SEX AND VIOLENCE AT 15

SEX AND VIOLENCE AT 15

Today's not-really-news-story-of-the-day is about a 37-year-old woman in Georgia who, for two years, has been having a sexual relationship with a teenaged boy. Like the case here in suburban Seattle, where a female 30-ish schoolteacher kept having sex -- and children -- with a middle-schooler, the story makes the national news primarily for its titillation quotient. I suspect that there are about as many of these instances as there are bird flu cases (at least, for the moment).

In Georgia, this woman is now pregnant. She did what some would consider the Right Thing -- she got married. Except that the boy is still 15, and while Georgia law permits children under 16 to marry with their parents' consent (can anyone say "sharia"?), apparently the 15-year-old father of a pregnant 37-year-old woman's fetus may not marry. I want the American religious right to explain THAT to me... I suspect that they want to have their fetus and stone the mother, too, but perhaps I'm stereotyping.

I have met well-adjusted, successful people whose parents were what I would consider ridiculously young, so this can't simply be a matter of presuming someone young can't handle a child.

More to the point, this case throws all sorts of water on the rush to try teenaged crime suspects as adults. If you can't be 15 and be married in Georgia, then one would presume that you shouldn't be tried for murder as an adult, either.

Is this the hobgoblin of small minds? Perhaps. I remain confused by laws that say that 18-year-olds are mature enough to incompletely sever chads in Florida, but can't buy a beer. And why should 16-year-olds be permitted to drive, but not get an abortion? And does it matter what the actual 16-year-old is like? I remember junior high school, where a room full of 14-year-old boys could include kids who were practically zygotes and kids with facial hair that would have shamed most middle-aged men and muscles that would have made Jose Canseco jealous. The girls were the same; some were better-developed than any centerfold model, while others were as two-dimensional as the page on which the photograph was printed.

Society demands more maturity of its children at all ages, but especially so at markers along their paths to adulthood. Two centuries ago, if a teenager could read and write and cook and sew or reap and sow, that was all that was necessary to get along. A century ago, you could still pretty much get by without much book-learning and awareness of the world. Today we have five-year-olds being dressed up to look like they belong in Vogue, ten-year-olds dealing drugs in middle school, and fifteen-year-olds who know more about technology than most people twice their age. More important, we expect children to understand things that would have been the crowning achievement of any thinker not too far in the past. And, for crying out loud, we give these children access to things that are inconceivably expensive and dangerous -- not just a car, but a luxury car; not just clothing, but designer clothing; not just a summer vacation but unchaperoned trips to Europe or Central America.

Is it any surprise, then, that adults in their 30s find themselves emotionally at ease with kids in their teens? Is it any surprise when adolescents misread the signals they're given by both parents and society at large? No, it shouldn't be.

So if we're saying that a 15-year-old is bright enough to figure that he shouldn't kill someone, then we must reasonably judge a 15-year-old bright enough to marry.

I'm just saying.

HILLARY? CONDOLEEZZA? NO! ZOD? YES!

HILLARY? CONDOLEEZZA? NO! ZOD? YES!

In 2008 I shall restore your dignity and make you servants worthy of my rule. This new government shall become a tool of my oppression. Instead of hidden agendas and waffling policies, I offer you direct candor and brutal certainty.

So says General Zod, an early candidate for the 2008 campaign for president. And, hey, if we change the Constitution to permit Arnold Schwarzenegger to run, it means Zod can, too!

RIGHT WING PORN

You've got to read this post at Cyphering!

Then promise you won't buy any of these items.

YOUR COMMENTS HERE

YOUR COMMENTS HERE

I am totally nude come see me. Take a bit for all pics and movies to load. Why do I do this I like to make men blow their jiz in their pants. Visit me. Posted by xx to Weird Tales of the Untrue and Mostly Facetious at 10/31/2005 03:20:38 AM

The one thing pornographers have in common with the deeply religious is that neither one of them can spell or correctly punctuate.

Now I have to securitize my site against posts like these, so you've been warned. And I'm not visiting your website, either.

FEELING SPOOKY?

FEELING SPOOKY?

They're hiring at the CIA.

Back when I was in college, an acquaintance named Al Turniansky stayed with me while he was completing his interview with the CIA. I know they didn't hire him, and I don't remember much of what he told me (assuming he told me much; I presume everything was on a need-to-know basis almost as secretive as the non-disclosure agreements routinely required by Microsoft), but I do remember him saying something like this: "I answered an ad that was looking for people who liked to spend a lot of time alone, without much contact with people, for months at a time, and who liked doing very detailed work."

One more thing: The CIA jobs page has a recommendation from Jennifer Garner from the television show, Alias. Is that cool, or what?

COMING SOON TO A POLITICIAN OR MARKETER NEAR YOU

COMING SOON TO A POLITICIAN OR MARKETER NEAR YOU

I have only seen hypnotism acts on television and mind-control devices in spy movies, but those wacky Japanese seem to be working toward making the world a more... controlled... place.

NTT, Japan's telecommunications giant, has developed a device that can control humans by shooting electricity into the human ear. Right now we're not talking about post-hypnotic suggestions to murder the president, but the researchers have been able to make a subject wearing the test helmet walk in a particular pattern.

The cover story is that this will make videogaming more fun, but already some are considering military applications, and police departments are thinking it would be a useful tool in helping to control a bad guy.

But, as with all technology, with the good comes the bad. Sure, you may be able to keep a hostage-taker off-balance long enough to capture him and free hostages. But if this technology works, wouldn't it be handy at a supermarket, a department store, a mall, or a casino? Apparently, says the reporter in the article I linked above, the experience is not unpleasant and you don't feel as if you're unhappy. So you wind up in front of the expensive wines instead of the $2 per liter stuff. How different is this from Muzak, which was programmed to elicit specific human responses? Or aroma?

And then... could people beam this electricity at you from a distance, making you into their remote puppet? It might be fun at a sporting event... folks in the stands without theirs might wonder why the running back turned and ran the wrong way with the football.

Could you work this more than ninety feet from a polling place?

Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But goodness gracious, we are just asking for it with some of the things we're trying to figure out, aren't we?

ANOTHER COMMIE FAG PINKO FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY

ANOTHER COMMIE FAG PINKO FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY

I know I've got Mike Gold's blog linked over below and to the left, but his most recent post about the pitiful thing that television news has become is must reading.

TAKE THAT, YOU DAMNED DIRTY APES!

TAKE THAT, YOU DAMNED DIRTY APES!

According to a poll reported by CBSNews.com this morning, most Americans don't believe in the Theory of Evolution.

I think this pretty much explains everything about the red states and the blue states, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, mediocrity and merit. Only 30% polled thought that there was room for a deity to have initiated the process of evolution.

In fairness to the religious conservatives out there who take the Old Testament as literal and not allegorical, the scientific community has not been able to prove the Theory of Evolution. Then again, Einstein's work was still a theory when American atomic weapons obliterated two cities in Japan. And for you religious folks out there, let's not forget poor Galileo. He, too, butted up against monolithic Christianity, dying in prison for writing that the earth orbits the sun.

I hate to bring religion into the conversation, but if we're going to have a planet where your theory that God is blue and my theory that God is green means we have to wind up killing each other, we've missed the boat, it seems.

As for Darwin's theory, it's as plausible as anything else. I suspect that if you're going to take the Old Testament literally, all the bones of animals that no longer exist can be those that didn't quite make old Noah's boat. And there's no doubt that humans, throughout their existence, have often misinterpreted their observations of the universe, constructing reasonable models that worked.

But once more we're faced in the US with a hairline difference in our opinions, a difference so model-thin that it means we'll just yell at and hate each other for years and years. That just makes no sense.

I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YOU, AND THEY AIN'T 'HAPPY BIRTHDAY'...

I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YOU, AND THEY AIN'T 'HAPPY BIRTHDAY'...

According to this story, Americans are ruder than ever, not just when visiting France, but here.

Well, duh.

The article blames parents who are too harried to care, but it's not just that the kids haven't been taught the proper fork for the salad course. It's a generation, perhaps two, of Americans who aren't bright enough to perceive the difference between "rude" and "casual."

Here's what I'd like to see. I'd like to see someone like Snoop Doggy Diddy hosting a show on being polite on MTV or BET or UPN. Even better, whichever of these young hip hop idols is most popular should start dressing and speaking better.

But let's move the issue away from popular culture, where, although the problem is pervasive, the solution is simple. Let's move to the political arena, where rudeness passes for discourse these days. Just because you disagree with me (or I with you) is no excuse for namecalling or unfair characterization. There are numerous examples on all sides. We seem to not care that we're all in this together.

HERE'S A STUNNER...

HERE'S A STUNNER...

You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (25% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

NO WONDER THE ANGELS BEAT THE YANKEES!

NO WONDER THE ANGELS BEAT THE YANKEES!

This may be something that you suspected all along... because it's been clear that either Satan loves the Yankees, or Jesus hates the Yankees.

If anyone wants to buy me one, I'll take a 2X.

As for the Yankees loss to the Angels, let's look at the superior performance put in by the woefully underpaid Alex Rodriguez, who managed two hits and no runs batted in against the AL West champions. I looked up Rodriguez's postseason experience prior to this series, and it's generally good, but I have to tell you that I remember one particularly noteworthy episode that says it all about the player the Yankees thought would bring them the world. It was the 2000 American League Championship Series between the Yankees and the Mariners. Roger Clemens still pitched for the Yankees; Rodriguez was playing out his string with Seattle. Rodriguez stepped to the plate for his first AB of the game versus the Rocket, who promptly handed the young star a bowtie. After that high and tight pitch, A-Rod took the collar for the day and the Mariners submitted meekly to Clemens. Ultimately, the Mariners lost the series (though Rodriguez put a 4-for-5 game together in the Mariners final loss).

Alex Rodriguez has yet to perform when the game counted. When the Yankees were struggling against the Red Sox in the 2004 ALCS, the most memorable thing Rodriguez did was to girlie-slap the ball out of the first baseman's glove on a play that cost the Yankees a potential run-scoring rally. Again this year he failed to drive in a run against the Angels. Since Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, he's 3-for-27, and 3-for-29 since his third-inning home run.

To be fair, Rodriguez is a stunning talent. I wish I had 1% of his talent. But Rodriguez may not be the kind of guy who can perform in New York. He clearly presses when the situation is baseball-critical, unlike his teammate and onetime friend, Derek Jeter, who possesses less talent, but more baseball moxie and seems to have that Reggie Jackson clutch-performance gene.

The other disappointment for the Yankees must be Randy Johnson, who desperately tried to hand Game 3 to the Angels, only to be saved by a short-lived Yankees rally. Johnson has proven in the past to be a big-game performer -- but only when pitching for a small-market team. I expressed concerns about Johnson's ultimate efficacy when he was traded to the Yankees, and while he had a good September, he had no pop in his pitches last Friday in the Bronx. Maybe it was the weather, I don't know; he sure was a different pitcher in Monday's loss, shutting down the Angels in relief. Johnson also is an awesome talent, even in his 40s, but he has never pitched in a town that wasn't prepared to love him unconditionally. He may have won four Cy Young Awards, but New Yorkers didn't see him do that, and his little camera stunt couldn't have helped him much, either.

Ultimately, the main problem with the Yankees remains George Steinbrenner. The 1996-2000 Yankees were a product of the years when Steinbrenner had nothing to do with running the team. The early-to-mid-1990s did not show well in the team's record, but during his suspension Steinbrenner's "baseball people" were free from Steinbrenner's inability to be patient, and were able to put together a team whose players worked as a team. It didn't have an All-Star at each position, a proposition counter to Steinbrenner's visceral approach, which says that he needs one at every position and several on the bench (cf. this year's squad, which included bit players like Tony Womack, Tino Martinez, Al Leiter, Tom Gordon, and Ruben Sierra). A team like this won't be able to do what Ozzie Guillen's or Mike Scioscia's teams can -- hit to the right side, squeeze, take the extra base. (Although I was amused at the disagreement between Tim McCarver and John Kruk about whether it was sound baseball for Mark Bellhorn to stay on second on the high-hop infield hit by Gary Sheffield with two out in the ninth on Monday. Doing play-by-play, McCarver called it "excellent baserunning" to stay, while Kruk's post-game analysis called it a fundamental error for Bellhorn not to have taken third. Kruk believed that, had Bellhorn taken third, Angels first baseman Darin Erstad would have been holding Sheffield's pinch-runner, Tony Womack, to first, which would have let Matsui's ground ball through for a run-scoring single.)

So, does Jesus hate the Yankees? Probably not. Jesus loves everybody, including sinners. It's still a cool t-shirt.

ADVICE TO MARTHA...

ADVICE TO MARTHA...

When I logged onto AOL this afternoon, I was given the tempting choice to give Martha Stewart my advice. Sadly, "retire" wasn't one of the options.

But goodness, the full-court publicity press is on, isn't it? I swear she's on the Today show every morning, now AOL (which has no connection to Martha that I'm aware of), and heck, now even me.

I never liked the woman (although it's clear that somebody had it in for her in a disproportionately mean manner since her crime was the equivalent of ignoring the only parking ticket you've ever gotten), but really, please, can we move on to something more interesting.

Wait... let's give Harriet Miers a home economics TV show, and put Martha Stewart on the Supreme Court. What the hell. I mean, it's not like anybody really cares about either job.