Best of the Web Today - October 2, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Page-Turner
Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, has resigned from Congress after "a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age," came to light. ABC News gives samples of the instant messages, in which Foley uses the screen name "Maf54":
Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.
"The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex," ABC reports. But it did post a long exchange, taking nine Web pages, with the warning READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED. We will emphatically second that advice; reading through just the first few pages made us feel unwell. But for the record, it is here.
The most fascinating comment about the scandal comes from Andrew Sullivan:
I don't know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up. What the closet does to people--the hypocrisies it fosters, the pathologies it breeds--is brutal. There are many still-closeted gay men in D.C., many of them working for a Republican party that has sadly deeply hostile to gay dignity. How they live with themselves I do not fully understand. . . .
What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility. From what I've read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern for which the only cure is courage and honesty. While gays were fighting for thir [sic] basic equality, Foley voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act." If his resignation means the end of the closet for him, and if there is no more to this than we now know, then it may even be for the good. Better to find integrity and lose a Congressional seat than never live with integrity at all.
It seems to us that someone who is sexually interested in children had damn well better stay in the closet, and if he can't, he should be put in one with a thick metal door that locks from the outside. It is astonishing, and more than a little disturbing, that Sullivan would seek to make Foley a poster child for gay liberation.
Further, has it occurred to Sullivan that his response to the Foley scandal undermines his own credibility as an advocate of same-sex marriage? Sullivan has long claimed to be advancing traditional values. All he wants, he says, is for society to recognize that gay couples are no less capable of serious, loving, lifelong commitments than ordinary couples are.
But if a middle-aged congressman were caught sending lewd messages to 16-year-old girls, what adherent to traditional values would claim that the congressman's real problem is that he is insufficiently open about his sexuality?
Exploitation Reaction Formation
One of the odder accusations being leveled against Foley is that of hypocrisy. As the Washington Post notes, Foley "built his political career in large measure on legislative proposals meant to halt the sexual predation of children and others":
A well-liked member of the class of conservatives elected to Congress in 1994, Foley was until two days ago a deputy whip for the House Republicans and a co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. A Web site for the bipartisan group states that it was formed to "create a voice within Congress" on that issue and to operate a hotline for tips about "online child sexual exploitation" that could be passed to law enforcement agencies.
At a White House Rose Garden ceremony on July 27, President Bush hailed Foley and some other House and Senate lawmakers as members of a "SWAT team for kids." Bush spoke while signing into law a broad child protection measure that included a Foley-sponsored provision requiring sex offenders to register in every state where they live, work or attend school.
Exploiting children is bad. Does simultaneously decrying the exploitation of children make it worse? This would seem to be a pretty obvious case of hypocrisy being the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
What's more, any armchair psychologist worth his salt will tell you that Foley's activism on behalf of children appears to be a reaction formation--that is, a neurotic defense against his own impulses (a theme we struck, in another context, two weeks ago).
A tangentially related analogy is the antigay activist who turns out to be a closeted homosexual. (Andrew Sullivan notwithstanding, Foley does not seem to fall into this category. He in fact voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.) This is a standard trope of the gay left, and it is not without a grain of truth.
But the Foley case shows why this trope is not really an argument. Foley's own apparent penchant for exploiting children in no way discredits the idea he was espousing: that society should be vigilant in protecting children from exploitation. Similarly, when a gay-basher turns out to be secretly homosexual, that has no bearing on the question of whether homosexual conduct is moral. Many activists for children are motivated by nothing more complicated than a genuine concern for their well-being. By the same token, many opponents of gay rights are psychologically untroubled and sincere in their beliefs.
We're not making a case against homosexuality here; we tend toward the love-and-let-love view. And it can be useful to understand the psychology behind extreme political views (or behind odd political obsessions, even if they aren't extreme). Our point simply is that a psychoanalysis is different from an argument on the merits.
How Many Lynchings?
In an op-ed in the Gainesville (Fla.) Sun, one Dennis C. Jett, dean of international studies at the University of Florida, purports to put things in perspective:
In all that has been written and uttered in recent days about the fifth anniversary of 9-11, here is one question that has not been asked: What do boats, bicycles, guns and terrorists have in common? Answer: They all kill about the same number of Americans each year.
Dividing the nearly 3,000 people killed on 9-11 over the last five years gives you an average annual figure of 600. About that number die each year in accidents on boats, while riding bicycles and from the accidental discharge of firearms. (Tens of thousands more die from guns each year, but those are suicides and homicides.) Or put another way, more nonsmokers die as a result of breathing someone else's tobacco smoke every year than died on
The horror of watching the exact moments when thousands of people died was a national trauma, but that shock has been exploited relentlessly since then. . . .
We should never forget what happened on 9-11 nor stop mourning our loss. But we should also not succumb to politically-motivated paranoia and should instead reflect on what 9-11 has been used as a pretext to create: A nation of sheep led by a collection of liars, fools and cowards.
Ah yes, it is so very sophisticated to step back from the herd, with their silly emotions, and explain with cold, raw numbers why terrorism isn't such a big deal.
But we have a few questions for Dr. Jett:
If there were 600 lynchings a year in America, would they belong in the same category as boating accidents?
If 600 Arab-Americans a year were being murdered on account of their ethnicity or religion, would those who consider that a moral outrage of surpassing importance be "sheep" led by "liars, fools and cowards"?
If gangs of thugs were stalking gay bars and beating to death 600 of their patrons a year, would Dr. Jett disagree with those who consider stopping such crimes a higher priority than banning smoking in those same bars?
Just asking.
Danegeld? Not Exactly.
London's Guardian has a follow-up report on the conflagration that began with a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. It sounds as though efforts to boycott Denmark were not terribly effective:
While Danish milk products were dumped in the Middle East, fervent rightwing Americans started buying Bang & Olufsen stereos and Lego. In the first quarter of this year Denmark's exports to the US soared 17%. The British writer Christopher Hitchens organised a buy-Danish campaign. Among the thousands of emails sent to Rose was one from an American soldier serving in Iraq. "He told me he was sitting in Iraq, watching a game of football and drinking a can of Carlsberg," Rose said.
Much of the Muslim world--or at least that part of it that doesn't have oil--is an economic backwater. The power of commerce to influence politics is always limited by a lack of interest on the part of most consumers, but this is a reminder that the West has a lot more economic clout than its adversaries.
Decline and Fall
From an op-ed by Robert Harris in the New York Times:
In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world's only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome's port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
He has a point: This does seem to be what's happening to the New York Times.
Who Said It?
Addressing President Bush: "Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq?"
1. Helen Thomas
2. Howard Dean
3. Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid
4. John Kerry
And of course the correct answer is none of the above! The actual source of this quote is Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2.
Homer Nods
Rosa Prince's paean to Bill Clinton appeared in London's Daily Mirror, not the Daily Mail as we said in an item Friday (since corrected).
What Would Civilization Do Without Experts?
"Experts: Technology Could Save or Destroy Civilization This Century"--headline, LiveScience.com, Sept. 30
What Would Panels Do With Studies?
"Panel Can't Do Much Without Police Study"--headline, Reading (Pa.) Eagle, Oct. 1
We Guess That's Better Than Wiretaps
"Clinton Burglar Specializing in Women's Underwear"--headline, Herald & Review (Decatur, Ill.), Sept. 28
How to Produce Little Scientists
"Scientists to Test Koala Contraceptive"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 1
Help Wanted
"Blogger Sought for Posts on Ga. Teen Sex"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 1
Maybe They Can Disagree to Agree
"Bosnia Appears Split on Whether to Unify"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 1
Tautology True, Survey Confirms
"Polls: Top Senate Races Very Competitive"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 1
First E. Coli, Now TB?
"Fresh Spinach Cleared for Consumption Again"--headline, HealthDay.com, Sept. 29
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Earmarks Find Way Into Spending Bill"--headline, New York Times, Sept. 30
o "No One Cited for Ban on Drinking"--headline, Daily Collegian (Penn State), Oct. 2
o "John Hancock Takes No Risks in New Ad Campaign"--headline, Marketing Daily, Oct. 2
o "NYT Reporter Criticizes Pro-Lifers, Christian Conservatives"--headline, Baptist Press, Sept. 29
Still Dead?
If Fidel Castro is alive, he now acknowledges that he will eventually die, according to an Associated Press report from Caracas, Venezuela:
President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that his ailing ally, Cuban leader Fidel Castro, is recovering slowly from intestinal surgery but told him recently that he was prepared to die.
"Fidel told me when I went to visit him in Havana: 'Chavez, I already lived my epoch, I can die. I'm free to die, not you. You are a slave of life, don't let them kill you,' " Chavez said during a campaign rally in his home state of Barinas.
Now that's a depressing thought. We're finally getting rid of Castro, but we'll still have Chavez until . . . well, he has to die too eventually, doesn't he? |
