'Foley problem' surfaces for Ohio Democrats

WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/11/2006 | WorldNetDaily

[bonfire]

http://rightangleblog.com/?q=node/559

he never answers the question.........

[CzarNicky]

It would be poetic justice if the Foley scandal ended up costing the rats the Ohio governor's mansion.

[bobjam]

Too bad the Democrats forgot Christ's words "Do not critisize the speck in your brother's eye when you have not removed the plank from your own". Their ignorance could come back to bite them.

[ConservativeDude]

Having checked out that blog, seems to me that the guy is a flamer.

Look, can you imagine some asking Blackwell? "Are you gay?". The notion is preposterous. Blackwell is a man's man!

To even approach the question raises suspicions. Then to not deny it but to talk about his "wife" is laughable.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Ohio, please come to your senses!!!!

[TexKat]

[eraser2005]

Ok - here's my question, based on the following:

On 5/12/1999, it was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

On 6/4/1999, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.

On 7/12/1999 at 2:17PM, it was moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.

At 2:25, the chair announced further proceedings would be postponed

At 6:33, it was "considered as unfinished business"

At 6:40, the vote occurred.


1) Was Strickland on either the committee or subcommittee?

2) If not, is it possible that he may not have received a copy of the bill or the study prior to 7/12/1999 to read? If not, he could be right - many would not have a clue what they were really voting on, and it certainly flew through in record time. Lord knows congress votes on things they don't read far too often...

[excludethis]

Who with a straight face could claim two months notice was not sufficient to educate yourself on the a bill denouncing this study?

In this study, the authors conclusion were that child sexual abuse “does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population” (Rind et al., 1998, p. 46). The authors even reported that some children (including preadolescents) experienced positive reactions in “willing” sexual encounters with adults.

These conclusions and the research methodology were vehemently denounced by many in the media, politics, and grassroots organizations as “junk science” and a serious assault on societal values. Demands were made for corrective action on the part of the APA, the publisher of the prestigious scholarly journal in which the article appeared.

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20&%20Kobor-2002.htm

[excludethis]

Even more unbelievable is that Strickland was a professor of psychology. The study at issue was published in in Psychological Bulletin which is a publication of the American Psychological Association.

Was two months advance notice engough time for Strikland, a licensed psychologist, to decide if this study should have been denounced?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland

"Strickland received a doctorate degree in psychology from the University of Kentucky in 1980. Ted is married to Frances Strickland, an educational psychologist and author of a widely-used screening test for kindergarten-age children. Strickland worked as a clinical psychologist at the maximum security prison at Lucasville, Ohio . . . and was a professor of psychology at Shawnee State University (Portsmouth, Ohio)."

[Antoninus]

So it's fair to say that Strickland voted along side Bawney Fwank on refusing to condemn pedophilia? Wow, what a nasty ad that would make...

[eraser2005]

2 months enough time? Absolutely. IF he had received/read that journal. I certainly don't read every journal for my profession. I could never possibly keep up. Keep in mind he also was no longer a professor when serving in congress... thus further reducing the odds...

I'm not saying it wasn't possible that he would have known about the article.... but saying that he had previously been a psychology professor and that the study was published in a psychology journal meant that he must have read and known about it while serving in congress is a stretch....

[The Old Hoosier]

That's incredible. Someone has something on this guy...

[VOA]

bump

[mtntop3]

Stickland was a supporter of Clinton's executive order in early 1993 which would have forced the U. S. military to accept open gays and lesbians.

This would have created all kinds of Foley situations, involving young service men and service women.

As a result of huge public opposition to Clinton's move, a Congressional mandate was enacted by moderates and conservatives of both political parties that blocked it.

Clinton and his far-left supporters then came forth with an amendment to override the Congressional mandate. That amendment (Roll Call Vote #460 in 1993) went down to defeat 169-264.

Voting "yes" on this amendment would have allowed open gays and lesbians in the U. S. military (and meant the demise of that military). Strickland voted "yes", as did Sherrod Brown the Dem's current senatorial candidate in Ohio

[excludethis]

Strickland had over two months notice as to what the issue was. As shown by below timeline, Strikland's only defense is that he does not read his mail then!

4/16/99 all members of Congress receive letter on study from the APA.

4/21/99 Representative Joe Pitts (R) of Pennsylvania sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to all members of the House of Representatives condemning the Rind et al. study, with a copy of the Dr. Laura 4/20/99 editorial from The Washington Times.

5/10/99 The Family Research Council sent letters denouncing the Rind et al. article to all members of the House.

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20&%20Kobor-2002.htm

[eraser2005]

The second of these items is the only one I would place any emphasis on. The amount of mail flooding into a congressman's office makes it impossible for the congressman to actually read everything. However, letters from other congressmen most likely receive more attention than from your average Joe.

Now, if his staffers (who actually read most of the mail) didn't notify him of something like this, that isn't good.

However, I do prefer people don't vote when they don't know what they're voting on. The amount of spin is staggering, and if you only know the spin on something, and don't know the facts, voting on it really isn't that honorable... (note that this study really was sleazy)

[daybreakcoming]

Respectfully disagree on his prior knowledge, his politics aside. He wasn't just a shrink on the corner but a university prof of psychology - his wife an educational psychologist - this was in his area of real expertise. If even I knew of this study prior to it coming before Congress.....He knew.

[eraser2005]

You're certainly entitled to believe that - I won't stand in your way. :)

I just know that having taught at the university level myself, there is absolutely no way I kept up on all but more than a VERY small % of the articles that came out in my field. I simply didn't have time. :)

[daybreakcoming]

Voting with the majority on this particular bill would not have endeared him with American Psychological Association - a group he probably plans to be active in again. And his wife is most likely a current active member. So that could be one plausible reason for the "present" and knowing that it was going to pass anyway. However, he is supposed to be representing his constituents - not his professional alliances. So he should go down either way.

I well understand time constraints on reading publications in reference to your profession - but there would have been a lot of "talk around the cooler" on this particular study.

Thank you for allowing me my opinion and have a good day. :o)

[excludethis]

Do you have the honesty to call it what it was, a special interest vote of "present"? He is simply a liberal college professor that is to much of a coward to piss off his special interest supporters. Not to mention it might offend some of his previous clients in Ohio State penal institutes!