waitaminute.

Ok, gang. Some of y'all have been watching the circus around Congressman Mark Foley (who is a Republican, contrary to Fox News' sly assertions). I know I have been. But I'm getting angry about it.

Not because the Dems seem to be using this as another platform on which to stand and throw little pebbles at the giant Republican political machine.

Not because I think the news is filled with other things more important to cover - wars (not just in iraq), genocide, starvation.

Not because I think lawmakers of all stripes should be working on more pressing issues in this country - healthcare, social security, stagnation of wages.

Although all of that is true.

What really, really makes me angry is that no one is calling this case exactly what it is: SEXUAL HARRASSMENT. It is not a case of pedophilia - at least, not as much as some would have us think. This was a 16 year old, not a 5 year old.

It is clearly not just a case of alcohol abuse - does anyone actually buy that?

This is a case where someone with significant amounts of power intimidated someone with no power. This is a case where someone with power made repeated, unwanted advances to someone else in the workplace. These advances made that person uncomfortable, and he could do nothing to stop it...except maybe ask his sponsoring congressperson to speak to someone.

This is textbook sexual harrassment. And the page's age and position only add to his sense of powerlessness.

Why is no one talking about this? Is it because we assume that a sexual harrassment case has to have a loose woman at one end and a Clinton at the other? Even this is different - we're talking about *unwanted* advances, albeit via text and email, but still unwanted and repeated. Is it because we really don't understand the term? Three things need to exist for sexual harrassment to exist: a power differential, repeated, unwanted sexual advances and the victim's continued sense of discomfort in the workplace as a result of said advances. All three apply in this case.

Is it because we can't get past the page's age? 16 is not a child, but definitely not an adult. What is the difference between crying "pedophile" in the case of a young child versus that of a teenager? We need to examine these questions before we take the conversation in a direction that is comfortable for most people because it is disgusting to most people. Pedophile: disgusting, sick, end of story. It is no one's fault but the pedophile's and everyone feels sorry and vows never to let it happen again.

But that isn't the end of the story. The fact is that Foley used his power and took advantage of his position to exploit someone significantly younger; someone without the resources or clout to stop him. Word is going around that pages were warned about Foley - "This guy's a little too friendly, be careful." This type of character and corresponding attitude by managment is tolerated by women in the workplace every day.

Why is this story different? Because a) the advances were homosexual and b) the victim was a young boy. This fact touches on underlying fears about gay people in this country - strong, persistent fears that equate Foley's homosexuality with pedophilia. This is a scary mistake.

I'm worried about the direction of this country. But I think I'm also equally worried about these underlying, ugly fears. They are uttered as truths in this country and surface when a story like this breaks. Women get harrassed, but should learn to deal with it; homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia; power doesn't exist in the modern american workplace.