L.A. Times Implies the Republican Leadership Knew About and Covered Up Foley’s “Sexually Charged Internet Exchanges with Minors”
As I discussed the other day, leftists are pretending that Republican leaders knew about the disgusting instant messages that disgraced congressman Mark Foley traded with a 16-year-old boy.
Is it working?
Just ask Paul Levine of Jupiter, Florida — as reported in our favorite paper, the L.A. Times:
Foley’s sexually charged Internet exchanges with minors prompted widespread reactions of disbelief and disgust in his home district, suggesting that the party may face an uphill challenge in convincing voters that the seat, once considered a Republican lock, should remain in the party’s hands.
“I’m very disappointed, particularly that Republican leaders in Washington knew about it,” said Paul Levine, a 64-year-old retiree. “It’s absolutely inexcusable, it’s criminal they didn’t expose that. They covered it up.”
Yup. It’s working.
Does the article correct Levine? Does it do anything to dispel the obvious implication that “Foley’s sexually charged Internet exchanges with minors” were “covered . . . up” by “Republican leaders”?
Why, no. No, it doesn’t.
Are you surprised?
Remember what I said at the beginning of the post:
[L]eftists are pretending that Republican leaders knew about the disgusting instant messages that Foley traded with a 16-year-old boy.
When I said that “leftists” were doing this, did you think I didn’t mean to include the reporters and editors of the L.A. Times?
Worked with Plame why not this. That was the plan all along.
bill (26027c) — 10/3/2006 @ 7:24 pmWhy is the LA Times being dishonest? Are they not good people? What does the Readers’ Rep have to say about this?
Fake, but accurate again?
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/3/2006 @ 7:25 pmAs I browse the internet, it’s clear the GOP leadership is taking a hit for failing to protect children from Foley. Most discussions merge the alleged Foley emails and IMs, not realizing that the GOP leaders apparently saw the questionable but relatively tame emails but not the salacious IMs. The GOP is also faulted for handling this as a personnel or party matter instead of immediately treating this as a sexual predator case. I still don’t think we know what the GOP leaders knew and when they knew it. Ditto for CREW.
DRJ (ccb97e) — 10/3/2006 @ 7:26 pmIt seems quite likely this was intended to go beyond Foley all along.
The timing of the release of the e-mails with the IM’s made it easy to blur the two together. The timing of the story, late week, was perfect for the story to germinate while apparently those with the facts in Washington were busy with their weekend. So no authoritative response came until it was too late.
My next guess would be for someone to dig up more salacious material for the public or bring up other sex scandals so that the topic has changed before Republicans can response to the original charges.
Of course part of the problem is that the Republicans appear to be late the PR game that is being played.
jpm100 (06f700) — 10/3/2006 @ 7:46 pmHow long did the Democrats hold on to this? Weren’t they worried that more pages would be exposed to this? It seems they knew far more, and far sooner, than the Speaker did.
I mean, how the heck does one obtain 3-year-old IM’s overnight?
But Hastert should go, if only for seeming such an incompetent dullard. I was sorry to see Gingrich go, and I’ve been sorrier ever since. Gingrich had faults, sure, but being slow and stupid weren’t among them.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:01 pmIn reality, they only knew about ‘overfriendly’ emails. Which anyone who has ever tried to pick someone up knows to read the right way.
Maybe the GOP leadership is clueless about how people interact.
actus (10527e) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:11 pmI agree that if someone had actually read the “overfriendly” e-mails, they should have set off alarm bells.
So you guys could actually have a decent issue on the merits, actus, just by sticking to the facts.
Unfortunately, some of your leftist brethren want to make it a *great* issue by smearing people’s reputations with unfair innuendo.
Luckily for the leftists, the L.A. Times is right there to help.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:20 pmThere’s also the little matter that theres plenty besides the emails and the IM’s, of course. There’s his plain ole M.O.
actus (10527e) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:45 pmA post at TPM perhaps sums it up best:
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:46 pm[…] Patterico’s Pontifications […]
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Some Serious Crying From The Left & The Right (986d71) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:47 pmFlopping aces has a potentially big update. Click on the above link to get the very tentative scoop.
It’s also a great post, as are most there. Damn, I sound like an ad agency.
Seriously, though, I’m glad I read it and think it adds to the discussion.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:52 pmI believe the people who had this information ( it sure wasn’t the republicans) are far more guilty than even Foley. It is quite evident that he (Foley) is a mental case but the democrats that have sat on this for months (endangering even more young men) should all be dragged out and shot. They have had this information for months, even the Idiot Ross admitted to having it for over a month. He got it in August and this is Oct. If the man (Foley) had been a little more insane how many young men could have been killed as a result of the democrats holding the info for political purposes, and actually how do we know some have not been killed. Very few murders are ever solved by the ineffective, inept police in D.C.
Scrapiron (a90377) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:53 pmRick,
I think the TPM link is spin. In my opinion, it took 1 day to find the IMs because they were pre-packaged and readied for distribution.
What 17-year-old male saves IMs in his computer for 3 years, ready to produce overnight in response to an ABC Blotter story? I don’t know the demographics but how many 17-year-old males even read the Blotter?
DRJ (ccb97e) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:57 pmDRJ, before you comment on the saving IMs angle, you should read Michelle Malkin’s post about it here.
And be logical…
We are talking about 17-year old males who worked as Congressional pages and are planning careers in politics.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:01 pmLike, all the pages?
well, he’d be 21 now. But some IM software might log by default. Either that, or a young man who comes to washington might know enough to keep logs of his sex talk with the congressman.
actus (10527e) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:03 pmActus, thank the goddess I found you! We need you more than ever over at the post about the brutality that goes on over in Guantanamo!
Progressive Thinker (20136d) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:07 pmHear, hear, Actus.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:11 pmactus
So you knew about his M.O. all along and did nothing to prevent him from preying on the pages? You are as sick as Hastert. You actus, knew about this and did nothing to prevent it. Dispicable.
M.O.W. (20136d) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:17 pmM.O.W., I’d like a hit of that crack you are smoking because it must be some really good stuff.
Actus, whom I disagree with 100% of the time except when he’s right, didn’t know about his M.O. before. Like the rest of us, he has learned far too much about it since this came to light.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:22 pmMaybe, DRJ, but aren’t speculations that some Democrats knew about the IMs and initally kept them hidden to embarrass the House leadership every bit as nasty and as unfounded as speculations that the House leadership knew about the IMs and kept them hidden to avoid embarrassment?
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:32 pmFrom a RightWingSparkle (gee, she’s a hottie… married, alas…) comment on Hot Air:
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/3/2006 @ 9:57 pm‘Democrats Were Told About Mark Foley by One of Their Own At Least by September 29th and Are Now Trying to Delete Proof of This from Their (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Website’
I am a bit confused, perhaps someone could clear up a few questions for me. . . .
Foley is alleged to be ‘overly friendly’ with young boys who work as congressional pages. Foley is told by someone to stop it. Foley continues to be ‘overly friendly’ with those young boys. Foley is (apparently) threatened with expulsion, and (apparently) chooses to resign.
What more than that do you want????
Implied is “something should have been done sooner”, or “congressional leadership should have done something to prevent this from happening”??
What is it that you want done to prevent something like this from happening?
Are you suggestion that members of congress (and their staff??) should be monitored to prevent them from preying on innocent young boys?? Might as will include monitoring for espionage, and soliciting bribes while we are monitoring, eh? Of couse that would have to include telephone calls. What about monitoring those off site business lunches with lobbyists?? Should they be recorded as well???
You do remember the turmoil over recent legislation authorizing monitoring of electronic communications of people suspected of being terrorists??
I presume you(all) are the proverbial ‘office workers’, what happens when someone at your office complains that someone else is having an affair?? With a minor?? Do you hire a private investigator, call the FBI??? Do you have REALLY REALLY GOOD liability insurance???? Can you imagine the lawsuits????
Ernest (34bdaf) — 10/3/2006 @ 10:42 pm@Ernest well here are some answers.
A bright shining line should be drawn between any relationship between congress-critters and interns/pages.
I don’t care if it’s a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual one. There should be a bright shining line for all to see.
No one needs to monitor, to wiretap; let’s simply have a standard that powerful men (and women) shouldn’t abuse young people in their power.
That isn’t so hard is it?
To answer your question, considering I’ve been a senior VP responsible for investigating allegations (and a lot of other things),
An affair? Sadly irrelevant, though I protest against this as a libertarian/conservative.
With a minor? Yeah, that’s a felony, and you better believe I’d come down on that like a ton of bricks. I’m stunned that you’d think otherwise.
Hire a PI? Yep, though I’d be calling my lawyer and then, via him/her, contacting the DA.
An employee molesting a child? That guy (or yes, I suppose could be a female molester) deserves to have the hammer of God come down upon him. And he shall if I can help it.
People like Ernest baffle me. Are they that ignorant of the real world? Just playing games? I don’t know.
Holmwood (76cebf) — 10/3/2006 @ 11:34 pm-Holmwood
Let’s see if I have this right. A homosexual tries to put the make on an underage homosexual. Why aren’t the liberals happy for the confirmation since it’s only a private relationship? Maybe if Foley had proposed marriage there’d be no problem. And why complain about who knew and when they knew since this affair seems to be standard operating procedure for homosexuals? Looks like ole Foley should have come out of the closet and all would be well.
krusher (936813) — 10/4/2006 @ 4:33 amOver at Echidne of the Snakes, any comparison with Democrat diddling of minors is met with scorn, since, supposedly, those relationships were “consentual.” So, please, don’t be so naive as to conclude that everyone understands exactly what about Foley’s conduct is wrong and disgusting.
And Actus, if the House leadership had done more than warn Foley (and his pages), they would have been accused of homophobia. Since we all know there are no gay Republicans.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/4/2006 @ 5:21 amI had no idea who this guy was. But there were people in congress, including the pages, that knew he was trying to pick up boys.
actus (10527e) — 10/4/2006 @ 5:22 amWhat gets the GOP accused of homophobia is that they talk like this is a gay issue.
You’ve said some idiotic stuff in the past but this tops it.
actus (10527e) — 10/4/2006 @ 5:37 am“What gets the GOP accused of homophobia is that they talk like this is a gay issue.”
No, Actus. What gets the GOP accused of homophobia is mud-slingers from the left who view anything that isn’t pro-homosexual to be antihomosexual. And I realize you never received any letters, e-mails, etc. which could have been considered a “hit,” but most women have and mature ones ignored them and moved on. What makes all this suspicious is that all of this was held on to for years. Why not either file suit (if there was enough evidence) or move on (if there wasn’t)?
“You’ve said some idiotic stuff in the past but this tops it.”
Gosh, Actus, I expect even a 1L who’s barely passing to be able to recognize sarcasm when they see it. But I guess that would explain why you didn’t.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/4/2006 @ 6:27 amI still haven’t seen sec and para of the law violated here. In an earlier post I agreed that a moral line has been crossed and as a constiuent of Foley’s I want his head on a pike, but;
a) The page in question wasn’t “his’ page so the “authority abuse’ isn’t germaine
b) Consensual age in DC is 16.
c) The guy resigned, better than the pervs before him.
d) Based on the information at hand at the time the leadership did caution him.
So I’m thinking that short of pulling his pension (Which I think cannot be done) there isn’t much we can do for this sicko other than tag him and make sure he doesn’t enter
paul from fl (001f65) — 10/4/2006 @ 7:12 ampubicpublic life again. The rest of this wheel spinning is just politics. I see this type of “Who knew what when” leading to cryptic announcements of investigations on every single member of congress at one time or another, just to hold in suspense “What who knew when” Then everytime someone on the hill pisses someone else off an announcement of an investigation can be made. Eventually, no legislation gets done just Butt covering (ok unfortunate allusion butt still..)[…] This is at least the second time that the paper has quoted someone who conflates the explicit instant messages with the less disturbing e-mails. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Steve Lopez: Keeping the Foley Meme Alive (421107) — 10/4/2006 @ 7:23 amPaul,
There isn’t more that can be done to Foley for what happened than what has been done already. But that’s not the point. The point is that Democrats want as many Republicans implicated in this as possible, whether there’s any truth or logic to it at all. The more Republicans who resign, the easier it is for Democrats to take control of the House again. That’s the point. That’s why this information didn’t come to light 3 years ago when it was relevant.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/4/2006 @ 7:35 amHolmwood
Yes we do live in different worlds as I am only a dumb, unemployed truck driver. Clearly I didn’t make my point.
The republican party leadership has standards, and those standards were enforced. How did the party leadership discover that those standards had been violated? They read about it in the news papers.
Pop Quiz: Can you connect the dots? The name “Hewlett Packard”, the phrase “board of directors”, the word “pretexting”, and the phrase “leaking to the press”.
Here is an additional data point.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/233
Executive summary: In some states it may be a violation of privacy laws to record instant messaging chats without the explicit consent of all parties engaged in the chat.
Perhaps you would like to schedule some time with legal to review corporate policy governing company email and IM with third parties?
Ernest (6d11cc) — 10/4/2006 @ 8:05 amChristoph,
I have been reading Michelle Malkin but I appreciate the link. My point was not that kids never read the Blotter and never keep IMs. If they were smart, as I’m sure many are, some of the pages may well have done so. What I was trying to say (and did poorly) was that I think the IMs were pre-packaged because the claimed turn-around time of 24 hours was too brief.
It’s not impossible but, to me, it’s unlikely that in the space of 24 hours: One or more former pages read about the emerging Foley story, located and retrieved their stored IMs, figured out who to contact and in fact contacted a journalist handling the story, and transmitted the IMs to the journalist. Further, in that same time period, the journalist reviewed the lengthy IMs and prepared a story that worked its way through what was probably a lengthy editorial process and, presumably, also through a legal process before going to print. It doesn’t pass my smell test but it clearly passes others and it may be true.
As an aside, for all those who think the GOP has talking points, Michelle Malkin’s website and others disprove the notion that we’re all on the same page. While there is agreement that what Foley did was wrong, Republicans are all over the board on the GOP leaders’ response to the Foley emails.
Rick,
I don’t think it’s nasty or unfounded to speculate about these things but I agree the speculations are equivalent. Not to be a nit-picker, but I think one of the benefits of internet forums like this is to be able to ask questions and speculate about current events.
DRJ (ccb97e) — 10/4/2006 @ 10:21 amAgreed, but then I think that does kind of diminish Patterico’s and others’ repeated complaints about “leftists” when “rightists” are engaging in equivalent behaviours and speculations.
Rick (ea2ac3) — 10/4/2006 @ 10:34 am[…] Patterico’s written before that the Leftists are using the Foley incident to tar & feather the Republicans with the nasty allegation that they knew about the most lurid details, the IMs, and kept them under wraps. Hastert and the other GOP leaders deny this — they knew about the emails, but not the IMs. For the LA Times, it’s not “We report, you decide.”, it’s more like “We decide, then report what we decided, and you don’t think about it too much, your job is just to believe. We’ve already done all that difficult thinkin’ here — so you don’t have to.” […]
“Okie” on the Lam » LA Times Spin Machine — Economy Bad - Foley Bad - GOP Really, Really Bad! (e2cef7) — 10/4/2006 @ 12:18 pmRick,
I think Patterico is fair in his criticism of liberals and you probably noticed that he levels a fair amount of criticism at conservatives, too. that doesn’t mean he or anyone should be even-handed when the facts don’t warrant it.
DRJ (ccb97e) — 10/4/2006 @ 12:48 pmMore manure from the infamous SMELL A TIMES dose the stink make you gag?
krazy kagu (e70d3d) — 10/4/2006 @ 1:18 pmOf course you do, but that’s a generality that doesn’t really address the point of my post.
I think we’ve just about gone full circle, here; thanks for your thoughtful replies.
Rick
Rick (ea2ac3) — 10/4/2006 @ 1:39 pm“Maybe, DRJ, but aren’t speculations that some Democrats knew about the IMs and initally kept them hidden to embarrass the House leadership every bit as nasty and as unfounded as speculations that the House leadership knew about the IMs and kept them hidden to avoid embarrassment?”
The accusations are certainly nasty but probably not unfounded. There’s been widespread speculation on the left about an “October surprise” coming from the Bush administration, so I certainly wouldn’t have been surprised if this hadn’t been intended to counter anything they came up with. Plus, and this is something I really haven’t seen anyone discussing, I think leaking unpleasantries like this is an excellent way of getting around McCain-Feingold by having the media do one’s dirty work.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/4/2006 @ 2:54 pmthere’s also the gay hate amendments. Muddy.
It was pretty lame sarcasm. Who were you mocking?
actus (10527e) — 10/4/2006 @ 4:31 pm“there’s also the gay hate amendments. Muddy.”
You mean the amendments that define marriage the way normal people have defined it for generations? Not so muddy.
“It was pretty lame sarcasm. Who were you mocking?”
The sarcasm wasn’t lame. Your idiotic attack was lame. I was mocking liberals who write things like, “gay hate amendments.” And your response was predictable.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/4/2006 @ 8:44 pmNormal people. And we wonder about those mud slingers.
I think you’ve got a point though. Those amendments hurt more than just gays: they sow hate for all unmarried people, gay or straight.
actus (10527e) — 10/4/2006 @ 8:55 pm“Normal people. And we wonder about those mud slingers.”
Normal people, yeah. You know, society. The ones that make the laws, traditions, mores, etc. And yes, I do wonder about mud slingers, particularly those who like using sarcasm but don’t seem to recognize it from others.
“I think you’ve got a point though. Those amendments hurt more than just gays: they sow hate for all unmarried people, gay or straight.”
This isn’t the thread to get into it, but I am sick and tired of the misuse, particularly by the left, of the term “hate.” It’s not “hating” unmarried people to say they aren’t married and shouldn’t be granted the privileges associated with marriage.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/4/2006 @ 9:48 pmNormal. As opposed to gay.
But it is hating them to say that they aren’t married and therefore shouldn’t be protected by domestic violence laws.
actus (10527e) — 10/5/2006 @ 4:43 am“Normal. As opposed to gay.”
Normal people, yeah. You know, society. The ones that make the laws, traditions, mores, etc. And yes, I do wonder about mud slingers, particularly those who like using sarcasm but don’t seem to recognize it from others.
“But it is hating them to say that they aren’t married and therefore shouldn’t be protected by domestic violence laws.”
It’s not hateful to say if you aren’t married you don’t get the benefits of marriage. We’ve been around this tree before. Your argument still loses. And it isn’t the point of the thread. Feel free to keep venting, though. It’d just be easier for you to go get the marriage license.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/5/2006 @ 5:16 amYou really don’t think gay people are a part of our society? I mean, if you’re talking majority, there is majority support for civil unions. But not marriage. Which partly why I think these gay hate amendments are so wrong: they’re sold as preventing gay marriage, but their real effect is frustrating and destroying all sorts of gay family relationships. And, it turns out, all sorts of straight relationships as well. But our hate of the gay will override.
Its hateful, and disrespectful, of how people actually live to believe that protection from domestic violence is a benefit of marriage. Actually i’d say thats quite a hateful position to take about marriage itself.
I think we can agree that easier marriage licenses would solve the problem for everyone. But i dont think we can agree that this is the goal that people want.
actus (10527e) — 10/5/2006 @ 5:25 am“You really don’t think gay people are a part of our society?”
Of course gay people are part of society. A tiny, tiny part.
“Which partly why I think these gay hate amendments are so wrong: they’re sold as preventing gay marriage, but their real effect is frustrating and destroying all sorts of gay family relationships. And, it turns out, all sorts of straight relationships as well. But our hate of the gay will override.”
They aren’t “gay hate amendments.” They are amendments to clarify that marriage means what it has traditionally meant: one man and one woman.
“Its hateful, and disrespectful, of how people actually live to believe that protection from domestic violence is a benefit of marriage. Actually i’d say thats quite a hateful position to take about marriage itself.”
Domestic violence laws are a relatively recent invention. Couples who choose not to marry have found ways to deal with beating each other up for much longer than these laws have been around. It’s hateful to say it’s hateful to treat unmarried couples differently from married ones. If you want the privileges associated with marriage, get married.
“I think we can agree that easier marriage licenses would solve the problem for everyone. But i dont think we can agree that this is the goal that people want.”
I don’t think marriage licenses need to be any easier to get. They are extremely easy to get now. But if you don’t want to bother getting one, then don’t complain when you aren’t treated as a married couple.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/5/2006 @ 7:16 amBTW, here’s something you might want to read up on about marriage if you are really interested in this.
http://www.stthomas.edu/law/studentlife/journal/vol_2_num_1_articles/How%20will%20gay%20marriage%20weaken%20marriage%20as.pdf
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/5/2006 @ 12:55 pmThese amendments do more than that. Read the federal one. Its got two sentences: One does what you claim, the other does what I claim.
Ya. By living with violence. You’re doing a real good job of selling ‘traditiona’ mores here.
Thats exactly what gay people want to do.
actus (10527e) — 10/5/2006 @ 6:48 pm“These amendments do more than that. Read the federal one. Its got two sentences: One does what you claim, the other does what I claim.”
Actually, it doesn’t necessarily do what you claim. But, as I said before, we’ve been around this tree before.
“Ya. By living with violence. You’re doing a real good job of selling ‘traditiona’ mores here.”
I don’t have to sell “traditiona (sic) mores.” People who live together don’t have to live with the violence. Roommates don’t. Friends don’t. Colleagues don’t. There’s no reason to assume that couples who have sex are somehow less capable of dealing with violence because they don’t have a marriage license.
“Thats exactly what gay people want to do.”
Try reading the article I linked before making this argument.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/5/2006 @ 8:34 pmThe federal one is a bit better. Some of these state ones are awful. Ohio, for example, is a nasty one.
I know. Thats why I dont think the law should treat them differently.
I started on it. But here you are telling me that people should quit whining and get married, and i’m telling you the same thing.
actus (10527e) — 10/5/2006 @ 8:41 pm“I know. Thats why I dont think the law should treat them differently.”
The law doesn’t treat them differently. They’re treated like every other unmarried person, and the way unmarried people have always been treated under the law.
“I started on it. But here you are telling me that people should quit whining and get married, and i’m telling you the same thing.”
No, Actus. You’re making the same arguments over and over without reading anything. I posted the link to Gallagher’s article at 12:55 p.m., but instead of reading it, you had to post just to keep up. So, try reading it this time before saying something else that’s already been addressed and addressed and addressed.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/6/2006 @ 4:26 amIn Ohio, unmarried people got domestic violence protections under the law. So you’re wrong to say they’re treated the same as they have ever been. Its also a bad idea to say they’re treated like they have always been, because we didn’t always have domestic violence protection. That’s not something you want to point out.
I read it, some parts of it are quite paternalistic — where they’re arguing that gay people won’t like marriage. And yet gay people seem in a hurry to get married. But mostly its talk about disliking gender neutral words.
In sum I think if anyone’s otherwise happy marriage is being attacked, we should defend it. If someone finds somene else’s marriage an offense against which they feel their marriage needs to be defended from, thats where I draw the line. People should worry more about their own marriages, rather than others’.
And there are some rather fantastic assertions, that go unfootnoted.
actus (10527e) — 10/6/2006 @ 5:10 am“In Ohio, unmarried people got domestic violence protections under the law. So you’re wrong to say they’re treated the same as they have ever been. Its also a bad idea to say they’re treated like they have always been, because we didn’t always have domestic violence protection. That’s not something you want to point out.”
The idea of domestic violence protection is relatively new. If I look back through my posts on this topic, I think I can find somewhere where I either said this or something similar to it. The point is that domestic violence has been around much, much longer than the laws and yet people have found ways of dealing with it, not just living with the violence. They move out. They seek help from outsiders. They press assault and battery charges. The point is that while domestic violence laws make it easier for those involved to prosecute, it has been possible to deal with the violence before these laws were enacted.
“I read it, some parts of it are quite paternalistic — where they’re arguing that gay people won’t like marriage. And yet gay people seem in a hurry to get married. But mostly its talk about disliking gender neutral words.”
She points out that there are provisions in marriage that do not suit the way gay couples live and arrange their lives. And that expanding the definition of marriage will have detrimental effects on heterosexual couples because marriage won’t be what it has always been. It’s not merely about “disliking gender neutral words,” but I guess since you aren’t a husband it doesn’t really bother you not to have a wife.
“In sum I think if anyone’s otherwise happy marriage is being attacked, we should defend it. If someone finds somene else’s marriage an offense against which they feel their marriage needs to be defended from, thats where I draw the line. People should worry more about their own marriages, rather than others’.”
It would, indeed, be nice if the only people who were involved in an issue or were allowed to have opinions about it were the individuals directly involved. It would certainly make it easier to suppress speech and information, which is really where your argument leads. Whether redefining marriage affects my marriage directly is probably not something any one person would be able to know for at least a generation. By that time, the damage done to the institution would be enormous and, frankly, that damage isn’t worth the social experimentation desired.
“And there are some rather fantastic assertions, that go unfootnoted.”
Mostly those contained in your posts.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/6/2006 @ 8:07 amNot so much, no. Before the feminist revolution of the 60’s and 70’s it was quite hard to deal with it. Well, dealing with it meant being battered.
But lets even look at our nomenclature, “domestic violence” which speaks of domesticity, not marriage. Hard to now cabin this into the married relationship, saying thats where it belongs. But thats what these hate amendments are doing.
Ya. Thats a problem for the gay people, who obviously are choosing marriage, than for the people who are not. They have their own families, and don’t need our paternalism.
This is the part that i’m not really following. I guess I just have a different view of relationships than other people. Someone’s marriage will be what they make it, not what the law says you are. I’m actually rather sorry for people that feel like their marriage will change because of someone else’s. You’d think their relationship was strong enough.
Where do you get this idea about people being ‘allowed’ to have opinions? This idea of suppression?
Welcome to blogoland.
actus (10527e) — 10/7/2006 @ 11:32 am“Not so much, no. Before the feminist revolution of the 60’s and 70’s it was quite hard to deal with it. Well, dealing with it meant being battered.”
You’re just flat out wrong, Actus. Yes, people were battered before domestic violence laws forced them to prosecute once the police were called. But that in no way means people didn’t have or find other ways of dealing with domestic violence before the laws were enacted. You’re just flat out wrong on this one.
“But lets even look at our nomenclature, “domestic violence” which speaks of domesticity, not marriage. Hard to now cabin this into the married relationship, saying thats where it belongs. But thats what these hate amendments are doing.”
That nomenclature is just liberal wording left from a time in the 70s and 80s. And there’s nothing wrong with restricting the laws to cover the sorts of relationships (i.e. marriage) that one typically thinks of as “domestic.” Everybody else still can resort to assault and battery charges if they so desire. It doesn’t change that at all. The difference is that domestic violence laws require prosecution while assault and battery charges must be filed by the victim.
“Ya. Thats a problem for the gay people, who obviously are choosing marriage, than for the people who are not. They have their own families, and don’t need our paternalism.”
No, Actus. It isn’t just a problem for the gay people who “obviously are choosing marriage.” It’s a problem for the heterosexual people who “obviously are choosing marriage” because the definitions of marriage, obligations traditionally assigned to marriage, and the benefits which come from that marriage will all have to be changed to satisfy the gay couples who have problems with what marriage has traditioanally entailed. In short, by expanding the definition of who can be married and what sorts of relationships the government will be involved in, you have destroyed the original purposes of marriage in the first place and replaced it with something that has little value over the long term.
“Where do you get this idea about people being ‘allowed’ to have opinions? This idea of suppression?”
Every time you introduce gay marriage to a discussion, you use the argument that it is no one’s business unless their marriage is directly involved. I disagree with this point of view because institutions like marriage affect much more than just the individuals involved in the individual marriage. It’s a red herring to use logic which dictates that one has no concerns for an issue unless one is directly involved. That’s why I keep pointing it out. If you mean something other than suppressing opinions on abstractions, I suggest you use a different argument because this one doesn’t work.
“Welcome to blogoland.”
That’s not an excuse.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/8/2006 @ 5:46 amMay I recommend Reva B Siegel, “‘The Rule of Love’: Wife Beating as Perogative and Privacy,” 105 Yale Law Journal 2117 (1996). In it, we hear about how the doctrine of chastisement (allowing what would otherwise be a battery to be let alone) gave way to the doctrine of familial privacy (noting that yes, there was a battery, but the courts won’t look into the privacy of the home to prosecute). Of course, this wasn’t the case everywhere. But it was a doctrine that was around.
You keep saying this. And I say that actually, I find plenty wrong with his. To begin with, the fact that people actually are in domestic relationships and actually do need the protection of these laws we have created for these domestic relationships.
I think you don’t really know what you’re talking about and you should stop. This isn’t the case with the Ohio law.
I think there will be plenty of value, as people are still going to get married, some of these will be happy, and red states will still have higher divorce rates that blue states, but none of this will stop the gloom and doom predictions.
Exactly. I’m a live and let live type. But thats far from ‘suppression’ or allowing. My live and let live idea competes with the other paternalistic ideas where gay people’s lives are going to be scrutinized in a way that straight ones aren’t. Neither of these ideas are suppressed.
But it is rather common practice that we not use footnotes in blogoland.
actus (10527e) — 10/8/2006 @ 8:38 am“May I recommend Reva B Siegel, “‘The Rule of Love’: Wife Beating as Perogative and Privacy,” 105 Yale Law Journal 2117 (1996). In it, we hear about how the doctrine of chastisement (allowing what would otherwise be a battery to be let alone) gave way to the doctrine of familial privacy (noting that yes, there was a battery, but the courts won’t look into the privacy of the home to prosecute). Of course, this wasn’t the case everywhere. But it was a doctrine that was around.”
Yes, the key words in your statement is that it wasn’t the case everywhere. People have always found ways of dealing with domestic violence, and that includes long before there were laws. They didn’t always stay. Do I really have to keep repeating this fact until you stop replying that there were victims of domestic violence? There’s no argument that there was, but people dealt with this without the protection of laws. Enough already.
“I think you don’t really know what you’re talking about and you should stop. This isn’t the case with the Ohio law.”
I think you’re an idiot who should shut up and read what I write before commenting. I have not mentioned the Ohio law. You are the one who wants to talk about the Ohio law.
“I think there will be plenty of value, as people are still going to get married, some of these will be happy, and red states will still have higher divorce rates that blue states, but none of this will stop the gloom and doom predictions.”
You cannot predict what will happen once the definition of marriage is changed this way, unless you took a mind-reading course when you were supposed to be studying Property Law your first year. And exactly how does your comment about divorce rates bolster your argument?
“Exactly. I’m a live and let live type. But thats far from ’suppression’ or allowing. My live and let live idea competes with the other paternalistic ideas where gay people’s lives are going to be scrutinized in a way that straight ones aren’t. Neither of these ideas are suppressed.”
Um, no you aren’t a live and let live type. You’re perfectly fine with changing the law in a way that will fundamentally change the way society functions. That certainly doesn’t sound like live and let live.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/8/2006 @ 6:53 pmIts not that there were victims. Its that the solutions now are better. Now there are shelters, clinics, laws, court programs, trainings of cops, etc . . . And the way that people ‘dealt’ with it before this is worse. This bleeds off into your argument for ‘tradition,’ because it shows you don’t know much, or sympathize much, with how we have improved over hte way things were.
Thats what I have been talking about, becase thats the one that’s right now being threatened by the gay hate amendment. It’s not mandatory prosecution.
oh no. I’m being suppressed.
But for real, its live and let live because we’re letting people have their own marriages, rather than having thee law define them. I’m putting the onus on the people in the marriage. I’m blaming the married people for when they have problems, for when their marriage is not what they want it to be.
actus (10527e) — 10/8/2006 @ 7:24 pm“Its not that there were victims. Its that the solutions now are better. Now there are shelters, clinics, laws, court programs, trainings of cops, etc . . . And the way that people ‘dealt’ with it before this is worse. This bleeds off into your argument for ‘tradition,’ because it shows you don’t know much, or sympathize much, with how we have improved over hte way things were.”
Actus, how obtuse are you? It doesn’t “bleed off” anything. That there are battered women’s shelters predates the laws you are applauding. Stop trying to change the argument because yours isn’t working. The point is that there have always been ways of dealing with domestic violence regardless of the laws. That unmarried people shacking up wouldn’t be treated like married people under the law doesn’t change the fact that, prior to the domestic violence laws, unmarried people shacking up weren’t treated like married people. But they still found ways to deal with the violence and it wasn’t simply to take the abuse (this was your original argument).
“Thats what I have been talking about, becase thats the one that’s right now being threatened by the gay hate amendment. It’s not mandatory prosecution.”
Yes, I said that you have been talking about this law and I was not. But continue to say that you are talking about this law and then accuse me of “not knowing what I’m talking about” when I don’t talk about this law. It really makes you look smart.
“oh no. I’m being suppressed.
But for real, its live and let live because we’re letting people have their own marriages, rather than having thee law define them. I’m putting the onus on the people in the marriage. I’m blaming the married people for when they have problems, for when their marriage is not what they want it to be.”
Actus, it isn’t live and let live to change the definition of marriage. To constantly focus on marriage at the microcosmic level (individual marriages) is misleading and you know it. Once the definition of marriage is altered this way, it loses the distinct character that caused societies to endorse marriage as the best arrangement for creating families and taking care of them. Law of unintended consequences and all that.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/9/2006 @ 7:21 amYes. And my point is that those ways were awful. Feminist reforms changed things for the better.
It wasn’t simply that, but it was more that than it is now. Thats what i’m asking you to be sympathetic to.
I think it will have quite a distinct character (there won’t be anyhting like it) and it will still be how people make families. Thats what straight people want out of marriage, thats what gay people want too. And thats what it will be.
actus (10527e) — 10/9/2006 @ 7:46 am“Yes. And my point is that those ways were awful. Feminist reforms changed things for the better.”
If that was your point, you could have done that 15 posts ago. But you didn’t. You wanted to argue about unmarried people and domestic violence laws. There have always been ways of dealing with domestic violence and always will be regardless of the law.
“It wasn’t simply that, but it was more that than it is now. Thats what i’m asking you to be sympathetic to.”
When I said there were ways for people to deal with domestic violence, your answer was that they “put up with it.” If you don’t want your answers to be misinterpreted, then you need to actually give a real answer. And as I pointed out, there were a variety of ways to deal with domestic violence before the laws were changed. It hasn’t anything to do with sympathy.
“I think it will have quite a distinct character (there won’t be anyhting like it) and it will still be how people make families. Thats what straight people want out of marriage, thats what gay people want too. And thats what it will be.”
But there won’t be any way of knowing what the character of marriage will be once its definition is altered. We know that marriage is the best situation in which to have and raise children, and that knowledge is based on hundreds of years of evidence. There’s no evidence that changing the character of marriage will make it any stronger as an institution and, in fact, there’s evidence that changing the definition will weaken it.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/9/2006 @ 9:30 amOf course. But the problem is that the sum of those ways suck. Laws and reforms help, lack of laws and these reforms hurt.
I searched this thread for that quote you’re ascribing to me: “put up with it.” And i’m not finding it. I don’t want my answers to be mistinterpreted. I also dont’ want them to be made up by you. I think your problem was when I said that ‘deal with it meant being battered.” If so, then fine, i’m sure at least someone was able to avoid battery. So ‘deal with it mean more people being battered than today.’
Not for sure no. But we can guess. I can guess that people will still have gaudy weddings, some will have happy marriages, and others will end in divorce. I can also guess that NY will not institute no-fault divorce.
actus (10527e) — 10/9/2006 @ 10:07 am“Of course. But the problem is that the sum of those ways suck. Laws and reforms help, lack of laws and these reforms hurt.”
The problem is that there were and always will be ways to deal with domestic violence outside of laws, so even if the laws don’t cover some particular relationship, there are ways to deal with DV. Sorry you consider those ways suckful.
“I searched this thread for that quote you’re ascribing to me: “put up with it.” And i’m not finding it. I don’t want my answers to be mistinterpreted. I also dont’ want them to be made up by you. I think your problem was when I said that ‘deal with it meant being battered.” If so, then fine, i’m sure at least someone was able to avoid battery. So ‘deal with it mean more people being battered than today.’”
Here’s the quote in comment 49:
“Ya. By living with violence. You’re doing a real good job of selling ‘traditiona’ (sic) mores here.”
Now, granted, you didn’t use the phrase “put up with it,” but I think “by living with violence” is pretty close. Both phrase describe an unwillingness or inability to do something other than live with violence.
I think your problem is that once you present an argument which is defeated, you simply slide to the next point. After all, this started as a post about Foley and who knew what when (it was especially hilarious when you couldn’t read sarcasm into the statement that we all know there are no gay Republicans). You then decided to discuss federal amendments supporting traditional marriage, then the specific Ohio law defending marriage, then on to how and whether adding homosexuals to the group of persons who can get married will fundamentally change that institution, and now we are all the way to “I didn’t say that!” Somewhere along the way, the domestic violence argument stalled with you telling me that every way of dealing with DV that doesn’t include the law treating unmarried people as married people is “sucky.” Now you want to quibble about whether you used the term “put up with it” or something equivalent. I think what you should be more concerned with is sticking with the original topic of a thread rather than trying so desperately to create zingers from single sentences in someone’s comment. There’s your starting point for your next post.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/9/2006 @ 3:15 pmDon’t feel sorry for me, but for the people who will revert to the ways you think have always existed.
If you’re going to paraphrase, don’t use quotation marks. Thats not what quotation marks are for. Its confusing.
People used to live with violence. Not everyone. But more people. You’re right. Some people did not.
But the point is, you’re telling me that we can just go back to the way it was before we had DV protections. And I’m telling you that would be bad.
Completely lost on all of this is that these amendmends can define marriage any way you want WITHOUT having this effect. Look at the federal marriage amendment, for example. All it has to do is drop the second sentence, and it would be unproblematic. Its the fact that they go beyond just defining marriage, that they get into the territory of damaging, frustrating and prohibiting other relationships that makes me think they are about hate.
actus (10527e) — 10/9/2006 @ 4:00 pm“Don’t feel sorry for me, but for the people who will revert to the ways you think have always existed.”
I don’t feel sorry for anyone unless they are dependent upon my sympathy. I think most people can figure out how to take care of themselves.
“If you’re going to paraphrase, don’t use quotation marks. Thats not what quotation marks are for. Its confusing.”
Oh, dear me. I think someone is in a snit. I think what you are confused about is whether “put up with” is close enough to “living with.” I’d say that most people would think “yes.” Unless they were trying to worm away from what they “said.”
“But the point is, you’re telling me that we can just go back to the way it was before we had DV protections. And I’m telling you that would be bad.”
No, the point is that people have always dealt with domestic violence and will do so regardless of the law. I don’t think that’s either a good thing or a bad thing or a “sucky” thing. It’s just the truth. And I don’t think that it negates the value of defining marriage as it has traditionally been defined.
“Completely lost on all of this is that these amendmends can define marriage any way you want WITHOUT having this effect. Look at the federal marriage amendment, for example. All it has to do is drop the second sentence, and it would be unproblematic. Its the fact that they go beyond just defining marriage, that they get into the territory of damaging, frustrating and prohibiting other relationships that makes me think they are about hate.”
That’s probably because you have an elastic definition of hate which includes consequences you happen to oppose.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/9/2006 @ 9:10 pmFeel free to slide to the next topic.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/9/2006 @ 9:11 pmDo you think most victims of crime can figure out how to care for themselves? That is what we’re talking about here right?
But maybe you are on to something: most people can figure ot how to care for themselves, and most will therefore have whatever marriages they want.
Wow. This is quite terrible. you’re right. time for the next topic.
Oh it most certainly includes that. Don’t we all oppose hateful consequences?
actus (10527e) — 10/9/2006 @ 10:07 pm“Do you think most victims of crime can figure out how to care for themselves? That is what we’re talking about here right?”
Yes, they can figure out if they are in danger how to get out of it. That’s instinct, isn’t it?
“But maybe you are on to something: most people can figure ot how to care for themselves, and most will therefore have whatever marriages they want.”
That’s a nice segue. Of course, it’s also a comparison of apples and oranges. And honestly, anyone can get a marriage license right now. There’s no test, blood or otherwise, to stop them. Provided they meet the criteria for marriage. I guess we could say it’s the same thing for voting, buying a house, or having children. Meet the critieria and you can figure it out for yourselves.
“Wow. This is quite terrible. you’re right. time for the next topic.”
Woohoo! That’s great. Go bug someone else.
“Oh it most certainly includes that. Don’t we all oppose hateful consequences?”
It is sad when there are unfortunate consequences for innocents. For example, when the government started the variety of aid programs for the poor, I doubt they knew it would create an entirely new class of single parents and children raised in broken homes. I guess those programs would be “hateful” under your definition.
For people who do things willfully, I have less sympathy, particularly when they have been warned about the consequences of their actions. At that point, the emotion pretty much drains out of a situation for me.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/10/2006 @ 5:34 amIt is yes. But setting up a life outside of your abusive home isn’t so instinctual. Lets do move on, we’re on territory where you’re sounding like an ass.
Thats not quite the case. CA just had a big problem when Newsom started issuing licenses.
I don’t think the government broke those homes. But maybe it did provide the means by which people could, instinctually, leave.
actus (10527e) — 10/10/2006 @ 5:38 am“It is yes. But setting up a life outside of your abusive home isn’t so instinctual. Lets do move on, we’re on territory where you’re sounding like an ass.”
Well, I guess an ass would know what that looked like. I’m glad you decided to stop trying to argue this nonsense.
“Thats not quite the case. CA just had a big problem when Newsom started issuing licenses.”
Of course anyone can get a marriage license. If you fit the criteria for marriage. If you don’t fit the criteria for marriage, of course you can’t get a license.
“I don’t think the government broke those homes. But maybe it did provide the means by which people could, instinctually, leave.”
I think it was one of those unintended consequences. I think maybe you should find a different topic since you really have made yourself look stupid enough on this one already.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/10/2006 @ 6:36 amBattered women of the world: your problems have been solved by the simple common sense of instinct.
Of course.
Probably. Sometime in the 60’s and 70’s, as the ability to leave dramatically increased, lots of marriages and families did break. But that level has stabilized now. Perhaps now we are the natural level, where people do leave, instinctually, since they are now able to.
actus (10527e) — 10/10/2006 @ 4:47 pmIs divorse an instinct? Or marriage? Or both?
77GangGreen (e60151) — 10/10/2006 @ 5:11 pm“Battered women of the world: your problems have been solved by the simple common sense of instinct.”
Actus, you wouldn’t look like a complete asshole if you could just admit when you lose a fight instead of continuing to post long after your arguments are spent.
“Probably. Sometime in the 60’s and 70’s, as the ability to leave dramatically increased, lots of marriages and families did break. But that level has stabilized now. Perhaps now we are the natural level, where people do leave, instinctually, since they are now able to.”
Wow, just when I thought you couldn’t say anything dumber. Now the high divorce rates and illegitimacy rates are tied to domestic violence? You might want to do some more research on both before you make a bigger ass out of yourself.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/10/2006 @ 6:55 pmSharon, you’re not really getting it. The point is that the solution is much more than “instinct.”
Who’s tied to what? According to what?
I think the numbers of people leaving is tied with ability to leave (ie, more than just the instinct to leave). And people will leave for lots of different reasons. Abuse being one of them.
actus (10527e) — 10/10/2006 @ 7:01 pm[…] 10/4/2006 @ 1:18 pm: More manure from the infamous SMELL A TIMES dose the stink make you gag? […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Krazy Kagu Outed: He Is Spurwing Plover (421107) — 10/11/2006 @ 12:00 am“Sharon, you’re not really getting it. The point is that the solution is much more than “instinct.””
Actus, I got that you’re an incredibly arrogant jerk who pulls one sentence out of a response and then creates a snark around it. It’s understandable that you are so invested in a legal solution to domestic violence that you must either discount or condemn any other way of looking at it. That’s why when I say “Yes, they can figure out if they are in danger how to get out of it. That’s instinct, isn’t it?” in response to “Do you think most victims of crime can figure out how to care for themselves? That is what we’re talking about here right?” you have to turn it into some sort of sneer against people knowing or figuring out how to deal with domestic violence (other than a court of law).
“Who’s tied to what? According to what?”
Try reading what you wrote before you hit the “submit comment” button.
“I think the numbers of people leaving is tied with ability to leave (ie, more than just the instinct to leave). And people will leave for lots of different reasons. Abuse being one of them.”
I think, once again, you moved from the point I made about unintended consequences (war on poverty programs to broken homes and illegitimacy) to some moronic comment about “instinct.” Look, I’m not interested in arguing any of this with you any longer. If you want to continue looking like an ass (which has been pointed out more times by more people than I could count), fine. If making snarky one sentence comments makes you think you “won” the argument, fine. If sliding from point to point as soon as your last one gets gunned down makes you feel like you got away with something, fine. But your comments have gotten to the point of being ridiculous on this thread and I’m tired of it.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/11/2006 @ 4:50 amMuch more than legal. There are societal issues too. I ‘discount’ people who take us backwards. Rightfully so, because those are backward steps.
So you’ve gotten the point that your instinct line is moronic. Good. Now you just have to get the point that leaving is tied to ability to leave, and that welfare programs as well as other family law reforms make leaving easier.
actus (10527e) — 10/11/2006 @ 5:06 amThe “boy” was eighteen years old at the time he received the disgusting instant message. He is twenty one years old now.
Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd) — 10/17/2006 @ 12:22 amActus:
The “violence against women act” (or whatever euphemism it goes by,) is an obscenity. It allows any woman in the country to have a man thrown in jail on a whim–a whim they indulge in on a daily basis. A harpy in New york can claim that a man in Hawaii was “abusive” in word or deed, and that man will be thrown in jail. This is one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the country.
Men, on the other hand, can be serially abused by women without being granted a day in court, much less justice. Nobody cares about them, and most men who complain end up in jail.
There is no moral or ethical defense for this sick turn taken by American society.
The assault on marriage by gay activists is unconscionable. Marriage is a heterosexual institution and tradition. If you leftists and gays want a similar institution, conceive one of your own. Stop trying to co opt and delegitimize ours. Your intolerance and discrimination are starting to wear thin. Real thin.
Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd) — 10/17/2006 @ 12:38 am