Apropos of nothing...

Things have been a bit worked up the past few days, so here are some pretty pictures of EXPO 67.

More angst later.

- Kim

Terrible swift sword...

I've been reading (and seeing) the weirdest possible defence of the house leadership in the past day or so. It basically goes that others knew about it too, otherwise how did they leak it? Therefore it's all their fault for not leaking it earlier, putting the kids at risk.

Um...

First of all, that "George Soros funded" organization that sat on it 'till five weeks before the election? They turned what they had over to the FBI back in July. Dick Morris? Anyone noticed that Bill Clinton fired him in 1996? That'd be, oh, roughly a decade ago. And Bill Clinton himself? What's his connection to the Foley transcripts again?

Oh, and don't forget the Drudge-reported story that the whole thing was a prank gotten out of hand. Give me a fucking break. This has got to be a new frontier in desperation:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 22:01:25 ET XXXXX
CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE CHATS WERE PAGE 'PRANK GONE AWRY'
**Update**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, said he goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the investigation.

The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh criminal attorney, Stephen Jones.

Late Thursday, Jones strongly denied the exchanges with Foley were a prank by the former page. Jones said, "There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way."

But those close to Jordan Edmund stand by their accounts of what Jordan told them.

As noted in the last two paragraphs above, the "prank" story has been refuted by the ex-page in question. Doesn't seem to satisfy the ever-partisan Drudge, though.

Okay, so the leadership has taken the position that the best defence is the proverbial good offense. Pure bullshit, but I suppose it's the best they can do, given the facts of the case. Even so, where exactly would this excuse them for burying the reports and pretending nothing was going on?

It's yet another attempt at cynically manipulating the public through misdirection and lies. This time (for once!) it doesn't seem to be working.

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.