Thursday, March 31, 2005
Karma is a bitch
I want to talk about Douglas Smith, Jr. He was a high-ranking member of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
Before I start, though, let me make one disclaimer and one comment. First, the disclaimer: Many years ago, I was a cub scout. I did not progress to a Webelo because of a difference of opinion between the Scout master and my dad that had nothing to do with scouting.
Now the comment. Pedophilia is NOT homosexuality. Pedophilia, like rape, is about power. It is about the power of an adult over a child. Grown men and women use their status and authority as adults to make boys and girls do things they have no business doing. It seems to me two types of pedophiles exist - active and passive. Active pedophiles are the ones who physically, sexually abuse children. Passive pedophiles are the ones who collect images of what active pedophiles do to children. That is not to say that a pedophile cannot be both. In short, pedophilia is wrong and sick.
Now on to Douglas Smith, Jr. From the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette: He was found with over 500 images of boys on his computer. These images included pictures and videos. Some of these images were of boys engaged in sexual acts. Smith entered into a plea of guilty to a federal charge of possessing and distributing child pornography.
I think that people will again muddy the waters and accuse Douglas Smith, Jr. of being gay. As far as I know, he’s not. He’s simply a sick, twisted pedophile. I hope for his sake that he is segregated from the rest of the prison population. I cannot imagine hardened criminals taking too kindly to him having buggered little boys.
Douglas Smith, Jr. defended the Boy Scouts of America in its ruling not to allow atheists or gays to join. I find the irony delicious that the man who defended the BSA against these “dangers” to boys proved to be more of a danger to boys than either atheist or gays could ever be.
I just hope the BSA rethinks their position. For the BSA, karma must be a bitch! They decry allowing atheists and gays into their organisation because they fear it would corrupt boys. Yet, in their midst, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Douglas Smith, Jr. was preying on innocent boys all along.
I want to talk about Douglas Smith, Jr. He was a high-ranking member of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
Before I start, though, let me make one disclaimer and one comment. First, the disclaimer: Many years ago, I was a cub scout. I did not progress to a Webelo because of a difference of opinion between the Scout master and my dad that had nothing to do with scouting.
Now the comment. Pedophilia is NOT homosexuality. Pedophilia, like rape, is about power. It is about the power of an adult over a child. Grown men and women use their status and authority as adults to make boys and girls do things they have no business doing. It seems to me two types of pedophiles exist - active and passive. Active pedophiles are the ones who physically, sexually abuse children. Passive pedophiles are the ones who collect images of what active pedophiles do to children. That is not to say that a pedophile cannot be both. In short, pedophilia is wrong and sick.
Now on to Douglas Smith, Jr. From the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette: He was found with over 500 images of boys on his computer. These images included pictures and videos. Some of these images were of boys engaged in sexual acts. Smith entered into a plea of guilty to a federal charge of possessing and distributing child pornography.
I think that people will again muddy the waters and accuse Douglas Smith, Jr. of being gay. As far as I know, he’s not. He’s simply a sick, twisted pedophile. I hope for his sake that he is segregated from the rest of the prison population. I cannot imagine hardened criminals taking too kindly to him having buggered little boys.
Douglas Smith, Jr. defended the Boy Scouts of America in its ruling not to allow atheists or gays to join. I find the irony delicious that the man who defended the BSA against these “dangers” to boys proved to be more of a danger to boys than either atheist or gays could ever be.
I just hope the BSA rethinks their position. For the BSA, karma must be a bitch! They decry allowing atheists and gays into their organisation because they fear it would corrupt boys. Yet, in their midst, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Douglas Smith, Jr. was preying on innocent boys all along.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Wanker of the Day: Brent Bozell and his “Hearsay”
This morning I wandered into our break room. “Fox and Friends” was on the television and Brent Bozell (from the Media Research Council) was on talking about the statements Michael Schiavo and other made regarding Terri Schiavo’s wishes.
Brent Bozell then said something that shows me he knows nothing about the rules of evidence. He said that what Michael Schiavo and others said in court regarding Terri Schiavo’s wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means amounts to heresay.
I have not researched the Florida rules on evidence, but they cannot be too far removed from the Federal rules of evidence. I am not a lawyer, but I do know how to read. The Federal rules of evidence regarding hearsay are pretty clear. Here is what they say:
It looks as if the Rule 804 (a) (4) would apply because Terri Schiavo was unavailable because she was not able to be present or to testify at any of her hearings because of an existing physical and mental infirmity – the cerebral cortex she had was, unfortunately, replaced by cerebrospinal fluid.
Brent needs to study up on hearsay rules before he opens his mouth on national television and makes stuff up. I thought he was part of the Media Research Council. I think, perhaps, he ought to do more research on subjects before he gets on the media and councils people about the rules of evidence.
This morning I wandered into our break room. “Fox and Friends” was on the television and Brent Bozell (from the Media Research Council) was on talking about the statements Michael Schiavo and other made regarding Terri Schiavo’s wishes.
Brent Bozell then said something that shows me he knows nothing about the rules of evidence. He said that what Michael Schiavo and others said in court regarding Terri Schiavo’s wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means amounts to heresay.
I have not researched the Florida rules on evidence, but they cannot be too far removed from the Federal rules of evidence. I am not a lawyer, but I do know how to read. The Federal rules of evidence regarding hearsay are pretty clear. Here is what they say:
Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
(a) Definition of unavailability.
"Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant--
(1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or
(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; or
(3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or
(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarant's attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means.
A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
It looks as if the Rule 804 (a) (4) would apply because Terri Schiavo was unavailable because she was not able to be present or to testify at any of her hearings because of an existing physical and mental infirmity – the cerebral cortex she had was, unfortunately, replaced by cerebrospinal fluid.
Brent needs to study up on hearsay rules before he opens his mouth on national television and makes stuff up. I thought he was part of the Media Research Council. I think, perhaps, he ought to do more research on subjects before he gets on the media and councils people about the rules of evidence.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Cruel and Unusual
On my way in to work, I was listening to Morning Sedition on my Sirius (I love my satellite radio!). Mark Reilly was speaking with his guest, Mick Foley (the professional wrestler). One point Mick brought in the Terri Schiavo case was the argument the “Right-to-lifers” like to use – cruel and unusual punishment. They believe removing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo and allowing her to die would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The Eighth Amendments states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment pertains to punishments handed down by judges and juries in criminal cases. The Terri Schiavo issue is not a criminal case. This is a matter between a husband and his wife. Terri made her wishes known to her husband, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and friends that she would not want to be kept existing on a ventilator or feeding tube.
Removing the feeding tube would cause her to starve and eventually die. Some view this as cruel. Several people believe this would cause Terri pain. However, several neurologists, on both sides of the case, have testified that when Terri had her heart attack, caused by her bulimia, a large portion of her cerebral cortex died. Brain tissue, unlike many tissues in the body does not regenerate when it dies. When it dies, it atrophies and is replaced with cerebrospinal fluid. The functions that Terri had are gone forever. These functions include feeling pain. Therefore, according to these neurologists, Terri will not feel pain.
Losing a child is always painful for parents. I understand the pain the Schindlers are going through. Their daughter is physically lying in that Florida hospital room. However, mentally, their daughter died fifteen years ago. I believe the Schindlers are having a hard time reconciling that. They hope for a miracle. They want their daughter back. It is sad that that will not happen – as much as they hope.
I think the Schindlers need to go though the death and dying process. It seems to me as if they are stuck in the first stage – denial. They need to move past that stage and move on to the other four – Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. They especially need to get to the final stage – Acceptance – and accept that their daughter mentally passed away fifteen years ago. They need to celebrate the life she lived. They need to treasure the memories they have of her. Most importantly, they need to move on.
On my way in to work, I was listening to Morning Sedition on my Sirius (I love my satellite radio!). Mark Reilly was speaking with his guest, Mick Foley (the professional wrestler). One point Mick brought in the Terri Schiavo case was the argument the “Right-to-lifers” like to use – cruel and unusual punishment. They believe removing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo and allowing her to die would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The Eighth Amendments states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment pertains to punishments handed down by judges and juries in criminal cases. The Terri Schiavo issue is not a criminal case. This is a matter between a husband and his wife. Terri made her wishes known to her husband, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and friends that she would not want to be kept existing on a ventilator or feeding tube.
Removing the feeding tube would cause her to starve and eventually die. Some view this as cruel. Several people believe this would cause Terri pain. However, several neurologists, on both sides of the case, have testified that when Terri had her heart attack, caused by her bulimia, a large portion of her cerebral cortex died. Brain tissue, unlike many tissues in the body does not regenerate when it dies. When it dies, it atrophies and is replaced with cerebrospinal fluid. The functions that Terri had are gone forever. These functions include feeling pain. Therefore, according to these neurologists, Terri will not feel pain.
Losing a child is always painful for parents. I understand the pain the Schindlers are going through. Their daughter is physically lying in that Florida hospital room. However, mentally, their daughter died fifteen years ago. I believe the Schindlers are having a hard time reconciling that. They hope for a miracle. They want their daughter back. It is sad that that will not happen – as much as they hope.
I think the Schindlers need to go though the death and dying process. It seems to me as if they are stuck in the first stage – denial. They need to move past that stage and move on to the other four – Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. They especially need to get to the final stage – Acceptance – and accept that their daughter mentally passed away fifteen years ago. They need to celebrate the life she lived. They need to treasure the memories they have of her. Most importantly, they need to move on.
Terri Revisited
Terri Schiavo is in the news again. This time Congress and President Bush inserted their judgment in this case – over the judgement of Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband.
From the evidence I have read provided by the board certified neurologist who have actually, physically examined her (not a video tape), Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. Let me break down those words as defined by the Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary.
Persistent - existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously
Vegetative - affecting, arising from, or relating to involuntary bodily functions
State - mode or condition of being
What does that mean? Terri Schiavo will never recover. That is extremely sad, but true. I understand the aguish her parents, the Schindlers, are going through. They desperately want their daughter back. They love her dearly and want to keep her alive.
However, she merely exists. From what the doctors testified, she will never come back and be the Teri her parents knew and loved. Teri told her husband, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and friends that she did not want to exist.
The last time I checked, when people get married, the husband’s (or wife’s) wishes trump those of the parents. I thought those on the Right believed in the sanctity of marriage. Why then are they trashing Michael and Terri Schiavo’s rights of marriage? Congress claims the bill that was passed and signed in the middle of the night by President Bush (who cancelled his vacation to sign it) is a one-time bill. Right. I think this will set a precident.
It is interesting that Bush and the "Right" in Congress claim they want a "Culture of Life." Why then (via DailyKos and Digby and Mark A.R. Kleinman)* did President Bush sign the Texas Futile Care Law? The Texas Futile Care Law allows hospitals to make the decision to remove life support from patients. Let me repeat. It allows HOSPITALS to make the decision to remove life support from patients. I can tell you that most hospitals will be concerned with their bottom line. When the money runs out, they’ll pull the plugs. A baby was removed from life support AGAINST his mother’s wishes in Texas. Where was the outrage on the Right when this happened? I can probably tell you – the mother and baby were African American. They must not have been as telegenic as Teri Schiavo.
What about the death penalty? If Bush valued life so much, why did he allow the execution of so many people? Is it to show that Texas kills people to show that killing is wrong?
I think many on the "Right-to-Life" side are hypocrites. They are willing to fight for fetuses and people in persistent vegetative states, but will not fight for the life of a person on death row, they will not fight to prevent mercury from being released in to the air and entering our food supply – thus injuring and killing many fetuses and children, and finally, they will not fight for to protect the lives of the children who are being harmed every day by the environment, malnutrition, etc. I guess the "Culture of Life" has its limits.
I find it amazing that the side that believes in less government interference is willing to wade roughshod all over the rights of Terri and Michael Schaivo and interfere with their decisions. The Right believes in the sanctity of marriage – except when it becomes and inconvenience to their cause.
I believe I have written this before. If ever I am in a persistent vegetative state, like Terri Schiavo, or have a terminal condition or disease, I do not want extraordinary means used to keep me existing. Laying on a hospital bed with no hope or chance for recovery is not my idea of life. Keeping me around for the sake of memory or refusal to face the inevitable would be an insult to me. If I am to die, let me die with dignity.
I think that is what Terri’s parents should do. They need to realise that Terri will never come back. They need to stop holding on to a dream. They need to let Terri pass and die with dignity.
* Fixed a link
Terri Schiavo is in the news again. This time Congress and President Bush inserted their judgment in this case – over the judgement of Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband.
From the evidence I have read provided by the board certified neurologist who have actually, physically examined her (not a video tape), Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. Let me break down those words as defined by the Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary.
Persistent - existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously
Vegetative - affecting, arising from, or relating to involuntary bodily functions
State - mode or condition of being
What does that mean? Terri Schiavo will never recover. That is extremely sad, but true. I understand the aguish her parents, the Schindlers, are going through. They desperately want their daughter back. They love her dearly and want to keep her alive.
However, she merely exists. From what the doctors testified, she will never come back and be the Teri her parents knew and loved. Teri told her husband, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and friends that she did not want to exist.
The last time I checked, when people get married, the husband’s (or wife’s) wishes trump those of the parents. I thought those on the Right believed in the sanctity of marriage. Why then are they trashing Michael and Terri Schiavo’s rights of marriage? Congress claims the bill that was passed and signed in the middle of the night by President Bush (who cancelled his vacation to sign it) is a one-time bill. Right. I think this will set a precident.
It is interesting that Bush and the "Right" in Congress claim they want a "Culture of Life." Why then (via DailyKos and Digby and Mark A.R. Kleinman)* did President Bush sign the Texas Futile Care Law? The Texas Futile Care Law allows hospitals to make the decision to remove life support from patients. Let me repeat. It allows HOSPITALS to make the decision to remove life support from patients. I can tell you that most hospitals will be concerned with their bottom line. When the money runs out, they’ll pull the plugs. A baby was removed from life support AGAINST his mother’s wishes in Texas. Where was the outrage on the Right when this happened? I can probably tell you – the mother and baby were African American. They must not have been as telegenic as Teri Schiavo.
What about the death penalty? If Bush valued life so much, why did he allow the execution of so many people? Is it to show that Texas kills people to show that killing is wrong?
I think many on the "Right-to-Life" side are hypocrites. They are willing to fight for fetuses and people in persistent vegetative states, but will not fight for the life of a person on death row, they will not fight to prevent mercury from being released in to the air and entering our food supply – thus injuring and killing many fetuses and children, and finally, they will not fight for to protect the lives of the children who are being harmed every day by the environment, malnutrition, etc. I guess the "Culture of Life" has its limits.
I find it amazing that the side that believes in less government interference is willing to wade roughshod all over the rights of Terri and Michael Schaivo and interfere with their decisions. The Right believes in the sanctity of marriage – except when it becomes and inconvenience to their cause.
I believe I have written this before. If ever I am in a persistent vegetative state, like Terri Schiavo, or have a terminal condition or disease, I do not want extraordinary means used to keep me existing. Laying on a hospital bed with no hope or chance for recovery is not my idea of life. Keeping me around for the sake of memory or refusal to face the inevitable would be an insult to me. If I am to die, let me die with dignity.
I think that is what Terri’s parents should do. They need to realise that Terri will never come back. They need to stop holding on to a dream. They need to let Terri pass and die with dignity.
* Fixed a link
Thursday, March 17, 2005
What's the Basic Idea?
My wanker of the day is John Gibson, of Fox News. He claims that "The Basic Idea of Marriage is to Raise Kids."
A little background... A Republican, Catholic judge, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Good for him!
Let's look at what he wrote, shall we?
Um... John. Those couples went down to the court house in San Francisco, received a MARRIAGE license, and were MARRIED. They do what many straight people do when they elope, want to have a quick marriage, or do not want to have a church wedding.
So, if a couple cannot (or does not want to) have children, they cannot get married? What happens when a woman reaches menopause? Should couples get divorces? I mean, they can no longer raise kids.
There's an abandoned kids store!? I must have it when I was in the mall the other day. They must have them in China, because that's where one of my straight co-workers "got" his daughter. You're saying sperm donors are stupid, huh? Quick, let the fertility clinics in on the news. Wait a second... Maybe they are in on the jig, too! Better tell that to all the straight men and women who go to them to help them have children.
So that is why Bob Dole was making all those Viagra adverts! He and Elizabeth wanted children. That explains it. So why don't I see and little Bobby and Lizzy Doles running around. Bob did his part. I guess it must be Elizabeth's fault.
!
How exactly do you propose doing that? Setting up a separate-but-equal system? I know you are old enough to know what happened the last time that was tried out.
I did not know straights had trademarked the word marriage. Someone really needs to send me the memos! I must be out of the loop or something
Look. I do not care if a church does or does not recogise a marriage or not. That is their right as a religion to do that. However, you cannot have a separate-but-equal system. It just does not work. I would propose that all marriages become civil marriages. If couples, gay or straight, want to get religious marriages, they could. Pastors, rabbis, priests, imams, etc. could perform both ceremonies at once. If a particular religion did not sanction religious marriages between people of the same sex, then the couple could not get married in that church, temple, mosque, etc. The marriage that would count in the eyes of the law would be the civil marriage. The marriage that would count in the eyes of God (Allah, Yaweh, etc.) would be the religious marriage. It would render unto the state that which belongs to the state.
My wanker of the day is John Gibson, of Fox News. He claims that "The Basic Idea of Marriage is to Raise Kids."
A little background... A Republican, Catholic judge, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Good for him!
Let's look at what he wrote, shall we?
That means all those same sex couples who were married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom can go back to thinking they are married.
Now, just to be clear on this, those same sex couples are something, but I am quite sure it is not married.
Why? Because marriage is something men and women do.
Um... John. Those couples went down to the court house in San Francisco, received a MARRIAGE license, and were MARRIED. They do what many straight people do when they elope, want to have a quick marriage, or do not want to have a church wedding.
Because since history has been recorded, chipped in stone, inked onto papyrus, scribed into great books or printed on your ink jet, the basic idea behind marriage has been to set up a system for the raising of kids.
So, if a couple cannot (or does not want to) have children, they cannot get married? What happens when a woman reaches menopause? Should couples get divorces? I mean, they can no longer raise kids.
Gays can't have kids other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains so by definition they're out of the marriage game.
There's an abandoned kids store!? I must have it when I was in the mall the other day. They must have them in China, because that's where one of my straight co-workers "got" his daughter. You're saying sperm donors are stupid, huh? Quick, let the fertility clinics in on the news. Wait a second... Maybe they are in on the jig, too! Better tell that to all the straight men and women who go to them to help them have children.
In theory, so would couples who get married in their eighties. Chances are good that no kids come out of that holy union. But it is at least theoretically possible. Not so with gays.
So that is why Bob Dole was making all those Viagra adverts! He and Elizabeth wanted children. That explains it. So why don't I see and little Bobby and Lizzy Doles running around. Bob did his part. I guess it must be Elizabeth's fault.
!
Now, gay couples should have certain rights of marriage inheritance, insurance, visitation all that lawyerly stuff.
How exactly do you propose doing that? Setting up a separate-but-equal system? I know you are old enough to know what happened the last time that was tried out.
But they should take the advice of a friend of mine who said he'd defend gays against any form of discrimination, but they had to pick a new word marriage is taken.
I did not know straights had trademarked the word marriage. Someone really needs to send me the memos! I must be out of the loop or something
Look. I do not care if a church does or does not recogise a marriage or not. That is their right as a religion to do that. However, you cannot have a separate-but-equal system. It just does not work. I would propose that all marriages become civil marriages. If couples, gay or straight, want to get religious marriages, they could. Pastors, rabbis, priests, imams, etc. could perform both ceremonies at once. If a particular religion did not sanction religious marriages between people of the same sex, then the couple could not get married in that church, temple, mosque, etc. The marriage that would count in the eyes of the law would be the civil marriage. The marriage that would count in the eyes of God (Allah, Yaweh, etc.) would be the religious marriage. It would render unto the state that which belongs to the state.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
What Does Dougie Mean?
Via Tbogg (the wonderfully, snarky website!) comes an column from Doug Giles that made me say, "Hmmm!"
Doug writes:
Does Doug mean to imply that Nelly is not intelligent enough to take Hebrew at Knox Seminary? Is Doug implying that because Nelly is African-American? Is he implying that because Nelly is a rapper? I wonder what exactly he means by that. If I were Nelly, I would send a nice little "cease and desist" letter to Doug asking him to post an apology and remove the statement. If Doug refuse, I would take him to court. Last time I checked, Nelly could afford better lawyers.
Then Doug busts out with an oh-so-current reference from Ricky Martin (circa 1999):
I know Doug is trying to be hip and cool by throwing all sorts of neuvo-cultural references at his readers, but he comes off as just another white guy trying too hard. In short, he comes off as a loser. And yet, he does not know when to stop. He continues with the references. Oi!
Via Tbogg (the wonderfully, snarky website!) comes an column from Doug Giles that made me say, "Hmmm!"
Doug writes:
Yeah, most of the first two years of my campus experience were spent in a London fog of dope smoke, blowing the precious money my parents saved up for my education at rancid West Texas honky tonks while generating more F’s than Nelly would taking Hebrew at Knox Seminary.
Does Doug mean to imply that Nelly is not intelligent enough to take Hebrew at Knox Seminary? Is Doug implying that because Nelly is African-American? Is he implying that because Nelly is a rapper? I wonder what exactly he means by that. If I were Nelly, I would send a nice little "cease and desist" letter to Doug asking him to post an apology and remove the statement. If Doug refuse, I would take him to court. Last time I checked, Nelly could afford better lawyers.
Then Doug busts out with an oh-so-current reference from Ricky Martin (circa 1999):
wearing a sleeveless Jeff Foxworthy-like T-shirt, fast tracking my way to “Living la Vida Broke-a!” What a loser …
I know Doug is trying to be hip and cool by throwing all sorts of neuvo-cultural references at his readers, but he comes off as just another white guy trying too hard. In short, he comes off as a loser. And yet, he does not know when to stop. He continues with the references. Oi!
Living in a Fantasy World
Alberto Gonzales is going to carry the torch from outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft and try to prosecute pornographic materials. The case that is perhaps the most ironic choice to start with is the appeal of the Extreme Associates case.
From Out-Law.com: Extreme Associates is a hardcore pornographic website that sells films of simulated gang rapes, beatings, and violent attacks on women. If you are like me, I never knew they existed.
I was amazed to read that Alberto Gonzales is going to appeal the judge’s decision about Extreme Associates. Alberto Gonzales is willing to prosecute simulated gang rapes, beatings, and violent attacks. Let me repeat that… Alberto Gonzales is willing to prosecute simulated gang rapes, beatings and violent attacks.
If you remember he was the same White House council who condoned actual rapes, beating, and violent attacks even if an infinitesimal chance existed that the prisoners held in Gunatanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan might have some information regarding terrorist attacks. In those cases, according to Alberto Gonzales and Jay Bybee, as long as the action did not cause organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death, the action was okay.
The difference between Extreme Associates and what the US Government did at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan is that Extreme Associates hired actors and actresses to act out on sets simulated scenes of gang rapes, beatings, and violent attacks. These actors and actresses knew what they were getting into. They were paid for their performances. Then, people paid to see films of these simulated scenes in the privacy of their home.
In Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan none of the rapes, beatings, or violent acts were voluntary. None of the prisoners were ever financially compensated for the beatings and other violent acts inflicted upon them. I doubt they ever will. If the prisoners were found not to have any useful information, they were simply released. No apologies. No, “Whoops, we goofed.”
Finally, the judge in the Extreme Associates, Judge Gary Lancaster - a Bush appointee - said that
I agree with Judge Lancaster. If people want to view these types of movies in the privacy of their homes, they ought to be able to. I personally would not. It should be up to adults to decide what to watch and do in the privacy of their homes.
Alberto Gonzales is going to carry the torch from outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft and try to prosecute pornographic materials. The case that is perhaps the most ironic choice to start with is the appeal of the Extreme Associates case.
From Out-Law.com: Extreme Associates is a hardcore pornographic website that sells films of simulated gang rapes, beatings, and violent attacks on women. If you are like me, I never knew they existed.
I was amazed to read that Alberto Gonzales is going to appeal the judge’s decision about Extreme Associates. Alberto Gonzales is willing to prosecute simulated gang rapes, beatings, and violent attacks. Let me repeat that… Alberto Gonzales is willing to prosecute simulated gang rapes, beatings and violent attacks.
If you remember he was the same White House council who condoned actual rapes, beating, and violent attacks even if an infinitesimal chance existed that the prisoners held in Gunatanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan might have some information regarding terrorist attacks. In those cases, according to Alberto Gonzales and Jay Bybee, as long as the action did not cause organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death, the action was okay.
The difference between Extreme Associates and what the US Government did at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan is that Extreme Associates hired actors and actresses to act out on sets simulated scenes of gang rapes, beatings, and violent attacks. These actors and actresses knew what they were getting into. They were paid for their performances. Then, people paid to see films of these simulated scenes in the privacy of their home.
In Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan none of the rapes, beatings, or violent acts were voluntary. None of the prisoners were ever financially compensated for the beatings and other violent acts inflicted upon them. I doubt they ever will. If the prisoners were found not to have any useful information, they were simply released. No apologies. No, “Whoops, we goofed.”
Finally, the judge in the Extreme Associates, Judge Gary Lancaster - a Bush appointee - said that
the government could not interfere in the viewing of obscene materials by individuals in the privacy of their own home. This right extended to the distribution of obscene materials, said the Judge.
I agree with Judge Lancaster. If people want to view these types of movies in the privacy of their homes, they ought to be able to. I personally would not. It should be up to adults to decide what to watch and do in the privacy of their homes.
