I have a question for you. How many of you actually care about the Foley thing that is on the front page of every newspaper? I mean, sure, yeah, if the guy’s sexually harassing someone (regardless of that someone’s age and/or gender), then he should be gone. And yeah, okay, if the G.O.P.’s party leaders knew what was happening and did nothing about it, then they should be gone too.
But here’s the thing, I can’t say I’m outraged about the whole thing, though apparently, I’m supposed to be. Howard Kurtz, the “Media Notes” columnist for the Washington Post, writes:
It’s no surprise that liberal bloggers are having a field day with this, but I sense genuine outrage on both sides of the political divide, rather than the usual ginned-up partisan sniping. We’re talking about kids here, not negotiations over some pork-laden appropriations bill, and about adults who failed to act when kids were being sexually stalked, at least electronically.
Now, I’m a liberal blogger, right? But no one can accuse me of “having a field day,” especially since this is my very first post on the topic. I’m sorry, but I just can’t get “outraged” at an individual’s sexual indiscretions. Okay, sure, the guy’s hitting on a kid, and that’s creepy, but I’m not one of those people who thinks pedophiles are evil. They’re a reality, and they must be dealt with by any civilized society, but they aren’t the devil.
I think what bothers me about this is the way the media is focusing on it. It’s been a lead story for, what?, like a week now? I understand that it’s a sexy coverup story, and every investigative journalist on the planet loves to blow open a coverup. I also understand that the timing of this thing plays right into the hands of the Democrats, coming as it does just a few weeks before the mid-term elections, and so part of me should be grateful for the exposure.
But a larger part of me thinks the scandal will just keep people away from the polls on election day. It increases the country’s sense that all politicians are slimy, and the coverup by the G.O.P. further reveals (for those who might have had some doubt) that not even the party that stands for family values has any sense of moral decency.
I don’t know. The whole thing just reminds me so much of the Clinton thing. I just can’t bring myself to care. Can you?
29 Comments
I am not outraged, but I have to disagree on pedophiles not being evil. Just like premeditated
murderers, and anyone that can kill puppies. Cats on the other hand…..(just kidding although I hate cats)
Clinton’s transgretions came between two adult people, so while the madia coverage might be the same the action was not.( nothin really happened I know but the intent was there) The main thing with Clinton is that he lied but thats a different issue.
All politicians at the upper levels suck, they have been twisted by the power they have and the process of getting it. They have to be morally fucked just to be able to raise the money needed to win. 190 comments damn I need a life.
I’m with you…the only thing this scandal shows is that this Foley character shouldn’t ever hold office again…or possibly walk the streets (depending on how deranged he is). It s ridiculous to make this a party issue - regardless of the timing…I would hate to be grouped in with any group of people - becasue as we all know, groups of people have tendencies to do destructive things…as do individuals…here are a couple of sentences that are just plain silly:
Mark Foley’s electronic correspondence with teenagers, intensifying an investigation into a scandal rocking Republicans five weeks before midterm elections. (rocking the republicans - shouldn’t it only be rocking Foleys’ family and friends - as well as the victims family and friends - or is this like flying colors)
Republicans have been struggling to put the scandal behind them (huh? - have they ALL been sending these emails)
There were signs of concern among Republicans, as well. (there were, amazing)
The uproar that followed Foley’s resignation has enveloped Republicans who were already at risk at losing control of Congress in elections five weeks away. (you know, one bad egg…..)
it depends…
i don’t care enough to strangle my every waking moment with thoughts of foley listening to mother goose albums on itunes and rubbing the pastry over his pants while he licks his computer screen with thoughts of young men… - but… - heck’n aye… - we’re talking about a man who makes important decisions… - about the war… - about the economy… - about society… - and here he is… - dancing naked to madonna’s “vogue” and video taping it for his secret little easter bunny…
thumbs up foley… - thumbs fuck’n up…
One on-line dictionary defines the word, Evil, as- “morally bad or wrong; “evil purposes”; “an evil influence”; “evil deeds”
Based on that definition of the word I would have to say that pedophiles are, in fact, evil.
Anyway the next step for touchy-feely guys who solicit illegal sex over the internet is meeting with/having sex with one of their contacts. So I say, make an example out of this perv and hope that it helps others.
As for him being a Republican? That’s just plain funny. Those guys are supposed to have high moral standards. But, of course, they are so against everything that they are repressing themselves and feeding the beast within. Like the Catholic priests.
…top story, maybe not. But an important story non-the-less.
Traffic and taxes are a reality of civilized society. Preying on young kids is evil.
I have a tough time using the word “evil.” It makes me think of that kid from The Omen, like pedophiles are born that way. I’m pretty sure Socrates enjoyed fondling the nuts of the handsome young boys of ancient Greece, and yet, we don’t consider him to be “evil.”
I’m not saying the guy doesn’t have issues. I’m just saying that the word “evil” (like the word “God”) is what some people use when they no longer want to face the tough problems.
Oh, and one more thing. While the newsmedia is busy getting its rocks off on the Foley case, it’s stopped reporting on the fact that the Congress removed the right of habeas corpus and is allowing the Executive Branch to commit torture whenever it sees fit (provided, of course, that no one is raped or murdered, because that’s just not nice).
i thought they only suspended the right of habeas corpus…
i was under the impression that that ugly manuever was subject to change if the democrats take back the congress next month…
am i mistaken?
Everything except what’s in the Constitution is subject to change if the Democrats take back the Congress. Hell, they could get rid of the Defense budget, if they had enough votes.
The right of habeas corpus is suspended for unlawful enemy combatents, but the President is in charge of saying who is an unlawful enemy combatant. So, the FBI could come to your house, arrest you without charging you with anything, and then throw you in prison where you would have no rights (not even the Geneva Conventions, since the President gets to interpret that however he wants), and where you could sit until you rot.
Reminds you of the glorious days of medieval England, huh?
so… - they can… - in fact… - overturn this?
When so-crates fondeled nuts it was common practice and allowed. This being the case young people would not have to live with the shame of being fondeled.
Of course. The bill itself [which you can read in full at the Library of Congress' website] overturns previous laws. Within the bill, there’s a section titled, “REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.” If the Democrats take control of Congress, they could pass their own bill with a section entitled, “REVISIONS TO THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 RELATING TO MATTERS OF HABEAS CORPUS.”
Of course, you have to remember that 32 Democratic House members voted for the bill (you can see the way the votes worked out here), and 12 Democratic Senators did too (inlcuding Lieberman; you can see the vote tally here). So while we can say “Let’s take back Congress and change this law!,” we have to realize that 32 + 12 Democrats are in favor of this law.
A fair point, Justin.
Kyle that is just wrong. Habeas corpus is just the right to challenge imprisonment right? Last December, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act. It requires that the military must grant each detainee a Combatant Status Review Tribunal at which to challenge his detention. Assuming the military’s CSRT process determines he is properly detained, the detainee then has a right to appeal to our civilian-justice system — specifically, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And if that appeal is unsuccessful, the terrorist may also seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court.
Also you act like this is something new, enemy combatants have never
had these rights, ever.
From the latest bill (which makes changes to the Detainee Treatment Act): “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
“Determined by the United States” - the process of detemination is through a military tribunal (a tribunal established by the President and/or the DOD — and we know how trustworthy they are), and at this trial, the following rights do not apply:
Further, the bill also states, “No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.”
While the bill does say that the accused has the right of appeal, it prevents the accused from having the right to a speedy trial, so while the appeal may be filed, it could be a matter of years before the appellate court gets around to actually looking at the case.
With all that being said, I haven’t been able to find how all of this pertains to citizens of the United States, so the nightmare scenario I described to Dave may, in fact, be wrong. But that’s only because he was born here. If you’re an immigrant (not an illegal one, mind you, but just an immigrant) who has yet to become a citizen, then this may pertain to you.
How trustworthy are they, I do not know. Until someone comes up with a better system I have only a small problem with it. You tell me a better way to defend ourselves against people who knowinly target cizillians then sign me up.
Also I think the Combatant Status Review Tribunal is the DOD. After that the person can then have an appeal through a regular appeals court. So it really is the same thing.
Also and plus this is nothing new, why the outrage.
In reverse order:
First, it’s new to me. So, that’s why the concern (which is a much more applicable term than “outrage”).
Second, yeah, the review tribunal is DOD, and then the appeals through D.C. and possibly the Supreme Court, but again, with no right to a speedy trial, an innocent person can rot in jail.
Third, I don’t find them to be trustworthy in any way, shape, or form. This administration can’t even be trusted to keep a C.I.A. agent’s name secure if it suits them politically to release it.
Fourth, I have a problem with “military tribunals,” but then again, I have a problem with dealing with terrorism using the military as opposed to the police (like the British do). The accused should be charged in front of a citizen jury, and the accused should have the right to see the evidence against him or her. Anything less and justice is subject to subversion.
I am going to bet it is not the same person doing the hearings as who leaked the CIA’s name. You can not lump all the people in the DOD into the same boat, that is not right. I think Most of the people have worked in the DOD for years not just with this administration. Its not like they all left with Clinton and then A whole new department came in with Bush. The top guys(rumsfeld-bush) are not going to sit over every case and give the thumbs up or down like fuckin ceaser
Police will not have the same information that the military does, the british have had some experience with Irish and that worked out well. What 80+ years of bombings and killings. Yeah thats the ideal system to follow.
So the big problem is they may or may not get a speedy trial? Price to pay in my opinion and it would help deter people from even associating themselves with people who might want to kill us. Well us over here in populated areas, I do not think they are targeting rural vermont.
The President is responsible for convening the military tribunal, so if he wants someone to go away for a while (for whatever reason, lawful or unlawful), he can convene a tribunal of just those officers who are willing to follow his orders. I’m not saying everyone at the DOD is a slime-bucket, but I am saying that this Adminstration has no problem finding a few slime-buckets when it needs to.
When I say “police,” I include the C.I.A and the F.B.I. The British MI5 division prevented the attacks last month from taking place over the Atlantic. The British experience in Ireland was not what I was talking about, since that was a military-based operation.
Price to pay? For what? They haven’t gone to trial to figure out if they’re guilty yet! Or did everything change in this country so that a person is guilty until proven innocent? And why should people be deterred from associating with people who want to harm the United States? If anything, we should bring them closer into our circles. Perhaps then they would see what real Americans are like, as opposed to The Great Satan they’ve been told about.
But they are not citizens so they are not covered under the constitution but thats besides the case. Shit most of the people in Cuba are here from afghanistan, Iraq or abroad. They are not US citizens and are not on US soil. If they have been designated as targets then they should be held. If this was in place in 99′ through 01 9-11 would not of happened. I am not sure how I fall on this subject. I know that it is wrong but if it was not done and someone detonates a huge bomb and kills my friends or family shit I don’t know.
You are right about the irish and it being military, but I think the CIA is no better then the DOD and they might be worse. Also where do you think the british sends their suspects? Thats right cuba, they are able to handle things that way because they have us to take their people and then refuse to take them back. http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1886238,00.html
The CIA is where the DOD will be getting its information anyway. The CIA and fbi are really not involved in the courts, while the military has its own system already in place.
I also do not think the president will preside over every case. I just do not see the huge deal.
I understand the frustration, but you have to realize something: there is no such thing as 100% safe. A major terrorist attack on American soil was only a matter of time. But think for a moment about the real danger to our friends and families. It’s not Al Qaeda. It’s the dude who walks into the school and shoots everyone. It’s the drunk driver. It’s the meth-addict breaking and entering and then committing violence when someone walks in.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to defend ourselves from Al Qaeda and their ilk. But we shouldn’t give up our humanity in order to save ourselves. The fact that we condemn torture is what makes us better (or did, anyway). The fact that we think people are innocent until proven guilty is what makes us civilized. The fact that an individual has the right to know why their freedoms are being curtailed is what makes us enlightened.
My argument is basically Ben Franklin’s quote, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security,” mixed with H.L. Menken’s, “”The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”
The argument about “military” vs. “police” undergirds our entire approach to the terror question. By making it a military issue, we drop bombs and kill. By making it a police issue, we investigate leads and hold trials. The former creates more terrorists (as the last week’s intelligence report says), while the latter locks them up.
The C.I.A. does suck, it’s true. The whole secret prisons thing comes to mind (secret prisons that the bill we’re talking about makes legal again, by the way), as does, you know, assasinations of South and Central American reformists and our actions in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, not to mention COINTELPRO. But my point is that the entire method should be through investigation (C.I.A., F.B.I., Secret Service, etc.) and criminal prosecution (civilian courts), and it should not be filtered through the Pentagon.
Wait, we are not picking up people at random. There is investigation first usually by the CIA, its just they get housed at military places because we are at “war”.
If I hear that fuckin quote one more time Ill shoot someone. It is one of those idealic fore father expressions, like all men are free. Except for my slaves. I don’t expect to be 100% safe but I do expect for this government to take some action. If that means rounding up people from other countries who have/or planned on killing me then whatever.
We are not giving up our humanity just because a person does not get a speedy trial. Especially when they are not citizens of this country. If the people locked up are guilty, and I bet 90% + are then I am fine with it.
The point about the other threats, they are the price to pay for living in a civilized society. They are random acts not really planned attacks on civilians. Seriously if osama just continued to attack military targets I would not feel as strong about this. But when you take a plane with one of my family friends on it and crash it into a building I feel a little different.
This thread has gotten way off off topic.
+1 for my comment count.
Good point Josh.
Bringing it back, let me tell you another thing that bothers me about this Foley thing, and possibly leads to my lack of outrage.
The kid we’re talking about here was sixteen, right? Sixteen. Not six. In a culture where Britney Spears is a sex symbol at sixteen, where people counted down the date to the Olsen twins 18th birthday, where Lindsay Lohan’s breasts are a topic of debate, and where we all dreamt of Denise Huxtable (well, Dawn said she did, anyway), can we really get morally outraged when a dude is turned on by a sixteen year old?
Sure, be pissed because the fucker is an old man. Be pissed because, as a Representative in Congress, he obviously had influence over the page, which is the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace. But don’t be pissed because the kid is sixteen.
If the kid was a hot little blonde chick, this story loses 1/2 of its scandalous nature. Not all of it, of course, because, well she’d still be sixteen, and he’d still be an old congressman, but a lot of it would just not be there. And that’s a lot of what bothers me about this. The hypocrasy.
I agree, Kyle. If this was a “she asked for it” case the attention would totally be shifted and the blame be put on the girl. However, in the same way that it was cool to
fondle some nuttage under a tunic b in the d, it is “acceptable” (at least socially) to chase
young, hot skirt these days (see above mentioned pigeon-toed sex symbols). Most of the anger and hate towards this dude derives from the “gay thing”. And, considering that we don’t live in the most gay-friendly culture, it’s easy to understand why this man is “evil” by today’s account. Imagine if it was a gal on the other side of the tube — are you givin’
props? Cuz you no somebody would be.
Not to beat a dead horse but I’d like to throw in a few comments even though this thread is a few days old -
I have to agree with Kyle that I don’t feel like Foley is evil. To say that the person is just evil makes it easy to distance ourselves from the whole thing. Good people can do evil things. Maybe if society accepted this, pedophiles could seek help before things got out of control.
A professor of mine from UNH was just arrested for picking up what he thought was a 12-year-old girl. He was really a nice guy - honestly, he reminded me of Steve Fesmire. Can you imagine if you just found out that Fesmire was arrested for something like that? It is just so surreal and impossible to believe - why? because pedophiles are evil. This guy was nice so he can’t be a pedophile.
Sexual desires are strange - Most people I know have been through some turmoil over desires that exist when they shouldn’t or desires that are not there when they should be. OK, so acting on those desires is obviously voluntary but maybe finding some common ground would bring us closer to understanding the problem.
Of course, I come at this as a “sexual deviant” myself - don’t get any crazy ideas - I’m a lesbian. Imagine for a minute that the rest of the world is gay and being straight is morally wrong. You somehow can’t control your attraction for the opposite sex despite everyone telling you that you’re going to go to hell for it. Your parents and friends have threatened to disown you so you live your life as a gay person just to fit in with society. You continue to have gay sex just to please your family and friends and wonder over and over why it just isn’t “doing it” for you, why you’re such a freak. Would you be able to stick to it - abstain from hetero-sex for your entire lifetime? Now, granted, those are consenting adults, that is why it is OK for someone to be gay and NOT ok to be a pedophile. I just keep thinking that I’m awfully glad that I got stuck being attracted to women though. I know that I didn’t have any choice or control over it and I’m damn-thankful that I don’t have to figure out how to live my whole life never acting on those desires.
It is probably possible, with support and therapy, for a pedophile to control their actions (out of a genuine desire not to hurt anyone) but when a person is told that they’re simply evil enough times, they will inevitably start to believe it.
And yeah - in Foley’s case, these kids were 16. Considering how long this was swept under the rug as it is, my guess is that we never even would have heard about it at all if they were girls.
Right on….its funny how many “desires” in this world are categorized as good / bad / controllable, etc…when in fact, they are simply desires and the rest of us should be glad as hell that our desires are accepted by society. Forget about hetero sex, what if masturbation was condemned as immoral and illegal (as it was I think at some point) - I mean, how many people do you think were constantly breaking the law (I’d be doing hundreds of consecutive lifetime sentences) Anyway, the point is dead on - many of these actions are wrong in the sense that they can hurt someone else BUT it does not make the person inherently evil, it makes the person in need of help in controlling those desires that can cause pain, while trying to find less harmful ways of expressing themselves, sexually that is. Because everyone needs SOME way to express themselves sexually. Well, except for priests - who (LUCKY FOR alterboys) don’t need to sexually express themselves - they are fullfilled by their reciprocal love with god.
well, except for my defrocked cousin Jimmy - but thats another story.
one last thing - big ups for UNH - fellow alum here and glad to have you commenting on the site Lindsey - and one more thing, have you been reading about this David Ball guy - he’s a WR for the UNH football team and he just broke Jerry Rice’s collegiate reception record, pretty impressive stuff…looks like he’ll be going pro next year.
thats all.
Can a person be nice in all aspects of their life but be evil because they give into sexual desires that chances are could ruin the other persons life? I think people are evil if they can do that just to fufill a personal desire. Maybe its the actions that are evil, if a pedophile has genuine desires not to hurt anyone then they wouldn’t be evil. If they can fight urges like the rest of humanity then they are not evil, but to seduce, kidnap, or rape a child takes a person that has serious issues.
Maybe evil is too strong and should only be used for the worst of the worst. I don’t know.
I can see your point comparing the sexual desires but my personal opinion is one is healthy and one is not. One is destructive one is productive so while they are both desires there is the issue of right and wrong. I mean deep down the person must know that doing that is wrong, so maybe its the ones that do not feel regret who are evil and the rest are just weak.?
Justin - I do understand what you’re saying and I absolutely agree that the actions are horrible, even evil. I’m not trying to make it sound like it is OK or even “not that bad”. The part that I’m not sure about is if there might be a better way to solve the problem by looking at it a little differently.
If an alcoholic or drug-addict feels too ashamed of their actions to seek help, they tend to just sink further into their addiction.
I suppose that the alcoholic who just doesn’t care probably is evil though - they may ruin the lives of their family, friends, others (especially if they cause a car accident). It is one thing if they feel like absolute scum for it but totally different if they just don’t care. I see what you’re saying about regret - I think that really does separate the evil ones from the ones that have a treatable addiction. I guess I just like to hope that most of these guys fall into that “addiction” category rather than the “don’t care” category. Maybe that makes it easier for me to deal with the whole idea of them existing at all.
Adam - That UNH football news is really cool - I hadn’t heard anything about it yet but I’ll be sure to look it up online for more info.