Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Bath salts banned! Buy now before it’s too late!

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

Not to be left behind in any new drug hysteria, Alabama has jumped on the “let’s define everything as a drug” bandwagon and outlawed “fake” bath salts.  As the drug war reaches the level of pure comedy, the public has large acquiesced to the continuous escalation of controls imposed on the public in the name of the drug war.

“This is fair warning to those who sell or possess this product. Get rid of it or go to jail,” [Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin] said.

The bath salts scare is just the latest in a perpetual sequence of ludicrous epidemic “threats to our children” that are now being invented almost monthly.  It was only weeks ago when the caffeinated alcohol drink Four Loko was the subject of a fear mongering feeding frenzy that ultimately got it summarily banned by the FDA.  Remember when it actually took a Constitutional amendment to ban something in “the land of the free”.  Now all to takes is a warning letter from some self-serving federal appointee.  We’ve come a long way, haven’t we?

So why is this an issue for the Sex Hysteria! blog?  Well, what caught my attention in this latest installment of drug war idiocy is how Sex Toy Freedom Fighter Sherri Williams is treating the impending ban.  Sherri Williams is owner of Pleasures,  a chain of sex shops in Alabama, and her antics have become the topic of several postson Sex Hysteria! (here, here, and here).   Sherri will comply with the law, but she’s a veteran in the war against Alabama government absurdity and it shows in her attitude:

The bath salts have been sold in many stores across the Valley including Pleasures in Huntsville but Tuesday morning, the store put up a sign saying “Last Day! Bath Salt Banned Buy Now!”

Time to outlaw prostitution in Nevada?

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

Democrat and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid says yes.

Reid thinks prostitution isn’t a moral enough business for the gambling capitol of the United States.

“We should do everything we can to make sure the world holds Nevada in the same high regard you and I do,” Reid continued.

Be sure and vote in the reader poll and take note of which viewpoint is favored.

And, also, take note of the fact that this proposal is being initiated by a liberal.  I too often hear from the left that the nation’s war on sex is the fault of conservatives.  The reality is that laws designed to regulate sexual activity are almost always supported by both major political parties.  Many popular women’s rights groups are among the most ardent advocates of laws that criminalize a woman’s use of her own body to earn a living.  Make no mistake, it doesn’t matter if the laws target the demand or supply side.  Women are always the ones who suffer for it.

Facebook played a “starring role” in revolution

Monday, February 14th, 2011

According to this New York Times article, Facebook played an important role in the recent events in Egypt that brought down their government. Indeed, American politicians are urging Facebook to go further in aiding such uprisings:

Last week, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, urged Facebook to take “immediate and tangible steps” to help protect democracy and human rights activists who use its services, including addressing concerns about not being able to use pseudonyms.

Of course, I’m pretty certain that Facebook would be expected to immediately share any and all info about its users should the U.S. government demand it (regardless of any Constitutional prohibitions) as they have been known to do in the past.

It should also be noted that, while Facebook has no policy specifically prohibiting the use of its network to bring down a government, you’d better not be posting pictures of women breast feeding their babies.  I mean, there are limits to what a socially responsible mega-network will do in the name of freedom…

Sex offenders may lose 1st Amendment Rights

Monday, February 14th, 2011

Vermont is considering a bill that would prohibit sex offenders from using an alias when posting on line.

Vermont lawmakers are considering making it a crime for convicted sex offenders to use false names on social media sites like Facebook, after one such incident was reported in the state.

One incident?  I guess it doesn’t take much to get a law introduced in Vermont.

Interesting how Facebook has taken over from Craigslist as the main playground for sex crazed adults looking to violate children.

The bill under review would make the crime a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in jail. The committee said it would continue to consider the bill.

So merely using an alias can get you up to two years in prison, huh?  Remember the old days when you actually had to have an actual victim to get prison time?  Of course, the U.S. does have an reputation to maintain.

Thanks to Maggie McNeil for the link to this story.

Craigslist prostitute-turned-teacher gives up

Saturday, February 12th, 2011

Melissa Petro is giving up her fight to keep her job with the New York City school system the face of a powerful effort to fire her for openly admitting to selling sex on Craigslist before becoming a teacher.

Pietro, who resigned late last month and promised never again to seek employment with the D.O.E., continued, “Although I could have fought my removal I have decided, instead, to move on. Regardless of the outcome of a trial, which I have every reason to believe I would have won, I do not believe I would have ever been welcomed back to the classroom by the Department of Education.”

New York City has proven that, while it’s nearly impossible to fire an inept teacher,  it is indeed possible to fire one that isn’t.

Nice work, New York Department of Education.  I’m certain the Devil has reserved a special place in hell for you.

Cops caught fraternizing with the enemy

Thursday, February 10th, 2011

Several cops in Raleigh, NC are the subject of an internal affairs investigation for their involvement with a representative of the world’s oldest profession.

Internal affairs investigators used GPS tracking devices and hidden cameras to uncover the activity, which involved sex with a prostitute who frequents Bragg Street in downtown Raleigh, the sources said.

Speaking on the condition that they not be identified, the sources said the Raleigh Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit raided the Southeast District Substation on Crosslink Road over the weekend and that several officers there were told to turn in their guns, badges and patrol cars.

Of course, the law that governs everyone else also applies to cops, right?  Oops.  I guess not:

Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby said his office is aware of the investigation and that criminal charges did not seem likely. He declined to say why or to discuss the matter further.

Well, these are probably just a bunch of young rookies who made a mistake, right?  Oops.  I guess not:

One of the names tied to the investigation, sources said, is Raleigh police Sgt. Rick Armstrong, who is the president of the Raleigh Police Protective Association, a professional association that represents the interests of police officers.

Armstrong, who also is a member of the state Law Enforcement Training and Standards Commission, said Tuesday that he could not speak about the matter, on the advice of the Raleigh Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau.

Well, surely some honest cops came forward and management acted quickly to put an immediate end to the activity just as they would if the culprits were ordinary citizens, right?  Oops.  I guess not:

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Police Chief Harry Dolan did not address the specific allegations but acknowledged a “comprehensive” internal investigation into “improper conduct” stemming from a police officer’s complaint in late 2009.

Well, at a very minimum, an outraged city government must be demanding that the officers be publicly identified as is the case for anyone else caught with a prostitute and charged under the relevant criminal statutes making clear to the public that police are not above the laws they hold everyone else accountable to, right?  Oops.  I guess not:

Mayor Pro-Tem Mary-Ann Baldwin, who chairs the city’s Law and Public Safety Committee, said such incidents “reflect poorly” on the police department but that police officers generally do an excellent job.

“Anytime you have something like this you want a quick resolution and I would imagine our residents who would be impacted by this expect that,” she said.

So, after secretly studying the matter for over a year, now that it’s public they are suddenly in favor for a “quick resolution”.  My guess is that, had it not been for the unidentified “sources”, the city would have been quite content if this story never saw the light of day.

So what happens now, Chief Dolan?

“When all the available facts are present, appropriate decisions will be made concerning any personnel action that should be taken pursuant to departmental policy in response to administrative violations.”

Ohhhhhh!  I see.  When ordinary people go to a hooker to get laid, it’s a crime against the public morals where they get their picture in the paper, pay big money for a lawyer, end up being fined and probably spend some time in jail, and (in some states) get their car seized.  But when a cop does it, it’s an “administrative violation”.

Can we say “cover up”?  Can we say “blue wall of silence”?

Using an underage prostitute worse than murder

Thursday, February 10th, 2011

A proposed Georgia law beefs up the penalties for engaging is unapproved sex, specifically prostitution.

Among other things, it would permit prosecutors to target the spouses of prostitutes and it would require that those who use prostitutes to magically know whether a hooker is underage even if she claims to be older:

For people charged with human trafficking, the bill would prohibit such defenses as relation by blood or marriage (for parents exploiting their own children, or men pimping their own wives). It also bars such defenses as “I didn’t know she was 15 years old…she looked 20 to me!” or “Hey, she’s been a prostitute before.”

If that’s not enough, the new law would increase the maximum penalty for using a prostitute under 18 years old to life in prison, essentially making the crime as bad or worse than murder.  Keep in mind that the age of consent in Georgia is 16, so it’s perfect acceptable for a girl to give it away, but selling it to feed and clothe herself is illegal.

Penalties for human traffickers would also be significantly beefed up, with the possibility of life in prison if the victim was under 18, and new fines of up to $100,000. What’s more, the state could seize any real or personal property that a trafficker used for, or bought with the proceeds of, the crime.

Of course, with those kinds of financial incentives, the state will have a lot more reason to convert more prostitution cases into trafficking cases.  And how could they do that?

As for sexual exploitation, the bill would block charges for anyone forced to commit sex crimes, including prostitution, against his or her will.

A young prostitute is now guaranteed an attractive payoff to claim she was coerced and to testify against her pimp, assuming there is someone handy she can accuse of being a pimp.  A pimp can be a landlord, massage parlor owner, or just a boyfriend.  I think the legal term for this is ladder climbing.  Essentially, prosecutors buy custom testimony from low level participants in order to fabricate a case against those higher on the food chain (whether a food chain exists or not).  And make no mistake, a youthful witness will often say whatever a prosecutor wants in exchange for a free pass to walk out without charge.

Aside from their potential to raise revenue for the state through fines and property seizures, sleazy laws like this are designed to generate arrest and conviction statistics to prove fear-mongering claims that don’t otherwise jibe with reality.  Anti-prostitution crusaders in Georgia are determined to do everything in their power to convince the world that Atlanta has a serious child prostitution problem.  I have written about their strategy to generate statistics in the past and Maggie McNeil did a very thorough two-part critique of the  so-called independent “research” methods designed to generate those forgone conclusions.

Egyption internet kill switch comes to the U.S.

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

Senator Joe Lieberman, former Presidential candidate and active proponent of internet censorship, is co-sponsoring a bill to give the President the same kind of internet kill switch recently made famous as the weapon of first resort in quelling the popular discontent in Egypt.

From the HuffPo:

The authority granted to the government in the bill, known as the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), has been likened to an Internet “kill switch.”

The bill would require that private companies–such as “broadband providers, search engines, or software firms,” CNET explains–”immediately comply with any emergency measure or action” put in place by the Department of Homeland Security, or else face fines.

And how will this new security measure be administered?

[The law] would also see the creation of a new agency within the Department of Homeland Security, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC).

Because, if there’s anything that the bloated and largely incompetent Department of Homeland Security needs more of, it’s bureaucracy.

But wait, there’s more!  The bill not only subjugates the privately operated internet infrastructure to the government, it also provides for additional violation of your privacy and Fourth Amendment rights.

Any private company reliant on “the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure’” would be “subject to command” by the NCCC, and some would be required to engage in “information sharing” with the agency, says CBS4.

As the government learned from the warrantless wiretap fiasco, the government needs a way to assure private corporations that they won’t be held accountable when the government tells them to violate the Constitution.

He added that the bill is necessary for it would reduce the liability of companies that may need to resort to extreme measures in an emergency situation. Companies might have to “do things in a normal business sense you’d be hesitant to do but national security requires you to do,” Lieberman explained, adding “We protect them from that because the action the government is ordering them to take is in national security or economic interest.”

We probably don’t give our “leaders” enough credit for thinking ahead.  It’s clear that Lieberman sees that what’s happening in Egypt could happen here.  Anyone who remembers the civil rights or Vietnam war protests and riots (as Lieberman certainly does) can attest to that.  But, if and when the U.S. has a popular uprising like we’re seeing in Tunisia, Greece, and Egypt, by God our government is going to be ready.  They are going to be able to summarily kill the internet and phone service but rather than looking like an oppressive tyrannical response to citizen unrest, it will be all dressed up in the rule of law.

The government has finally found a way to put the internet firmly under the thumb of government as the public silently goes about its business.

Castrating sex offenders to save money

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

A Virginia state legislator wants the state to consider castrating sex offenders so they don’t have to spend all that money keeping them locked up indefinitely in psychiatric “hospitals” after they’ve completed their prison sentences.

From the HuffPo:

Republican Sen. Emmett Hanger’s bill would require the state to study the use of physical castration as an alternative to civil commitment for sexually violent predators.

The civil commitment program’s budget grew from $2.7 million in 2004 to $24 million this year. Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending nearly $70 million over the next two years to meet the increasing demands.

According to the article, Texas and Louisiana already allow for physical castration.

It’s interesting to see government officials in a quandary over the high cost of using the gimmick of civil commitment to heap additional punishment on people who have already paid for their crimes.  There is no doubt that they would have no compunction about summarily executing sex offenders at the end of their prison term if they could only devise some fiction that could justify it.

And the public would applaud.

Thanks to Maggie McNeil for the link.

Smithsonian censors gay art exhibit

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

The National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC sponsored a an art exhibit called “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,”  which focused on gay artists of the past century.  Things went well for a while, but then…

From HuffPo:

Nearly six weeks into the show’s run, some members of Congress led by GOP Leader Congressman John Boehner, encouraged by the ire and financial backing of certain religious zealots, decided that one work, in particular, must be removed from the exhibit, David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly. Without even a moment of public discourse, the Smithsonian team ‘stepped and fetched.’

As in every case of art, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.  When the artists rely on government handouts, they shouldn’t be surprised when government officials impose restrictions as demanded by favored interest groups, in this case Catholic League president William Donohue, who dubbed the video “hate speech”.  Hate speech is, of course, a term used to summarily dismiss expression in a way that discourages debate.  After all, who could possibly support hate speech.

The arts could survive just fine without government financial support and if some work needs government support to exist, then I question its value and why I should be forced, through my taxes, to subsidize something that no one else cares about or likes.

Another problem with government support of the arts is that the government  becomes the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate art.   Artists then tend to tailor their work so as to not be excluded.  In that way the government suppresses what it doesn’t like and encourages artists to express what is politically acceptable.

It’s a disgrace that Congress would fund a museum that excludes First Amendment protection.  If they want to be in the museum business, they should perhaps consider incorporating a higher level of integrity into that endeavor than they are used to with everything else they do.  A lot higher.