Passing strange

Hastert’s main defense seems to be that he saw only the “overly friendly” emails but not the X-rated IM’s. But doesn’t it seem a little odd that a 16-year-old boy could tell that the emails were “sick, sick, sick, sick, sick” but a bunch of grown men couldn’t?

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

5 thoughts on “Passing strange”

  1. These people don't think torture is sick, or racism, or Ann Coulter. Why on earth would they object to Foley's emails?

  2. Well, I am glad that I am not the only one who noticed that! The fact that the kid thought they were skeevy enough to report them to his sponsoring congressman's office should have been enough to warrant further investigation, whether or not the grown-ups thought they were just "overly friendly".

  3. I don't think it is all that strange. The kid knew about the IM's and other shady behaviour. That let him easily put the emails into their proper sick context.
    But the allegations should have been enough to warrant a little further investigation, so the fact that the emails weren't super-obvious doesn't absolve anyone of anything.

  4. Put it in context: The page is an employee. The Representative is an elected official. Why is there contact between the two any more personal than there should be between supervisor and employee? All the personal contact beyond that which is normal in the workplace is/should be unprofessional.

  5. Sarah, I believe that the boy in question was a former page.
    I'd note that one FL newspaper, which has had the emails for a year, described them as "friendly chit-chat."
    I'd guess that 16-year old boys are more likely to find conversations with homosexual adult men distasteful than adults are.

Comments are closed.