Dear CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the various network news agencies, et al:Enough with the Foley scandal, already.
Let’s get something straight, once and for all; one man, and one man alone, is “responsible” for the actions of former Congressman Mark Foley, and that man’s name is Mark Foley.
I don’t care if Foley’s a drunk. I don’t care if he’s gay. I don’t care if he was touched inappropriately by a priest. I don’t care if he was touched, repeatedly so, by a drunk gay priest.
Mark Foley has resigned, and is in the process of receiving the sort of public humiliation that one can expect, given his profile, profession, and his professed position as a proponent of tough, child-protective legislation.
Most people agree that what Foley did was at least “inappropriate.” I would chip in the adjectives “pathetic,” “desperate,” “idiotic,” and “yucky.”
Depending on what is not known, what Foley did may also constitute a criminal act.
To the best of our current knowledge, however, the man never actually touched any underage person.
To the best of our current knowledge, his peers and those responsible for oversight of his professional conduct were unaware of the details and specifics of Foley’s conduct.
Was this revelation a skillfully-rendered, politically motivated “October Surprise?” We don’t know the answer to that question yet, either.
If people did “know about it” in advance of the revelations, to what degree were they certain that the information they had was valid? Without a good degree of certainty, such people – if they exist – may not have come forward earlier for a perfectly valid reason: to go public without confirmation could constitute defamation of a powerful political figure.
When you don’t know what has happened, it really isn’t necessary to speculate. Speculation isn’t really “reporting,” although it sure seems to constitute a large percentage of what passes for journalism these days.
It is time to let the FBI, Florida law enforcement, the House Ethics Committee (and any other investigative agency that deems it necessary to get involved, I guess) to do their job; to investigate, and determine whether criminal charges against Foley are warranted, and if so, what those charges are.
At the same time, such investigations can probe other areas of concern, including the oft-referenced question of “who knew what, and when?” If such agencies determine that some manner of “cover-up” took place, or evidence was withheld for political purposes, we can address the implications of such then – when the facts are known.
For now, though, why not just STFU about the whole thing?
Honestly, is there nothing else going on in the world of “news” right now? Just “Foley and the Pages,” this week’s less vile version of “John Karr and Jon Benet?”
For those outraged by the exploitation of children, are you not disgusted by the way both major political parties have exploited children through their rhetoric, their photo-ops, and their press releases in the wake of Mr. Foley’s actions being disclosed?
I know what you’re thinking; Q, if people are paying too much attention to this, isn’t it a tad ironic that you would devote a column to it? Perhaps – but I have a different concern, one that hasn’t been addressed in the mainstream media, so far as I’m aware.
As someone who thinks that this country has lost all perspective with regards to relatively minor sexual misconduct, which based on the available, confirmed information regarding Foley’s actions seems a fair description of Foley’s acts, I’m especially distressed by the political exploitation of this situation, and what may precipitate from that exploitation.
Existing laws on the books in the US, including some partially written and heavily promoted by Foley himself, already provide excessive penalties for some of the criminal acts which are covered by those laws, in my opinion.
I worry that the political exploitation of the Foley situation will further erode the rationality of lawmakers with respect to acts that, while inappropriate and arguably deserving of some criminal sanction, should not be punished by long stretches of prison time.
It is now a crime, for example, to use “deceptive words or images” on or by way of the Internet in order to trick a minor into viewing sexually explicit material. Under the language of the Adam Walsh Act, the penalty for such an offense includes incarceration for a period of up to 20 years.
The criminal sanction under US law for voluntary manslaughter, on the other hand, carries a maximum prison term of 10 years.
That’s perfectly reasonable, right?
Have we as a Nation now completely abandoned the notion of making the punishment fit for the crime? Have we completely lost all sense of proportion?
For the sake of rationality, for the sake of legal principle, I can only hope when the smoke from the Foley Furor clears, we don’t find singed remnants of the Eighth Amendment among the ashes.
