STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Hermes

cawfee tawk...

valenciana · Dooney & Bourke

D wrote:

First, North Korea. This nuclear test scares the crap out of me. I am hoping that they choose to participate in the six party talks, but I don't have much hope for that. We also do not have the resources to invade over there. I wish Russia would step up to the plate. As much as the world hates us for being the strong arm, the world always looks to us to be the strong arm instead of other countries. Thoughts?

I dunno...I think Russia has enough on their plate right now, you know, what with suppressing the liberties of their own people. But yes, someone needs to do something. I think I'm much more scared of Kim Jong Il than I was of Saddam Hussein...he just seems like a completely crazy little man.

shopgirl · Kenneth Cole

Mark Foley is a pedophile; he preyed on a minor. He was in a position of power and entered into a relationship with a minor and someone that looked up to him based on his position. I think it is BS that he blamed alcohol and then molestation by a priest for his actions. I look forward to reading the results of the investigation.

Please check me on this, but since North Korea is no longer a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it is a sovereign nation it can test nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean that it should -- because it shouldn't. THe nation is so isolated and its leader appears to be so paranoid that world leaders should be concerned.

The six-party talks are a good step, and the U.S. and Pyongyang both need to be less recalcitrant. I honestly don't believe North Korea will ever fire a nuclear weapon unless pushed into a corner. And I don't think the U.S., U.K., Russia and other members of the United Nations Security Council will do more than issue statements condemning the tests.

Hermes

shopgirl wrote:

[Mark Foley] entered into a relationship with a minor

I was not aware he had sex with a minor. So are charges being pressed against him for statutory rape/pedophilia/molestation or whatever other charge I can't think of at the moment?

Aurora · Marc Jacobs

1. I also wish some of the other "concerned" nations would step up ie Russia and China (Japan is not a lot of help since they don't have much of a military). I don't think anyone would really mind if we dropped a bomb on Kim Jong Il though and just took him out with one blow.

2. Yes I think he is a sick man but he was smart enough not to act on his flirtations with the page until after the page was 21 so I can't really condem him on that account (the emails yes the sex/relations no)

Just my 2 cents.

blubirde · Chanel

Aurora wrote:

1. I also wish some of the other "concerned" nations would step up ie Russia and China (Japan is not a lot of help since they don't have much of a military). I don't think anyone would really mind if we dropped a bomb on Kim Jong Il though and just took him out with one blow.

I'm not knocking your opinion personally, Aurora, there are lots of people that feel like you do, but I think this stance, in particular (that we should act militarily) is what makes the whole "don't test nuclear weapons" argument hypocritical. I have never understood why some things are good for the US to do (hello - we tested our own nuclear weapons) but not for other countries. Threatening them with physical violence is precisely the reason they're testing them in the first place.

That said, I think Kim Jong Il is a scary, scary dude and I certainly wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (which, come to think of it, I might be able to do). I think the whole world needs to be involved, big militaries or not, because he needs to know that if he does this, there will be consequences. It's one thing to piss off the US but it's another thing to know you'll have no economic or military support to speak of, throughout the whole world. North Korea cannot exist forever with the economy in the state it's in. I'm hoping that more pressure will crack them. In a good way.

As for Foley, as far as I'm concerned the people who should be ashamed of themselves are the people in the GOP who knew it was happening way back when. Turning a blind eye to such activities is in no way representative of what a government representative/body should do. The party of morals should start using some. Or growing some, whatever the case may be. I personally could not care less about Foley himself. If he did something illegal, I hope they charge him and he is punished to the fullest extent of the law. If he didn't do something illegal but obviously unethical, he's getting what he deserves right now. It has nothing to do with a "lifestyle," although you have to admire the spin on that one (and the gullability of the American people to believe, which I suppose remains to be seen), and I think it's offensive that almost every story I've read puts in there that he's now gay. Who cares? Gay does not equal pedophile. I wish people would get it through their stupid heads.

-- Edited by blubirde at 17:25, 2006-10-09

ILoveChoo · Hermes

blubirde wrote:

Aurora wrote:

I think this stance, in particular (that we should act militarily) is what makes the whole "don't test nuclear weapons" argument hypocritical. I have never understood why some things are good for the US to do (hello - we tested our own nuclear weapons) but not for other countries. Threatening them with physical violence is precisely the reason they're testing them in the first place.

ITA. They suck, but I've always throught that it's completely hypocrytical for us to tell other countries they can't have weapons when we have them. wtf- they aren't allowed to defend themselves?

as for Foley....I could honestly care less. I think the whole thing is rediculous, but I also may not know the entire story. From what I do know though, he really didn't do anything legally wrong.

atlgirl · Gucci

I think Kim Jong Il is a scary, scary dude and I certainly wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (which, come to think of it, I might be able to do). I think the whole world needs to be involved, big militaries or not, because he needs to know that if he does this, there will be consequences. It's one thing to piss off the US but it's another thing to know you'll have no economic or military support to speak of, throughout the whole world. North Korea cannot exist forever with the economy in the state it's in. I'm hoping that more pressure will crack them. In a good way.

As for Foley, as far as I'm concerned the people who should be ashamed of themselves are the people in the GOP who knew it was happening way back when. Turning a blind eye to such activities is in no way representative of what a government representative/body should do. The party of morals should start using some. Or growing some, whatever the case may be. I personally could not care less about Foley himself. If he did something illegal, I hope they charge him and he is punished to the fullest extent of the law. If he didn't do something illegal but obviously unethical, he's getting what he deserves right now. It has nothing to do with a "lifestyle," although you have to admire the spin on that one (and the gullability of the American people to believe, which I suppose remains to be seen), and I think it's offensive that almost every story I've read puts in there that he's now gay. Who cares? Gay does not equal pedophile. I wish people would get it through their stupid heads.

ITA, blubirde. I couldn't have said it any better.

Mandy · Kate Spade

blubirde wrote:

I'm not knocking your opinion personally, Aurora, there are lots of people that feel like you do, but I think this stance, in particular (that we should act militarily) is what makes the whole "don't test nuclear weapons" argument hypocritical. I have never understood why some things are good for the US to do (hello - we tested our own nuclear weapons) but not for other countries. Threatening them with physical violence is precisely the reason they're testing them in the first place.

-- Edited by blubirde at 17:25, 2006-10-09

1. ITA with blubird.

2. Due to the graphic nature of his conversations, I believe that is a crime. Perhaps not in DC, but I'm pretty sure that in GA he could be charged with sexual exploitation of children. I also don't want people to think that what he did is more wrong because he is gay. When I first heard about it, I assume the page was a female and things didn't change in my mind when I realized that it was a male involved.

ILoveChoo · Hermes

Mandy wrote:

blubirde wrote:

2. Due to the graphic nature of his conversations, I believe that is a crime. Perhaps not in DC, but I'm pretty sure that in GA he could be charged with sexual exploitation of children. I also don't want people to think that what he did is more wrong because he is gay. When I first heard about it, I assume the page was a female and things didn't change in my mind when I realized that it was a male involved.

The age of consent in DC is 16... so as long as the kid was over 16 when the conversations started, I think he's in the clear on that one. I could be wrong though....

Mandy · Kate Spade

ILoveChoo wrote:

The age of consent in DC is 16... so as long as the kid was over 16 when the conversations started, I think he's in the clear on that one. I could be wrong though....

I think all congressional pages are juniors in high school. That would make them 16 or 17 so he should be ok.

shopgirl · Kenneth Cole

D wrote:

shopgirl wrote:

[Mark Foley] entered into a relationship with a minor

I was not aware he had sex with a minor. So are charges being pressed against him for statutory rape/pedophilia/molestation or whatever other charge I can't think of at the moment?

I didn't say he had sex, just that he had a relationship. I'm sure that word will be picked apart by folks on both sides of the aisle. (Remember Clinton's it depends on what 'is' is? moment?)

As the former chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children he was supposed to protect kids. Check out this ad and compare it to some of the text from his IMs

Foley ad advocating the protection of kids

ABC story containing IM transcripts

According to an Oct. 6 AP story that is in the Washington Post's archives, "E-mails and instant messages released so far indicate Foley communicated with boys in California and Louisiana, and may have initiated those contacts from Washington and Florida. The boys in question were all at least 16 at the time.

"Under state law in Florida, where the age of consent is 18, a crime may have been committed if Foley is found to have seduced or attempted to seduce a minor.

"However, a reading of the law is subjective, said JoAnn Carrin, spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office."

(Please click on the Washington Post link for full article and context.)

--deborah

gingembre1 · Kate Spade

1. While Russia should be more intimately concerned than the U.S. with N. Korea, considering that's more their backyard than ours, the real enforcers in this case should be China. In fact some political analysts think that this will bring about a rapprochement of the US and China as they come together to control N. Korea. But frankly, this whole issue with Korea's nuclear program could have been pushed back by many years, if not avoided entirely, if 1. Bush had not created the Axis of Evil, and 2. Bush had continue Clinton's somewhat controversial method of bribing N. Korea every time they threatened a nuclear program. Also, by devoting all of our time, money, and troops to Afghanistan and Iraq (a war with no foundation on fact), we left the rest of the world to "play." The US has long placed itself in the role of global "enforcer" and by abdicating our role in the world at large (whether you agree that this is a role we should play or not), opportunities have been seized. An excellent article addressing most of these issues can be found on Slate.com.

Really, our own policies have in many ways created, or at the very least, exacerbated the problem in N. Korea. I think that while talking about what is to be done with North Korea, we first need to address our own foreign policies, and why and how they've gotten us where we are today.

2. Foley: I don't think the issue here is the fact that he is gay. It's that he made inappropriate advances to pages - basically, sexual harrassment, which is not okay in any workplace that I know of, whether it's between a man and a woman, two women, two men, etc. If this man had a gay lover, I'd say yay, good for him. But exchanging suggestive e-mails with young men who are younger than 18 is highly inappropriate and is not an okay lifestyle choice. If the e-mails were all with men 18 and over, then that's between them. But a minor is more likely to feel pressured into an uncomfortable position, and therefore yes, I do have a problem with his choices. I don't see that this scandal has had a backlash on acceptance of the gay lifestyle choice, but I suppose time will tell. I really haven't felt, however, in the tone of the media reports, that people are harping on the fact that he's gay, but rather that these were inappropriate e-mails with young men in a workplace environment.

scarlett · Marc Jacobs

ITA with Blubirde on the North Korea issue.

As for Mark Foley, what he did totally disgusts me. Not because he's gay, but because he's using a position of authority and power to sexually harass young boys. AND he's trying to play it off by saying he has a drinking problem or was molested -- there is no evidence that he was ever molested by a priest or that he has alcohol abuse problems. It's apparently been an open secret in DC that he's gay and he's had a longterm relationship, yet would sometimes appear in public with a woman and call her his date.

I've read the transcripts and they're completely gross and inappropriate -- he is also careful to say he doesn't want anything to happen until the kid in question is of age. I did see one where he was telling a guy he wanted to have him over and get him drunk, but I don't know how old the person was who he had that IM chat with. To my knowledge it remains unclear if he broke the law, which would be if he entered into a sexual relationship with a minor.

There are reports that two or three years ago, Foley showed up drunk at the page's dormitory and tried to gain entry, but was turned away by the security guard. Nothing was done to reprimand him -- who knows what he was planning to do if he was allowed inside, but I think it's safe to say he was not there to read anyone a bedtime story.

And finally, another thing that makes me angry is that this will reinforce stereotypes that being a gay man = being a pedophile. The overwhelming majority of pedophile cases involve straight men preying on young girls, not gay men going after young boys.

eta: Here are the figures on pedophilia that I referred to above. Quoted from a Newsweek story from 10/16/2006: "According to a 2000 Justice Department study, 97 percent of adults who sexually assault 12- to 17-year old children are male -- and 90 percent of their victims are female."

-- Edited by scarlett at 15:46, 2006-10-17

Hermes

scarlett wrote:

And finally, another thing that makes me angry is that this will reinforce stereotypes that being a gay man = being a pedophile. The overwhelming majority of pedophile cases involve straight men preying on young girls, not gay men going after young boys.

Exactly. That's why I expressed concern over "this could set a precedent for others to be condemned based on lifestyles that do not break the law, but make others "uncomfortable."" There's a pleathora of "lifestyles" that can make others "uncomfortable."

In this case, being gay and expressing interest in young men is what makes others "uncomfortable" hence my concern of allowing one to be condemned based on being gay, thus working against advances toward gay marriage. So, unless we can define what can legally be comfortable for all, do not condemn someone for making others uncomfortable. I understand what he did was is poor taste and I do not support it, but he (to our knowledge) did not break any laws, and I'd hate to see law making based on the precedent of making others "uncomfortable" as it's subjective and plays against our freedoms.