When I heard that Representative Mark Foley of Florida had resigned because of sending explicit emails to congressional pages, I thought I was caught in a time warp. This isn't the first time that congressional pages have been on the receiving end of lecherous congressmen.
The last time there was a story of this nature was in 1983. At that time, there was actual sex that took place. The two congressmen were Dan Crane (Republican, Illinois) and Gerry Studds (Democrat, Massachusetts). Rep Crane had sex with a seventeen-year-old female page, and Rep. Studds had sex with a seventeen-year-old male page. Newt Gingrich demanded that the two be expelled from congress. The house voted on July 20, 1983 to censure both men. Crane's constituency voted him out of office in 1984. Studds' more liberal constituency re elected him to his post, and there he remained until he retired in 1996.
As I was researching that bit of information, I found that there have been a lot of sex scandals involving members of congress. Although there were only two cases of pages being used as sexual playthings, I was amazed to discover how many other congressmen had problems keeping their zippers up. For those who would like to see the list, here is the link I followed, which is also the source for the information contained above.
I need to say a few things before I get into the meat of my article. First, I am not one to cast aspersions on people's sex lives. What someone does in the privacy of whatever private place they can find is their own business. Goddess knows I have had more than my fair share of some pretty raucous sexual misadventures. I don't necessarily want the world to know the full depth of some of them, but I'd never deny them if I was called on the carpet. Being a homosexual, I can understand the kind of hell "coming out" can bring upon a person.
However, using under-aged individuals as sexual playthings is revolting to me! Even though Rep. Foley only sent "explicit" emails to the objects of his attentions, and reportedly did not have physical sexual contact with his victims, it's still wrong. It's even worse when one considers that he was co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Here is a man who is supposed to be the champion of missing and exploited kids, and he's right in there with Chester the Molester getting his jollies over sixteen year old boys.
That's not the worst of it. There have been allegations that House Speaker Dennis Hastert knew of the dirty deeds months ago. Beyond that, according to another story on the subject, the first time Rep Foley's actions were noted in late 2005. At that time, a young man from Louisiana received emails from Foley that the boy said, "freaked me out."(1) There are also allegations that there was an attempt made to cover it up to avoid even more embarrassing press for the Republicans in the upcoming midterms.
Senator Harry Reid called the Foley case "repugnant, but equally as bad is the possibility that Republican leaders in the House of Representatives knew there was a problem and ignored it to preserve a congressional seat this election year. Under laws that Congressman Foley helped write, soliciting sex from a minor online is a federal crime. The alleged crimes here are far outside the scope of any congressional committee, and the attorney general should open a full-scale investigation immediately."(2)
And I agree completely. It's about damned time that at least one of the illegal activities of our government should be investigated.
Isn't it funny though how it's always the sexual peccadilloes that prompt investigations? A war gets started on trumped up intelligence, and there's no investigation. A president tells a vice president to out a CIA operative, and there's no investigation. A president repeatedly lies to congress and the American people, and there's no investigation. A congressman writes sexual emails and instant messages to teenaged male pages, and boy howdy, now congress is falling all over itself to get an investigation going. Of course, they only call for this investigation after their attempts to keep it under wraps until after election day fail miserably.
I think when the history books are written about this period in time, they are going to comment heavily on the level of mendacity and ethical violations of the federal government. Lack of ethics in government is nothing new, obviously. However, the depth of ethical and moral violations of this present governmental iteration is without peer or parallel. The only period of time that even approaches this level that I can recall was the Nixon Administration.
Isn't it funny how the "law and order" Republicans are ALWAYS the ones doing the dirty deeds? Nixon had full knowledge of the Watergate break-in. Ronny Ray-Gun dipped his hands in the cookie jar with the arms for hostages deal, then used his favorite phrase, "I don't recall" to worm his way out of it. Of course he didn't recall. He was suffering from Alzheimer's even at that time.
And now, we have the wholesale ethics travesty that is the DUBYA administration. From lies about Iraq, to treason in outing a CIA operative, to allowing poor people to die in New Orleans, and all the other things he's done, he holds the record I am sure for illegal activities in office. Even the Republicans in congress can't keep their noses clean anymore.
And now this. While DUBYA probably wasn't involved with the affair, Rep Mark Foley is, in fact, a Republican. Not only that, in an ironic twist, he will face federal charges for violating laws that he himself helped write. I think it's hilarious. How could he possibly think he wouldn't get caught, or have to face the music for his actions?
The level of hypocrisy brought forth by the "law and order" Republicans has now gone right past ridiculous and headlong into sublime. I guess it just goes to show; the empty cans rattle the most. If they keep shooting themselves in the feet, they are going to have to be brought into congress in wheelchairs.
Keep in mind that we deserve the government we have. It represents us. The reason these sex scandals are so hyped up vs. other crimes is, that these stories are a huge, gigantic 'turn-on' to the public. They sell like crazy! I do not believe that as many people as you think are repulsed by those 'instant messages'. In this case, the kid is really still a kid. He is not only a 16 yr.-old. And what Foley is doing cannot be found in the words..only in the context. You can only imagine what else he has done. I doubt he even is an alcoholic. The rehab serves the purpose of confidentiality. In this case serving Foley. Often, it serves only the rehab, and the abuse going on inside.
Have you ever looked at the art from the 'Middle Ages', and when the Catholic Church took over Government. They kept and financed the 'whore houses'.
The monestaries and nuns especially were a favorite place for buisiness. In some of the art, incest is portrayed. Usually, the cause is always the evil woman, and the male is always anywhere from ancient, to ugly, to the devil himself.
She is responsible for that. Enough is enough. katrin
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 522 comments)
on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 9:15:15 PM
Keep in mind that we deserve the government we have. It represents us. The reason these sex scandals are so hyped up vs. other crimes is, that these stories are a huge, gigantic 'turn-on' to the public. They sell like crazy! I do not believe that as many people as you think are repulsed by those 'instant messages'. In this case, the kid is really still a kid. He is not only a 16 yr.-old. And what Foley is doing cannot be found in the words..only in the context. You can only imagine what else he has done. I doubt he even is an alcoholic. The rehab serves the purpose of confidentiality. In this case serving Foley. Often, it serves only the rehab, and the abuse going on inside.
I must say I am not sure how to take your comment, but I will attempt to speak to it.
We don't get the government we deserve. We get the government that is sold to us. When we can only choose between Beelzebub and Mephistopholese, we have to decide whether we want to be governed by the lord of the flies, or the tempter of the clergy. That's no choice.
The reason sex scandals get our attention is because sex sells. While I could go into the many theories on why this is, suffice it to say there is something about the lurid that we all find irresistable. It has been this way since sex was turned from a means of procreation into a sin. It wasn't that way before that. One need look at Frescos in Rome to know this.
The only people I can think of who aren't repulsed by this is members of NAMBLA. I am sure that there are a few of them wanking in ecstacy over the thought that someone in power was making a play for underage boys. They are also probably wishing they had gotten a crack at the pages themselves.
What Foley was doing can't be found in the words, only in the context? WHAT? "Take off your boxers and relax," doesn't require context to understand. "Get out a ruler and measure it." doesn't require context to understand. "I'm as hard as a rock," doesn't require context to understand. What does?
Come on here, how much more obvious can he get? You'd have prefered he'd have said, "I want to deep throat you until my nose is buried in your pubes?" Would that have eliminated the need for centextual interpretation?
I don't believe he's an alcoholic, either. I think he's trying for a sympathy play. In any case, he violated a trust, and made unwanted and unnecessary advances on kids. Once again, we are living in modern America, not ancient Greece. Until such time as that changes, and until such time as it's legal to do underaged kids, pedophilia is a crime.
Have you ever looked at the art from the 'Middle Ages', and when the Catholic Church took over Government. They kept and financed the 'whore houses'.
Yes, and the Catholic Church at one time not only sanctioned gay marriage, they made money doing it. I have also seen much art from the middle ages, as well as ancient Greek and Roman times. Obviously they had different social mores than exist now. What's the point?
The monestaries and nuns especially were a favorite place for buisiness. In some of the art, incest is portrayed. Usually, the cause is always the evil woman, and the male is always anywhere from ancient, to ugly, to the devil himself. She is responsible for that. Enough is enough. katrin
Forgive me for saying, but I still don't get your point. What are you trying to say here? To me, it looks like you are trying to take a feminist point of view on an issue where women had no involvement whatsoever. While all of these things may be true, I fail to see what they have to do with Foley's one handed typing exercises. If you could clarify your statements, I'd truly appreciate it.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 3:55:14 AM
I want to begin by publically apologizing to Rob for the message I sent about my article and whether or not it was going to be published. I was a little off my rocker today, having had a few things go wrong, and I spoke a bit out of turn. I will endeavor to not let my typing fingers overrun my good sense.
Foleygate just keeps getting better. Right after he abruptly resigned, he checked himself into a rehab claiming he was an alcoholic. Ok, good for him. I have been sober twenty-one years as a result of working the AA program of recovery. I am always happy when an alcoholic gets with the program.
Then today, I read in Yahoo news and hear on ABC's national news that Foley is making claims of molestation in his younger years. Supposedly, he was "abused" by a "clergyman" between the ages of thirteen and fifteen. Since he is a Roman Catholic, one can assume that he meant to say "priest" instead of "clergyman". Why he didn't go for the monosyllabic word is beyond me. Perhaps it's the gift of gab that is supposedly held by those who inhabit the halls of congress. Maybe it was actually a bishop or a cardinal; they are clergymen as well.
Ok, first off, I was "molested" when I was six by an eighteen year old male who lived across the street from my house in the Old West End of Toledo, Ohio. I put the word "molested" in quotes because it was not a violent act, nor was I forced or cooerced. However, the truth remains that I was involved in a sexual act with an adult while I was still a child. It happened more than once over a four month period.
Also, as I said above, I have been sober through AA for over twenty-one years now. While it could be argued that I was never really an alcoholic as I never puked, got into an accident, or received a DUI, I did drink to excess, and I did drive drunk on more than one occasion.
In the case of Foley, though I don't see his revelations as anything other than attempting to either shift the blame from himself, "I did it because I was drunk," or it's an attempt to get sympathy and perhaps a reduced sentence for his deeds "take pity on me because I was a 'victim' of molestation myself."
First of all, "I did it because I was drunk," is no excuse whatsoever. How many drunk drivers have killed others knowing when one gets behind the wheel of a car when intoxicated, death can be a result? Does society or the courts excuse vehicular manslaughter because the perpetrator says he was drunk? No! As a matter of fact, in some states, they come down on you harder if you were driving drunk and killed someone or many someones.
Secondly, "I was molested when I was young," is also no excuse. Take it from someone who knows, being molested as a child is a very traumatic experience. I spent many years of my young adult life trying to reconcile what happened to me, and trying to understand why an eighteen year old would want a six year old to fellate him. I am sure that in a way, that experience in my life may have helped to feed my alcoholism and drug addiction. It also brought about the need for psychological counselling for about ten years.
However, as an adult, I have not wanted to have sex with anyone under the age of eighteen. To be honest, I am not interested in anyone under the age of twenty-five, and even that's a bit too young for me. While there is some evidence that the molested molest, I know many people, both men and women, who were molested in their childhood, and do not find it necessary to perpetrate this pernicious deed on other innocents. Like me, they are completely repulsed by the idea because they remember the heartache it brought upon their lives.
So I don't really buy either story. Why did he wait until he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar (or on the keyboard in this case) until he sought help for these life problems? If they were causing so much trouble, why not seek help instead of making a nuisance of himself?
I think it's all a ploy for sympathy or lighter sentencing when he does go to trial. It's all too convenient to cry the blues about one's disasterous life when you are in handcuffs. I see it all the time when I watch Cops. I don't buy it from hookers or street criminals, and I DEFINITELY don't buy it from a corrupt government official.
Some may think I am being heartless on this issue. Some may think I should show compassion or feel some sense of either sympathy or empathy for him. I'm sorry, but I just don't.
There comes a point where the principle of personal responsibility has to come into play. He's a member of the Republican Party, and they are all about personal responsibility. It was his responsibility to do something about his behavior before it became a problem, not after.
It reminds me way too much of Flush Lintball crying the blues when he got busted for doing more OxyContin than even dying cancer patients can handle. Here's a man who calls everyone who suffers from addiction a criminal, and when he winds up being the junkie, then everything is suddenly different. We are supposed to graciously offer him up the sympathy and empathy he couldn't afford to give to others whom he judged so harshly.
I don't feel sorry for Mark Foley in the least. I feel sorry for the kids he victimized. I feel sorry for kids who were put in an incredibly uncomfortable position by someone whom they were supposed to trust. I feel sorry for the kids who were too afraid to speak up for fear of retribution by the Republican Party. These kids have a desire to get into government (goddess knows why), and with the way the Republicans like to smear people, threaten, and cause job loss to whistle-blowers, they felt as if all they could do was suffer in silence or risk watching their dreams fall at their feet.
As responsible as Foley is for what happened, Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House is just as culpable, if not more so. He knew at least in the summer of 2005 that there were problems. Instead of dealing with the situation then, he did what the Republicans do best, swept it under the rug, and threw up a cone of silence. With other reports saying that these things were happening as early as 2002, one has to wonder about the kind of person or political party that would allow this to continue for as long as it did.
This is especially true given the Republican propensity to gay bash. How many times have they brought up the issue of a constitutional gay marriage ban? How many times do they bow like sycophants to the whims of the Religious Reich? Oh sure, they can gay bash when it's not one of their own, but when it is, it's a game of look the other way and titter in private over the lustful actions of the "dirty uncle".
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 3:28:23 AM
Foley's actions are reprehensible. Now stepping forward his attorney is attempting to show how Foley too is a victim. Foley was, of course, molested and has an alcohol problem. How convenient. Amazing these "problems" were not brought to light until now. He deserves the MAXIMUM punishment of the law he supposedly help to write regarding this very crime.
Question: Do you find the timing of this to be political? Did the Dems know and hold close to the chest until weeks before the election? Just wondering. I think we are not thru finding out who knew what, and when.
As the link helps to illustrate, you can't trust any of them.
by
sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 95 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 2:36:00 PM
Question: Do you find the timing of this to be political? Did the Dems know and hold close to the chest until weeks before the election? Just wondering. I think we are not thru finding out who knew what, and when.
As the link helps to illustrate, you can't trust any of them
Do I find the timing of this to be politically motivated? Yes, in a way, I suppose it could be seen as a case of the Democrats pulling a page from the Republican Political Playbook as written by Hot Karl Rove. There is a possibility that some Democrats may have also known.
However, I am going to say that since the Democrats are kept continuously on the outside looking in, the likelihood is greater that they were in the dark. While I have shown on more than one occasion that I hold many in the Democratic Party in contempt, with the present political climate in DC, it is much more likely that they didn't know of the dirty deeds done dirt cheap taking place. I am sure that rumors fly in DC as they do everywhere else. We all know that it's difficult to separate fact from fiction when it comes to rumor. "Where there's smoke, there's fire," isn't always necessarily true.
I think what is more important is the fact there was a verifiable cover-up on the issue by the Republicans, specifically Dennis Hastert. With the number of Republicans stepping up to the plate and admitting they heard what was happening and reported it to Speaker of the House, there can be no denying that Foley's actions were known to others in the Republican Party, especially Hastert.
Whether or not the timing was politically motivated is nowhere near as important as whether or not the allegations prove to be true. All's fair in love, war, and politics.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 4:03:47 PM
Question: Do you find the timing of this to be political? Did the Dems know and hold close to the chest until weeks before the election? Just wondering. I think we are not thru finding out who knew what, and when.
As the link helps to illustrate, you can't trust any of them
Do I find the timing of this to be politically motivated? Yes, in a way, I suppose it could be seen as a case of the Democrats pulling a page from the Republican Political Playbook as written by Hot Karl Rove. There is a possibility that some Democrats may have also known.
However, I am going to say that since the Democrats are kept continuously on the outside looking in, the likelihood is greater that they were in the dark. While I have shown on more than one occasion that I hold many in the Democratic Party in contempt, with the present political climate in DC, it is much more likely that they didn't know of the dirty deeds done dirt cheap taking place. I am sure that rumors fly in DC as they do everywhere else. We all know that it's difficult to separate fact from fiction when it comes to rumor. "Where there's smoke, there's fire," isn't always necessarily true.
I think what is more important is the fact there was a verifiable cover-up on the issue by the Republicans, specifically Dennis Hastert. With the number of Republicans stepping up to the plate and admitting they heard what was happening and reported it to Speaker of the House, there can be no denying that Foley's actions were known to others in the Republican Party, especially Hastert.
Whether or not the timing was politically motivated is nowhere near as important as whether or not the allegations prove to be true. All's fair in love, war, and politics.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 4:03:49 PM
and I admit, they are not as clear as thought they were.
1)' We get the government that is sold to us.'
That is surely not limited to Politics. Step one: "We admitted that we were powerless over everything we buy?" Government, religion, psychiatry and psychology (religions), and education. That did not begin with Bush!
example: 'abuse'! how totally overrated and misunderstood is this world. I see 'abuse' first as a symptom of neglect. Almost anyone can survive abuse if they can outlive it. But neglect is a different story. We are all guilty of neglect.
(As in cover-up, or not 'believing' evidence, as in Vietnam PTSD veterans, as in what I myself went through. The betrayal and neglect is what kills you in the end. Foley is no more than a symptom, really, as bad as that is in itself. I believe in the statement: 'Only the truth can set you free'. The truth does not lie with Foley; he is only a small part of it.
2) words and context:
You used a good example in: "I want to deep through you......" In comparison to the words Foley used, your are as innocent and harmless as 'Sesame Street'. Those words can hardly hurt a kid...they would make him 'hang up'. His words, and his means are those of the worst kind of predator. I mean, in the context, the story is a lot worse than the words..to a point that they make 'deep throat' seem innocent.
3) Middle Ages:
History repeats itself. As far as I am concerned, we have regressed developmentally exactly to those 'Middle Ages'...as long with our intelligence and 'common sense'. (and, that such sciences as psychiatry are actually a practice of religion, more than anything else. The shame is, that there is so much to those fields, and they could be practiced as sciences). Then there is an example of a drawing from the 'Middle Ages', where three higher priests, or church fellows (I don't know the correct wording), examine a woman for marks on her body, and in order to determine if she is indeed a witch. You cannot put 'the truth' into words; you have to see the drawing. But while these three old men are examining that female body, their faces are filled with sexual greed, desire, and 'orgasms'.
4) feminist?
No, not at all. It's about blame. (Although when it comes to the church and Bible, women are clearly a source of blame) that already begins with Adam and Eve, and when God throws them out of Paradise, because they ate the 'forbidden fruit?'...obviously intercourse? (Sex is sick. I do not find anything disgusting at all with the ways of the Greeks. Quite obviously, they didn't either. But I do with us and the Middle ages..the twisted.. etc.) Old testament, cont.: ' Women shall forever be punished through labor pains?' If God created us in his own image, does that mean he screwed the Devil? I do. Foley has a history and is alcoholic? We blame it all on Bush? these are only random examples...not edited.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 522 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 6:14:45 PM
What other word can one use besides "abuse"? Foley abused his power, abused the trust of the American people, and abused the kids to whom he sent his messages. And yes, almost anyone can survive abuse if they outlive it, or are able to live it down. However, not everyone has strength of character that it takes to survive. I have known many people who have been victimized by pedophiles. Some get over it, although like me, it tends to color some parts of their lives. I know others who have smoked on the business end of a firearm because they could not handle what happened to them.
Foley is both a symptom of the problem, and the problem itself. He is just one more shining example of the rampant hypocrisy and mendacity that is congress. He also exposed the deeper roots of the problem. I think it is fair to say that fact might be the best thing to happen to congress in a while. The lurid nature of his deeds insures that there are going to be some heads rolling. For that, I have to thank him.
It doesn't matter what words he used. What matters is that he used them and his meaning was clear. Yes, the pages in question could have ignored him, but what repercussions would it have brought to bear? He was a powerful man, and I am sure he had power enough to lay waste to the political dreams of some of the pages in question. Besides that, we are talking about immature kids. They don't have the wisdom that comes with age, although I am sure this event will provide some.
Yes, the bible is hard on women. What do you expect? It was written by male scribes. It was translated by males. It was copied and edited by males. Most of these males were monks or priests, and they held a low opinion of women to begin with. It is no wonder the bible reigns as one of the preeminent misogynistic works of fictional literature.
The worst part about this whole debacle is the cover-up. I think the fallout from the investigation is going to clear out a lot of bad apples. It won't get rid of them all, but to be sure, there will be some heads that are going to roll. This is a good thing, and it has been needed for some time.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 2:18:26 AM
Pappi (that is what I called my father)....I totally agree with all you are saying; I am really only expanding to it. When I say something different, I am not taking away the words that are already there, you see. xxxKatrin
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 522 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 3:01:19 PM
You got it, hon! I wouldn't date a known pedophile anyway. He'd bring home one of his dates in diapers, and that would be the end of it. Hehehehe!
No, I have no interest in Hastert, either. Even though I do like a bigger man, he is just to big and too pasty looking for even me to consider. He is up there on the list of men who I'd pay money NOT to see naked! LOL!
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Saturday, October 7, 2006 at 2:41:25 PM
