Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    on those fancy little Brookings/NYT graphics on the State of Iraq..., 2006-10-02 15:26:22 | Main | refusing to back away from the stated Hamas goal of destroying Israel..., 2006-10-03 20:05:32

    sick sick sick sick sick:

    The WSJ opines:

    in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails

    A little too friendly? Ha ha ha. As Jon Stewart pointed out last night [@4:40], "equating a 52 year old congressman who preys on 16 year old boys with being gay may be one reason why the GOP is accused of gay bashing".

    Then, of course, they indulge in what we might call moral equivalence:

    the Floridian has now resigned in disgrace and is being criminally investigated.

    This is harsher treatment than was meted out in the past to some Members of Congress who crossed another line and actually had sexual relations with underage pages. Democrat Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was censured in 1983 for seducing a male teenage page, but remained in the House for another 13 years and retired, according to the Boston Globe

    Gerry Studds, in 1983 it was discovered that he had had at the wrinkly old age of 36:

    a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates. ... As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.

    10 years after the fact the seducee stands beside the seducer and tells everybody to piss off on his behalf, without joining other victims - because there were none - in notifying the House leadership about their flakey colleague and, furthermore, not being ignored for over a year by said leadership, having never complained about it in the first place. Ahh, victimless crime. Other than those minor, minor differences the circumstances are almost exactly alike, like all those other circumstances the WSJ could have chosen to compare it to.

    Perhaps we should join the WSJ in supporting the re-election of Rep. Mark Foley so that he can be merely censured. Those 16 year olds were just playing hard to get anyway, I'm sure if we give him another year he'll find one who appreciates his breezy, easygoing style of discussing masturbation and commanding subjects to strip naked. The latter should be enough to bring our attention back to the real matters at hand, such as our new official national pasttime. But this begs a question: how are we going to stop our intelligence community from committing torture and abuse when we can't even stop it in congress?

    Though perhaps before bringing him back to his seat in the house - and I realize this sounds like too harsh a punishment but an example must be made - he should be put through finishing bootcamp first. It's no wonder he hasn't had any luck, those IMs are sick.

:: posted by buermann @ 2006-10-03 18:52:10 CST | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info: