I try not to be the grammar troll, but this is just to much for an old English major to take. Can folks PLEASE become conversant with grammar, spelling, usage, and syntax before they post?

Actually, Hugh has a point. Kind of.

Every time I hear investigation my eyes roll around a bit. I see e-mails being searched and CSI and the FBI running around. And I don’t know if that was called for or necessary or legal or right.

Except that Hastert was the first one to call for an FBI investigation (according to the cynics, so that the Repubs could just claim “sub judice” and refuse to comment), which makes it rather hard to paint this as a Democratic conspiracy. Given that the sources for the original ABC story were Republicans, I’m still not sure what it is the Democrats are supposed to have done.

wouldn’t it be a lot of fun to be a hack? Every bit of news would be part of a big spin puzzle, and you could get to work knowing that the more tendentious your solution, the more it would outrage people you’ve decided to hate.

A short lived British political comedy show, called something like “I I ruled the world”, had a segment called “I couldn’t disagree more”, in which panelists had to play hacks spinning against some self-evident truth like, I don’t know, “torture is bad”. It was by far the best segment of a not very good show.

I imagine Hugh Hewitt happy.

Comment of the month, that is.

There really is no way to generalize what would have happened in the so-called real world.

Nah. The letter cannot be ambigious or a warning needs to have been given.

You get one lets go to lunch.

You get a warning.

The next let’s go to lunch you send, security shows up with a brown box, and tells you to put your stuff in it, and walks you to the car.

In this case sense it seems the letter was fairly ambigious, you take the rough approach outlined above.

And your right the talk should make it clear no matter who it is they mean business.

But maybe that isn’t possible when a congressman is invloved. The institution itself makes any such talk nonsense. That would be sad and is probably true.

Ok, so I am wrong.

But what do you do? Going through e-mails also seems wrong and would it be legal?

Interview former pages?

Anyway it is our fault. We give them the liscence.

In my orientation at Ford, the HR guy mentioned that a plant manager had been fired for harrassment, and said, ‘if we’ll fire somebody like that, we’ll definitely fire you’.

That hit home.

Every time I hear investigation my eyes roll around a bit. I see e-mails being searched and CSI and the FBI running around. And I don’t know if that was called for or necessary or legal or right.

In the real world, something like this probably would have happened, all the pages, starting with those who had the most contact with Foley, would have been called into a room one by one, they would have gotten a little blurb about harassment, and how they didn’t have to tolerate it in any way shape or form, and how it was serious business, and if they had any knowledge of harassment of any kind (being made to feel uncomfortable in anyway), not only could they expect to have their complaints taken seriously, but they had a duty to speak up.

And that would have been that because some folks would have spoken up.

Of course in the real world accepting an invitation to a sporting event worth thousands of dollars from a vendor would be considered a major ethical violation and you don’t get subsidized hair cuts.

But that is the real world.