First Openly Gay Congressman dies... hero or villain?

I'm not sure I see how these two things are equivalent and certainly not the 'exact scene'. Was it really Studds' behaviour that has been lauded as having benefited gays or the fallout from it in terms of Studds' very public acknowledgement of his homosexuality, one of the first if not the first in the US, and his subsequent career as a long time prominent and activist gay politician. This in contrast to Foley who previously characterised the suggestion that he was gay as "revolting and unforgivable."Even the quote you provide from his spouse Dean Hara makes it clear that he is talking about the fact that what he considered important was Studds' re-election after coming out publicly rather than his re-election despite being involved in a scandal with a page.So in fact Hara doesn't tie Studds' 'activity', having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old page, to his homosexuality except in as much as the page concerned was male. Was Dan Crane's 'activity' somehow especially linked to being heterosexual? Only surely in as much as it dictated what sex he found attractive.You also seem to be conflating 2 very distinct behaviours. Studds had one relationship with a 17 year old page whereas Foley seems to have had a pattern of approaching pages and establishing a semi-intimate relationship with a view to the possible development of that relationship into a sexual one once the pages have left the program. At least in some cases these approaches appear to have been unwelcome. It is easy to see why, perhaps wrongly, this has been conflated in the public eye with pedophile 'grooming' and given the nature of the power differential between congressmen and pages it should certainly be considered predatory regardless of the ages of the individuals involved.Since, as I see jar has pointed out, we don't have any detailed records of the development of Studds' relationship equivalent to the many 'new media' messages in the case of Foley it is difficult to say to what degree their approaches may have had any points of similarity and consequently it is hard to assess to what degree Studds' behaviour might have been characterised as predatory other than in the imbalance of power which he himself is reported to have acknowledged that he was wrong to have had sex with a congressional subordinate, no matter what the page's age or sex. Again this hardly seems to be the case given the distinct nature of the activities. If you watch this particular Stewart clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pvqe36nRs you will see that the jokes are based on the coverage of the story in the media, i.e. the one handed typing joke and the phone sex joke, and Foley's own stated postition on the sort of behaviour with which his has been conflated. I just don't think that Studds' situation would have provided sufficient comedic raw material regardless of the politics of those involved.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : improved readability

That is one of the biggest changes IMHO.Beginning in the 1980s under Reagan the US began removing the limitations on media ownership. The result has been that at the same time the number of media channels and outlets has increased, the diversity of content has decreased.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Foley fought for laws to make it a federal crime to solicit sex from a minor on the internet. Even if this kid was not technically a minor in the area of jurisdiction, how can you sit there and say that that has nothing to do with the level of attention this is getting? I find that to be incredible! Sorry, my brain does not bend that way. Yes. Unless you feel that the outrage should be about the homosexuality, there is a BIG difference in what Stubbs and Foley did. Stubbs was in a relationship with one of these young men. Foley had a HISTORY of actions constituting an abuse of his power as congressman for the direct purpose of exploitation. About the only thing similar between Foley and Stubbs is the age of the participants and the fact that they all have a penis. Even for the Republicans?If so then that does not make any sense.As crashfrog has also pointed out, the other reason that people are so worked up about this is that there is an old paper trail connecting the knowledge of this incident to other high ups in the GOP.The reason I brought up Clinton is exactly to contrast the two actions as he is a favorite of the Republicans to criticize in comparison to their own failures. In this case I feel there is no comparison because Clinton:1. Did not break any laws by his sexual action. Foley may be saved by the definition of a minor but it is still treading a fine line.
2. Did not hypocritically involve himself in the creation of legislation to outlaw the very acts he committed and was committing continuously at the time.
3. Was not involved in an extensive cover up involving other high level Democrates that lasted for years where there was the potential for harm to other potential victims of his depravity.Clinton's embarassment was only to himself. Foley has disgraced the entire GOP because their leaders were involved and did nothing.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This raises the question Jar just did and I agree would be interesting. What if Foley had not resigned and his constituents were willing to vote him in again? Would his future lover be able to look at this form of coming out and vindication have been okay?In this case one might ask if Foley would even be given a chance to run again, whereas Studds was. You have missed my point. Liberal commentators have stated that with Foley, sexual interest in someone less than 18 IS pedophilia and should not be confused with homosexuality. With Studds, he actually had sex with someone under 18 and his activity IS considered homosexuality, with his re-election vindication for homosexuality. In a modern landscape would Studds have survived the link to pedophilia, and been able to assert himself as defending homosexuality? This I find rather convenient as an argument.We do not have an e trail but we do know that Studds had actual sex with what is being called a minor in Foley's case and so pedophilic. Thus it doesn't matter what manner he gained that relationship. We have no idea if Studds contacted anyone else before the one relationship, or if he had not attained that relationship, he would have approached anyone else.On the flipside we seem to have an extensive documentation on Foley's personal communications. Let's leave behind the fact that if you really believe in Studds' position you'd agree such prying on our part is none of our business, and pry anyway. What one finds is that he wrote several pages over the course of years. Some seem innocuous but perhaps probitive. Some were explicit. The extremely explicit conversations were NOT to anyone that was complaining, and appear to be quite consensual. In those emails he comes out and says the sexual references were fantasy and not for real action. On top of that in all cases that pages went and met with him (and how put out could they be if they actually met with the guy) absolutely nothing untoward happened.So yes they are different. Studds had sex with a minor. Not only was he a hair away from having commited a crime at the time, under current federal laws he would have been guilty of a felony. Foley never had sex with any minors and it appears that whatever his fantasies were he never acted on them even when he had the chance. Oh yes, and for Foley it appears a page that didn't like his familiarity was able to end it by simply not responding.Thus of "condemnable" activity, if it is based on actual activity with regards to "minors" then Studds is worse, with regard to numbers of pages verifiably contacted Foley is worse, and with regard to using pages they are equal. And the only reason Foley is known to be worse on numbers may be due to the changed nature of communication. Actually I gave Jon Stewart as a reference, but he is not the only one. There are plenty of leftwing blogspaces and regular media which attack Foley's conduct as it pertains to activity with minors (which would include what Studds did). There is another thread on Foley which contains quite a bit of venom from that angle.But let's take Stewart. There certainly are more segments that he has had on that scandal
here is a page from which you can look for more. In one called "Fallout Boy" he specifically refs Studds, because a rep had done so. Only he didn't suggest there was a difference, he simply criticized reps tried to shift blame away from Foley by referring to a dem who "sodomized" a page. In others he continually pushes ages downward, as well as increases references to physical acts to connect Foley to overt pedophilia.In your own clip Stewart criticizes Gingrich (who explained that if reps had gone against Foley early they would be accused of gay-bashing) by suggesting that reps equating gays to pedophiles (by which he is clearly refering to Foley) would itself be gay bashing. Thus he draws the line between Foley's activities and being gay, based on age. The same would go for Stubbs, unless one wants to play a game with differential AOC laws as the reason to condemn someone morally for something, and not for someone else.I agree that Foley offers a few more opportunities for laughs. But if he (at the time) couldn't come up with something for a congressman named Studds being censured for having sex with a minor page, I'd say he'd lost it.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree hypocrisy is part of the issue, but it is not the driving force for outrage against Foley. Also, I have to disagree on a few points... Given that age is extremely important to the Foley scandal and is essentially identical to Studds that means there is very little difference between them, except in number and degree of activity. Studds' activity was much more extreme (actual sex), and though Foley seems to have had more contacts in actual fact we don't know how many Studds may have approached as there simply was not the same technology to record so many conversations.Also Foley never actualized any of the contacts to relationships. We can't know if Studds would not have contacted more if his relationship had not materialized, or whether Foley would not have contacted so many if he had allowed a contact to become a relationship.I agree that Clinton and Foley have absolutely 0 connection, however... Here you mention Foley's depravity. Given that Studds got away with, and in some sense rewarded for, why wouldn't reps consider it risky to bring it forward?And in looking back at Studds, why shouldn't people have viewed his activity as something to be concerned with for harm to other potential victims of his depravity. That is to say if Foley was looking to have sex with minors of the same age as Studds actually did, why is Studds' activity less depraved or harmful?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I didn't know that he acted to pass a law to make it a federal crime to solicit sex from a minor until Crashfrog informed me yesterday. I knew that he had lauded NBC's Dateline for their effort against child porn, and I certainly think he's a peice of trash for that. Now that I know he actually tried to pass a law against the very thing he ended up commiting, then, yes, that would certainly bear some reflection on his public standing.But this is what everyone is missing, except perhaps, Holmes. No one here is saying that he's right. He's not. No one is defending-- least of all, me. The issue is the level of attention that the media gives to him and not Stubbs. I already provided figures that Foley has been mentioned over 150 times on the major networks, whereas, not only was Stubbs mentioned only 19 times, he was also praised by the New York Times as a "role model." So why is there a difference? Apparently, Stubbs actually had a sexual affair with a 15 year old boy, whereas, Foley had a known sexual affair with a 21 year old former page. The controversy about Foley is that he passed IM's to another 17 year old page. I don't know what was spoken, but if he stepped down from his position, its no doubt was serious. Stubbs commited the crime of statutory rape. While it wouldn't surprise that my Foley has too at some point in his life, there is no evidence of doing so. At most, he made unwanted sexual advances to a minor-- which was recently pointed out to me that in Washington DC, 16 is the age of consent.But again, this is a side-issue. The OP is why there is considered a difference in the media. The answer seems obvious to me. Its political motivated.

quote:

---

but I'm certain that for most people the number one reason they dislike him is for his misconduct, and the second because he's a Republican.

---

Why doesn't it make sense? The average person most likely does not like him for his conduct as the number one reason (for his salaciousness, and his hypocrisy). The second reason they don't like him has to do with him being a Republican. The Republicans don't like him for reason number one, and don't like him for blackeneing the eye of the GOP. That's speculative. I can say this much, Hastert is a pansy and I don't really care of he goes down with the ship. As far as it going back to Rove, I doubt that highly. No, sorry, it goes beyond that. He got a get-out-of-jail free card when he should have, at least, been impeached. So if they mention Clinton or Stubbs, its to show the blatant and bs level of bias that goes on. And it was so obvious that its going to be difficult for the Democrats to live that down. He was immoral and made a mockery of the US. He commited the crime of perjury but was found to be like the Teflon Don.Let me also post a subsection for obtaining and maintaining a security clearance. Then you can tell me if he's fit to have had a security clearance-- the highest clearance available.Federal Guidelines: Sec. 147.6 Guidance D--Sexual behavior(a) The concern. Sexual behavior is a security concern if it
involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, may subject the individual to coercion, exploitation, or
duress, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion.\1\ Sexual orientation or preference may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a
security clearance.(b) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(1) Sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted;
(2) Compulsive or addictive sexual behavior when the person is unable to stop a pattern or self-destructive or high-risk behavior or that which is symptomatic of a personally disorder;
(3) Sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to
coercion, exploitation, or duress;
(4) Sexual behavior of a public nature and/or that which reflects
lack of discretion or judgment. Clinton put the 'oral' back in morality.I think this critique sums it up nicely: "What comes across as the most important source of Clinton's uniqueness as president is the nearly unbelievable degree of his essential unfitness to be president -- his profound immaturity, his pathological selfishness, his cynicism, above all his relentless corruption." -Michael Kelly He was involved in an extensive cover-up by his constituents for the greater part of two decades. Like nobody knew he was a philanderer?Let me count the allegations against him:1. Paula Jones
2. Bobbie Ann Williams
3. Sally Miller Perdue
4. Christy Zercher
5. Jennifer Flowers
6. Mary Mahoney
7. Juanita Broaddrick
8. Elizabeth Ward Gracen
9. Kathleen Wiley
10. Monica LewinskiOne or two could have been dismissed as somone trying to discredit a Senator or a President. Ten of them, through different timelines, in different states, is highly suspect. The assertion that nobody knew of his ways is absurd.But all this is OT. The point, the main point, is that there is a clear bias in coverage and responsibility. If the media were any more to slanted, my television screen would fall over towards the Left. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I am basing most of my judgements on limited information so I will caveat my statements by saying that I am under the assumption that the contact that Studds had was more 'healthy' than the multiple contacts that Foley had. I recall that the person Studds was involved with reacted positivly to his relationship with Studds. I also don't recall there being any mention of repeat advances by Studds to any other pages. We DO know that in Foley's case that this behavior definitly WAS a pattern and that the nature of the contact was exploitive.If there is any information that I need to know to change those assumptions then I would like to see it.We can also hypothesize all day about how Foley might have been different had he been in a more 'normal' relationship with one of the pages similar to Stubbs but given the content of the messages I subjectivly doubt that such a scenario would have had any impact.My mention of depravity in this instance is in regards to the exploitive nature of Foley's advances on the pages given what I know. I do not know if Stubbs' scenario could equally be called exploitive but everything I know so far gives me the indication that it should not be.Beyond that, there are other differences with Foley including the GOP coverup or inaction whatever you want to call it AND the public and vigorous stace OF FOLEY AGAINST child exploitation laws. If the pages are to be considered child are not is irrelevant to the fact that even if they are technically not it is a very fine line to walk for someone so vocal about anti-exploitation laws. It is hypocricy at its finest.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I guess my criticism boils down to that we know Foley was acting in a way that given his position and actions was exploitive. While this may be true for Stubbs, we have some information to suggest that it is not. We would need to know more about the specifics of the relationship of Stubbs and his boy toy to make any further determination.If there is reason to suspect that Stubbs was being as exploitive as Foley then your criticism of bias MIGHT have merit. The other factors to consider are, like others have suggested, the different generation in which these two cases have occurred and the ABJECT FAILURE of the Republican administration on a number of OTHER issues for which this is just one of the bubbles bursting on a pot of boiling water.You cannot take this Foley situation in a vacume of the other events of this Republican run administration. They have screwed up domestic policy, they have screwed up foreign policy, they have screwed up national security, they have screwed up education. Now this last event has cast grave doubt about the last thing the Republicans had laid claim to being the arbiters of, morality and family values.Regardless of the fact that Foley is just one member in the GOP, he tried very had to make himself the face of the crusade to protect children. So not only by this scandal is he defamed in the face of the liberals, he has defamed himself in the face of the entire segement of 'value voters' who have been welcomed into the Republican party. How many Florida conservatives do you think are totally pissed off now and potentially questioning the very fabric of the party they were counting on to bring morality and accountability 'back into politics'.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Ha ha! I enjoyed that, I truly did.

I'm going on the record with an assertion that a discussion of liberal bias in the media, as a purported difference between the media reactions to the two situations stipulated, is still on-topic. All the time. And what I see is a consistent, misguided effort on the part of personally-liberal journalists to appear "balanced" by overcorrecting to the right.Your quote from the late, great Jennings is an example of what I'm taking about. Journalists have so internalized the Republican spin about "the liberal media" that they overcorrect to the right, and so when they interview Republicans who just sit there and lie, the reporters don't challenge them because they don't want to appear "liberal."You can see it over and over again, as Republican spin on issues is uncritically reported; the way everything good for Republicans is presented as evidence of Republican strength, but everything bad for Republicans is presented as an opportunity that Democrats will be too weak to take advantage of. It's the fictional metanarrative of Republican strength. Every situation becomes a chance for journalists to portray Republicans as strong and Democrats as weak, no matter what the facts are. It's subtle so I'm surprised you haven't noticed it. The stuff you think is "liberal bias in the news" is actually just the uncomfortable facts Republicans don't want you to know. Occasionally that stuff gets through.Read Homepage | Media Matters for America and you'll see what I'm taking about. I'm pretty sure it didn't. The original charter for the independant investigation stipulated that the purpose was for investigating the allegations surrounding Whitewater, not anything having to do with Clinton's sex life.I could be wrong, though. Or you could just be making up more of your own facts. Suppose that she did? I imagine that I'd be hurt and feel betrayed, be very angry, feel my marriage had been shaken. Feel that someone I thought I had been closer to than anyone had suddenly become a stranger to me.Maybe I don't have to imagine feeling those things; maybe what you describe actually happened. You'll never know. But regardless of how hypothetically angry and hurt and betrayed I might or might not have been, the law doesn't change. Adultery isn't illegal. You can't even pursue civil action. It's grounds for divorce but I don't see how it's grounds for impeachment. Even if it were happening to me. What, you're telling me that Congress took it upon itself because they felt bad for Hillary? Like, impeaching Clinton was supposed to be a personal favor for her? Clinton didn't cheat on any member of the Senate, you know. Personal feelings don't enter in to it, where I can see.(In the future you may wish to rethink arguing from a basis of "if it happened to you, you might think differently." Some of us don't use our personal emotions to determine what is right and wrong.)

I hope to address the rest of your post in more detail tomorrow but just one point for now. If you want to argue that there may be hidden contacts for Studds there may also be hidden 'actual activity' in the case of Foley. I know it may seem unlikey in todays media and fame obsessed society but it may be that there are congressional pages or former pages who may not wish to confess to a sexual relationship to the press. Should we expect Foley to volunteer the information if such a relationship had existed?Once we start going outside the purview of what we do actually have evidence or documentation for we are heading down a slippery slope. There is quite enough ambiguity about both cases without adding another heaping with the adition of hypothetical contacts either of a communicative or sexual nature.TTFN,WK

Please provide some evidence to substantiate this.TTFN,WK

Without question. And sweet justice might just be that his own law is the noose around his neck. There's some bad Karma for ya.

This question wasn't directed at me and may have been addressed before I posted, but I would guess that Crashfrog brought up gambling as a parallel to porn for its association with traditional American Christianity (I emphasize American because I assume CF, NJ and myself to be speaking from the American experience). Both of these "sins" play a huge part in our American cultural experience based upon our mostly Protestant Christian heritage.NJ, you ask, why people feel a compulsion to hide their proclivity for porn/gambling (maybe not so much as porn) in general life and then use an employer's concern over such proclivities as evidence for depravity. But, you do not recognize that the employee and the employer come from, largely, the same culture.An employee, during paid office hours, should not be posting at EvC, just as much as s/he should not be viewing "Gang-bang Gina", but our society condemns said employee for the latter based on particular cultural mores, not on some universal morality scheme. All bolding mine and words replaced to prove a point I agree that his testimony and understanding into Bundy's particular psychology provide much insight for social scientists, the "fact" that pornography played a pivotal role in his/their development as psychotic killers or even "common criminals" is coincedental and highly anecdotal just as much as the fact (by itself) that he/they were white and raised Christian. Unequivocally, really? That porn causes serial killings, or that most serial killers have an obsession with porn? Well, if most viewers of porn do not have a homicidal obsession, then we must figure out what OTHER VARIABLE causes homicidal mania, since porn doesn't seem to cut it.What science are you speaking of? One variable maybe pointing one way does not causation prove.

I saw it more as grasping straws. Oh right, because company policies are based around the Bible....??? Again, for the umteenth time. Which do you think is more likely? Your boss walks in and sees you posting on EvC. He says, "Hey, come on now. Stop fluffing off. I really need those reports by the end of the day. You know, I don't care if you check your email on occasion or whatever, just don't make this habitual."The next scenario has your boss walking in on "Gang-Bang Gina." Your boss, with wide eyes and visably embarrased, says, "Uh, what are you watching? This is unacceptable. Unacceptable! You have a half hour to be in my office with the board members. We'll decide what course of action we are going to take on this matter. Let me say this much. You know the companies policy on this and were instructed during orientation how severe the infraction would be. What's the matter with you? You know our IT department searches for this stuff and you rsiked it anyway?"Answer honsetly:Do the scenarios I presented seem logical? Do you think any company, not associated with porn in anyway, would just mosey on in watching you watch Gang-bang Gina, and be all, "Hey, what's up man? Did you catch the ballgame last night?"

quote:

---

Eating food helps you survive, watching porn or even having sex won't determine whether or not you live or die. Christians have a problem with porn. Perhaps you don't want to make the connection because you are an advocate of Christianity. Its not a jab at anyone that practices Christianity. Everyone understands the lure of Christianity. It isn't like anyone is weird for practicing Christianity. I'm just saying that Christianity has some consequences attached to it and its promoters should understand that.

---

You know, I've never seen more people so transparently flustered, using more underhanded tactics, or floundered around this much on an incontrovertible subject. Tell you what Jaderis, go in to work tomorrow and blast Gang-bang Gina. Then tell me the reason they fired you. If every one here likes porn so much, then masturbate to your hearts content and fill your mind with as many images as you want. That's entirely up to you. But please don't play dumb like porn is something that is as benign as watching Sesame Street, m'kay? Alright, well, don't believe it. I've already said, numerous times, that porn doesn't 'make you' kill people. What I said was that serial killers have one thing in common between them all-- they are deeply entrenched in the world of pornography. But porn is just the delivery method of a much deeper issue-- namely, sexual immorality. Porn is just an avenue of this immorality. And if it is left unchecked, it has the potential to fester in to more and more deviant thoughts and actions. Nobody starts off watching snuff films or extreme bondage. They start off at the beginning with a level of innocence. And nobody is going to condemn anyone for being interested in sex. That's absurd. However, if a person continues in this manner, they may begin to trivialize sex and become more calloused to it. When this happens, more, and more depraved acts have to be viewed to get that feeling back of intense emotion. Pain somehow becomes factored in and associated with sex. When that begins to wane, simulated rape can arouse. Once that subsides, the realm of fantasy no longer satisfies and they begin to act out their fantasies. They all describe the rush and the thrill and become addicted to it. And just like any drug, they can't get that first time feeling back. They end up chasing the dragon. Next, it leads to murder where now the thought of inducing pain and asserting dominance over another human being brings back those feelings. Then it could lead to just raping and killing someone no longer produce that endorphine rush. Now they may find overkill, like mutilation and dismemberment appealing. And I say, never say, never.... but, seriously, how do you come back from that? Is not the psyche torn to shreds and any sense of morality abandoned?Do not these descriptions sound all too familiar? Is what I am saying really all that absurd? Is not my rationale grounded in a 'shred' of fact? If any among you dismiss this, I will have nothing more to say on the subject. I wouldn't know how else to word it to get my point across. Sociology.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt