So today in synagogue, we have the day of atonement. And we pray to be better people, and for tolerance and, and a world of peace. We speak about “sins of injustice” such as waging war upon others or trying to use violence to change things.
And I come out of syngague, and into a world where sins of injustice are presidential policy, and a madman shoots children in Amish Country, and an art teacher loses her job–her contract terminated–apparently because a parent complained that their child had been exposed to nudity…during a class trip to an art museum (the school board claims “other reasons” were involved, but this is an award winning teacher of 28 years’ standing; the claim rings false.)
The problem with a day of pondering one’s own sins and shortcomings is that it prompts you to resolve to try and do better…and then you come out into a world aligned against such philosophies. It says something when the only place where utopias exist are in the pages of a prayer book…or fantasy novels.
PAD
• 
Well, no one ever said being good or working toward a good world would be easy. But that’s one of the reasons it has to be done. We just try to live the best we can and hope it will change things around us.
It’s all about hope, man. It’s potentailly the most powerful emotion in the world.
Bill, I probably oversimplified transubstantiation a bit in my haste, but, c’mon, I’m at work right now. I never meant to imply that Catholics believe that the wafers and wine take on the physical characteristics of Christ’s flesh and blood. And I don’t think any reasonable person would infer that from what I wrote.
No, your post was fine, but I’ve seen people actually ask whether or not Cathlics belive that if CSI ever did an analysis of a communion wafer they’d all say “Hey! Someone cut up the Son of God into tiny bite sized pieces!”
Transubstantiation is fairly complicated to me and fairly goofy but hey, every religion should have at lest ONE goofy premise, just so the boys at South Park can illustrate it with the “THIS IS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE” caption.
Sorry you had a bad work day. I didn’t think you were being snippy. Not like that time when I took back my concession over the national election anyway.
Bill Mulligan– Does that mean Heaven’s Film Library has also refused to accept delivery on the (3) STAR WARS Prequels too? If so, then I’m IN!
No, because in heaven, people would finally stop griping about the Star Wars prequels and realize that it’s okay that George Lucas made movies that they don’t care for, just like it’s okay that there are thousands of other movies out there that they just don’t enjoy and never will.
In heaven you two better be sitting way in the back of the theatre, ’cause I’m allowed to use a tazer on people who argue/talk/use cell phones during the movie.
You mean you’re not allowed to use them now? No wonder I keep getting thrown out of my local multiplex!
Bill Mulligan wrote –
“Heaven also has the greatest film library ever AND I get to periodically wipe my memory clean and watch films as if for the first time ever.”
Nice! I’m in, Bill! There have been a few times in recent months when I’ve wished I could see a movie or television show “for the first time” again.
“In heaven you two better be sitting way in the back of the theatre, ’cause I’m allowed to use a tazer on people who argue/talk/use cell phones during the movie.”
Believe me, if you ever found yourself in a movie theater with me, you wouldn’t hear a word out of me. Talking during a movie is a big no-no with me.
Heaven also has the greatest film library ever AND I get to periodically wipe my memory clean and watch films as if for the first time ever.
FINALLY, an idea of Heaven I can actually get behind. What do I have to do to be one of the elect?
TWL
Nah, I’m gonna still gonna dream of my version of Heaven. I like a heaven with no Star Wars prequels.
Sorry for the extra “gonna”. I was just so excited to start dreaming again.
Meanwhile, in the Cineplex 7 in Hëll:
1- Gigli
2- Glitter
3- From Justin to Kelly
4- Alone in the Dark (Special Directors Extended Cut)
5- Can’t Stop the Music
6- You Got Served
7- Battlefield Earth
Also, the popcorn has too much salt and the drink machine is broken. Again.
Thanks for the clarification, Bill. I suppose my confusion stems from the fact that, in the church in which I was raised, we did not have confession, and the function of confession was sort of wrapped up in communion, putting more of an emphasis on the “commune” part. While taking the bread and wine (according to belief) one is supposed to remember and confess one’s sins (silently. No talking with your mouth full) before God and promise to make an honest effort to do better. Probably an oversimplification, having been quite a few years since I was studying up for baptism, but that’s the general gist of it.
Of course, much like many here it would seem, quite a while ago I found myself with less and less use for organized religion, choosing, instead, to talk directly to the Big Guy without intermediaries mucking up the whole process. 😉
Oh, and (the other) Bill, don’t forget the special Wednesday night double feature: Caddyshack 2 and Blues Brothers 2000!
-Rex Hondo-
“In heaven you two better be sitting way in the back of the theatre, ’cause I’m allowed to use a tazer on people who argue/talk/use cell phones during the movie.”
No worries; in the TV show Firefly they explained why this was impossible:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0579532/quotes
I don’t know. Cineplex 7 in Hëll doesn’t seem that bad. I’ll take Battlefield Earth over House of the Dead any day.
Meanwhile, in the Cineplex 7 in Hëll:
1- Gigli
2- Glitter
3- From Justin to Kelly
4- Alone in the Dark (Special Directors Extended Cut)
5- Can’t Stop the Music
6- You Got Served
7- Battlefield Earth
At least we don’t have to worry about #7, It will already be full of scientologists.
JAC
According to Catholic theology, the wafers and wine retain their outward appearance and physical characteristics, but in substance they become Christ’s actual body and blood. There is no scientific basis for this, of course, which is why Catholics refer to it as a “sacred mystery.”
Alan Moore had a cool riff on that in “V For Vendetta”. When V got around to the former priest of the internment camp, he first engaged his victim in a prolonged theological discussion, touching particularly on Transubstantiation, and the idea that for it to work, the worshiper had to really believe. Then he fed the priest some cyanide communion wafers.
The head detective discussing the case later, after they’ve listened to the recording of the event: “And when they looked in his stomach, you know what they found? The wafers were still made of cyanide.”
Bill Myers: “I may not believe in Catholicism anymore, but I nevertheless agree that science is only one prism through which to view the world.”
Or as Mr. Spock once said to Lt. Valaris. “Logic is only the beginning of wisdom.”
–Captain Naraht
P.S. Didn’t Sheppard Book (from Serenety/Firefly) say that there is a special place in Hëll reserved for those who talk in movies? Then how does Bill Mulligan get to tazer people in Utopia? Do they bus them in from Hëll? Does Bill Mulligan’s Utopia have a contract with Sheppard Book’s Hëll?
In the meantime, organized religion becomes the scapegoat for abomindable personal behavior, as Matt Foley endeavors to tar the Catholic church with the brush of his own behavior. While speaking out of one side of his mouth and accepting responsbility for his actions, he chooses to announce suddenly that he was molested by a priest in his youth. Between announcing that he’s an alcoholic and now this, it comes across to this observer as desperately trying to paint himself as an emotional, victimized cripple.
Oh, and he’s gay, which must have gay activists around the country cringing. Just what they need: more fuel for the concept that gay men are pedophiles (although Foley claims he isn’t; it makes you wonder just how long it’ll be before the first guy who steps forward and announces he was molested as a teen by Foley). What’s the next announcement? That he’s a sex addict? The neighbor’s dog made him do it?
But I’m still suspecting the GOP politicos who knew about this are not going to step up and resign. If there’s anything they excel at, it’s shirking personal responsibility. I can’t wait for them to try and find a way to blame it on Clinton.
PAD
>There have been a few times in recent months when I’ve wished I could see a movie or television show “for the first time” again.
Ah but that’s the sign of a truly good film as far as I’m concerned. Even when you KNOW the surprises, it still hits you. SPECIAL BULLETIN, CITIZEN X, V FOR … and so on. Heck, I know exactly how each and every effect in 2001 were made, but I still ‘believe’. It’s that good.
Whether anyone should resign is still a matter of debate–if the “this” in “the GOP politicos who knew about this” is just the original emails, there wasn’t enough to go on. If they knew about the IMs, well, off with their heads.
Looks like I’m wrong about Hastert resigning but in the unlikely event that the GOP holds the House I doubt he will keep his position, which is fine by me for reasons having nothing to do with this.
Some gay activists are peddling the line that since pedophile means an attraction to prepubescent kids there is no way that Foley applies. Yeah, whatever. Let’s not split hairs here. Maybe the term is not always used correctly but underaged is underaged and for a 50+ Congressman I think I’m on safe ethical ground when I say that a 16, 17 year old page is definitely underage.
But you know what? Don’t be shocked if his pleas for sympathy work, if he manages to somehow repackage himself. A few changes in his politics and a good book tour can do wonders. If an idiot like McGreevy can manage to turn his story from a politician with a sleezy life of corruption into that of a politician with a sleezy sex life….(though it didn’t seem like Oprah’s audience was buying the shtick…)
One other thing–I assumed that what Foley did was illegal and it might be. Or not. Depends on the state. Using an interstate medium (the internet) to entice a minor into sex is illegal under the Mann Act. In Washington DC his actions would not be illegal but in Florida they would be. If he can prove that he intended to have sex with the kid in DC he might win (or, in fairness, if he claims that he never intended to have sex with them). In Florida he would be in trouble.
I’m not sure where cybersex falls in all this.
BTW, when poiliticians and news folks say that this was “an open secret” in Washington what are they talking about? That Foley was gay? That he liked young boys? That pages needed to be wary around him? What?
“ome gay activists are peddling the line that since pedophile means an attraction to prepubescent kids there is no way that Foley applies. Yeah, whatever. Let’s not split hairs here. Maybe the term is not always used correctly but underaged is underaged and for a 50+ Congressman I think I’m on safe ethical ground when I say that a 16, 17 year old page is definitely underage.”
Most people (except for pedophiles) find the idea of sex with prepubescent minors repugnant from an aesthetic point of view, but not the idea of sex with postpubescent minors. However the law and morality are not about what seems to us disgusting or not, but rather to protect minors (prebuscent and older) from exploitation by sdults in a sexual situation. That is why we accept homosexuality (even if to many heterosexuals it might seem aesthetically strange) between concenting adults, but reject an adult having sex with a 16 year old, because we fear that there’s a danger of exploitation.
Some Israelis were against the war in Lebanon. Others were for it but against other wars. Others are not satisfied with our governments over reliance on the use of force and neglect of other methods while we have to admit that the use of force is sometimes necessary.
I recently was in Zurich for a day (on my way back from SF). I noticed that nude magazines and photography books (with nude on the covers) was visible and accessable to all customers. This obviously goes beyond the issue of museum art discussed earlier. But I was still wondering if the visibility of such nudity affects the swiss compared to other societies.
Heaven should probably resemble something like the Nexus in Star Trek VIII(?). It would also have better versions of movies according to the person’s taste.
PAD –
more fuel for the concept that gay men are pedophiles
Unfortunately, the talking heads are already running with that, PAD. For one example, some guy with a right-wing family group was on Chris Matthews’ Hardball yesterday, and he basically said the same thing: that gay men are more likely to molest than straight, blah blah.
There are a lot of questions about this situation, so I’m not entirely passing judgment on Foley at this point.
Regardless, it sounds as though the rules of Congress were broken by his contact with the pages. But laws? Well, yeah, age of consent *will* have a say in this, along with probably harassment laws (ie, something not consentual between both parties) and such, if not worse.
Also, comparisons to Catholic priests are bound to be brought up, but I’m not sure they apply. Those priests targetted young children, thus they are pedophiles, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate the majority, or even a significant minority, of them were gay, and thus that explains everything as the right-wingers will now run with with Foley.
Bill Mulligan –
Maybe the term is not always used correctly but underaged is underaged
I’m sorry, Bill, but this is really unacceptable.
If the term is used incorrectly, it’s used incorrectly. Foley was not sexually attracted to young children, he was attracted to 16 year olds who, in many cases, are able to make the same life decisions as 18 year olds.
It sounds like there were multiple pages, and the contact was possibly between several states. So, this will get messy, but I really think age of consent is going to be a factor here. Although, I think we’ve seen enough recently to indicate that age of consent laws might be ignored if somebody really wanted to get Foley in jail.
Note, I’m by no means approving of what Foley did, just looking for the facts. And at this point, I think the facts are showing that Foley could find himself in jail, and that there was an attempt by the Republicans to cover this up.
Oh, one last thing: if anybody tries to blame this on the Democrats, they should be slapped silly. It was *former pages* who brought this to the attention of ABC; it isn’t some freaking Democratic conspiracy.
“Oh, one last thing: if anybody tries to blame this on the Democrats, they should be slapped silly.”
Maybe, but I’ll bet it won’t stop them. I may be misremembering, but didn’t someone already try to diminish the impact of this by claiming that, hey, it wasn’t nearly as bad as what Clinton did?
PAD
Maybe, but I’ll bet it won’t stop them. I may be misremembering, but didn’t someone already try to diminish the impact of this by claiming that, hey, it wasn’t nearly as bad as what Clinton did?
That would be Hannity.
Amazing how quickly the GOP is becoming the party of moral relativism. Wasn’t that supposedly the Dem’s shtick?
There’s a couple lines of print in some stories questioning the timing of the release…on the last day of the current session…as maybe the Dems knew and withheld the information until it would serve the most political damage to the GOP.
Which I suppose is possible, but not according to many other sources that say that the sole democrat on the page board (and the other Republican) were kept out of the loop.
Now, I’m sure many folks on the Hill had heard rumors, and I suppose we could blame them for not following up on them. But the key point is that the GOP leadership attempted to deal with this outside the normal channels. Anyone else that may or may not have heard a rumor can’t be blamed…it’s not their job to police the ethics on the Hill. But the people who’s job it IS…the Speaker, the Page board member that WAS involved…those folks are to blame.
And from what I hear, the only reason the Dems brought it up at the end of last week was because the GOP wasn’t doing anything. It has long ceased to amuse me that the GOP…seemingly in control of the government…continues to blame the minority party for so many problems.
Well Fox ‘News’ certainly tried to blame it on the democrats.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
This isn’t even funny anymore
Okay, can someone please explain to me the moral and/or ethical reasoning under which a married man cybersexing an underage boy is “better” than a married man getting a hummer from a 22-year-old woman?
Particularly when the woman involved apparently set out for the nation’s capitol with the express intent of seducing the President – whoever he/she might happen to be at the time? (Which brings to mind a creepy mental image of Lewinsky and George Sr…)
Whereas it would be interesting to discuss the Foley situation, I’d like go back and cover the topic of “utopia” for just a bit.
The idea of a utopia in the sense Thomas Moore used, as a city of ideal perfection, has been out dated since shortly after Moore wrote it down. To my way of thinking, a utopian society is; 1) Here on Earth and not in some religion’s heaven – and more importantly 2) Not a world in which there is no struggle but a world in which there is no pointless struggle. If we – right this moment – just ceased all the needless killing, all the pointless bickering over our differences, all the unnecessary judgment of other human beings – then we could focus our energies into solving the real problems of humanity; starvation, poverty, homelessness, disease – things of that nature. Or at least we could start working on those things in earnest. If we stopped letting our differences divide us and started focusing on how they can bring us together we might be able to start working on the things that will truly benefit humanity.
Maybe that’s overly ideal. By that reckoning it would fit more into Moore’s sentiment of what a utopia is.
And not to cheese off the religious people too much here, but I keep hearing this nonsense about the end of the world and heaven or whatnot lately – I suppose that’s fine, if you’re into that kind of thing – but what strikes me as infinitely sad is the fact that all those people, hoping and praying for heaven or whatever, are missing a golden opportunity to do something real and beautiful in the here and now. Maybe we’ll have our utopia, or something like it, if people just stopped waiting and started making it happen – right now, today.
And here’s a tip from Gandhi, who said, “You have to be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Okay, so maybe it’s not just me…
I’m just wondering if anyone dialed 1-800-oops-jew to leave an apology to Stephen Colbert. He set up the line so Jews who had wronged him could call and apologize.
garbonzo
Sasha –
That would be Hannity.
Hannity also tried to make the claim the other night that Lewinsky was 17 when she started having her fun with Clinton.
Facts mean nothing to Faux News.
Jasonk –
Well Fox ‘News’ certainly tried to blame it on the democrats.
Wow. That’s just… wow.
I’m amazed. Fox actually proved to me that they could sink even LOWER in my estimation of them. They’ve now sunk to such lows, I didn’t even realize I could think that little of an organization. But you can understand Fox’s error…Foley started out as a (D), before switching parties…16 years ago.
I think Foley is single (Wiki backs me up on this, for what it’s worth).
There was a Republican on Fox News this morning that trotted out the Clinton scandal as well, which suggests they may be trying it out as apossible talking point. Because of course, it is exactly the same thing.
And I know this is going completely off-thread, but I’m really curious: what’s with these losers who keep latching on to really old threads and leaving nonsensical messages that have nothing to do with the previous discussion at all? Is some sort of web-based scavenger hunt, or do these people simply have way too much time on their hands?
If there’s anything they excel at, it’s shirking personal responsibility
I think that’s politicians in general, not just the GOP. As an example, I’d point out that Foley willingly resigned. Democrat Jefferson (the money-in-the-fridge representative) on the other hand, hasn’t left congress yet and had to be forced to resign from his chairmanship.
On another note, and back to one of the other discussions on this thread: the Frisco school district has asked the art teacher (Sydnee McGee) for permission to open her personnel file to the public, so it can better respond to her public complaints.
McGee’s lawyer has counter-offered: only if the principal and superintendant Reedy’s files are also opened.
The fun continues…..
Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at October 4, 2006 01:29 PM
And I know this is going completely off-thread, but I’m really curious: what’s with these losers who keep latching on to really old threads and leaving nonsensical messages that have nothing to do with the previous discussion at all? Is some sort of web-based scavenger hunt, or do these people simply have way too much time on their hands?
Joe, a lot of it is blog spam. It has a variety of goals. Some of them want you to click on their link, which will often lead to some kind of scummy part-fools-from-their-money site. In some cases it’s an attempt to raise a site’s rankings in the various search engines (the more your site is linked to on other sites, the higher your site is ranked in places like Google).
I’m sure there are other purposes with which I’m unfamiliar. The bottom line is it’s coming from scummy bottom-feeders who want to use other people’s blogs to further their own bottom-feeding goals.
Thanks Bill, I was just morbidly curious. Bottom line, just ignore these pinheads and concentrate on the discussion(s) at hand.
Those priests targetted young children, thus they are pedophiles, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate the majority, or even a significant minority, of them were gay, and thus that explains everything as the right-wingers will now run with with Foley.
The majority–maybe even vast majority–of the cases were of priests and young boys. Now one could make the argument that I’ve seen that men who desire sex with boys should not be considered “gay” but then I would also request that men who want sex with young girls also not be considered “straight”. (As in “Most child molesters are straight.” Fair’s fair.)
If the term is used incorrectly, it’s used incorrectly. Foley was not sexually attracted to young children, he was attracted to 16 year olds who, in many cases, are able to make the same life decisions as 18 year olds.
And I know some 14 year olds who are more mature than most 20 year olds but you have to draw the line somewhere…but you are correct that given what we know the term pedophile is inappropriate. As for underage…it fits my definition, if not the legal one. Seriously, I work with 16 year olds. They are generally so unlike regular humans that this borders on bëšŧìálìŧÿ…
At any rate, the rules on pages is clear and he broke them. There’s no room for any forgiveness for him. As for the rest of them if it turns out that anyone actually knew about his behavior and sat on it either to protect their party from bad press or to use against the other party at a more opportune time, they should be bounced out of town with a healthy dose of tar and feathers.
Incidentally, I don’t belive his bit about being molested by a clergyman. His lawyer pointedly refused to say what denomination they were or name names. Think about that. They are being very careful not to let people assume that it was a Catholic preist since it would be easy to find out what priest was around him at that time.
And by staying slent on who was the abuser isn’t he possibly allowing more abuse to continue? Sounds like a lot of BS to me. Ditto the alcohol. He may be an alcoholic but I doubt he was roaring drunk when he was IMing some kid during a vote.
what strikes me as infinitely sad is the fact that all those people, hoping and praying for heaven or whatever, are missing a golden opportunity to do something real and beautiful in the here and now.
I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. Many, maybe even most of the most generous, charitable people I know are also religious. Believeing in an afterlife does not seem to preclude one from working to make the regular life a better one.
Now one could make the argument that I’ve seen that men who desire sex with boys should not be considered “gay” but then I would also request that men who want sex with young girls also not be considered “straight”.
Umm, you’re not really making any sense, Bill.
Pedophilia is an act in-of itself… it has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation. It has to do with an adult who wants to have sex with a child, not necessarily whether that the adult is male or female, and the child is male or female.
Which is why I don’t think you can sit there and say the priests are gay because they targeted young boys. I mean, do you really think every single one of those priests was a closet homosexual? I certainly don’t.
But then, to be honest, I find it hard to believe that there were that many pedophile priests to begin with, even if the Church was sweeping it under the rug.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 04:31 PM
The majority–maybe even vast majority–of the cases were of priests and young boys. Now one could make the argument that I’ve seen that men who desire sex with boys should not be considered “gay” but then I would also request that men who want sex with young girls also not be considered “straight”. (As in “Most child molesters are straight.” Fair’s fair.)
Bill, it’s not nearly as simple as that. I have learned much about the pathology of molestation by listening to my girlfriend talk about her career in the social services field. Her caseload has included more than a few situations where molestation, or at least allegations of molestation, were involved.
There are two types of molesters. The first type has what my lovely girlfriend, Jeannie, refers to as “boundary issues.” The sexual orientation of this type of molester is actually towards adults, whether of the same or the opposite sex. Unfortunately, this type of molester for whatever reason never learned proper boundaries of behavior, and if the only outlet for their sexual urge at a given moment is a child, well, they will take the “opportunity.” Alcohol is often a factor. According to Jeannie, this type of molester may respond to therapy.
The other type of molester actually has a sexual orientation towards children. Again according to Jeannie, this type of molester rarely if ever responds to treatment.
By the way, Bill, for a very long time there was no role for young girls on the altar in Catholic churches. That’s why they’re referred to as Altar BOYS. So it could be that Catholic clergyman who molested children gravitated to young boys because they were easiest to prey upon.
Anyway, in either case it’s an abnormal sexual pattern and I don’t think it makes sense to pigeonhole it as gay OR straight. Particularly due to the large and ever growing body of evidence showing that homosexuality is a natural, albeit uncommon, sexual orientation that appears in the animal world just like heterosexuality, and is an orientation that may have its basis in our DNA.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 04:31 PM
And I know some 14 year olds who are more mature than most 20 year olds but you have to draw the line somewhere…but you are correct that given what we know the term pedophile is inappropriate. As for underage…it fits my definition, if not the legal one. Seriously, I work with 16 year olds. They are generally so unlike regular humans that this borders on bëšŧìálìŧÿ…
Bill, I am not about to try to justify adults having sex with teens. It’s not right. But it is different than pedophilia. In fact, there is a different term for it (I can’t remember off-hand what it is, but if I find it I’ll give a holler).
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 04:31 PM
At any rate, the rules on pages is clear and he broke them. There’s no room for any forgiveness for him. As for the rest of them if it turns out that anyone actually knew about his behavior and sat on it either to protect their party from bad press or to use against the other party at a more opportune time, they should be bounced out of town with a healthy dose of tar and feathers.
Bill, typically I like to remain non-partisan, but this is one instance where I think logic dictates that I cannot. Back when the Republicans were going after Bill Clinton with gleeful abandon, I told everyone who would listen, “Mark my words: this will come back to bite the Republicans in the ášš.” And now it looks like it has.
I mean, seriously, what incredible hubris! To think that they could join the cultural movement that conflates the private with the public, but believe that such a thing could be contained to only hurt the Democrats! As though one can call up the Devil, metaphorically speaking, and expect him to behave!
Apparently it never occurred to the Republicans that they are just as human as the Democrats and have just as many skeletons in their closets.
Given the sanctimonious puffery of the Republicans who charged forth to impeach Clinton for having an affair, any Republican who is in any way implicated in this Foley mess will look like a hypocrite when he or she tries to defend him or herself.
You know what would be really wonderful? If Republicans and Democrats alike would start behaving with maturity, and in the case of something like the Foley scandal, cast politics aside and act in the best interests of the country. It actually happened once, during the Watergate scandal. Democrats and Republicans alike actually worked together to investigate the Nixon administration, and most of them approached the task with dignity and solemnity.
Pedophilia is an act in-of itself… it has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation. It has to do with an adult who wants to have sex with a child, not necessarily whether that the adult is male or female, and the child is male or female.
Which is why I don’t think you can sit there and say the priests are gay because they targeted young boys. I mean, do you really think every single one of those priests was a closet homosexual? I certainly don’t.
Um…I’m not sure if I agree. My perception is that most pedophiles zero in on one sex or the other. If it’s true that they have no particular preference in the child’s sex well, that’s news to me. Certainly the members of NAMBLA are less open minded (but they may not represent pedophiles as a whole).
Wow. this is a weird conversation.
It wouldn’t shock me if all of the priests in question were closeted gays. It’s been argued that the clergy is seen by some gay men as a way of dealing with their orientation–using celibacy to make it go away. Not a great plan and the church is so hard up for priests that they may not be doing a good job of weeding these guys out from the gay men with a genuine calling.
By the way, Bill, for a very long time there was no role for young girls on the altar in Catholic churches. That’s why they’re referred to as Altar BOYS. So it could be that Catholic clergyman who molested children gravitated to young boys because they were easiest to prey upon.
Only if we assume they are bisexuals. And anyway, there is ample opportunity for clergy to prey on girls if they so wish. Girls may only recently have been allowe dto be alter girls but they were going to a lot of the sunday school activities.
Apparently it never occurred to the Republicans that they are just as human as the Democrats and have just as many skeletons in their closets.
Given the sanctimonious puffery of the Republicans who charged forth to impeach Clinton for having an affair, any Republican who is in any way implicated in this Foley mess will look like a hypocrite when he or she tries to defend him or herself.
Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
I’m fine with Republicans being judged as harshly or even better, MORE harshly than Democrats. The fact that Bill Clinton saw fit to pardon Mel Reynolds (the one guy who seems like the clsest parallel to Foley) is not any reason to hope that Bush does the same for Foley (and I doubt there is a person alove who thinks that will happen. I’d rather the hard lesson Republicans get out of this is that zero tolerance for this behavior is the best policy, not that one should tolerate disgusting behavior in others lest it reflect back on you.
Meanwhile, if I’m understanding David Corn correctly, gay activists are set to release a list of staffers to Republican senators and congressmen who are gay. Corn tries to justify this somewhat. I’m amazed anyone could do this and look themselves in the mirror but politics does funny things to people.
Just a few weeks to go and it’s getting very very ugly.
Bill Mulligan –
My perception is that most pedophiles zero in on one sex or the other.
That may be and probably is true. I was just trying to move away from the line of thought that all male pedophiles only go after male children, etc.
It’s been argued that the clergy is seen by some gay men as a way of dealing with their orientation–using celibacy to make it go away.
Hmm, I hadn’t thought about that.
But, it makes sense: Christian churches keep trying to convince themselves and their followers that you can be cured of being gay, and all that nonsense.
Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Clinton was given enough rope to hang himself, and he more or less jumped at the chance, unfortunately.
That still doesn’t forgive the fact that the charges were borne of nonsense and were trumped up by the Right because they wanted him out of office.
gay activists are set to release a list of staffers to Republican senators and congressmen who are gay
The defense here seems to be that gay rights activists want to ‘out’ those gays that are voting anti-gay, ie, if you’re Republican and gay, you’re likely voting against what’s best for gays. I’m not sure I can totally blame them, in that regard.
They aren’t outing anti-gay politicians. They are outing the people who work for them. This is contemptable to me.
And it could backfire. If a Rick Santorum, who is considered to be one of the most anti-gay members of the Senate, turns out to have a gay staff member he could, if he has an ounce of brain matter, come out and say the equivilant of “Just because I’m against changing the definition of marriage it doesn’t mean that I want to destroy the lives of decent gay people. My opponents, in seeking to harm me, are willing to waive all decency , no matter who gets hurt. I urge my opponent to disavow the actions of his supporters and call on all people to condemn this kind of dirty politics.”
Now, Santorum probably isn’t that bright. But why take the chance. Plus, there’s the whole IT’S JUST A SLEEZY WRONG THING TO DO factor.
Hopefully saner heads will prevail, though even the threat of this is disgusting.
And anyway, there is ample opportunity for clergy to prey on girls if they so wish. Girls may only recently have been allowe dto be alter girls but they were going to a lot of the sunday school activities.
Altar boys, to my understanding, do, however, spend considerably more time alone with said clergymen.
-Rex Hondo-
They aren’t outing anti-gay politicians. They are outing the people who work for them.
Well, that’s what they might be saying… for the moment.
I don’t know why they’d target those who work for politicians, rather than the politicans themselves (and I still think that that is within the realm of possibility along with what you’ve said).
Is it contemptable? Probably, but, I guess I just have a hard time feeling pity for any politician these days, or those that work for them.
The same thing applies: if I were gay, and I really wanted marriage rights, etc, I wouldn’t be working for somebody who wants to deny those things to me.
What the Republicans did with Clinton was pretty dámņ deplorable as well, but that didn’t stop them from doing it either. So, as the party in power with a penchant for sticking it to the Democrats in any way they can, well, in some ways they’ve had it coming.
Yep, it’s going to get ugly.
But how can you condemn what McCarthy famously did–attacking a young man who worked with one of McCarthy’s political opponents for a brief dalliance with a communist organization, attempting to ruin his life for a quick political buck–if you think it’s not such a bad thing for people to do the same thing now?
(And I know this is playing dirty and twisting the knife but you DO realize that Ann Coulter would probably agree with both actions…)
Me, I think the words spoken then to tailgunner Joe apply just as well to anyone who would do the equivilant today–“Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator…. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
(None of this is directed at you, Craig. You can be harsh but I don’t think you’d ever be mean enough to do this kind of thing)
It’s possible for a gay person to look at the totality of a political cause and come to a different conclusion than the one you think is appropriate. Maybe they feel more strongly about taxes than gay marriage. Not all gays are exactly chomping at the bit for marriage, though I would hope they would want to see others have the right. But that’s their business.
This is extortion. If money were demanded it would be pure blackmail.
Remember the good old days when a movie like ADVICE AND CONSENT would portray someone who is trying to use the homosexuality of a senator to influence a vote as evil, pure and simple. Guess we’ve become more nuanced now. Good, bad, it all depends on the outcome.
Craig, it’s gonna GET ugly? Y’mean, we’re not already sitting in the middle of Uglyville?
I love all these political scandals that make my Goth bi- and try-sexual friends look mainstream.
Craig, while I support your ethics about not working for someone who doesn’t support “your” lifestyle or goals (the quotes are just in case there’s someone out there that might come back and tell you I just called you gay. I don’t THINK you are, but seeing as how all I know of you is your typing, how the heck would I know?) sometimes it might not be that easy. Might be the only job you could get, fer example.
One thing to remember with all these scandals, though, prevalent as they may seem. You don’t hear about the people NOT involved in a scandal, unless it’s to say, “I’m not involved in a scandal,” which makes the media types dig through their entire genetic makeup until they find out that Great Aunt Ginny married an atheist horse while wearing white after Labor Day. Yeah, there have been a lot of priest abuse cases in the news, but I don’t think all priests or clergy are abusers. Same for politicians. Although, I could be wrong about that.
Joe and Bill–glad I’m not the only one noticing those odd posts. A few of them made me kinda nervous, names I never saw before talking about things completely non-sequitur and who KNOWs what? Made me kinda nervous, like PAD’s blog being used for some kind of undercover communications or something. I got WAY too overactive an imagination.
Bill M, if Santorum DID have a staff member come out, I know a LOT of people at work that would split their sides. Captain Conservative doesn’t have too many supporters by us.
Hey, guys, sorry about the double post, but I just saw this, and it just seems to fit the theme of this thread.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=5&id=38511
Wonder if THIS mother would’ve checked out the museum?
(BTW, we just found out our 5-year old is going on a field trip to a pumpkin patch next week. Should I go to make sure there are no phallic squash? Or turnips, for all you Black Adder fans out there?)
Bill Mulligan –
But how can you condemn what McCarthy famously did if you think it’s not such a bad thing for people to do the same thing now?
Well, to go back on your phrase, this could be viewed as “splitting hairs”.
If these groups want to release names… well, after that, they won’t have to do any attacking. So, it’s not a direct attack that they’re after, it’s just simple cause and effect.
I’m not sure if comparisons to McCarthy are entirely valid, as he was a wannabe-dictator, while gay rights activists just want equal rights as the rest of us. They see outing Republicans as the way to make it happen. But they don’t have the FBI investigating people and threatening to destroy their lives (yeah, I’m sure even Foley will find that there’s life after Congress).
I don’t pretend that the political arena is a friendly place to be. Everybody has to be prepared to have their closets searched under the glare of the media spotlight. It’s not pretty, it’s not fair, it just is.
I think all I said is that I can understand the reasoning behind this, not that I agree or disagree… as I type, I’m still thinking about it.
But I admit that there would be some level of satisfaction if some other scandal hit before the election and it helped the Republicans lose the majority. And I say that for a variety of reasons.
God knows the Dems need all the help they can get, and it’s time for a shift in power. That, and I’m sick of the hypocrasy from the party of “family values”.
but you DO realize that Ann Coulter would probably agree with both actions
Probably. But I’ve never said Coulter is 100% wrong all the time… it’s only about 99.5% of the time. 😉
You can be harsh but I don’t think you’d ever be mean enough to do this kind of thing
No, I don’t think I would. I don’t see the point, to be honest. There are certainly better things to deal with than attacking somebody over their sexuality or the sexuality of their employees.
Heck, as we’ve already seen with Ðìçk Cheney’s daughter, it’s not necessarily a strategy that guarantees success.
In Foley’s case, however, it isn’t or shouldn’t be about his sexuality, but about whether he broke any laws or Congressional rules regarding the governing of contact between Congressmen and pages.
Sean Scullion –
Might be the only job you could get, fer example.
Well, in politics, I doubt it. The turnover is pretty decent. 🙂
Yeah, there have been a lot of priest abuse cases in the news, but I don’t think all priests or clergy are abusers.
Well, that’s why I commented that I’m surprised at how many accusations there have been. There’s gotta be some false accusations hidden in there.
The thing I worry about with politicians are the things we don’t know. Just look at what Bush has brought upon us since 9/11, and all the things that the top leadership of the GOP in Congress supposedly knows about but won’t tell anybody else: wiretapping, torture, secret prisons…
There’s probably plenty of worthy scandals waiting to be found. Things far more deserving of attention than whether Clinton and Gingrich are having affairs with consenting adults and so forth.
Sean Scullion –
Hey, guys, sorry about the double post, but I just saw this, and it just seems to fit the theme of this thread.
Yeah, I saw a little bit about that too. This one isn’t making the big headlines like these stories usually do.
Harry Potter trying to indoctrinate kids into Wicca… *cue the laugh track*
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM
It wouldn’t shock me if all of the priests in question were closeted gays. It’s been argued that the clergy is seen by some gay men as a way of dealing with their orientation–using celibacy to make it go away. Not a great plan and the church is so hard up for priests that they may not be doing a good job of weeding these guys out from the gay men with a genuine calling.
My girlfriend has wondered the same thing — although her hypothesis was that child molesters in particular were gravitating towards the priesthood in hopes that the vow of celibacy and the blessings of God would steer them away from their heinous urges.
Anyway, the Catholic Church has decided that homosexuality is the problem and declared that even homosexuals who elect to remain celibate are unfit for the priesthood. I believe the real problem, of course, is that the Church is a large organization and is therefore prone to the same kinds of problems as any large organization. In this case, specifically, the tendency to place the organization itself above the values it purports to represent.
Before anyone goes all anti-Catholic on me, or accuses me of same, note that I said such problems tend to afflict ALL large organizations.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM
Only if we assume they are bisexuals. And anyway, there is ample opportunity for clergy to prey on girls if they so wish. Girls may only recently have been allowe dto be alter girls but they were going to a lot of the sunday school activities.
As Rex Hondo pointed out, priests spent more time alone with altar boys. And I didn’t say girls were impossible to prey upon, only that boys may have been easier to prey upon. It’s like burglars who case a neighborhood, knowing they could probably break into just about any house; they nevertheless pick the easiest ones.
Anyway, if I have time I may do some research and see if I can’t find something to put to rest the question of whether or not molesters tend to choose one sex or the other. Then I’ll start going to therapy again and ask my therapist why I’m looking šhìŧ like that up.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM
Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
On paper, yes. But one only has to look at the context to see that the Republicans were not truly interested in justice.
Remember, this case stemmed from a deposition Bill Clinton gave in the Paula Jones case. But Judge Susan Webber Wright determined that the question of whether or not Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky was immaterial to the case. For something to rise to the level of perjury, it must have relevance to the case at hand. Moreover, the entire Paula Jones case was dismissed by Judge Wright as having no legal merit. Clinton did settle with Jones later in exchange for her dropping her appeal, but I doubt he would have done that had he not been put through the wringer in Congress.
Anyway, the Republicans decided, “Hey, if it wasn’t illegal then, we’ll ask him about it in front of a grand jury and then if he lies it’ll be perjury.”
People can laugh about Clinton arguing about something depending “on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” but the Republicans really took the cake when it came to playing games with the law.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM
I’m fine with Republicans being judged as harshly or even better, MORE harshly than Democrats. The fact that Bill Clinton saw fit to pardon Mel Reynolds (the one guy who seems like the clsest parallel to Foley) is not any reason to hope that Bush does the same for Foley (and I doubt there is a person alove who thinks that will happen. I’d rather the hard lesson Republicans get out of this is that zero tolerance for this behavior is the best policy, not that one should tolerate disgusting behavior in others lest it reflect back on you.
Bill, by now you should know me well enough to know my sense of morality is more well-developed than that. The Clinton impeachment hearings were a thinly-veiled excuse to get him out of office at all costs, and were in no way a reasonable or principled application of the law. It was an example of how we’ve come to conflate the private and the public. Foley, if guilty of that which he has been accused, has clearly broken the law though. My point was not that you should overlook the poor behavior of others to avoid scrutiny of your own behavior. My point was that engaging in the politics of personal destruction will always come back to bite one in the ášš. The Republicans who went after Clinton did not create the problem, but they exacerbated it and took it to a whole new level. Now it’s coming back to haunt them. Rather than looking at the Foley mess through an objective lens, with the intention of seeing justice done, everyone is out for blood. The Republicans are partly to blame for the very problem that is now afflicting them. That was my point.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 4, 2006 08:56 PM
Meanwhile, if I’m understanding David Corn correctly, gay activists are set to release a list of staffers to Republican senators and congressmen who are gay.
I have gay friends and I would bet most, if not all, would agree with me that “outing” someone against their wishes is obscene. The decision about whether and when to come out of the closet is highly personal, and there is a special place in hëll for people who decide that their ideological agenda supersedes that.
Geez, Bill, I feel like I’m beating up on you! We’re still cool, right?
I can’t remember the last time we disagreed this much. Hëll, half the time you persuade me to see things from a different point of view! I guess the problem is lately you’re just wrong. (Kidding! Kidding!)
Well, that’s why I commented that I’m surprised at how many accusations there have been. There’s gotta be some false accusations hidden in there.
Oh there were. I remember at least one case where the accuser later recanted. Of course, thesemay be more than balanced out by cases that go unreported.
Anyway, if I have time I may do some research and see if I can’t find something to put to rest the question of whether or not molesters tend to choose one sex or the other. Then I’ll start going to therapy again and ask my therapist why I’m looking šhìŧ like that up.
I looked around a bit and, frankly, it’s hard to find stuff that isn’t promoting some agenda. It’s also the kind of stuff that makes you want to just get a rocket launcher and I don’t need the encouragement.
(And was something in the water yesterday? I helped break up a fight between two possible gang members and, in another unrelated incident, a kid threatened to “**** my ***** up, you ****ing ****”. Me, the most beloved of teachers! That’s the thanks I get for my generous gum policy…)
Moreover, the entire Paula Jones case was dismissed by Judge Wright as having no legal merit
True but let’s not forget that she also found Clinton in contempt of court for misleading testimony.
And it actually remains to be seen whether or not Foley broke any laws–not that this is relevent to whether or not he should have resigned.
And I’m not sure I still get your whole point. Aren’t republicans who think that both Clinton and Foley should have resigned over their personal deficiancies at least being consistant?
Anyway, sure we cool.
And just so I don’t look like I’m only picking on liberal bloggers and stuff I think it’s appalling that cosnervatiev bloggers are now releasing the name of one of the kids who received Foley’s attentions (ABC News let the name slip but that’s no excuse).
Bill Mulligan –
and, in another unrelated incident, a kid threatened to “**** my ***** up, you ****ing ****”.
I hope you said something to the principal at your school. After the stuff that’s happened in the last week or two, I would not take such comments lightly.
Aren’t republicans who think that both Clinton and Foley should have resigned over their personal deficiancies at least being consistant?
Many Republicans in Congress are probably fortunate in that they didn’t know what was going on. Joe Scarborough, who’s a former Representative from Florida, has said on his show that he’s good friends with Foley, has known all along that Foley was gay, but had no idea the man was acting this way with pages.
So, the only way the Republican leadership (ie, Hastert) is being consistent here would be if there wasn’t a cover up in this whole Foley mess.
At the very least, it appears that said leadership was grossly negligent in dealing with Foley, as it sounds like this stuff was brought to their attention possibly more than once over the last several years.
I also couldn’t believe some of the comments I’ve heard people make regarding whether there may be criminal charges against Foley or not. Comments to the effect that Foley could’ve had all the cybersex he wanted with underage teens, but if he didn’t try and meet up with them, there’s probably nothing they could charge him with. Yikes.