John Cole Is Getting Shrill

I haven't wanted to write anything about the Foley scandal, due to my intense disgust with the whole affair (pun intended).   Notice, I'm not disgusted because of the IM's or the "lusting for boys".  The "boys" were  just this side of adulthood, in the prime of their virility. 

(Woops and holy shit!  Did Wulfgar just write that?!?)

Yup, you read that right.  If I lusted for males, you're damn right that I would pick them at 16, 17, 18.  What is biologically appealing to the human animal is strongest in young men at that age.  Why in the hell do you think these female teachers are going for broke, as we've heard so much about?  The age of consent, 18 in many places American, is arbitrary at best. 

I work on a college campus, people.  I see girls who are young enough to be my daughters every day and there are those who ... Hell yes! ... circumstances being different, I'd hit in a heartbeat.  Circumstances aren't different, my urges aren't aberrant, and I'm not a pervert.  I'm a healthy human animal, and I have choices to make, with little or no regard for the statistics objectifying my desires.  If I were to pursue a dalliance with a coed, it would be wrong because I love my wife, I've made commitments and I am responsible for my choices.  Funny that, I desire my beloved as well, even though she's a touch older than these coeds.  If I act on any desire I have, it's still my choice and my responsibility.  There's one helluva lotta factors involved in that choice that have nothing to do with a magical line drawn at a birthday.  One choice is wrong and one is right.  Where does the age of my desire come into play?  It really doesn't.

Age has nothing to do with lust or urges.  I can accept that, though seemingly many can't.  It has to do with what we accept in people's choices for behavior.  Here's a clue:  lust is not control of choice.  Ever.  Knowing that it was societally repugnant, if not biologically "wrong", Foley chose to act on his urges.  So let's us just get over our shock that a man would lust for "boys".  What shocks and horrifies is that he chose to do the wrong thing.  I'm not disgusted by that.  It's not emotional for me.  People choose the wrong thing all the time.  Part of being an adult is accepting that, admitting consequences for action, and moving on.

And this leads to what really disgusts me.  Adults acting childishly, while espousing the virtues of adulthood.  No, I'm not talking about Foley, here.  He did wrong, he got caught, he will pay.  He's flying every canard in the book to avoid payment; it was the alcohol; the gay is a sickness; yada yada ... who cares for his excuses.  Foley's going down.  He knows it; he's just trying to cushion the landing.  But there are others who knew Foley was headed in the wrong direction.  They protected him, shielded him, and sold their responsibilities out to him ... all so that they could keep power. Now, THAT I find disgusting.

Foley made a choice to hurt himself by succumbing to his lusts.  Others made a choice to hurt us by allowing Foley to continue his self-destruction; and they made that choice such that they could continue to show us the care that their choices exhibit.  They chose to continue hurting us such that they could continue to hurt us.  That is disgusting, pathetic, almost unbelievable.  This is the only thing about this whole sordid deal that I find noteworthy.  I would launch into my screed about it, but there's no need.

John Cole is a writer on the Inter-tubes I have respected for a very long time.  I makes me glad that he has so well documented my disgust.

Think of every bullshit law that has been passed in the past ten years by the ‘values’ party- drug laws, terrorism bills, video game labeling, internet monitoring, porn crackdowns- virtually every right wing nutjob wishlist bill has been passed based on support from the public because it was ‘for the children.’ And with Foley, you have the Republican party, when it matters the most- protecting kids in the most basic sense, deciding to look the other way because it might get in the way of their never-ending pursuit of more and more political power. Or they were just too busy to do anything. You choose.

That's shrill, and it damn well should be.  We're talking about the people that we trust to protect our interest, and all they care about is themselves.  If they are willing to offer up "boys" to keep their grip on power, what else do you think them capable of giving up in our name?  A US city?  Done.  Our standing as a nation?  Bye Bye.  Habeas Corpus?  Out'a'here.  The Bill of Rights?  Hell yes, that's sacrificed.    Our money?  To the tune of millions a day, and you'll like it you pathetic worm!

And our outrage seems limited to the fact that a guy sent icky IM's?  Yup, I'm pretty disgusted.

What Rep. Foley did was very, very wrong.  But he didn't do a damn thing to me.  The Republicant critters who cover for him ... they're raping me every day.  I'm not too happy about that, and I'm amazed that so many appear to be.

Now there's been a whole lotta talk on the Internet tubes about why folk should be disgusted with the Republicants, but keep them in power anyway ... because the Democrats have Michael Moore and he's FAT!.  John Cole has had enough of that crap, and so have I.

That Red State can weather DeLay, Abramoff, the Iraq crisis, the budget explosion, Randall Cunningham, Foley and his complicit crew, the injection of religion in all things science, the wholesale endorsement of torture, the Prescription Drug Plan, the looming crisis in Afghanistan, the breakdown of the military, domestic surveillance, the abuses of Abu Ghraib and the mess that is Gitmo, our completely collapsed international standing, the passage of Campaign Finance Reform, numerous attempts to codify gay-bashing in the Constitution, the hideous Bankruptcy Bill, the Schiavo nonsense, the total abdication of administration oversight, and the hundreds of other things I can’t remember off the top of my head, and still think that they can get away with the pat assertion that the “Democrats are worse” is pretty astounding.

For pity's freaking sake.  The choices aren't that complex.  Vote for the ones who will rape you, and then blame you, or vote for the ones who might not.  Hmmmm.  Would I be shrill if I said:  "That's not a tough choice!"

Comments

[BB]

Foley was just a typical faggot doing what typical faggots do. What's the big deal?

[Wulfgar]

Hmm, another gay-bashing infantile asshole from Texas completely misses the point. Color me surprised

[Jon]

I watch the news and see other countries rioting in the streets when their politicians turn out to be dumb, corrupt perverts.

How come we never riot here? I think our Congress is like this because we make it seem as if we really don't care.

[Craig]

So, as small-government types, we're just supposed to cast our lot with the big-government types? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

Dick Morris said it best the other night with regards to the whole Foley thing, and I'm paraphrasing here: It's not an R thing, it's not a D thing, it's a congress thing. People in power will always pull crap like this. Look around, and you'll find this thing going on in almost organization that has the two volatile ingredients: young people with stars in their eyes, and older people with power over them.

[Alex]

Okay, Rob, I agree with everything you've said, but I have one more thing to add about why what Foley did should be considered disgusting: He used his power in order to sexually solicited these kids. They LET him send them those IM's and touch them because they were trying to keep their Congress page jobs to put on their resumes for later. I agree with everything else you said, but I wish you'd made that point clear too.

And if you'll notice, I said "kids" as opposed to "boys" because I don't think the gender should matter. It shoulda pissed everyone off just as much had it been underage FEMALE pages as opposed to male pages. Why is it somehow a worse offense because the pages turned out to be boys?

[Wulfgar]

Alex, except as a footnote to the story, the gender angle hasn't really come into play for most folk. The age thing is what has most people bothered. The gay angle is only really playing with homophobes and idiots like BB Texas up above. Please note though, that many are attempting to attack Democrats because, in their stupid minds, Democrats love gays above most people, but secretly we really hate them and want to destroy them. Those people fall very squarely into the 'idiot' category.

As for using power in the cause of sexual conquest, I'm not disgusted by that at all. It happens all the time and is a significant factor in the human sexual dynamic, even in the most healthy of relationships. What Foley didn't do is use his power to force or coerce his victims. That doesn't make what he did appropriate or right, but we shouldn't be blaming the man for things he hasn't done.

Where power was misapplied, by Foley and his compatriotes, is that they used their position to cover up what was *obviously* an innappropriate obsession on his part. He knew it, they knew it, but they all chose to let this man make the wrong damn choices. That's disgusting.

[BB]

Keep trying to spin it, dipstick, but faggots are faggots. They'll butt hole your dog if you're not careful.

[Wulfgar]

Dude, you've obviously never seen my dog. When you come out of the closet and try to dick her, she'll bite it off. Oh wait, you're Texan. If it has an asshole, you'll try to fuck it.

Why do you keep ascribing to 'gays' such power? They're people, just like you and me. Could it be that you are terrified? Looks like ...

[Amy in Alberta]

I don’t get it, Wulfgar. You insult a gay-basher by saying he’s gay? Like there’s something wrong with being gay? That’s messed up.

[Wulfgar]

I think you don't 'get it' because I don't think you clearly read it. I'm not insulting him because I think he's gay. I'm insulting him for having a truly awful moral desease: he's Texan.

;-)

(And for the record, Amy, the Internets is not a place to expect pinky-lifting polite. You have to make your own choices of equivalence out here. So I ask you, politely, which do you find worse:

A brazen directed insult of tendancy that the recipient, an obvious asshole well deserving of a smackdown, will find repugnant ... hence the effect of the insult, or the demeaning generalization of an entire group of people posted in a forum where it is unwelcome?

One of these things is not like the other, and yeah, that's messed up. Choose wisely.)