Hopefully the last time I'll mention Foley

The more I read about the Mark Foley scandal, the more disgusted I become. I was wrong earlier to denounce Republicans for pointing fingers at the Democratic Party for Gerry Studds et al. While I still feel there was a fair amount of minimalizing by Republicans, as more and more facts surface about the issue, I start to feel that there is a fair amount of justification behind the finger-pointing.

Let's get this straight. What Mark Foley did was wrong. It was wrong because he was seeking sexual contact with anyone who would give it to him. Such behavior is degrading and demeaning both to the pages he encountered and himself. It would be entirely different if Foley had been seeking a long-term, committed relation with the pages, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. Such loose sexual behavior is an ever-increasing aberration in society, and our politicians more than anyone else need to be above that. And yet, we find so many who aren't.

But for the Democrats to denounce Foley and whatever supposed coverup there is? Yes, it is hypocritical, and it is also hysterical. The age of consent in Washington D.C. is 16. That means that there was nothing illegal about Foley making advances on 16, 17, or 18 year-old boys. Even if the e-mails and the instant messages were sexually explicit, no crime was committed simply because of the age of the boys. Now, I'm not sure about the proprieties a member of Congress has to observe, but if Foley can be charged with anything, it is sexual harrassment.

But what is really aggravating is that some people had information about Foley's behavior for over a year before finally acting on it. And these people denounce Hastert of endangering pages? Let's keep in mind here that the pages, being of the age of consent, are more or less on their own to deal with sexual advances, and therefore only warrant the same protection any other adult is afforded, which is probably whatever sexual harrassment policy is in place. And yet if some extra protection is warranted, what about these "conscientious objectors" who sat on the information instead of going to someone?

Oh, wait. They did. They went to media outlet after media outlet. Those are certainly excellent authorities to deal with a sexual harrassment case. They can intervene how? Oh wait, they'd also have to go to the authorities than can actually deal with it. So they did give the information to the FBI? And the FBI said they didn't see anything worth investigating?

All right, so either there's a worldwide plot to cover-up Foley's behavior, or perhaps this is blown way out of proportion to begin with. Regardless, Foley is gone, dismissed and shamed, and if officials feel there is any criminal activity, they'll investigate and determine what happened. And yet, the noise just gets louder, and the finger-pointing at the Republican "culture of corruption" just continues to be pressed on melodramatic scales.

And all of this comes from people who support open sexuality--whomever and whenever, and consequences be damned. These are the people who dismiss Clinton's infidelities and sexual harrassment of interns as "just about sex". Well, if sex is so casual for them, why all the hoopla? Why the denouncement?

There is really only one answer, and it disgusts me. The answer is political gain, and that is sad, because no one should gain off of corruption in Congress, regardless of who commits the crime. And yet, there it is.

Decisive Victory

The game between Baltimore and Denver was nerve-wracking for spectators on either side of the board. Consider that, up until late in the fourth quarter, the spread between Denver and Baltimore was never more than 3. Baltimore scored first in the first quarter, shortly after Tatum Bell's fumble, to go up 3-0. Then in the second Denver drove to tie it up at 3-3. Then in the third, Denver managed another field goal to go up 6-3. At that point in time, the defenses had held very strong on both sides, and the game was still up in the air. Baltimore seemed by far more capable to drive the ball and score than Denver had--Plummer's 8 completions for 6 yards in the first half was testimony to that--so it seemed that perhaps we would be looking at either a 6-6 entry into overtime, or a 10-6 last minute battle.

Can you imagine what would have happened if this game was a war? Can you imagine the people demanding the Broncos to just throw in the towel, even though the score was a marginally favorable 6-3, because it seemed unlikely the Broncos would win? Well, maybe they wouldn't demand the Broncos give up, but they might, turning off the TV in disgust or leaving the stadium early because they can't bear to watch Baltimore advance on the game winning drive. But either way, they would have missed out on Denver's tide-turning interception and the subsequent drive that put them up 13-3 to stay.

What was missing in this game was a decisive victory. Neither team had a strong advantage over the other. Each quarterbacks made mistakes, each team's running game and passing game were held in check, each team turned the ball over several times, and the score was near dead-even for the majority of the game. Things would have been much different if at half, one team was leading the other 35-0.

The war in Iraq has a few similarities to the Broncos-Ravens game. First off, their is no descisive victory in sight. While we have many advantages, so does the opposition, and though they strike and we strike back, no headway seems to be made. The insurgents are still killing people at an atrocious rate, but the expected civil war has not broken out, and the American military is still in Iraq. If anything, right now the Americans are up 6-3 against the insurgents, and currently the insurgents are driving.

The difference is that most of the fans have left the stadium. The few die-hards are still cheering for all they're worth, but they can't muster the noise to force the insurgents to false start, or miscommunicate a play. Thus we need to kick our players into gear and have them make a few spectacular plays that will change the flow of the game. Keep in mind, we want to win in Iraq, so we can't just throw in the towel and write it off as another game lost.

To this effect, I will mimic a number of pundits who are calling for more troops. We should increase our numbers in Iraq to 500,000 or more. We should take immediate action to seal off the boarders with Iran and Syria. Finally we lock down the cities with continual patrols. We will catch and kill more insurgents, we will cut off their supplies from outside, and once peace a stability start taking hold, then we can start letting the Iraqis take charge. Otherwise we are trying to defend five wide receivers with one man--he might be excellent at pass coverage, but he is still one man defending against five. Someone is bound to be open.

So let's put our men on the field and win this.

Enough, Already

When my father went to court to testify against a former employee of his accounting firm, he and I discussed the possibility that some good might come out of the trial. While it was certainly harmful to the firm that a former employee was found to be embezzling from his clients, surely the fact that the firm was swift in taking action and prosecuting the employee would tell the clientele that the firm was serious about it its ethical standards. Yet at the same time, it still an uphill battle to remove the taint from the firm that one of its employees was guilty of embezzling in the first place. At the same time, accountants are often stereotyped as crooked anyway, so this rogue former employee merely exacerbates an already difficult stigma.

I feel that this Mark Foley scandal is a parody of what my father went through with his firm, only blown up to national proportions. The GOP is responding exactly as my father did. Mark Foley resigned, and the GOP is no looking into whether any criminal charges should be leveled. What is outrageous is the bickering between the GOP and the Democratic party. While a staunch Republican myself, I am embarrassed by my party's repeated references to Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds.

I am embarrassed because when a Republican does something wrong, the GOP should be concerned with finding all the facts, not pointing out hypocrisy of Democrats. Or at least, they should not be beating that issue to death. First of all, no matter how Republicans try to couch it, they come off as trying to cast blame on the other party, and no one can respect that. (It is the reason why we don't respect people who defended Bill Clinton by saying Ken Starr was starting a witch hunt.)

Yes, I understand that when push comes to shove, the public should be aware of what people are saying and doing, especially if it is blatantly hypocritical. But at this moment, Republicans should be worried about discovering all the facts in the case. They should ignore any Democratic hoopla, and refuse to be baited into these "holier-than-thou" debates. Sean Hannity, that goes double for you.

When all the facts are in, then speak out. Don't descend to the Democrat's level. Tell the public that you are ashamed of Foley's actions, and that you are doing everything you can to reach the bottom of the case. But don't point fingers at the Democrats. At least, withhold doing that until you have something worthwhile to accuse them of. We all know that Democrats have a double standard. That doesn't mean Republicans should have one, as well.

Tyranny of Political Correctness

The current administration believes that the course to addressing the grievances of the world is to convert the world to democratic governments. Seeing how well democracy is working in the United States, it is a wonder, sometimes, that we are not simply laughed at for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The idea of democracy is to empower the people. The heart of democracy is avoiding tyranny. The method of democracy is allowing people to have their say, for they are the government. But what happens when the people decide they want to be allowed the right to do whatever they want? What happens when the people say, "To hell with rules! Down with morals! I can do whatever I feel like doing!" What happens when the people decide that it is a major sin to use a politically incorrect epithet, but is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, commit adultery, or commit other crimes? What happens when the people decide that reason is unlawful, and feelings are what should be upheld in a court of law? What happens when the people as a whole, or even a majority, decide to embrace a course of self-destruction?

In our great nation, we have started on a course towards self-destruction, and it is backed by the tyranny of political correctness, which was adopted as a whole by we the people of the United States. We make a virtue out of being poor and accepting government handouts, and we condemn as politically incorrect anyone who dares to speak against that system. We make a virtue out of excessive promiscuity, and then condemn as politically incorrect anyone who would object to promiscuity as "forcing their views on another", or "being prude", or, worst of all, "acting on Christian values." Then we ostracize any who object to legal abortions, denouncing them as heartless, forcing women into back alleys for coat-hanger abortions or filling up orphanages with unwanted children that will just become a burden on society.

We make virtues of vices and condemn virtues as vices. We then protect our vices with namecalling and political smearing. We the people of the United States have chosen this of our own accord, and through democracy have passed it into law. Is it any wonder that there is question whether or not democracy is truly the path to follow?