Hopefully the last time I'll mention Foley

The more I read about the Mark Foley scandal, the more disgusted I become. I was wrong earlier to denounce Republicans for pointing fingers at the Democratic Party for Gerry Studds et al. While I still feel there was a fair amount of minimalizing by Republicans, as more and more facts surface about the issue, I start to feel that there is a fair amount of justification behind the finger-pointing.

Let's get this straight. What Mark Foley did was wrong. It was wrong because he was seeking sexual contact with anyone who would give it to him. Such behavior is degrading and demeaning both to the pages he encountered and himself. It would be entirely different if Foley had been seeking a long-term, committed relation with the pages, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. Such loose sexual behavior is an ever-increasing aberration in society, and our politicians more than anyone else need to be above that. And yet, we find so many who aren't.

But for the Democrats to denounce Foley and whatever supposed coverup there is? Yes, it is hypocritical, and it is also hysterical. The age of consent in Washington D.C. is 16. That means that there was nothing illegal about Foley making advances on 16, 17, or 18 year-old boys. Even if the e-mails and the instant messages were sexually explicit, no crime was committed simply because of the age of the boys. Now, I'm not sure about the proprieties a member of Congress has to observe, but if Foley can be charged with anything, it is sexual harrassment.

But what is really aggravating is that some people had information about Foley's behavior for over a year before finally acting on it. And these people denounce Hastert of endangering pages? Let's keep in mind here that the pages, being of the age of consent, are more or less on their own to deal with sexual advances, and therefore only warrant the same protection any other adult is afforded, which is probably whatever sexual harrassment policy is in place. And yet if some extra protection is warranted, what about these "conscientious objectors" who sat on the information instead of going to someone?

Oh, wait. They did. They went to media outlet after media outlet. Those are certainly excellent authorities to deal with a sexual harrassment case. They can intervene how? Oh wait, they'd also have to go to the authorities than can actually deal with it. So they did give the information to the FBI? And the FBI said they didn't see anything worth investigating?

All right, so either there's a worldwide plot to cover-up Foley's behavior, or perhaps this is blown way out of proportion to begin with. Regardless, Foley is gone, dismissed and shamed, and if officials feel there is any criminal activity, they'll investigate and determine what happened. And yet, the noise just gets louder, and the finger-pointing at the Republican "culture of corruption" just continues to be pressed on melodramatic scales.

And all of this comes from people who support open sexuality--whomever and whenever, and consequences be damned. These are the people who dismiss Clinton's infidelities and sexual harrassment of interns as "just about sex". Well, if sex is so casual for them, why all the hoopla? Why the denouncement?

There is really only one answer, and it disgusts me. The answer is political gain, and that is sad, because no one should gain off of corruption in Congress, regardless of who commits the crime. And yet, there it is.