The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm with Alex on this one. The first article I read about it didn't even mention the later, more explicit emails that ocurred after the request to sever contact. That first bunch of emails, while not particularly professinal didn't seem to me to warrant much more than a, "Hey, the family asked you to stop emailing, so stop." The later ones (which I haven't seen the content of) sound like they are definitely something to worry about, but, as Alex said, if Hastert was aware of anything, it wasn't those.

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't think you need the benefit of hindsight to see that the first set were clearly trust-building preludes to the second set. The next step would have been to wind up with his mug on Dateline while carrying a bag full of gifts.

[wendybeth]

The e-mails posted above are grooming e-mails, and it's difficult to believe anyone can see them as anything other than just that. How on earth does a powerful politican have enough time to 'chat' with very young pages, and in such a weirdly familiar manner?

We jsut went through a similar situation with our (former) mayor. What the hell is wrong with these freaks? Is it the thrill of the potentially enormous damage to their careers? Is it the joy of abusing their power? It's got to be more than just sex, which leads me to believe the pedophile label might be accurately applied here.

[Alex]

Here's the thing. When you get into positions of some power you are bombarded by various groups to take an interest in the lives of young people. To mentor them. To pretend an interest in their lives. To offer connections for advancement.

Besides being a slave employment system to save the House money, this is exactly what the kids entering the program hope to get. They're not doing it because watching C-SPAN live is all excitement.

Yes, with the hindsight of the latter communications the former is obviously a sign of what was to come. But without that hindsight these emails aren't all that different from communications between people in power and young people all the freaking time. My last employer had an official program for connecting senior management with high school students and offered guidelines on trying to connect with them. Making small talk. Being informal. Expressing an interest in what they do and what they find interesting. Just generally showing an interest in them and creating that exposure to "successful" life that will hopefully help propel them to great things.

If that type of communication makes you an obvious pedophile then every Boy Scout leader and Big Brother volunteer and professional mentor is likely an obvious pedophile. That's the difficulty of it: pedophilic interest looks, at least initially, pretty much like the interest of any caring person.

But really, my comments weren't about Foley but rather what Hastert should have done a year ago. There is debate as to whether he ever saw the emails or simply referred the matter to the congressman in charge when told there was an issue. The family expressly said they didn't want anything done in the way of investigation or punishment but to just stop the emailing.

Go ahead an hoist Foley up by his scrotum based on those first emails. I'm just not willing to put Hastert up there with him based on what is currently known.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

My last employer had an official program for connecting senior management with high school students and offered guidelines on trying to connect with them. Making small talk. Being informal. . . .If that type of communication makes you an obvious pedophile then every Boy Scout leader and Big Brother volunteer and professional mentor is likely an obvious pedophile. That's the difficulty of it: pedophilic interest looks, at least initially, pretty much like the interest of any caring person.

Foley was talking about boys' bodies. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, a coach could get away with that, but here it clearly smells. I assume that your prior employer would not have countenanced a male mentor telling a teenage girl, "My, you've really filled out this summer."

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

The family expressly said they didn't want anything done in the way of investigation or punishment but to just stop the emailing.

In domestic violence cases where the defendant is usually less powerful than a congressman, the prosecutor proceeds on the basis of the police report whether or not he has a victim willing to testify. The assumption, which is probably correct sometimes and probably incorrect sometimes, is that the victim recants out of fear of retribution from the defendant. I would not be so quick to interpret the family's wish not to do anything as making it clear that they felt that there was no harm done. Since, as you say, these kids become pages to grease the skids of their ambition (or that of their family), they may not want to upset the apple cart by getting a congressman in trouble.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Just for the sake of accuracy, a person who preys on teens isn't a pedophile, but rather, an ephebophile.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Foley was talking about boys' bodies. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, a coach could get away with that, but here it clearly smells. I assume that your prior employer would not have countenanced a male mentor telling a teenage girl, "My, you've really filled out this summer."

Oh come on. He said another boy was fit. There is a difference between that and commenting on a girls' boobs.

In domestic violence cases where the defendant is usually less powerful than a congressman, the prosecutor proceeds on the basis of the police report whether or not he has a victim willing to testify.

Yeah, if there was a crime committed. There is currently no evidence that a crime was committed in those emails. The only ones of which Hastert may have been aware. And beyond knowing that they said they didn't want it persued we don't know why they said that to the Congressman looking into it.

You say it is obvious without hindsight. I strongly disagree with that. But then we live in a society where any adult male that takes an interest in children is viewed as a likely criminal (except by the people who actually know him). And this leads to the parents who ask their children be reassigned in school because they don't want a male teacher.

I'm not denying that in hindsight these email were indicators. But I do argue that if you put those emails in a pile of 100 emails from similar relationships where there is no sexual interest involved you would not be able to point to them and say "those are from a guy trying to get his freak on."

I would not be so quick to interpret the family's wish not to do anything as making it clear that they felt that there was no harm done.

I agree. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that such a statement was from the parents trying to sell out their kid to maintain connections. And in the face of that request, with arguably innocuous but misinterpreted emails, would you destroy a man's career? Or would you just say "stop emailing the kid?"

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Oh come on. He said another boy was fit. There is a difference between that and commenting on a girls' boobs.

Not if fit boys is what you're into and are hoping the other kid is, too.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

But then we live in a society where any adult male that takes an interest in children is viewed as a likely criminal.

Well, there's interest and then there's icky and, like obscenity, we know it when we see it. But you're right, it is sad to always have that stuff in the air. I coach a kid's soccer team, and one of the key pieces of advice at the orientation was never be alone with someone else's kid without another adult present.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

But I do argue that if you put those emails in a pile of 100 emails from similar relationships where there is no sexual interest involved . . .

Does not compute.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

And in the face of that request, with arguably innocuous but misinterpreted emails, would you destroy a man's career? Or would you just say "stop emailing the kid?"

This isn't some kid with undeveloped impulse control who never learned appropriate boundaries. Like all the scandalous priests, he destroyed his own career.

[Not Afraid]

It all doesn't matter. He's an alcoholic and all responsibility is removed from him.


(I know. I know. I just "like" the fact that that was mentioned.)

[€uroMeinke]

I presumed bonking the paiges/interns was a time honored tradition on Capital Hill, much as the Casting Couch is here in Hollywood - I fail to see why this is so surprising.