The Replacements - "Alex Chilton" - Original Music Video

by  Dick Mac

I still can't believe Alex Chilton is dead! He survived Katrina only to be taken from us while still so young.

Timing Is Everything

by Dick Mac

"How wondrous that the 4th of July fell on a Wednesday this year," said no one ever.

Thanks to my friend, beff, for the heads-up.

Visit someecards.com to get regular relief from dullness.

Happy Birthday America!

by Dick Mac

Be a patriot: wave a flag, drive around, drink, shoot a gun, and sing a song.

Sex On Campus

by Dick Mac

Childhood sexual abuse is as old as sex and children have existed. It's not some new-fangled popular trend that only began in a sexually permissive, secular society. It runs as deep as the history of humanity and is present in every culture, including those (especially those?) with the most stringent sexual mores.

As the United States has become more sensitive to, and conscious of, human sexuality and the differences that make humans unique, there have been many changes in laws defining and proscribing sexual behavior.

In the late-1970s, a series of investigations into the sexual abuse of children became huge news stories. Protecting children from sexual predators and imprisoning the perpetrators became a big industry. Sadly, the focus of these investigations was more often about furthering the careers of prosecutors, reporters, and other law enforcement professionals, not the protection of children and the imprisonment of criminals.

A number of these celebrated cases were proven to be farces. People making-up stories for fame, glory, career, or cash. Some innocent people went to prison. Some were eventually exonerated, as the kiddie-sex-abuse industry lost its popularity and there was less fame and fortune to be had by prosecuting such cases.

This does not mean that childhood sexual abuse suddenly stopped. It didn't. It hasn't.

It also doesn't mean that there has been a sane societal dialogue about sexuality and youth. There hasn't. For Americans, it's a black and white issue: if the kid is under 18, and the perp is over 18, then it's a crime.

There was a case in Georgia where a promising high school football player had turned 18 and was being scouted by some big-name universities. He had sex with a fellow high-school student who was 16, and when it became opportune for somebody to make a few bucks off the pain and suffering of those around them, the boy was arrested, charged with rape of a minor, and sentenced to prison:

Kristie Brown alleged that on February 10, 2003 Dixon forced her to have sex, taking her virginity. She has stated that contrary to Dixon's supporters' belief she was never Dixon's girlfriend and although they shared classes, they barely knew each other. The jury acquitted Dixon of rape, battery, assault and false imprisonment but because Brown was only 16 at the time of the incident found him guilty of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. Because of this Dixon was convicted at the mandatory amount under Georgia law, 10 years imprisonment. Ironically, if he had been found guilty of rape, he would have faced a much less severe punishment.
See, Marcus Dixon, at wikipedia.org

This is exactly the type of crime that should never have been prosecuted, and when it was, should have been left alone when the jurors found the young man not guilty. Instead, he was sentenced under Georgia's statutory rape laws to 10 years in prison (more time than if he had been found guilty of rape).

When the alleged sex is between "men and boys" there is a much louder outcry.

I've never seen a discussion in the media about the sexual activity and proclivities of teenage boys. We all wink our eyes about boys sowing their oats, and many young men are allowed pretty severe dereliction with girls. If they are under 18, they are pretty much immune from scrutiny, and if the woman is over 18 (an adult) the boy is lauded.

If, however, the boy is having sex with another boy, he can be murdered and certainly will be harassed and threatened. If the boy's sexual partner is over the age of 18, then it's a crime and someone's life, probably everybody's life, is going to be destroyed.

There is no grey area in the discussion of young adults and sexual activity. The law is written as though every 17-year-old boy is a saint being stalked by evil homosexuals, and every 18-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old is a rapist.

Don't get me wrong: I am totally opposed to the sexual abuse of children, and have worked with many survivors of incest as they recovered from their experiences.

My point is that the laws that define statutory rape and the age of consent are usually applied at the discretion of whatever idiot is in charge of local law enforcement at that time. Not to make a generalization . . . but, generally, these people are homophobes and racists.

I believe that more often than not, these cases are tried for political reasons, to advance the careers of those involved in the prosecution.

Not always, but often enough that none of us would deny it happens.

The story of Marcus Dixon, the 18-year-old whose life was nearly destroyed for a blow job from a 16-year-old girl, is not the to only BIG story about amateur football and sex. In fact, another case involving amateur football and childhood sexual abuse is more recent.

Jerry Sandusky, a long-time friend, assistant, and colleague of Penn State coach Joe Paterno, has been convicted of forty-odd charges of sexually abusing children, over a long period of time, in his home and on the grounds of Penn State University.

Had he kept the activity private, he probably would have been protected forever; but, he was seen abusing a boy in a football locker room, over a decade ago. The crime, or suspicion of a crime, was reported at that time.

There has been much speculation about the lack of action by Sandusky's superiors, colleagues, and friends at the University. How much did they know and to what degree, if any, did they turn the other way?

It appears to me that the majority of people with an opinion of Joe Paterno tend to think he was not culpable. After all, he's Joe Paterno: the 80-odd-year-old guardian of Penn State football, one of the most storied college football programs in history. Certainly, JoePa would not have known, because if he did, he would have protected the boys, as every football hero does.

And what about the college administration? How could they have known about the crimes? They are running a huge school and don't stroll around the locker rooms looking for pederasts. They have more important things to do, like raise money and protect their careers. How could they have known?

This was not part of the Jerry Sandusky trial, though it was part of the criminal investigation leading to his arrest.

I would not have been surprised if the culpability of Penn State administration had vanished into thin air during the glee surrounding the conviction of Sandusky. After all, these are important men with more important things to do than prevent an adult penis from being forced into the anus of a 10-year-old. I mean, come on! We're talking about Joe Paterno here! Let's just drop it!

Fortunately, that is not what is happening. The failure of those administrators to prevent the rape of children on their campus is a continuing investigation.

I am surprised that the investigation is continuing.

I guess it's hard for the prosecutors to drop the investigation in these days of media saturation. All of the evidence made public is accessible by those interested in reporting on it.

CNN is reporting examinations of the evidence.  What they have highlighted is not pretty:

At Sandusky's trial, Mike McQueary, a Penn State graduate assistant, testified that he believed he saw sexual contact between Sandusky and a boy, in 2001.

2001!

Ten years before any arrest was made.

McQueary was distressed by the scene he witnessed. If he had just kept it to himself, then nothing would have happened. He made a decision to follow-up on what he saw. So, he went to Coach Paterno and told him.

In 2001.

Eleven years later, it has come to light that three men discussed the rape of a child in a Penn State locker room: Paterno, athletic director Tim Curley, and school vice-president Gary Schultz (who manages the campus police).

It seems that there are emails about the incident.

It appears that Schultz, the vice-president, told Curley, the athletic director, to confront Sandusky, call the child protection authorities, and notify leaders of the charity Sandusky managed. It was through this charity that Sandusky maintained access to so boys.

Although the notification of authorities might better have been done first, at least there was a plan to address the situation.

Curley spoke with Paterno about the situation and the plan laid-out. The next day, Curley wrote back to Schultz:

After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

Instead of going to the police, Curley decided that it would be best if he met with Sandusky to lay out the school's concerns, explain that they were aware of a previous incident three years earlier, and offer to get Sandusky some professional help. If Sandusky was amenable to the plan, then at some point, Curley might contact the charity, and maybe he would contact child services. If Sandusky did not cooperates, Curley would then notify the charity and the child protection people.

We wouldn't want to create any undue or unseemly attention for the football program or Coach Paterno now, would we?!?!?!?

So, you find out that an employee is banging children in the locker room and you think it best to chat with the perpetrator instead of going to the authorities?

Really?

Then you never actually go to the authorities.

I'm thinking that if everything being reported is even partially true then some crime has taken place, beyond the rape of a child.

Time will tell if anything will come of this information. Law enforcement likely will get big props and much attention for pursuing a case against Curley, and perhaps Schultz. Paterno died in January, 2012, so he has escaped further scrutiny.

Although I believe that there are many instances of media hysteria around the sexual activity of children, the media attention of this story is appropriate and there should be no let-up until the last point is clarified.

Joe Paterno's role in covering up Jerry Sandusky's child molestations grows as evidence is leaked, at Yahoo

Purported e-mails suggest Paterno may have altered decision not to report abuse, at CNN

Why Does God Hate America?

by Dick Mac

 Americans have a perverse relationship with the Christian deity. It's almost sado-masochistic.

On the one hand, many Americans believe that the liberty we enjoy is a direct gift from God, designed specifically for Americans.

On the other hand, many Americans believe that some citizens should be denied liberty, even though they have committed no crime, and this, too, is a direct gift from God designed specifically for Americans.

So, God has given us liberty and God has denied us liberty.

Many who believe this paradigm also resent paying taxes. Sometimes you can get those people off their anti-tax rant long enough for them to breathe and accept that this amazing liberty we enjoy must be financed, and that it's not really sinful or unconstitutional for our government to collect taxes.

Why do those who adore the Christian deity also insist that this deity is destroying their nation by refusing to do away with taxes and homosexuals and abortionists?

I remember one of these Christians saying that God was trying to save America by spreading AIDS among homosexuals. AIDS was a punishment from God. I am not certain if this means their God was trying to save America or that their God was trying to destroy America. I will say that mathematically, elimination of 10% or more of a nation's population is an odd way for their loving God to make it clear he loves their nation.

Much of the insertion of God into our political and governmental discourse is rooted in the post-WWII communist scare. Godless communists were going to destroy America, so we better get God on our side fast by protecting him from the communists. The notion that their omnipotent God needed protecting is beyond my realm of reason. If I believe that everything is pre-ordained by God and a godless communist movement is part of that, then there is nothing to fear.

Just in case, though, Christians began passing laws that protected and adored their God. Creepy.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy:

I pledge of allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words to be changed to "the Flag of the United States" so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and their new country. The words "of America" were added a year later. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1953, Democratic Congressman Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The phrase "under God" was then officially added on June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At the same time, we added God to our money.

American currency has included the words "In God We Trust" for only half a century.

This notion that God somehow favors one form of government over another, and one nation over another, is bizarre. What is stranger, yet, is that some Americans have taken this notion beyond an approval of our government to include approval of "our way of life" and "capitalism."

Actually, they don't think God approves of ALL capitalism, just the brand of Reaganomics popular in America for the last thirty years. Somehow American Christians have convinced themselves that God objects to spending on any issues of social welfare. And somehow, this is supposed to reflect the image of a loving God. In reality, any God that would take that position is pretty much a God that hates those people. How do we reconcile the notion that God approves an economic system and government that denies civil liberties to all its citizens, wants guns to be as holy as crucifixes, and prefers that hungry homeless children remain in that state?

If God really is the God that American Christians want us to believe in, then he's a God that hates us in a special way. He wants our children naked, hungry and uneducated. He wants people to carry guns and shoot each other. He wants us to maintain a societal pecking order in which some citizens enjoy less freedom and liberty than others. That sounds like a God that hates us.

I am a Christian. I embrace and try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe that if Jesus Christ was born in a time when the world was a more global place, where he had access to what was going on in the rest of the world, he would have been a Buddhist. He'd have eschewed Judaism and become a Buddhist. His teachings would have remained exactly the same as we know them, and he may very well have been killed in the same way, and would likely have been deified in the same way we know now.

I believe Jesus would have insisted that homosexuals be granted all of the rights granted to heterosexuals. I believe Jesus Christ would have opposed abortion, and would have spent none of his time advocating about it in one way or another. I believe Jesus opposed the death penalty and would be a citizen working against capital punishment. I believe Jesus would want the hungry to be fed, the homeless to be sheltered, the illiterate to be taught, and the sick to be healed and comforted.

I believe Jesus Christ would make a connection between the payment of taxes and the assurance of these things.

I don't think he would have thought or taught that market-driven considerations and profit be part of deciding issues of sickness and homeless.

I don't think Jesus was afraid of other people's religion or sexuality. And I don't think he would go around today's America condemning anyone, or advocating laws that limited their liberty. It's just not Christian.

Our national obsession with Christianity is unbecoming and absurd.

How can those who most loudly shout their allegiance to Jesus Christ also be so un-Christ-like in their political and societal beliefs? Because, if God really did believe the things these Americans believe, then it would be obvious that God hates America.

I have an idea: let's drop God from the societal and political discourse, altogether.