A Congressional Freak and the Role of Parents
A US congressman has resigned after it was revealed that he was engaging teen pages in X-rated online conversations. Parents take heed.
From The Blotter on Thursday:
The Democratic opponent of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) is calling for an investigation into allegations that a 16-year-old male who had worked as a congressional page alerted Capitol Hill staffers after an e-mail exchange with Congressman Foley that the young man said "freaked me out."
Rep. Foley's office says the e-mails were entirely appropriate and that their release is part of an "ugly smear campaign" by his opponent.
Things went south for the representative on Friday:
Florida Rep. Mark Foley's resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.
In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.
That a congressman who worked on legislation to protect children turned out to be an exploiter of children is a lesson for all of us. Recently I wrote on how the police have let us down in the past when given the chance to nail pedophiles. There have been plenty of high profile cases of teachers taking advantage of the children in their charge. Case after case of Catholic priests.
The fact is that we hope we haven't made a mistake in the people we elect, select, or hire to protect our children. As parents, we need to be as suspicious of them as we are of the stranger on the street. We can't know what darkness lies in their hearts, and no background check or interview process can reveal it unless the person has been caught before. No political membership, no profession, no religious belief, no economic status, no grouping of people can say there is no way a monster can be lurking in their midst.
When our children go out into the world, as were these young congressional pages, we hope that the community as a whole will keep an eye on them. For the most part, it does. But the Internet is a different kind of community. Everyone is a ghost. No one can be sure of who else is in the virtual room. With that anonymity comes boldness. Boldness like Foley's.
We are not the last line of defense for our children, we are the only line of defence. While they are at home, we have to do all we can to protect them. But we might as well unlock the door and leave the windows open, a ladder conveniently leaning up against the house, if we don't keep an eye on the computer. Foley and people like him use the Internet both as a means of entry and a way of staying hidden. So keep the computer in the hall or a common room. Set time limits on its use. Learn how to enable logging features and use them.
The technology to do it is improving all the time.
Your kids will hate you for it. Good. A parent who is not hated by their kids at least twice a week is not doing his or her job.
And no kid needs a text-capable cell phone. Maybe these pages needed them as part of their duties. If so, I hope the people who run the page program are required to review just how to better manage the communications to keep the Foleys of the world from doing this again.
And if they don't take action, then parents will have to. Because when all is said and done, we can't trust anyone. We can't afford to.
Michelle Malkin talks about parental vigilance.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Mark Foley pedophile
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Mmmm, why kids would not need text message cellphones?
One reason I have one is because of my disability, deafness. Text messaging is the only way to stay in touch with my family if I'm out.
Posted by: Crazy Dan at September 30, 2006 12:12 PM
I'd be surprised if they even make cell phones that aren't text-capable anymore. Also, I'm not sure why SMS would be more dangerous for kids than regular cell phone use (it didn't seem to be involved in this case, at any rate).
Otherwise, great post Steve.
Posted by: The Invisible Hand at September 30, 2006 05:54 PM
Why is the emphasis on technology and parent-child relationship in this story?
Where is the main story of Republican coverup of perverted child molestation and abuse of positions of power?
Why is there no mention of the Republican leadership's year-old coverup and hiding of the Republican congressman's disgusting perversions.
Why is there no emphasis on the cult of child sexual abuse by conservative Republican christian rightwingers?
Posted by: Sean at September 30, 2006 11:51 PM
yer a wank janke
Posted by: at October 1, 2006 08:49 AM
I love how you avoid mentioning the fact that he's Republican as much as possible, the only mention being the (R-FL) in the sections you quote. Then, of course, you gloss over the whole coverup and blather on about technology.
Remember "McClelland, stay away from me and my family. Don't ever come near my kids. Ever." Remember that? Of course when there's a real sexual predator, Janke doesn't give a shit. If he's a republican that is.
Posted by: thickslab at October 1, 2006 09:09 AM
Stay away from my 16 year-old boy, Wanke!
Posted by: Angry on Great White Toile at October 1, 2006 10:52 AM
I love how you avoid mentioning the fact that he's Republican as much as possible, the only mention being the (R-FL) in the sections you quote. Then, of course, you gloss over the whole coverup and blather on about technology.
It seems the whole point of the article, from its title onward, was less about exposing cover-ups and more about the role and responsibility that parents have to take in the lives of their children and the safety thereof.
Seems reasonable to veer into a discussion of technology, be it web chat programs or SMS phones (which can become, in essence, portable chat clients if you have a plan that gives you a bundle of free messages every month).
The focus of the story is not on political backroads and closed-door sessions; it's on the role of parents in the lives and safety of their children. Totally different subject.
Remember "McClelland, stay away from me and my family. Don't ever come near my kids. Ever." Remember that? Of course when there's a real sexual predator, Janke doesn't give a shit. If he's a republican that is.
Doesn't seem to me that Steve doesn't give a shit. His whole post is on how parents can take action to protect their children from sexual predators that use the internet to hide their identity.
That seems to be the opposite of "not giving a shit", really. But I'm sure you recognized that. ;)
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether a sex offender is left wing or right wing, and as Steve points out there are monsters hiding in all the closets. I think he was fairly up front about that.
Once again, thickslab, you seem to be setting yourself in opposition to those who speak out in favour of protecting children from sexual predators. You've said you're not a pedophile yourself (or maybe you just don't think that's what it is when you do it -- maybe it's an expression of sexual diversity?), and yet you seem to come down hard on anyone who has the "gall" to suggest that kids be protected to the maximum degree possible from untoward exposure to age-inappropriate sexual material and advances.
Are you SURE there's not something you are hiding from us? Close friend who's gotten involved with kids before, perhaps?
Posted by: ken at October 1, 2006 11:13 AM
Considering that you support the Pope, ken, I think you should look at your associates instead of worrying about mine. You're the one who supports a an organization that allowed child molestation to go on and covered it up for years.
I come down on Janke because he's a fool. There isn't anything he posts on here that isn't about cheap political points.
Posted by: thickslab at October 1, 2006 11:38 AM
It astounds me the number of parents who think nothing of their children using MSN on the Internet at the age of 8, but would probably be aghast if their child picked up the phone and started talking to a stranger.
Posted by: Saskboy at October 1, 2006 04:43 PM
It astounds me the number of children obviously under tha age of 12 who have cell phones...which, one can only assume, their parents are paying for. Interesting commentary on parental responsibility...one could not easily conceive of an easier thing a parent might clamp down on if the need arose.
Maybe it doesn't arise in all cases.
Still, it begs a question of necessity. Or, as Saskboy points out, the necessity of giving children as young as 8 essentially unfettered access to the virtual world of MSN. Do kids need cell phones, and do they need to include in their network of friends a host of people from Myspace? Mind you, these days, the way kids used to go about making friends and hanging out with them has been all but obliterated as playgrounds, bicycle riding, and other activities have become more and more sanitized and encumbered by safety legislation, some of which has merit and some of which just makes one scratch one's head.
I suppose parents would like to think that the virtual world is a safer place.
Perhaps I'm not one to make such commentary -- I am Catholic, and I do speak on a regular basis with priests, and even the Archbishop on occasion (and we all know that "those" people are just a rape case waiting to happen...or so some here would lead us to believe!). But then, I take solace in the fact that while the Church -- not exempt from the mire of human evil -- has had its scandals, it is dealing now with them, and harshly in many cases. Pope Benedict has no tolerance for the abuse of children, as is right.
Still, in thinking of the particular affiliations a certain other commenter here may be keeping, I can't help but think again of what Mark Shea remarks from time to time..."there will come a time when the Church is condemned not for covering up pedophilia, but for condemning it".
I find the phrase "I think you should look at your associates instead of worrying about mine", I can't help but interpret it as a tacit affirmation of my earlier speculations from the way it is worded. Interesting.
Posted by: ken at October 1, 2006 06:40 PM
Truer words were never spoken: "We are not the last line of defence for our children, we are the only line of defence."
I was often accused, by other less vigilant parents--some would say laid back parents--of being "overly protective" of my daughters as I kept an eye on the sex ed curriculum at their school (many teachers strongly disliked me), and monitored their computer use and television watching. My own children would groan when I put a stipulation on their activities and moan, "You're the ONLY MOM who does that."
My response was always, "well, that's their family and this is ours." Years later, both of my girls understand that I was actually being a caring mom not a mean mom. I'm grateful for that--and they're grateful for my vigilance.
True story: The son of friends was on the Internet a lot, as both parents worked outside the home. The day of his 16th birthday, he didn't come home from school, which was in a rural area of the province they live in.
Just as they were about to become alarmed, a friend of their son arrived at the house with a note. They became much more alarmed: Their son had been corresponding with a man in a province over 1000 kms away, who had bought the boy a plane ticket. The boy had caught a bus to the nearest city with an airport, picked up the ticket, and had flown to his destination: the man's house. The note said, "Mom and Dad, I'm fine. I'll be in touch when I get to where I'm going."
My friends immediately contacted the provincial police who, fortunately, had an officer who was a computer whiz--their son had e-mailed them on arrival at the man's house, only telling them what city he was in and that he was OK--and who was able to trace the e-mail server and prevail upon them to help him identify the customer. I don't know if that's totally legal, but that's what happened. And this police officer did the computer work on his own time, he was so concerned.
To make a long story short, one of this boy's parents flew to the city where their son was, where they were met by one of the city's policemen, who then went to the house where they knew he was. When the door was answered, the only thing the officer could tell the man, because the boy was 16 and no longer a legal minor, was "we're watching you. We know you have this boy living with you. His parent simply wants to talk to him and will not coerce him to go home."
The boy and parent had a meal together, and the boy opted to stay in the big city, where he could attend a larger high school with more exciting programs than his rural school offered.
Who knows what he was exposed to while he was in the big city? He did, however, eventually return home.
Right under his parents' noses, from the bosom of his family (he has other siblings who were quite traumatized by the event), this boy was whisked away by a body snatcher. And it's happening far more than we know.
Later:
I agree with Steve when he says "Your kids will hate you for it [monitoring their use of the computer]. Good. A parent who is not hated by their kids at least twice a week is not doing his or her job."
And this is precisely the problem. Because so many parents hardly see their children in a day--a hurried breakfast, goodbyes while everyone rushes off to school and work, a frenzied after-school round of sports or after-school activities, no sit-down dinner, homework, laundry, shopping, cleaning, bed--too many of them hesitate to put restrictions on their kids OR they just aren't physically around to watch what's going on. They dread being hated by their kids, whereas when you’re with them 24/7, it’s not such a big deal.
Kids don't bring themselves up. As 'grownups' have been intent on fulfillment and career success in the past 30 years, there's been a growing societal myth that kids should be independent, that they don't need 'parental guidance' as much as they used to, that they're 'resilient' and can handle a lot of 'freedom' or activities without adults 'hovering.'
This is a myth. It simply is not true. Without adult supervision, it's too easy for kids who are inexperienced, looking for laughs, fun, danger, and to push the envelope, to experiment with all kinds of things, like drugs, sex, Internet, e-mail, etc. and find themselves in much hotter water than they had ever thought was possible.
Being vigilant is part of a parent’s responsibility. Being thought to be “too strict” or “the only mom or dad who does this,” etc. goes with the territory—and your kids will thank you later when they realize how high the stakes were.
Posted by: 'been around the block at October 1, 2006 08:34 PM
Look, it doesn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democrat who's abusing younger people: This is a matter of an adult exploiting a young person, all the more reprehensible, because the person has a position of authority and therefore of privilege. Foley was someone who the page should have been able to look up to. Instead, Foley has compeltely betrayed a trust, and now he will have to pay the consequences. He happens to be a Republican.
IF, HOWEVER, SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE AN ISSUE OUT OF DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS: Bill Clinton repeatedly, as a State Governor and then as the President of the United States, betrayed the trust of, what?, six, seven, eight, women, by sexually assaulting and abusing them, the last one that we know of being Monica Lewinsky, a 23-year-old intern.
He grossly abused his authority and privilege in this instance, and, at the time, I found it difficult to find too many people who were willing to condemn him for it. They're response usually was, "Well, Monica Lewinsky is obviously a tart."
EXCUSE ME? Bill Clinton was old enough to be her father and on top of abusing a young intern, he lied under oath, despite the fact that he was the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.
If a man in any other position such as a teacher, preacher, lawyer, etc. had done what he did, they would be out of a job and would find it difficult to get hired anywhere else. And Bill Clinton? He kept his job and is now making hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches around the globe.
ANY adult who sexually exploits a young person should have the book thrown at them, of whatever political stripe, and I find it obscene that anyone would play the partisan card when it comes to an issue as serious as this.
Posted by: 'been around the block at October 1, 2006 08:49 PM
Many posts here are skirting the issue of a white guy, pedophile, position of power, abuse etc., while talking about parents.
In this instance, the kid was 16, his parents had allowed him to work for what he and they believed in (government), and in a great job which must have been coveted by many other applicants, for a man who the parents believed to be a responsible, forthright and upstanding person. How wrong those parents of that poor kid were!
Someone said, "stranger on our street" and I put forth it's not the stranger on your streets you need to worry about; it is the (mostly white and male) men who win the parents' trust who need to be monitored carefully.
This is an issue which rightfully should rock this nation, and particularly resonate with all the right-wing religious people. This evil can and will infect you whenever if finds an opening. No matter how much you hate evil, it will get to you. No matter how surprised you act when a story such as this gets out, it is a reminder that evil IS you. This is the story of original sin. To pretend otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.
Pedophiles are all over the place, many in important positions, and they make the laws that you as parents follow regarding your children. Imagine the horror those parents felt when they learned that the guy who runs the anti-exploiting children cashcow is actually a child abuser?
Time for you to grow up and be able to defend your own children, and that means confronting these monster men at each and every turn.
Do that instead of casting aspersions on this young man, or labelling this current monster "gay" and washing your hands of the matter. It will come back to haunt you, your children, your grandchildren and so on, including your neighbours' children. Do something creative now to stop these monsters.
I suggest: quit freaking out over Janet Jackson's tit on TV and start cracking down on the porn that has proliferated using young people to stimulate old men.
Do you think Foley knew that porn was one of America's GDP winners these past years? I say Yes he did. And so do a lot of other politicians/parents/partakers.
Remove the mote from your own eye, for God's sake!
Posted by: Concerned parent at October 1, 2006 10:52 PM
 
|
|
