Foley is really spreading the bull but he's not alone

Mark Foley may not have molested anyone. Nor did he deal with an underage minor no matter what the public perception is since the congressional page in question was over the age of consent. And no sex happened. As one writer at Reason magazine put it this is the pedophile sex scandal that is missing a pedophile and sex. But Foley did send erotic text messages to the page in question. And under a law he helped promote that can be a crime even if sex with the teen would have been legal -- which would be the case in Washington, DC.

Foley's first response after resigning was to check in for treatment as an alcoholic. Get public sympathy by claiming you have a drinking problem. Most of us feel sorry for drunks especially after they admit their failures and seek help. But do I think Foley was infatuated with this page because he was drunk. Not on your life. Mel Gibson pulled the same bull: "I don't hate Jews I just blame them for the wars of the world when I've had too much to drink." I didn't buy the story from Mel and I don't buy it from Foley either.

Now Foley is claiming he was molested by a priest as a young teen. The theory that some push is that the victim grows up to be a victimiser. The problem is that the research on which it was based was about physical abuse not sex. Kids who get knocked around by their parents tend to become abusive to children when adults doing the same thing. That this applies to sexual issues is obviously false. Most children who are sexually abused are females and most abusers are male. For the child to grow up to become abusers would mean that the girls grow up to become men. The evidence for this is, I believe, weak. And it is no excuse.

Meanwhile more messages released from the exchange indicate the teen was clearly consenting though ABC news says the opposite regarding them. In the exchanges the teen, who was then no longer working in Congress, indicated he would be visiting DC and said: "I can't wait til dc." He then asks Foley if he had picked a night for them to have dinner together. Obviously if he was being harassed he wouldn't be texting Foley asking when they can have dinner together.

Foley tells the teen "I want to see you." He replies: "Like I said not til feb... then we will go to dinner." In a previous post the teen said he turns 18 in February and hinted he didn't want to do anything sexual until he was 18. Foley asks what will happen then and the teen says they will eat, drink, hang out and "I dunno". The teens says "im not sure what I would be comfortable with...well see." That is not a rejection by any means more a "let's see what developes" sort of message which wouldn't discourage interest but encourage it.

This is a scandal that is bizarre. The "child" is legally an adult in DC when it comes to sex and thus not a child. The sex scandal had no sexual contact not even in the way Clinton defined sex. There was simply no sex that we know about. The congressman is described as a predator harassing this teen but the teen is wanting to know when they can meet and have dinner together. The only crime is talking about sex which violates a federal law but the actual sex itself would be legal in DC and most of the US. And this law was pushed through with the help of the very man who may now be prosecuted under it.

Meanwhile a poll I saw, which was unscientific as it was self-selected, showed that most taking it, by a substantial majority, want a criminal prosecution. But I would be curious to see for what. I suspect most think he had sex with the boy since the public is notorious ill informed about anything. Most don't realize if he did it would have been legal anyway. The only thing, to date, that appears legally questionable is the talking about sex not doing it. I suspect Foley will be crucified but for what remains the question. Republicans need to crucify him to distance themselves and to keep the support of gay haters that make up their base. Democrats will do it just because he's a Republican and scandals will help them on election day.

Who will suffer other than Foley? Obviously the teen who has his private messages all over the place is going through hell. People talk about him as a victim and then make things worse for him. In the end the real victims will be the gay population. Gay haters in extremists sects are already beating the drums against their favourite scapegoat. The Family Research Council said that the problem here is "diversity" and "tolerance" which is "just an excuse for permissiveness." They said "children" must be protected from "sexual predators" even though someone legally an adult, when it comes to sex, was the so-called child here.

They said: "Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys." Again there not one shred of evidence to date that Foley was ever flirting, and that is really all that happened, with anyone deemed legally unable to consent to sex in DC. the vile people at this hate group said that this just shows there is a "disproportionate overlap" between pedophilia and homosexuality. But pedophilia has to do with prepubescent children and unless this teen was hormonally challenged, just turning 17 is normally well past puberty and thus can't be pedophilia. But the bigots always drag out the pedophile accusation to smear people they hate.

Of course if tolerance and diversity explains what they claim is child molestation how do they explain the crisis in the Catholic church with priests being found molesting children left and right, around the world? Is Catholicism somehow a centre of diversity and tolerance? That will come as news to many Catholics. The media feeds into this hate by repeating the demonstrably false claim that the teen was underage. The Democrats are feeding this as well. And gay people will suffer for it.

And finally, for the record, Foley's attorney says the former congressman is gay. He has denied it for years. Very Republican of him.