Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Good one, a wonderful example of the humorous uses of equivocation.

Posted by: dogscratcher | September 30, 2006 11:34 AM

Re Dreier and Shrock.

How about Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman?

Posted by: SLC | September 30, 2006 3:11 PM

If what Foley did was a crime (and it might, under laws he sponsored), then the cover-up might rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. So far, we know of five Republican congressmen who knew about this and kept it quiet. Who else in congress knew? Who knew in the national Republican party and in the Florida party? Did Ken Mehlman? Did Jeb Bush? This cannot be allowed to disappear into a do-nothing ethics committee run by other Republican congressmen. It need to be investigated by law enforcement and the the press.

When rep. Alexander found out that Foley was hitting on one of his pages, his action was to notify the head of the House Republican reelction committee, not the ethics committee. That should tell you all you need to know about the party of values.

Posted by: John McKay | September 30, 2006 8:26 PM

Ed:
Several comments. First, I entirely condemn Foley's hypocrisy, his sponsorship of anti-gay legislation. And I equally condemn the actions of Hastert and others in covering up something which they made -- which, I believe Foley was instrumental in making -- a crime.

What bothers me about the comments here and on other blogs about this was the action of liberal Democrats -- such as myself -- and small-l libertarians in being so shocked about the age of the other people. They were SIXteen. Not 12 or ten. They were above the 'age of consent' in most of the states of the country -- including Michigan. More importantly, they were sixteen, and maybe some of you will at least remember what you were like at that age, and probably a couple of years earlier. (I'll accept condemnation from anyone who will make the following statements:
a: that they were in fact a virgin at that age
b: that this virginity was deliberate, arther than simply a result of being unable to find a willing partner
OR c: that they will state now that they regret having lost their virginity earlier and would, if given the chance, choose to keep it.)

The IMs that were published show that the boy was fully aware of who he was talking to, and was as obviously interested in the conversation as was Foley. They were fully consensual, Foley was not, in this case at least, using his position to influence them -- unless they were simply flattered by a Representative being turned on by them -- he was not pretending to be a young boy himself, he was not even, apparently, trying to set up a meeting. Even if he had actually had sex with the boys -- I have just learned about the story today and haven't read all the ramifications -- I have seen no suggestion that it would have been anything but consensual -- and I am very strict in my use of that term, since i consider lying, unwanted use of alcohol, or any other factor that involves deceit or the like to be the ethical equivalent of rape.
The reaction of some of you might not be bad, if it weren't the same neo-puritanism that leads to the idea of 'abstinence-only' sex education, who treats teenagers having sex the way blacks voting was treated during the civil rights era "It wouldn't happen if it weren't for all these damned outside agitators, they'd never want it for themselves."
Condemn Foley for hypocrisy, for fostering homophobia, for playing into the hands of the radical religious groups, and I'll join you. Question his taste and the boy's and I can't argue -- especially since I haven't seen a picture of Foley.
But if you play into the denial that teenagers are naturally sexual, if you 'just say no' to them, you abandon any possiblity of teaching them actual sexual ethics, (meaning that sex involves respect, responsibility, and honesty) and you make it impossible to even talk to them about the considerations they should keep in mind about whether they should 'give in' to their urges or think about them and make that decision sensibly, whichever way it goes. (And you don't get the chance to argue that they should respect another person's decision whether or not to have sex and with who.)

Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | October 1, 2006 2:27 AM

The irony is that there is a Federal statute which was broken here which prohibits adults from soliciting children under the age of 18 using email or other electronic media. One of the prime sponsors of this law was, of course, Mark Foley. This karma thing is starting to make sense.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2006 2:14 PM

The IMs that were published show that the boy was fully aware of who he was talking to, and was as obviously interested in the conversation as was Foley. They were fully consensual, Foley was not, in this case at least, using his position to influence them -- unless they were simply flattered by a Representative being turned on by them -- he was not pretending to be a young boy himself, he was not even, apparently, trying to set up a meeting. Even if he had actually had sex with the boys -- I have just learned about the story today and haven't read all the ramifications -- I have seen no suggestion that it would have been anything but consensual -- and I am very strict in my use of that term, since i consider lying, unwanted use of alcohol, or any other factor that involves deceit or the like to be the ethical equivalent of rape.

I don't have all the facts on this case, of course, and I haven't read the IMs you speak of, but you may want to check out this page.

Posted by: Skemono | October 1, 2006 6:01 PM