to politics in the sense of the objective functioning of gov't as encoded in law. You've just made my case for me. Wasn't berb arguing that's not what people should be concentrating on to shake up the political power structure? Wasn't he trying to argue that it is a shame if that's what people actually base such switches on, in the face of all these vastly more important issues.Isn't that why I said "Especially during these times"? In another time with no real political-- in the gov'tal sense-- issues before us, a scandal involving a crime of this magnitude (if it actually is a crime and not a rules violation) might be worthy of more coverage and concern.Given ongoing reality, with so many real political issues, its significance as a political-- in your sense-- issue shrinks to nothing.Of course we can empower it as a political-- your sense-- issue, and many are including the media. That's why the criticism that it is being blown out of proportion.Actually I'll step back from talking about what berb or anyone else said or meant. I shouldn't speak for them. That is what I was taking from what they said. Well, I'd agree with what you just said. I'm not sure if you were meaning to add to my point or if I missed something.If anyone else helped cover up a crime then they would be sucked into the criminal case. That could very well effect voters and power balances. If all that was going on was an analysis of how this would shake out, I wouldn't feel things were being overblown.It's the fact that lawmakers and media are pushing the potentially criminal item as not only something more than it seems to be, but as a reason for political action, is where I see a problem.For example a court has just allowed the Bush administration to continue warrantless wiretaps until it can appeal an earlier decision. That is getting less coverage than Foley and who might get caught up in his downfall. Indeed items on the page program in general and its future seem to be making more headlines. I don't remember anyone saying that it was never newsworthy. At most I think people have claimed that its newsworthiness has passed. There was a greater attention at the time than it really needed, was spun many different ways, and is staying on the radar over and above more important items.My criticisms would however, would be more focused on Politicians and political orgs which are spending undue time focusing on it. A couple "liberal" sites I normally enjoy have begun to turn me off with the extent of their interest in the scandal.And I might point out that there appears to be people who aren't republicans who are not liking this tack. Is it politically-- your sense--- wise to invest in issues which are not going to motivate as many people? My hope'd be you'd catch more people by discussing flagging rights (like habeus corpus) than what a guy did using IMs to pages, and which party didn't "protect children" by stopping him from IMing.But maybe I am wayyyyy out of the loop.

---

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 think anyone has debated that 'case', have they? I know that is what I said in Message 43. You said that it was nonpolitical and insignificant. I disagreed. On the nonpolitical side it seems you meant political to mean 'the functioning of gov't as encoded in law' and not 'relating to politics'. Florida Department of Law Enforcement are conducting an inquiry to see if any of the messages occurred in their state and decide whether state law has been violated. The FBI are doing the same thing at the federal level, so I guess we'll be finding out the answer in good time. Sometimes events prove to be more significant than they should be compared with other seemingly more important affairs. I said this as support to my point that this is not an insignificant issue. Its significant. Probably not as significant as the media are making out, and the media are probably going to make it more significant than it is. I agree with that - a seeming constant truth about the relationship between democracy based politicians and a free press. The problem is that the Democrats are not trying to get Democratic voters to agree with them, they are trying to get Republican voters to be outraged enough about the Republicans that they simply don't bother to vote. Republican voters have so far been relatively unperturbed with the Republican's attitude towards previously enshrined rights - perhaps especially where it concerns non-citizens. Republican voters, on the other hand, are very vocal when it comes to moral scandals - which is why a sex scandal can be more significant to the voting landscape than a rights scandal.

You don't have to respond to me if you don't want to. And I certainly don't want to get into some argument with you.Although I think it is overplayed as a political issue, I happen to find some amount of humor in moralists getting caught in their own nets. I don't even have to agree with those nets in order to find humor in the spectacle.Thus I am not in any way rooting for Foley or anyone else. If anything I will get a chuckle and think its worth being dealt with aptly on shows like the Daily Show.If he has done something illegal, then whether I agree with the law or not he will likely get indicted and anyone else involved too. If its his law then I will chuckle. Justice served.That's why I was interested in hearing what you had in regard to his positions, as well as anything he might have done.Being interested in it from a humor angle I have checked what you have said about his actions and have not found support for your claims.The idea that pages were warned about Foley turns out to be false. Pages disputed that claim when it aired and the original source for that admitted he was told, not warned, that Foley was a little weird, flaky with no idea that he should be avoided.While it seems clear that he was a bit friendly, and made a few pages uncomfortable with familiar commentary, most seem to have had no problems with him and would even go out of their way to meet him despite some moments of awkwardness with that familiarity. None of them have suggested in any way that they were scarred from such events.It is patently clear that he engaged in sexual fantasies/flirtations with some of the ex-pages, using IMs and emails. Whether this counts as something illegal I leave to the law, but I would disagree with such laws. That it would be a law he made would--- I note again--- cause me to chuckle.There was no evidence of coercion to have sex, outside of insinuations of that by the authors of a post article. The quote you have listed and appear to take as equivalent to... ... is way out of context. In context it appears to have been a joke. You might not like the joke but it doesn't seem to be serious. The person he wrote that to does not appear to be have had problems with Foley and indeed appeared to enjoy his fantasies with Foley at the time. He certainly wasn't trying to tame down Foley and re-engaged with him in overtly sexual conversation.There doesn't appear to be any evidence that he actually tried to have sex with any of them, and in fact wrote that it was just fantasy (at the time). Thus there is no reason to suggest he was propositioning sex. A fantasy is a fantasy.Finally there is the claim that he held up a vote to engage in sexual chatting. While it appears that he engaged in that while waiting to vote, there is absolutely no evidence (that I have found) to suggest he actually held up a vote. If you have ever seen a congressional vote there is a long period to supply one, and I don't see why a congressman's personal choice of how to fill that time, or when they place their vote is pertinent. About the only thing that would be pertinent is if they showed he avoided listening to any and all debate beforehand, or totally blew off voting.If you have more concrete evidence then I am actually interested in seeing some. Not because it is an important issue, but because hypocrisy of moralists in gov't is of interest to me personally. That said, in arguing your case to berb, so far it seems like you are overstating what occured, even if you support the legislation he might get nixed 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)

With the different meanings parsed out we are relatively in agreement, though I would say that even as a "related to politics" issue it OUGHT to pale into insignifance. The resultant shakeup from a legal investigation will have ramifications that are interesting and perhaps not insignificant, but I believe advancing that as a party issue at this time is ridiculous.There is no problem with that opinion, right? I'm sure many people burnt as witches ended up overturning local political landscapes when perhaps there were more pressing issues for those communities than witches. I'm just not sure if that suggests "witchcraft" should have been promoted as part of serious political discourse.I realize an insignificant issue is being blown up into something larger than it should, that doesn't lead me to believe it should be taken more seriously, it leads me to criticism of those that are inflating it. Okay, I guess I am not as cynical as you or the Dems then. While many Reps may very well be more interested in sex than their rights, I don't believe that is true for all, and dems could lose conservatives by trying to play that card. Ironically the ones they'd lose are the ones that would really matter because those that only listen to sex scandals are the kind that buy into anything the Reps say.That's probably why Reps are now playing the same damn card right back on the Dems. And as much as they'll want to squeal that it isn't fair or logical, are the reps that don't care about their rights going to believe the dems? Or are they going to believe the rep spin?Edited by holmes, : change

---

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'll respond merely to remind you that you continue to be a participant that I have absolutely no wish to discuss anything with.

Fair enough. Out of consideration I will not hit reply to your posts in the future. My intention was not to reply to your posts except in limited fashion anyway, but I will refrain from direct replies entirely.If I have an issue with some factual issue you bring up and I wish to address it then I'll disassociate it from you and your post.If you ever feel like responding to any of my posts at some point in the future, feel free. I will not discuss personal issues and stick to factual points.I would ask in return that you not refer to me, or what you believe are my positions in your posts to others.

---

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

None, whatsoever. It doesn't! I am in agreement that the thing that should be causing the shakedown should be the personal rights issues. However, voters don't seem to respond to media outrage at personal rights issues. Of course, they do - but not nearly in as near numbers a sex scandal can.I don't have to like it, but sex is always going interest more people than taking away the rights of non-citizens. That being the case, politics being politics exploits that to a level that people start seeing what they are doing and it gets irritating. As such, sex scandals are often more significant than actual political scandals. Though of course, a large political scandal is far worse than most sex scandals for a politicians career - but large political scandals are fewer and further between than sex scandals...probably because large political scandals can often be newspeaked away in the spin machine. That can happen with sex scandals too, but its much harder to play down the spin than it is to play up. Cigar, anyone? It most definitely is not true for all! However, there is talk of a safe seat being lost because enough Republican voters might not want to put their cross next to Foley's name. The Dems will probably lose some conservatives, they may also win some republican biased swingers too. We'll have to see how far it gets egged - negative campaigning is quite the rage, despite the protestations of many that dislike it. Well - so far the rep spin wins. But it's the third period and there's everything to play for...or some other fitting sporting analogy.