WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-10-04 06:15:18 +0000

Newt (our old friend) said the same thing on Fox. The poor Republicans were afraid of being labelled anti-gay by kicking up a stink over a child-predator, so instead they waited until the media got hold of the story, and wound up getting labelled anti-gay by equating gays with child-predators. Niiiiice. When Clinton got kinky with his intern - Were there snide comments that Southern men can't keep their hands off "the help"? Did anyone imply that all straight married men should be carefully monitored for potential intern-shagging? No. Has anyone else seen the Jon Stewart clip featured on Huffington Post? Hilarious. "Pages are the fluffers of liberty" indeed. I just noticed Foley's crying "Priest!" Should we expect a WSJ opinion piece on how Catholics can't be trusted around kids?

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-10-04 06:30:07 +0000

PS - should I feel bad for laughing out loud at this?

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-04 07:27:11 +0000

Wait, how old was Miss Monica Lewinsky? Stewart, as usual, hits with irony and good olde fashion satire on the hypocracy plaguing the Republican leadership. Thanks for the clip, pamsterdam.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-04 13:21:50 +0000

The pages are above the age of consent in most of their Congressional districts.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-04 16:09:20 +0000

I am glad to see Foley go, I dont condone Foley's actions, and I have 100% respect and support for the gay community. That said, I'm thinking Democrats ought to be careful about throwing stones, as their collective halo is slipping. Straight from the Washington Post...

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-04 17:06:18 +0000

So your point is that there are more Ds than Rs on that list? Remind me again which party has benefited the most from grandstanding on these private matters? The WSJ definitely deserves a stoning for conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. --- Foley had online sex with persons that have yet to be shown as minors. Not sure why he had to quit... Yes, it's "icky" but I can't see what laws he broke. I think it's conservative Republicans calling for Hastert's head, not Dems.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-04 17:23:03 +0000

You're joking, right? You're digging up a 1998 story? "Slipping"?! How are the Dems slipping now? "Careful throwing stones"? What are you talking about? Isn't it the GOP that's throwing stones? Look MF DU, we understand you'll defend the GOP no matter what, but let's be serious.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-04 17:37:20 +0000

I wont defend anyone no matter what, and you've completely missed the point. You've never heard the trite "Watch your Halo, it might slip and choke you" phrase before? Slipping wasnt meant in some covert political suggestion - you added that to my meaning. Icky and dicey inappropriate sex scandals plaugue both sides of the political spectrum. end of story. If people were to read this and only see yr posts, they would only be getting half the picture.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-04 17:53:05 +0000

Again, how is the Dems halo slipping _now_? You are incorrect; to read our posts you would be getting the whole story on Foley and the WSJ's disgusting attempts to spin this. So why are you doing the same with an awkward 1998 piece?

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-04 17:56:17 +0000

My post(s) say nothing of the WSJ's article. If y'all want to stone them, fine, but please comment on what I wrote. Was Conor's original point (aside from the obvious fact that he strongly dislikes and disagrees with the WSJ)that the Republican party (via 'Foley's continued exploits' as the thread'stitle partially reads) done a really bad thing here? I would answer absolutely they have. I'm just saying that the political alternative isnt offering all wholesome and chaste figures either. If you guys see my pointing out the other side of the argument as apologizing for the Republicans, than that is yr rightful point of view and I respect that. I see the two parties on this matter as coke and Pepsi - take yr pick they are both pretty reprehensible.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-04 18:46:00 +0000

ConorClockwise does not mention the Republican Party in his post. His point was to disagree strongly with the WSJ aspersions against homosexual men. I can see after 6 years of Republican rule that the negative sense of "exploits" will bring to mind the GOP (Great Old Perverts), but I don't think that was his point.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-04 18:58:07 +0000

Point taken. It seems that whenever there is a problem with the Dems, MF DU points it out specifically. When there is a problem with the Reps, MF DU says its a problem of government - classic GOP damage control. I understand MF DU wants to spin things for his party, but it seemed out of place here.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-04 19:58:23 +0000

A few apologies and some clarification,on my (hopefully)last take on this so I can get back to music, movies, and bullshit: For this particular issue, Democrats have done nothing current to suggest that their halo is slipping and I apologize for posting this inaccuarcy. From a semantic standpoint, my initial post would have made more sense if I said 'Historically, I'm thinking Democrats ought to be careful about throwing stones, as their collective halo on sexual scandal has slipped just as much as Republicans halos have slipped. It is true as tgl mentions that in Congress Republican scrutiny on Foley is just as intense, if not more so, than Democratic Congress scrutiny. I also need to apologize for posting most of the subject matter that I have here under this particular thread, as I agree that this is a bad (even terrible) WSJ piece that I don't agree with. However: What is this "spin things for his party" stuff? I do my best not to post things here that will result in pointless confrontations like the one we are having right now. Can you show me a thread I have started (meaning not responding to one that has already been created) in the last month or so where I have pointed out problems I specifically have with Dems? Do you think sometimes I might be playing devil's advocate? I dont think the WSJ should have printed that editorial at all. Just because I say from a historical perspective that one side of the political spectrum is just as guilty of this type of the other, I am viewed as some kind of poster boy for things that Conor disagrees with. I feel that this is a very cut-and dried, absolutist way of looking at things: either you post your concurrence with the facts I have presented you in my post, or we will lambast your statement, paint you as an apologist, and suggest that I have some kind of interest in "spinning" a conspiratory agenda. Total bullshit.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-10-04 20:01:47 +0000

i heart MFDU

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-04 20:24:42 +0000

Careful pamsterdam. MF DU could be a teenage male Congressional Page.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-10-04 20:27:01 +0000

HEART is an acronymn for: Hopeful Every Adolescent Realises Truth. I didn't say "I am" because teenagers hate the verb "to be".

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-04 20:45:10 +0000

Well, then I disagree with your assertion that from a "historical perspective" the Dems are as bad as the GOP. Sure, the Democrats have had their fair share of lecherous individuals. However, it has almost always been the Republicans who latch onto sexual scandal. Republicans are the ones who get hot and bothered by this stuff, and then turn around and moralize against it. The "halo" I'm concerned about is not which side transgresses more, but which side uses these transgressions to take the spotlight away the important stuff. Which side uses anything that has the merest hint of sexuality to steer debate from issues that are important to those that are merely prurient. It's not the GOP per se, but the Religious Right that they have come to depend on for elective victory. The GOP panders to socially conservative voters with shameless degeneration of homosexuals. Without that support they can kiss their legislative majority (and that 2004 presidential victory) goodbye. I have a hard time reconciling someone's "100% support .. for the gay community" and a vote for the GOP at the national level. Sorry. What's most galling is this sort of thing (gay marriage! presidential blow jobs! abortions! fornication! online sex!) are some of the most trivial things that effect the strength of this nation. Does anyone doubt that the teenagers Foley has had contact with electronically would have been engaged in the same conduct regardless of who was at the other end of the computer? I feel like we've wasted the past 10+ years breathing heavily about non-existent issues. And I blame the Republicans for that..

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-04 20:54:45 +0000

Sorry - I guess Im not done yet: "I have a hard time reconciling someone's "100% support .. for the gay community" and a vote for the GOP at the national level. Sorry. " Kerry was just as dead set against gay marriage as Bush was - you think for one minute that Kerry would've blazed trails for the inequalities that gay people suffer every day? I say without any trepidation that any tax paying citizen of this country should have the same rights as everyone else. period. fiscally conservative / socially liberal. It is very sad that republicans pander to the religous right. It's one of the all time political bummers IMHO. But should I vote Democratic just because of this? I haven't yet been swayed. I felt Kerry would've courted that group shamelessly , but when push came to shove he would slight them. Better to have someone that you absolutely know is an adversary than someone you're not sure about so you can at least plot your course using reliable information.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-04 21:13:18 +0000

I'm not advocating the Dems anymore than you are advocating the GOP, MF DU. I know Kerry is not a trailblazer for gay rights. I know that Bush has flamed (sorry for the pun) homophobia to stay in power. Let's be clear-eyed: there is no national politic candidate that is going to champion gay rights the way we'd like them to be championed. That doesn't mean that one candidate can't be more gay friendly than another. If anyone thinks that the guy from Texas is better for gays than the metrosexual from Boston... well, you're entitled to your opinion. I voted for Kerry, so I give myself a "75%" in support of the gay community.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-04 21:34:48 +0000

"Kerry was just as dead set against gay marriage as Bush was." Patently false. Kerry never supported the gay marriage amendment, and refused to support people who did. "You think for one minute that Kerry would've blazed trails for the inequalities that gay people suffer every day?" Absolutely. Kerry would have squashed the "Don't ask/Don't tell" policy in the military, one of the last openly discriminatory policies of our Fed Gov. "I say without any trepidation that any tax paying citizen of this country should have the same rights as everyone else. period." Then why are you supporting the GOP, the party that wants to amend the constitution to explicitly take rights away from people? It would seem if this were your belief you would be set against it, like Democrats, Libertarians, Green/Rainbow, etc... Look, I understand no one agrees with a singular party's policies completely, but to favor Reps because you support something they do (ie. Iraq War, raising the middle and lower class's tax burden, ignoring the Geneva Convention, guns, tobacco, fossil fuel energies, etc.) while they hinder gay rights, is not "100%" IMHO.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-05 01:28:52 +0000

"but to favor Reps because you support something they do (ie. Iraq War, raising the middle and lower class's tax burden, ignoring the Geneva Convention, guns, tobacco, fossil fuel energies, etc.) while they hinder gay rights, is not "100%" IMHO." wow - when did you become clairvoyant? You have gleaned little information about me as a person if this is how you are summing me up. Also - how freeking likely will it be that GWB et. al will be able to amend the constitution on this matter? I saw this as a red herring in the 2004 election - something to placate the religous right. Banning gay marriage or flag burning or whatever you can think of saying nuh-uh to is EXTREMELY difficult to do by design of the forefathers' Constitution. Is it sad they feel they have to say stuff like this to get votes? absolutely. Hell, in a 100% idealistic world, I know I am being a bastard for voting for a group of people that would even hint at crap like that, but all that stuff is a distraction. I got news for you, it ain't gonna happen. If that was in the cards,don't you think they would have already done it when the approval rating was less abysmal and not near an election period? It would have miserably failed then, much less now.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-05 02:50:10 +0000

So Bush's support for a Constitutional ammendment is merely political posturing to win an election? Just where _does_ Bush stand on gays? And the nervousness about Kerry was what again? Whether or not the Constitution can be amended is one thing (How many State constitutions will be amneded is another...). Doesn't Bush signal disdain for gay rights with his support? What happened to the Presidential Example? I thought Clinton's poor example is one of the reasons we got Bush in 2000. --- The voting booth is excruciating calculus. I think the weight you've assigned gay rights is incorrect, that's all. --- I really can't allow myself to claim support for gay rights with one measly vote for Kerry. If I'd be honest, I need to take into account all the other things I do (or haven't done): * send in a check to the ACLU * send in a check to HRW * get one of those blue stickers with a yellow equality sign for my car * contact my representatives in Washington, Boston, and Lynn City Hall about my concerns * not be so embarrassed when my college roommate posts a "LGBT" poster in our dorm room window * subvert he Righteous Breeder culture So, honestly, my support for gay rights is probably down below 30%.

Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-10-05 03:31:49 +0000

Hey, everybody, still 22 minutes left in Stone Wednesday!

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-05 04:45:39 +0000

"wow - when did you become clairvoyant?" You have gleaned little information about me as a person if this is how you are summing me up." I'm summing up your stated position, not yourself, MF DU. Since you always take the "facts-be-damned" GOP POV, (here falsely equating Kerry and Bush's stance on gay rights), it seemed you were not just playing devil's advocate. Comforting to think you do not agree your argument.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-05 03:48:12 +0000

I'm doing everything in my power to comply. I'm merely holding Peter's Mead, however.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-05 13:31:18 +0000

David Link in the Glob Op/Ed page makes my point far better than I could. The GOP's insistence on keeping the closet door closed forces gay men to explore their sexuality in inappropriate ways. In the GOP gay Congressmen like Mark Foley are left with no options but to seek affection by using their power to manipulate youth. Barney Frank's transgression was to pay for sex from a consenting adult. There is no comparison.

Posted by G lib on 2006-10-05 13:55:51 +0000

Since Rideside Ref seems to be ignoring this thread, I'll do the honors: Personal attacks are lame. Stick to the subject, gentlemen. Take a page from the tgl book.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-05 14:04:06 +0000

I honestly dont think TGL is trying to justify Foley, but you have to admit that an unfair / insensitive environment for homosexuals in congress is a poor rationale to explain manipulating youth. Im assuming an individual such as Foley, capable enough to get himself to a high political status could have used some of the same professional discipline he used to advance his career to using some free will and discretion in his personal life.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-05 14:05:14 +0000

Hey! I put one of those posters in my dorm room and pissed off my conservative roommate!

Posted by Rideside Ref on 2006-10-05 16:29:58 +0000

Impersonating a referee. Ten post penalty. Repeat third down!

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-05 16:48:54 +0000

Here here!!

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-05 17:32:08 +0000

Where where?

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-05 17:32:47 +0000

Reply to the post to which you are replying!

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-05 17:33:10 +0000

Reply to the post to which you are replying!

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-05 17:56:18 +0000

I was replying to G Lib.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-05 18:04:31 +0000

So was I. "Where where?" was to rib you for misspelling "hear" twice.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-05 18:07:22 +0000

Craziest Conspiracy Theory of the Year - nominee: Hastert suggested that operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and might have been behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 elections, but he offered no proof.

Posted by The Edge on 2006-10-05 19:57:15 +0000

It is baffling how The States get so upitty when it comes to queers. America's attitude towards gay rights is horrible, and neither major party (Democrat nor Republican) has been supportive. True proponents of gay rights will find another political affiliation to support. However, the American Republican party appears to court and at least allow those who openly discriminate against queers. I do not completely understand how to amend the Constitution, but if it is nearly impossible, why does it come up? What is so revealing about the discussion on this page, is that this government employee has broken no laws and has physically harmed no one, and there is still all this ado. Simply stated, he is gay in a country that wants to disowned him.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-05 20:06:47 +0000

'True proponents of gay rights will find another political affiliation to support.' I couldn't agree more. It has finally happened folks, I am on the same side as the guitar player from U2.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-06 03:38:08 +0000

Just to make this interesting... Foley did nothing wrong. The pages were above the age of consent in DC. As far as we know, there was no physical relationship. Yes it's "icky", but no laws were broken. Foley resigned of his own volition which should make this easier for the Republican leadership, they don't have to impeach him now for a private matter unrelated to public service.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-10-06 04:15:08 +0000

Wow. Very humbling. Has a member of U2 (not Bono!) swayed me to vote for Grace Ross?

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-06 04:53:38 +0000

I'm leaning towards Ross right now.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-06 13:24:07 +0000

This is not true. Is it legal to be gay? Yes. Is it legal to be gay, and have icky, albeit above the age of consent, pedophilic tendancies? Yes. Is it legal to proposition direct subordinates in the workplace, particularly those who are working for no money, just your recommendations? No. It's sexual harassment. Age and gender be damned.

Posted by G lib on 2006-10-06 13:41:34 +0000

here, here! Sexual Harassment is exactly what it is.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-06 13:43:53 +0000

Where, where?

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-06 13:53:33 +0000

So, after re-reading TGL's post and the op-ed glob piece, I am still needing to ask: why is it ok to use a stifiling and unfair environment as a rationale / explanation for harrassing and socially unacceptable behavior while in the workplace?

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-06 15:04:44 +0000

None of these pages were in the direct employ of Mark Foley. None of it occured "in the workplace". Is this guy a creep? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-06 15:10:22 +0000

Debate, FOX News style: Why is it _not_ OK to point out that an explaination for Mark Foley's behavior might be attributable in some way to the environment in which one is placed? It's nature versus nurture. If an Iraqi War veteran comes home and starts shooting his rifle at the neighbors frequenting the bar down the street (this happened in Haverhill, right?) we assign some explaination to the trauma induced by war. I think it's OK to do so in this case, too. Explaining behavior and making excuses for behavior are not the same thing.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-06 15:17:39 +0000

Sexual harassment does not need to pertain to a direct subordinate in order to be illegal, merely a subordinate position. All pages are subordinate to all congresspeople. Sexual harassment need not occur in the workplace. The purpose of sexual harassment laws is to protect people who feel that they can not spurn advances without negatively impacting their work environment. This is illegal.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-10-06 15:20:04 +0000

In your first post on this subject, I saw what you were getting at. However, since there was no clarifying statement such as 'Explaining behavior and making excuses for behavior are not the same thing', The point the op-ed and the first post were making could easily be misconstrued as not taking ownership of one's behavior. I agree that in a more hospitible environment, it may have been easier for Mr. Foley to behave. but regardless if something is easy or difficult to do, everyone gets to answer for his or her own behavior at the end of the day.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-06 15:59:03 +0000

These emails came _after_ the pages left Washington. They were no longer "working". (OK, I'm making that up, at least some emails and IM chats were after the boys left town, I don't know if it was all). I haven't read all the transcripts. It sounds like the boys that enjoyed the sex talk went with it. The ones that did not, ended the communications, successfully. I can see how they might "play along" in order to get a good recommendation or use in future employment. Surely no one stays a Congressional Page forever. It might open doors to be on the Congressional staff, so to speak. So, yeah, if there is evidence Foley ran aground of sexual harrassment laws, then so be it. --- Did anyone see the interview a couple nights ago with a Congressional Page familiar with the charges. He was wearing a "BY PAGE" t-shirt. Wasn't sure if the pun as intended.