Centerfield

Mark Foley (R-FL) resigns his seat in email sex scandal! Film at 11!

OK, the film will be continuous on the news channels, and we haven't got any film, but that's the story. The story talks about some apparently rather innocent emails. Foley could beat the heck out of that if it weren't for the reportedly explicit Instant Messaging referring to "repeated references to sexual organs and acts" he's apparently exchanged with other underage pages, which makes any innocent email to a 16 year old boy look completely different.

There's too many good jokes and, er, straight lines available, but I'm going to leave it alone past the facts for now, other than to note that it's tough to dodge the smear campaign when you create the material yourself.

Posted by: Tully at September 29, 2006 04:16 PM

Foley was my congressman for five years, and I can honestly say that he was the best politician I've covered in 15 years as a journalist. He could have been senator in 2003 if his sexual orientation had not been a factor. (Officially, he refused to answer questions about whether he was gay.) I think the House lost its best moderate Republican on this one.

Posted by: WeekendPundit at September 29, 2006 04:54 PM

And it's a real shame that guys like Kolbe and Foley are being run off. OK, if Foley really was playing with underage pages, it's not a shame, but I still don't confuse job performance with off-duty activities. He could be a despicable jerk and still do a good job.

If he were playing with adults, it would be his own business. And if the gender of the pages dosn't change the principle in the least.

Posted by: Tully at September 29, 2006 05:26 PM

What Tully said, with emphasis on the fact that playing with pages, whether they are technically under age or not, is wrong any way you look at it. And to clarify, playing with pages is not "off-duty activities". If you met them on the job, if you have power over them because of the job, then that's an on-duty, job-related thing. And I don't care if the page/intern/secretary's name is Monica, Paula, Kathleen, or Bob, it's sexual harassment at the very best, statutory rape at the worst, and inappropriate no matter how you look at it.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 29, 2006 05:37 PM

Ah, yes, Pat, but if s/he likes playing around with you? ;-)

Yeah, I was surprised too. The few messages of Foley's I've read seemed a little strange coming from a Congressmember to a teenager, but hardly explicit. The hidden stuff must be really explosive to make him resign so suddenly.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 29, 2006 06:03 PM

Then you best hope that the mutual attraction continues, or else the person in a position of power is screwed (in a more figurative, less pleasant way ;-), and suddenly at the mercy of the other.

To clarify, not all sexual relationships between a boss and a subordinate constitute sexual harassment; that term technically applies only to unwanted sexual behavior. If the feeling is truly mutual, then there's nothing legally or morally inappropriate. But the burden is most definitely on the person in the position of power to make damn sure it really is a mutual thing.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 29, 2006 06:13 PM

Being quoted:

"Do I make you feel a little horny?"

Given "underage," that's more than enough.

Posted by: Tully at September 29, 2006 06:19 PM

Tully,
Do you place much credence in Woodward's new book? There are a number of alarming claims including the CIA's warning to Bush and Rice in July of 2001 of a coming attack that confirms Clarke's account. The requests for more troops seems to be documented as well as a serious internal fight for Rumsfeld to resign. Are you comfortable with this crew in the White House?

Jean,

ABC says the more nasty stuff cannot be quoted on TV. Asked why they (young boys) did not come forward sooner, many have been reported to have said they were afraid of Foley's power. Unfortunately, I think this holds true for whistleblowers in regard to Federal power. With the light on Foley and Allen (also Abramoff's numerous contacts with the White House), one must wonder what will happen in November.

I can't wait for the new Borat movie to take my mind off this political mess.

Posted by: Maxtrue1 at September 29, 2006 06:50 PM

To clarify, not all sexual relationships between a boss and a subordinate constitute sexual harassment; that term technically applies only to unwanted sexual behavior. If the feeling is truly mutual, then there's nothing legally or morally inappropriate. But the burden is most definitely on the person in the position of power to make damn sure it really is a mutual thing.

But there's also the whole thing about "perception" and how other members of the organization view the conduct. I agree that consenting adults are consenting adults, but in the military at least, we understand that much of the commander's effectiveness in leading his/her Soldiers comes from the moral authority that the leader wields. It's a responsibility as well as a privilege, and one can lose the moral authority-- fast-- if his/her subordinates think the leader is unfairly playing favorites, especially if personal (and sexual) relationships are perceived to be the cause of this unfairness. Rightly or wrongly, it can undermine the organization's morale and it can cause others to feel that they're being overlooked/bypassed because they're not "playing the game" the way So-and-so is.

I think it's a fact that great leaders need to have impeccable moral authority-- unfortunately, in our desire to "humanize" our leaders we like to pretend this isn't always so, and that the public and the personal can easily be separated. My own experience and observations (and I admit that it's severely limited) seem to conclude otherwise.

Posted by: Bobby at September 29, 2006 07:03 PM

Thanks, Pat.

Yeah, the "Do I make you horny?" line was too much. I'm just wondering why this all came out now.

That's true, Bobby, but I can't help thinking of Julius Caesar, who was called "every man's woman and each woman's man", not to mention Alexander the Great.

In other news, one of the most maligned American in history Tokyo Rose has died. Former President Ford deserves a tip of the hat for pardoning her.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 29, 2006 07:55 PM

Jean,
Given the extent the Republican's use of homosexuality as a wedge issue, a Republican leader who spearheads child pornography flirting with a sixteen year old boy is rather strange, yes?

Perceptions do matter, regardless of the charges that will be filed against Foley, some of which are the consequence of new laws he promoted.

It is another thing when Borat spoofs such behavior (fortunately, not with minors).

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 29, 2006 08:16 PM

Jean,

That's true, Bobby, but I can't help thinking of Julius Caesar, who was called "every man's woman and each woman's man", not to mention Alexander the Great.

Well, I would argue that Alexander did a very poor job of managing the perception of his alleged favoritism to the Persians and to Clitus-- and it may very well have cost him his life (the jury is out on whether he died of natural disease or whether he was deliberately poisoned by one of his courtiers).

Having said that, though, those were men of different times, customs, and culture, and we can't simply defer to "well, they did it and they were great leaders" as justification for misconduct of people today. For example, forcing himself upon women of conquered nations was considered appropriate for military leaders back then-- it was even celebrated in most instances... Today we call that rape and it would most certainly destroy the morale of a US Army regiment if their colonel was publicly doing such a thing.

We can pretend that such enormous differences don't exist in different times (thus, in the movie "Troy," Agamemnon and Achilles fight over the way Briseis is being treated, whereas in Homer's Illiad they were fighting over who got to make her their concubine) but that's largely irresponsible (and wrong) in taking things out of their proper context.

Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Bobby at September 29, 2006 08:29 PM

There's an interesting article in the Atlantic about troubles of moderate House reps.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 29, 2006 09:45 PM

...scandals didn't come up, though, of course, I do suspect that the investigation count has gone up. Extremists love investigations.

Of course, sometimes they have a point; we can't condone conduct like Foley's.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 29, 2006 09:48 PM

Bobby.
Perception and context. In Foley's case you might be referring to the perception of the voter and the perception of his Party that voters may retaliate against them. The context might be Foley's professed and trusted position in the war on child pornography and his political affiliation to a Party most opposed to homosexual conduct. Somehow, (though no sexual acts appear to be committed) seems more disturbing than Clinton's behavior.

Of course, there is an even greater perceptive field which some here feel is completely irrelevant in our policy deliberations: world opinion. When American officials are caught secretly engaged in the opposite of their righteous goals, the world can only wonder what else is a sham. Whether Republicans or Democrats are more "immoral" or whether other governments throughout the ages were more immoral, seem irrelevant. When we are opposed to the moral equivalency between terrorists and the US, between Fascism and Liberal Democracy, perception moves against us by every act that confirms the opposite.

How do you think global perception fits into our strategic position? Should we care what anyone thinks? How many mistakes are even more dangerous than supposed in the sense they discredit our position with the global community? What effect does global and domestic perception have on the outcome of Iraq or the pre-emption of Iran?

Will Woodward, Clarke, Ricks, and others influence this even more?

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 29, 2006 10:05 PM

Absolutely, the military is a whole different kettle of fish. The good order and discipline of the service is not compatible with sexual involvement between, say, officers and enlisted personnel. Also, unlike private employment, subordinates are legally required to obey all (lawful) orders from their superiors, which puts an additional element of coercion into the mix.

Jean, it turns out it's much, much worse. Drudge has a link right now to a pdf of the worst IMs to come out so far. "Are you horny" is tame by comparison. Sad and sickening... I forsee a plea agreement in Mr. Foley's near future. And we still have no idea yet whether he actually engaged in real (as opposed to cyber) sex with any of these pages.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 29, 2006 10:12 PM

Do you place much credence in Woodward's new book?

No.

Are you comfortable with this crew in the White House?

I've never been "comfortable" with any administration in my lifetime. I doubt I would have been "comfortable" with any of them in my father's lifetime. Maybe Eisenhower's first. (Maybe not.)

I'm just wondering why this all came out now.

Why now? Five weeks before an election? Gee, I wonder. That IM exchange dates from 2003, about the same time as Foley was "outed" by the press as gay. Right after that Foley declined to file for Bob Graham's Senate seat, even though he polled as the runaway favorite even after being outed, and ran for re-election to his House seat instead. (Mel Martinez took the Dem Senate seat for the GOP anyway.) He also declined to run against Katherine Harris in the primary for Bill Nelson's seat this year, despite great polling.

Rumor has it the email exchange (which looks innocent until placed in context with the IM exchange) was being shopped around for the last few weeks. Someone with more patience and paranoid curiosity will no doubt check for changes in his voting record and such dating from around then, and it'll be all over the blogosphere, edged with Deep Portents. Speculation will run rife that after using it against him for three years, someone finally lowered the boom before the ammo aged out of usefullness, or because the moment was opportune for maximum reward. Who knows?

But he did it to himself. Just plain gay he could survive--and did. This is something else entirely. The timing is suspicious in many ways, but no sympathies here.

Posted by: Tully at September 29, 2006 11:59 PM

Strange indeed, Tully, especially since the House Republican Leadership has known about this for almost a year and did little or nothing about it. (Apparently, Pelosi has demanded-and gotten-a motion for an investigation which passed 400 to zero).

Me, I don't particularly care what a politician does in his or her bedroom (as long as it's between two-or more-consenting adults), but let's keep the under eighteens out of it.

However, anybody who's been in the fame game for long will have stuff attributed to them that may or may not be true. (As Pat can verify. ;-) That's why I took the rumors about Foley with a grain of salt. That's my point, Bobby. (By the way, Achilles was considerably heterosexualized in Troy. Most of the cognoscenti say his real love was Patroclaus.)

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 30, 2006 12:29 AM

Jean, John Shimkus is hardly "the House Republican Leadership," and the Roll Call story is about the email exchange. As I said, the emails taken by themselves are no big whoop. Nothing in them that can't be quite innocently and logically explained away (and, apparently, was). It's when you side-by-side 'em with the 2003 IM exchange that they take on an entire new context. The emails are nothing but the hook for the story.

That initial "inappropriate email" story was the one that was being shopped around, and it got no traction because there wasn't anything there. The story is the IM exchange--which stayed undercover (so to speak) from 2003 until now. Which was the same time Foley was outed. And the same time he started declining chances to climb another rung on the ladder. And his Conservative Rating started dropping, drifting towards the middle.

Makes you wonder if someone gave him the play-ball head-slap in 2003, and has been playing him with those IM's ever since, and is now "cashing out." Or some more complicated scenario, as life can be strange, expecially in political circles. But someone else can play conspiracist, I'm just noting the timing and the potential. The IM's are what change the context and make 'em look creepy. (And in that context, they definitely ARE creepy.)

Me, I don't particularly care what a politician does in his or her bedroom (as long as it's between two-or more-consenting adults), but let's keep the under eighteens out of it.

Huzzah, and I agree! Except where you indicate caring about what lonely adult politicians without partners do in their bedrooms--is that with or without their computers on? :-)

Posted by: Tully at September 30, 2006 01:07 AM

Jean, the investigation was based only on the e-mail to the 16 year old that came out yesterday which, while feeling a little creepy, were not about any inappropriate subject matter; they were just overly friendly. That young man and his parents told Congressman Alexander (whose district the page was from), after the boy had forwarded the questionable e-mail to one of Alexander's staffers, that they didn't really want to pursue anything. That e-mail was fairly easily explainable; one couldn't base an in-depth investigation of a distinguished meber of Congress on that.

According to the Brian Ross report I read, after they aired their story yesterday on that e-mail, other pages quickly got in touch with ABC with the new e-mails which were revealed today.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 30, 2006 01:12 AM

Jean,

Me, I don't particularly care what a politician does in his or her bedroom (as long as it's between two-or more-consenting adults), but let's keep the under eighteens out of it.

Well, in this case, apparently these were under-eighteens, but regardless, I have a moral problem with leaders getting involved with their subordinates no matter what the age-- it's just inappropriate, and I think it creates a lot of perception problems for the organization (many of whom now might be inclined to believe that they also have to "play the game" in order to get ahead).

Maybe it is just a military thing, but even as a civilian, I would never allow myself to get involved with one of my subordinates-- obviously because I already have my Mercedes, but also because I've seen the effect it can have on other members of the organization, and it's poor leadership to subject your organization to such chaos just for the instant gratification. But I fully acknowledge that I learned my leadership from the world's most elite leadership institution, so maybe my perspective is a little different.

Posted by: Bobby at September 30, 2006 02:24 AM

Tully,

LOL. I have never been "comfortable" with any either. Cheney did put Woodward's first two books on his favored reading list. Is it really a stretch to call his third a fabrication. In any case, we are past that point now and I am truely tired of looking backward for three years.

It is and will continue to be about what to do now. I would love to see what you would do as President with Bobby as SECDEF and Pat as ATTGEN. What would be your first several moves to correct what you are not "comfortable" with?

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 30, 2006 08:21 AM

We can pretend that such enormous differences don't exist in different times (thus, in the movie "Troy," Agamemnon and Achilles fight over the way Briseis is being treated, whereas in Homer's Illiad they were fighting over who got to make her their concubine) but that's largely irresponsible (and wrong) in taking things out of their proper context.

LOL Not that I was planning to rent the movie anyway since it didn't look that great, but this is a reason not to. (If it is good enough to bother with, let me know, and we'll rent it. The kid's and I would probably love the action; we're sort of into pre-modern battle spectacles.)

I must have been in about 5th grade when I read the Iliad and the Odyssey, in the form of unabridged translations, not a retelling for children. (On my own, of course, not for class.) I had no clue about there being anything other than friendship between Achilles and Patroclus until much more recently, but even at the age of ten, I got the bit about Briseis (haven't read The Iliad in ages, but I suspect that it is probably about as difficult to miss as the defilement of Hector's body by Achilles.) Maybe I didn't understand it precisely as the men wanting her for sex, since sex was a very foggy concept for me at that age, but I understood it quite well enough. Furthermore, I don't recall there being any sense of outrage on my part on Briseis' behalf. I think I simply accepted that those were very different times. If I wasn't upset by it a quarter century ago, I can't see why it needs to be sanitized now. And, you're right, it is irresponsible and doesn't do the story or the audience justice.

I'll tell you, though, the thing I had the hardest time understanding was in high school studying Roman history in Latin class. We learned that the Republic was established when the people rose up after the son of Tarquinius Superbus "insulted" a Roman matron, and she committed suicide as a result. That was extremely puzzling, to say the least, and had me stumped for quite a while. Would have been a lot easier to understand if someone hadn't been too ashamed to use the word "rape." (And that person wasn't my Latin teacher; when some of us finally asked her, she enligtened us.

Anyone know of a really good translation of Homer? I'm planning to read it aloud to my children, and I would prefer a translation over a retelling, if they will sit and listen. Anyone know of a really good translation of Beowulf? Preferably one with the Old-English alongside, but straight Modern English is ok, since I need good literary quality if I am going to read it aloud to my children.

Already knew about Alexander the Great. Learned something new here about Ceasar. (Not that I would have expected to have learned that sort of thing about him in high school Latin while reading De Bello Gallico.) Where's the quote about him from? "Every woman's man"? He must have either been far better looking in his youth (I've seen portrait busts of him.) or had an extremely attractive personality.

I can understand why they might have, as Jean put it, "heterosexualized" Achilles in the movie. How aware is the average American of how prevalent bisexuality was in ancient Greek culture? I think the Greeks would have simply taken that sort of relationship as an ordinary thing in that context. In our culture, it is not something that we automatically expect, so the nature of the relationship would have had to have been made so obvious that a lot of viewers would have been saying, "Whoa, you gotta be kidding me! Why did they make that up?" Or else have left it subtle enough that it would have gone over the heads of 90% of the viewers.

Posted by: isidora at September 30, 2006 09:14 AM

I would love to see what you would do as President

Resign immediately and retire to the West Indies on the perks and pension. Maybe get plastic surgery and change my name. Seriously. I wouldn't want the job. I've been a low-level elected official and have no desire to ever be a high-level one. (The one job in politics I'd want even less would be White House Press Secretary. Designated whipping boy, lousy perks, constant abuse.)

isidora, the Modern Library versions are OK. I can't read Greek so I can't vouch for the trnaslations. The ML version of Seutonius is decent, for TWELVE CAESERS. Used book stores usually have them in the classics sections. And you can probably pick up an interlinear (modern English on one page, old/middle on facing page) copy of Beowulf or Chaucer at any campus or near-campus bookstore.

Where's the quote about him from? "Every woman's man"?

Robert Graves, from I, Claudius.

Posted by: Tully at September 30, 2006 10:31 AM

I'm not so sure that relations between superiors and subordinates are any less of a problem in a civilian context than a military one. (Except that it is less likely that damaged morale will get someone killed in a crunch, of course.) Within the context of what they are supposed to be accomplishing, the damage to morale is likely to be just as great. Favoritism is always a problem -- which is why nepotism has such a bad reputation. And a consensual sexual relationship (inside or outside marriage, just to be clear) is about as strong a favoritism as it gets.

Posted by: wj at September 30, 2006 11:23 AM

Bobby, there is a term I picked up from a friend who was an animator at Disney. One they used there in a long time: Don't stick your wick in company ink.

I am kind of the same way. I try to avoid any kind of intimate relationships with co-workers. The company I use to work for was large and seemed to have relationships within the company as a corporate culture. I think there was at least one domestic incident a month in the office. Not to mention the cascade of issues involved with layoffs and job transfers.

I will just keep coworkers friends and find my love life outside the office. Besides, if an in office relationship goes wrong, the grapevine commentaries are amazing.

As far as Foley goes, there are unsubstantiated rumors of buyoffs on previous incidents. I had seen the first email in a blog on Wednesday. Without anything else, it seemed innocent. I am surprised at how quickly this unraveled once that email came out. The most ironic item may be how all those laws he worked on passing could be used on him.

Posted by: Jim M at September 30, 2006 12:12 PM

Yeah, it's almost poetic, ugly as it is. He went hunting for internet predators, and found himself.

Posted by: Tully at September 30, 2006 03:15 PM

Tully said:
> The one job in politics I'd want even less would be White House
> Press Secretary. Designated whipping boy, lousy perks, constant
> abuse.)

Amen! I'm always amazed ANYBODY takes that job.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 30, 2006 07:42 PM

Tully, thanks for the tips on Modern Library translations. I'll look into it. I actually have Chaucer in Middle English only, and I got it cheaply at a used bookstore in a university town a long time ago. I don't have too much trouble with Chaucer's Late Middle English, but it would only go truly smoothly with some extensive margin or foot notes that my edition doesn't seem to have. Beowulf I can't actually read at all in the original, but I can make a good bit of sense of the Anglo-Saxon, and compare it to modern Danish, if I have the translation with it, and that's fun. (My idea of fun, anyway.) Somewhere, I once saw a true interlineal (as opposed to interpaginal) translation. I think I'll have to try to find that again.

Ah, the quote is from _I Claudius_. Thank you. That line must have slipped by me when I first read it. I've been thinking for some time that that book and it's sequel were due for a re-reading. I read them between fifteen and twenty years ago. These days, I can also rent DVDs of the BBC series, which is cool.

BTW, if it's a privacy issue, by all means don't answer, but I've been curious since the first time I saw your handle whether "Tully" is your surname or whether it is a reference to Cicero.

Posted by: isidora at September 30, 2006 10:49 PM

I think Tully took his handle from his favorite beverage, but I could be mistaken. ;-)

Tully,

LOL! After I finish extracting my foot from my mouth, I will clarify that I don't care what politicans do by themselves in their bedrooms, with or without computers. (As long as it doesn't involve potentially embarrassing visits to the local emergency room involving gerbils, vacuum cleaners, cocktail stirrers, etc. ;-)

Jean, John Shimkus is hardly "the House Republican Leadership," and the Roll Call story is about the email exchange.

Really? That's not what Rep. Reynolds is saying. Apparently, Speaker Denny was told about this problem and said he'd take care of it; Denny denies it. I think they're both telling the truth. It probably slipped Denny's mind, what with Hurrican Katrina and all, but it still looks bad.

Pat,

Thanks for the info. I've read the original emails now. Yikes!

Bobby,

Your Mercedes (I assume you're talking about your Significant Other, not a car ;-) is a lucky woman. It would indeed be a much better world if those in power refrained from having sex with their subordinates. (Problem is, when you're the POTUS, just about everyone is your subordinate.) But as the old saying goes "Power is the most potent aphrodesiac." There will always be folks who like to brag about the powerful figures they've slept with (whether they've slept with them or not) just as there will always be those who abuse their position.

Even leaving gossip aside, I don't know about the "great men have great appetites" argument; whether it's that the men (still mostly men) who have the ruthlessness to rise to the top are more likely to "spread their seed" (as they say on Wild Kingdom) or that they just have more scope and opportunity to do what other folks would like to do but can't.

Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 30, 2006 11:15 PM

Isidora,

Ah, a fellow survivor of the Latin wars! Took two years of it myself; you probably know the old verse;

Latin is a language, As dead as dead can be.

First it killed the Romans, And now it's killing me.

Fortunately, my own Latin teacher was a bit more cool than most; she didn't shy away from Julius's private life (and he did have a lot of power, as well as charm and charisma), or the Roman gods'...uh, unorthodox ways. (as she put it, "The gods seemed to think "Sex is fun, but incest is best.")

Graves is a great novelist, isn't he? Nobody could write more eloquently about the aphrodesiac of power, (and the gossip thereof) than he could. (In fact, about five pages of The Manchurian Candidate were copied almost word for word from I, Claudius.) Might want to check out his The Greek Myths sometime.

My own personal favorite Homer translation is Richard Lattimore's (he did a lovely novel on the Trojan War, as well).
Alexander Pope's tops the highbrow list, but if you're just starting your kids off on the Iliad, then you'll probably want to try Lombardo's; he knows the KISS rule. ;-)

I don't know how old your kids are, but if they're in grade school, then you might want to check out Jim Henson's company's DVD The Storyteller: The Greek Myths. Some of the scenes are a little intense (it's Greek myths, after all) so you might want to preview it first. Same deal with Larry Gonick's History of The Universe, Part I and II, which is a hilarious graphic novel treament of Greece and Rome. Jackie Onassis really promoted Gonick back when she was in publishing and he was in underground comics. The "Greek" way of raising soldiers is toned down a lot for mass consumption, but still pretty funny.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 30, 2006 11:42 PM

Jean, Hastert apparently was not personally informed, but Boehner was. Your own mileage there. No one is going to admit anything undocumented at this point--chicken**** rules apply this close to elections. But no one had notice on those IM messages, just the emails. The current story is that the the IM's surfaced after ABC aired a squib on the emails. And as of 2003 Foley's gaydom was in the open.

Isidora, Jean has the right of it. Tully is neither a surname nor a rip from Cicero or the other Tully (Hamilton used the Cicero nickname for editorials during the Whiskey Rebellion.) It's a nickname given me long ago in a specific context, and relates to a taste for Tullamore Dew Irish whiskey--the Auld Stuff, before the warehouse burnt down and destroyed all their century-old aging casks. Tullamore Dew is still a nice whiskey, but now it's smooth and simple as compared to smooth and complex. But I drink much less now.

Posted by: Tully at October 1, 2006 12:20 AM

Tully,

I understand your reluctance, but I swear, you Bobby and Pat would make a good team. Are you younger than McCain? And he is fighting cancer.

The real question is what you see as the biggest problem and the most practical way of fixing it. As President, what would be your primary goal.

Bobby, as SECDEF what would be your biggest hurdle? (congrats on LAD. They might beat a Pedro-less NYM. I say even money)

Pat, as ATTGEN, what lines would you draw? (besides locking up whistleblowers)

You all realize that together you would probably be far more competent and impartial than what the DEMS and REPUBS will likely field. That is if you listen to us more liberal folks about social progressivism.....LOL

Happy Yom Kippur to all........( I remember thirty years ago today. Some things never change )

Posted by: Maxtrue at October 1, 2006 09:12 PM

That is thirty three years ago this October 6th.....

Posted by: Maxtrue at October 1, 2006 09:17 PM

Actually, my high school Latin teacher was pretty cool, too. She was a very lovely, apparently straight-laced woman in her early 50's who didn't need the job but did it because she enjoyed it. (Really, she didn't need the job; it was very sweet how shocked she was when one of the students stole the hood ornament off of her Cadillac while it was parked in the teacher's lot. The kid got caught - wearing it around his neck.) We all loved and respected her, and because of this, she had very little trouble keeping order in the classroom.

She'd have us play Latin Jeopardy. We celebrated Saturnalia every year with food and entertainment. (These must have been the only school parties where we didn't eat junk-food. We had good bread, olives, cheese, fruit (including pomegranite), and other "real" food.) On the Ides of March, we dressed in black. There was also the time when she had us over to her house for a Latin film festival. One of the things we watched was Life of Brian. Other than during the Latin lesson scene, the students' time was divided between watching the movie and sneaking peeks at our teacher who was laughing at the movie. That's why I said "apparently straight-laced" when I described her.

It was actually from her that we learned something about "the Greek way of raising soldiers," as you so delicately put it. This leaves me wondering about that issue with the word "insulted." I do remember that she was the one that cleared up my confusion about that. Since she was the one who told us a bit about Greek soldiers, I can't imagine that she would have been shy about using the word "rape" in regard to Lucretia. I don't know, but I'm guessing that what must have happened was that I got a (rather old) book from the library which used that peculiar choice of wording.

"The gods seemed to think "Sex is fun, but incest is best."

LOL That is a great line. Yeah, there are some, um, interesting things in Greco-Roman mythology. For at least one of our Latin Jeopardy sessions, I was the one who made up the questions. One of the categories that I created was "Truly Tasteless Myths."

I didn't know that Robert Graves had retold the myths. That will be worth checking out. I started reading mythology in fourth grade when I found Edith Hamilton's _Mythology_ at the public library, probably by accident. I think I must have known most of the stories in the book from memory a year later, by which time I may or may not have finally figured out that Penelope doesn't rhyme with cantaloupe. I've had my own copy for probably twenty years, and my daughter is now starting to read it.

I appreciate your suggestions for good tranlstions of Homer. My public library has its catalogue on the web, but I just discovered that it will take a bit of time to search it for particular translations of Homer. What is "the KISS rule"? Believe it or not, though, my kids will listen to almost anything, as long as I read it aloud to them. Seriously, either two or three years ago, I read _The Silmarilion_ aloud to them. I think they probably comprehend more if the style is not hopelessly complex, but I've been really amazed at what they do understand.

Thanks for the explanation of your handle Tully. I would have never guessed, but the hardest thing I've ever drunk is port or sherry. It really makes me wince to think of a distillery losing its hundered year old casks. Ouch. I'm surprised that the company didn't go under after such a disaster.

Posted by: isidora at October 1, 2006 09:35 PM

Well, so much for the reply I wrote. It disappeared into the ether when I clicked the post button. It's too late for me to try to try to rewrite it.

In brief, thanks for the suggestions on good translations of Homer. I'll be checking them out.

What is "the KISS rule"?

I had never heard of that brand of whiskey. That really hurts to think of the distillery losing their ageing casks that way. I'm surprised that the business was able to survive such a disaster.

Posted by: isidora at October 1, 2006 09:43 PM

What is "the KISS rule"?

Standard acronymical formulation of Occam's Razor, applied, usually for business students who need the reminder. "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" :-)

Yeah, I hope Tullamore returns to its former glory before I age enough to require a bionic liver. But I only sip whiskey anymore.

Posted by: Tully at October 1, 2006 10:35 PM

Hey, here's a cool car solar car Looks like it is a bit fragile for NYC.

Posted by: Maxtrue at October 2, 2006 12:02 PM

I hear an Abrams tank can be somewhat fragile for parts of NYC.

Posted by: Tully at October 3, 2006 01:11 AM

Actually Tully, the roads are a bit better these days. I was in a cab once that hit a pot hole on Hudson and Christopher Street and broke a front wheel right off. Rudy made some progress. My life-long fantasy is to drive a tank through the city without stopping for anything.

Posted by: Maxtrue at October 3, 2006 05:35 PM