Wall Street Journal: Gay = Pedophile (re Foley)

[elucidator]

@Martin Hyde

I doubt you’d have any use for a WSJ subscription. There’s a lot of good magazines out for elementary school children that would be more appropriate for you, I think.

Ooooh, burn! Look out, Oscar Wilde, here comes Mr. Hyde!

[Excalibre]

@Weirddave

I read it as Ex saying that he wanted the Dems to take advantage of the Foley scandal, but as an aside, unrelated to their taking advantage, he wishes that people would use accurate terms for what occured. I didn’t think he was connecting the two.

We should indeed make hay while sun shines. But this simply is not pedophilia. And, in my opinion, pedophilia represents both a fundamentally different and a substantially more serious offense (when acted upon, as Foley did.) I think what he did was repulsive and utterly inappropriate, but at very least a 16-year-old is old enough to consent to sex in most states. A 16-year-old is physically an adult. A 16-year-old can probably fight off a 52-year-old representative if he tries anything. The difference between that and a 10-year-old is a big one. As revolting as I find Foley’s antics, I would find them ten times worse if he was really acting on pedophilic attraction rather than

We should capitalize. We shouldn’t lie to do it. The Democrats are the political party of principles and morals; compromising them when it’s convenient is not what we’re about. Republicans lie in their campaigns; that’s what they do. If the Democrats do the same thing, what difference will remain?

[Triskadecamus]

So, according to the prevailing opinion of the Wall Street Journal, and Denis Hastert, if I don’t object to someone being gay, I should not object to them preying on minors under their supervision.

All they want from me is to live up to their prejudices.

Or, make up any damned excuse that will even slightly deflect water to leave them alone, and let them go back to raping the country, like they want.

Wow, I am constantly amazed at just how radical my opinions are.

I want elected officials who wear pants while on the job. I don’t care about their sex lives, and I really don’t want to have to care about their sex lives. If cruisin’ for underage sex is not against the rules of my elected representatives, I want the entire bunch fired! I would rather not have a government.

If you are holding public office, and you are not tempted to have a tar and feather party for your pedophile coworkers, I want you to resign!

Tris

[mhendo]

@Steve MB

They should have thoroughly investigated the matter upon discovering this indication of an elected official possibly misusing his position to obtain sexual favors from a subordinate.

I hear they used to consider that a big deal back in '98…

and

@gonzomax

The correct term is sexual harrasment. A powerful pol and an ambitious page. with no power. It is illegal no matter how it is twisted. Gay or straight, it is not allowed.

Exactly.

I think the whole issue of homosexuality, and even the issue of the the age of these pages, is not the most important thing here. While the idea of a 52 year-old hitting on a 16 year-old is a bit creepy, the fact is that 16 is the age of consent in many places around the world, including the District of Columbia*, where these incidents occurred.

For me, the whole abuse of power in a workplace envrionment thing is the most relevant issue here. Just as it was, in my mind, when Clinton did the nasty with Monica Lewinsky.

• for male/female sex. The laws against homosexual sex in DC were repealed some time ago, and i don’t think there is any official age of consent for male/male or female/female sex.

[mhendo]

@Steve MB

They should have thoroughly investigated the matter upon discovering this indication of an elected official possibly misusing his position to obtain sexual favors from a subordinate.

I hear they used to consider that a big deal back in '98…

One more thing…

If Starr and the Republican attack dogs had actually focused mainly on the issue of abuse of power in a workplace environment, i might have been able to get on board with some of their indignation.

But it was all “sex sex sex” and “infidelity” and “immorality” etc., etc. Their main purpose was simply to embarass Clinton, and their holier-than-thou moralizing and sexual prudery was the angle that played best to their constituency. Focusing on feminist issues like sexual harassment and workplace power imbalances doesn’t play well when your target audience is a bunch of reactionaries.

[Baldwin]

The WSJ seems to be implying that if the pages had been female instead of male, what went on would have been perfectly acceptable heterosexual behavior. I can’t think of another way their argument makes sense.

I was very reassured by hearing Bush say that he was confident Hastert would lead a thorough investigation. It will be really sad if Hastert’s investigation finds out that Hastert was on top of a cover-up. Then Hastert, who’s above reproach, would have to ask Hastert to resign.

[Ruken]

@Baldwin

The WSJ seems to be implying that if the pages had been female instead of male, what went on would have been perfectly acceptable heterosexual behavior.

I do wonder how often female staff are harassed without there being a big public fuss. I certainly do not have any great knowlege of past congressional scandals. I’m sure it [the harassement] must happen now and then. As for how much fuss, I don’t know. Why do you think they imply that? I’m not seeing it at all.

I can’t think of another way their argument makes sense.

I still can’t make sure sense of it. I agree with:

@Dead Badger

Whether they then go on to imply that the Dems should really be on the WSJ’s side in being suspicious of thar homer-sekshuals, or whether they’re just trying to score points off imaginary hypocrisy; I have no idea. It’s an atrociously written article, regardless. Ah well.

I think that it would be useful to know how the WSJ editors have treated topics regarding homosexuality in the past. I know for sure they’ve expressed disapproval of the courts “making up rights,” but other than that I really don’t recall. A brief search only revealed opinions in regard to court cases about gay marriage. Anyone have a nice example of the WSG hating on gays?

[Steve_MB]

@mhendo

While the idea of a 52 year-old hitting on a 16 year-old is a bit creepy, the fact is that 16 is the age of consent in many places around the world, including the District of Columbia*, where these incidents occurred.

IIRC, some jurisdictions fine-tune the age of consent, with a somewhat lower age if both partners are young than if one partner is significantly older. If so, the latter would obviously apply here.

[RTFirefly]

@Martin Hyde

I doubt you’d have any use for a WSJ subscription. There’s a lot of good magazines out for elementary school children that would be more appropriate for you, I think.

Brave words from a man who hasn’t responded to my post.

And quite frankly, magazines for elementary school children tend to have a higher level of intellectual rigor than the WSJ editorial page does.

[elelle]

I brought this up on another Foley thread, and just have to do it again (hey, Rufe, yer answer was apt there, if not sadly disappointing in it’s truth):

Trying to spin this as protective of Foley’s private rights is quite inappropriate, in light of the fact that he was allowed to serve on the for the House Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children, and instrumental in legislation for the Sex Offender and Registration Act. Undoubtedly, Foley has grave mental problems in his acts toward impressionable minors, but to continue to do that while processing the information neccessary in his capacity as an arbiter of moral code is just mind-boggling. I do not see that distinction being brought up enough in all the Foley-do-rall.

It’s not just a matter of him having creepy pecodillos, for 10 years , and keeping it under wraps: those who knew who let him continue to serve as an important legislator for those same predatory crimes are guilty of a gross negligence. That’s the main reason people should be clamoring for accountability here.

[Lochdale]

@RTFirefly

Here’s why I did:

1. What’s the problem with gay scoutmasters unless gay = predator?
2. The people the WSJ describes as our “cultural elite” are opposed to discrimination against gays. Not against predators; against gays. So the only context in which “…if that’s the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant” makes sense is if gays and sexual predators are being equated, given that the “standard” is to react with dispatch to suggestions that one might have a sexual predator in a position with easy access to his preferred prey.

I’ve read the WSJ daily for nearly 10 years. I think you have misread the editorial. Did you miss the discussion regarding a Democratic Congressman who while similarly situated remained in the house for more than a decade afterwards?

[RTFirefly]

@Lochdale

I’ve read the WSJ daily for nearly 10 years. I think you have misread the editorial. Did you miss the discussion regarding a Democratic Congressman who while similarly situated remained in the house for more than a decade afterwards?

I read the whole editorial. On what basis do you say I misread it?

[Sailboat]

“Billy, do you like gladiator movies?”

Sailboat

[RTFirefly]

@Sailboat

“Billy, do you like gladiator movies?”

Sailboat

Jesus’ General is way ahead of you:

Some are calling for Foley to donate his campaign warchest to a child protection charity. While I think that’s a good idea–it’d certainly help his image–I’d rather see him do something that would benefit people like you and me. I’m sure you would too. After all, self-interest is what made us Republicans.

I’m thinking along the lines of using the money to build a museum for gladiator movies. Think about it. Liberals have all kinds of museums in Washington for their decadent art and Darwinian propaganda, but we have nothing. A National Museum of Gladiator Movies would fill that gap. Finally, a guy could dress up in his gladiator gear and spend a weekend in his own personal viewing booth watching all of his favorite gladiator movies. It’d be great.