On their way to a much warmer place...

I haven't written much on the whole Mark Foley scandal. What's to be said? He used his position to proposition teenage boys, had cybersex with some, met at least one for drinks and 'whatever', and it's still unknown whether he actually engaged in sexual relations with any pages.

Yeah, Foley is gay. So what? That, as a factor, is akin with the Catholic Church blasting gay priests for the church's pedophilia scandals. Makes a great red herring, helps turn the inattentive against gays, and has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

My personal take on Foley and his acts: This man is slime. As an adult with a position of authority, he abused his position to proposition (and more?) teens for sex. His position implicitly put pressure on them to go along, or (at the very least) to shut up about it. We now hear that his activities have been going on for years.

The house Republican leaderships has been denying any and all knowledge of this -- taking the "nobody told us" route -- even though there's been a real laughable lack of anything like "getting their stories straight". Unfortunately for Denny Hastert (R - IL, and incidentally Speaker) there's three members to date who've 'flipped' on him. Every man for himself, I guess.

Now, Foley's former chief of staff (who, until today worked in the same role for Tom Reynolds) has gone public. Well, that puts the lie to that one. Lots of speculation out there that Dennis Hastert is toast. Of course, he's denying that he was ever told. Who's telling the truth? I dunno, though I have some strong suspicions. Things are happening fast, and I'm pretty sure truth will out, probably very soon.

How dumb do they think we are? The leadership has known for a long time about Foley and his extracurricular activities, but chose to do nothing. It's not that there was nothing to find. It's not that there was no basis to pry. Foley has been considered "creepy" by the pages for years, and every new class of pages has been warned about him. Seemingly EVERYONE involved with the house has known about this -- EXCEPT the republican leadership. Why didn't they know?

Simple.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

Once ABC got hold of the story with the 'suggestive' emails, it took them a loooong time to find the damning IM's. Umm, it took at least 24 hours. So, what it basically comes down to is that the leadership could have know all about it with a minimum of effort, roughly equivalent to opening their eyes.

Why? Why didn't they want to know?

Politics. Purely politics. Under the Rovian system, you do anything to win. Anything. Whatever it takes. Ethics and morals have a completely different meaning than in the 'real world'. If it helps you to win, it's by definition 'good'. If it hurts your electoral efforts, it's by definition 'bad'.

So, stories of a pedasterist congressman reach the speaker. The congressman is from the speaker's party, so exposure of the congressman is 'bad'. (And if the congressman had been a Democrat, then exposure would have been 'good'.)

The short version is that Hastert (and the rest of the so-called leadership) blew off the danger to the pages, because doing something about Foley would have had a 'bad' effect politically. In their warped system of ethics, they did precisely the correct thing.

In the real world it's the kids that are important. You've got a pedasterist after their butts (literally!) and the top priority is to STOP HIM before he can do any more harm. It's not Hastert's concern, though. The scandal, now, that is a problem.

Priorities.

The ironic thing is that, if when he'd been put on notice that there was a problem, he'd done something about it, there wouldn't be a problem today. The scandal would have been long-since over, and there wouldn't be anything to distract the public from the was and terror.

Instead the house Republican Party is imploding, rumor has it that Dennis Hastert may be out as speaker as early as tomorrow (and, possibly, out of the house entirely) and there's speculation his won't be the only head to roll.

And, with everything going on, has anyone been doing anything to help the kids? At the end of the day, that's what this is supposed to be about.

"FoleyGate"

I'm sure I'll write much more about this, but here's a possible ultimate in cynical behavior.

Sheesh.

Those sons-of-bitches in Washington...

Jeezus! For THIS we've been at war for five years?

- Kim

Some adult language...

Um, yeah. Last week was eventful, and provided a LOT of reasons for a complete change of government in the US. At the presidential level, there's not going to be any change for two-and-a-half years. Not much to be done there but grit our teeth and bear it. At the congressional level, in about five weeks it is time to "throw the bums out".

I've attached a cartoon on the subject from Erin Lindsay's comic strip, "Venus Envy". She says it one hell of a lot better than I ever could.

What the hell happened to the country I grew up in? How has the public managed to let themselves be stampeded into giving up over two centuries of hard-won freedoms in just a few short years?

An act of provocation that succeeded beyond its wildest aspirations, a lot of big lies and a slew of smaller ones, and people hand over the keys to their lives. IF (and its a huge IF) the terrorist threat is ever totally eliminated, do you really think this government will return the power they've taken? Return to us the liberties we've docilely handed over to our masters?

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE AL QAIDA BOMBERS WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? You think it was about killing a few thousand New Yorkers? Destroying some expensive real estate?

Bullshit. The goal -- the ultimate goal of ALL terrorism -- was to create a political change. They wanted to change us into something that would help them in their battle against western civilization.

Ya think they succeeded?

Have they changed us? Changed our government, our society into something that wont -- can't -- effectively oppose them?

How do you fight fascists? By becoming fascist? I don't think so. The changes we've made in our government -- in our society -- by surrendering our liberty don't do a blessed thing to make us safer.

It's claims to the contrary, the government hasn't stopped or prevented a single terrorist attack in the US. The power the bastards in Washington have grabbed isn't about making us safer. It was never about making us safer. The purpose of unfettered power isn't safety. The purpose of unfettered power IS power.

Back in the saddle again...

I'm posting again. Can you tell its election season?

Actually, I've been planning to resume for a while, but between one thing and another, well, you get the idea. *sighs* On the good side, I'm feeling much better now. Seriously.

No, really.

Okay, I spent about a week in the hospital last month. Congestive heart failure. Not fun, especially when they were trying to purge the excess fluid from my system and overdid it a bit, and my blood pressure kept crashing. Not a bit fun.

Ah well, I'm back now, and mad as hell. More follows...

A cry for help...

Gosh, I can't think of what to say.

Literally.

I've had weeks when I felt better, but then, that's not altogether unprecedented. Day after tomorrow (Monday) I've got more heart surgery, but again that's hardly novel either (note the use of the term "more" surgery). Even ranting about Little George doesn't excite me much right now.

*Sighs.*

Oh, and I don't "do" April Fools Day. It's always struck me as an excuse for wanton cruelty. Yes, some things are at least relatively harmless ("Do you have Prince Albert in a can?), but most are designed to find humor in building up a persons expectations and then dashing them. Oh joy. What fun.

BTW, the image is copyright and TM Studio Ghibli, from the excellent film "My Neighbor Totoro". It's now out on DVD -- Buy it. It's well worth it.

I guess I could ask for a bit of help. There's a piece of music I've been looking to identify for years. I don't have a clip of it to post here. If I did, I guess I'd know what it is and not have to ask. It's used (or was when last I visited) in the film in the French pavillion at Epcot. It's used in the film "Beauty and the Beast" in the opening under the narration. And in the Woody Allen / Peter Sellers version of Casino Royale, it's played onscreen by David Niven (at the piano). I've long suspected it's by DeBussy, and it's identified as such in Casino Royale. I've looked and listened for years, and never been able to identify it. Sad, really, since it's obviously something famous, and my cultural education seems to be lacking. Anyone able to help?

Piper's been hard at work on the new server. We fimnally (!!!) recieved the final missing parts yesterday, and today she got the furschlugginer thing built. Next we (read: Piper) get to install the OS, software, and test the heck out of it. Then we migrate the Site and bring it up. I figger at the current rate we'll have everything in place by roughly, oh, 2055.

While I'm writing this, we've been watching SVU on the DVR. Would that sentence make a lick of sense to anyone from, say, 1995? Even 2000? For that matter, try explaining "blog" to someone from "2000". I'd be happy to try -- anyone got a spare time machine available?

What the heck did we all do before we had computers at home? (This question doesn't apply to anyone born after, oh, 1975.) How'd we fill the time? I was never a particularly heavy TV viewer, but I did one heck of a lot of reading. Books. On paper. I still read things on paper. The New York Daily News. Magazines. A few books that aren't available in any other form. The rest is either on the computer or, more likely, on my PDA. It's just so convienent carrying a whole stack of books in something the size of a slim paperback.