Montieth pretty much summed up my feelings on the Amish school shooting and the other craziness going on the States. B anning something doesn't prevent it. It attempts to discourage behavior by providing punishments for that behavior. Prevention is achieved by putting obstacles in the path of successful fulfillment of the intention to engage in a behavior. For instance, it would prevent a great deal of school violence if teachers were permitted to get a CHL and carry in school. If creepy-guy had been wasted by the teacher, then all those little girls who are having funeral would require post-traumatic stress counselling, but that's a breeze compared to getting shot by a nutjob.
My brother's thoughts on childrearing:
Every day children are exposed to horrific threats. Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, violence, automobile accidents, pollution, unhealthy diets, and sexuality all conspire to kill our children or, even worse, expose them to the female breast. The worst of it is, no one can be trusted with our children. You only have to watch Oprah or read the reaction to the latest congressional scandals to know that anyone above the age of 18 that shows an interest in children is automatically suspect. Even other children can’t be trusted with children. Just look at school shootings or cases where elementary school peers were both charged with felonies for mutual exploration.
Something must be done. I propose the following:
Because mothers can’t be trusted to stay healthy while pregnant, babies must be conceived and grown under artificial conditions. Children should then be raised in complete automated isolation until the age of 18. Each child should have his or her own room, completely isolated, with a carefully filtered environment to keep out germs, pollutants and allergens. The room should be designed to present no hard surfaces, sharp edges, or any other physical threats. Food and drink should be carefully designed for maximum nutritional value and pre-mashed to reduce choking threats. The child’s mental development will be carefully screened to prevent all exposure to uncomfortable ideologies or four letter words. All interaction will be with computer software programs designed to educate the child through the exclusive use of multiple choice tests. Tests will be carefully designed so that children know what a committee of consisting exclusively of politicians with law degrees consider important. For example, under this system, no child can fail to grow up without learning that the only crop Virginia ever produced was peanuts or that Galileo proved that sun is the center of the universe. Certain topics, however, such as health and human anatomy, will not be permitted until adulthood because of the risk that they may inspire sexual thoughts. Driving skills will not be taught, as we all know that teenage drivers and dangerous and the only way to fix that problem is to reduce opportunities for practice. Entertainment will not be introduced, as it distracts from learning multiple choice test taking skills and all known forms of entertainment can be considered offensive or dangerous in one way or another.
At the age of 18, they will be released upon the world, confident that the protection their childhood has afforded them will prepare them for adulthood.
Yeah, sounds about like what your average liberal or populist wants.
Splitting hairs, the argument is that Mark Foley probably did not commit any crimes, depending on the age of consent in various states.
I find it fascinating that the political party which stood by Gerry Studds (censured in 1983 for a sexual relationship with a Congressional Page) and characterized his behavior as a consensual homosexual relationship while he remained in Congress is the one calling for the witchhunt now.
It is apparently, in the Democratic playbook, perfectly fine to actually engage in anal sex with a 17 year old, but NOT to send them dirty e-mails. The mind boggles.
Personally, given the reality of the age of consent in most states, I'm less interesting in getting uptight about the age difference or the homosexuality issue than with the power difference. To me, it is unethical and immoral to pursue a sexual relationship with your subordinates. It has at the least an appearance of impropriety and implied coercion that makes it impossible to determine whether or not the relationship is truly consensual.
But that's as far as it goes. If you are going to be passionately committed to "Gay Rights", then they ought to apply to Republican congressmen too.
I will say that the fact that there is no real "age of majority" in this country is a contributing factor to the confusion. Instead, adult civil rights are slowly apportioned over a 5 year period (16 to 21) in a totally illogical and inconsistent fashion which varies from state to state. Why should sex be legal at 16, cigarettes at 18, and alcohol only legal at age 21? Why should driving be permitted at 16 and handguns at 21? How does an 18 year old get to vote and join the Army, but not rent a car? It is legal for a person to have sex with a 16 year old male, but not to electronically solicit sex from the exact same male across state lines? What the hell kind of legal system makes THAT determination?