AdamSmith

Putting it politely!

The Policy That Dares Not Speak By JANET MASLIN Published: March 18, 2009 UNFRIENDLY FIRE How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America By Nathaniel Frank 342 pages. Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press. $25.95. The core message of Nathaniel Frank’s book about the American military’s ban on being openly gay can be summed up in a single slogan: “ ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Don’t Work.†Mr. Frank has also been offering succinct five-minute synopses of his argument as he makes the rounds of the talk show circuit. So why does his book, “Unfriendly Fire,†need nearly 300 pages of text to make the same relatively simple points? Because he makes them so discerningly, so substantively and so well. This book’s length would seem even more surprising given Mr. Frank’s scant reliance on anecdotes or filler; by his not having personalized or dramatized his nonfiction material; by the small number of major points on which he concentrates; and by his use of the “as we shall see†construction, which would seem to brand him as a dry professorial writer. But to categorize him that way would be using the type of specious reasoning on which, according to his book, American military policy about gay personnel is based. This is the same logic that allowed a Marine Corps corporal’s buying of Anne Rice novels to be used as admissible evidence of homosexuality at the man’s discharge investigation. And that example is real, not hypothetical. Mr. Frank didn’t have to make it up. Many Americans may not understand what the military’s 15-year-old “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue†policy about gay personnel actually means. If sounds laissez-faire, it is anything but: this expedient-sounding political compromise, sanctioned by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and then voted into law by Congress, has created legal means of terminating the careers of longtime and, Mr. Frank would argue, valuable members of our military. No explicitly sexual act is necessary to bring on accusations. The soldier who receives a warmly affectionate letter from a same-sex correspondent is in jeopardy of being booted out of the service. “Unfriendly Fire†offers a sharp, vigorously framed analysis of this state of affairs. Mr. Frank begins by assailing the assumption that a gay person in the military is someone who has chosen to break the military’s rules; that person, he says, violates the current code simply by existing. “Is a restaurant that bans creatures that bark not a restaurant that bans dogs?†he asks, demonstrating a debating talent that would serve him well in a courtroom. The main attraction in “Unfriendly Fire†is the agility and tough-mindedness with which Mr. Frank presents his arguments. An early chapter on the history of homosexuals and military discipline points out that there was a time — 1919, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the Navy — when gay sailors were entrapped by the sexual solicitations of other sailors, then arrested, court-martialed and imprisoned. “It was not lost on many observers, including the U.S. Senate, which censured the Navy for its ‘shocking’ and ‘indefensible’ investigative tactics, that the military had no trouble rounding up its own men to sleep with other men as part of a sting operation to rout out gays,†Mr. Frank writes. What this wound up meaning was that overt sexual activity would no longer be needed as proof. “It was the beginning of the rationale for banning gay people, since the task of banning gay conduct had proven to be perilous, and had inadvertently thrown light on how easily ‘normal’ men could end up in the jaws of a homosexual rapport,†he says. An argument central to this book is that the assumption that heterosexuals are fragile, modest and easily threatened by homosexuals in their midst does a disservice to the military’s most fundamental faith in its troops as strong and disciplined fighters. Having established his subject’s historical underpinnings, Mr. Frank moves on to a political analysis of the forces that made the subject of homosexuals in the military so important at the start of Mr. Clinton’s first term. The gist is that the president, as a candidate, had glibly made promises he would not be able to keep, while at the same time overconfident gay lobbyists underestimated the combined (and, says Mr. Frank, often overlapping) strength of top military brass and the religious right. In the course of its intensive scrutiny of Senate hearings on the subject, the book finds similarities between that era’s rhetoric about homosexuality as a threat to unit cohesion and the same arguments, used four decades previously, to resist racial integration. The book shows how those hearings made up in hot air for what they lacked in hard evidence. So Mr. Frank brings hard evidence to bear. Fears about sexuality, he says (drawing extensively on data from countries that have less restrictive policies than ours does), do not necessarily predict behavior. And in passages recounting change that he acknowledges to be “stunningly anticlimactic,†he discusses what happened when gay soldiers could openly serve in Israel, Canada and Australia: nothing special. When strict codes of military behavior ban all public displays of affection, they dispel much of the imagined problem. “Unfriendly Fire†goes on to measure the gay ban’s cost and consequences. Mr. Frank does not do this casually; he is armed with budget, recruitment and expulsion statistics. Disturbing as they are to begin with, these figures become even more so when linked to the influx of ex-convicts and other problem recruits to replace those who have been dismissed. The single most alarming statement, in a book that bristles with them, is this one about the military’s moral waivers program to admit convicted felons: “Allowable offenses under the program include murder, kidnapping and ‘making terrorist threats.’ †Finally “Unfriendly Fire†makes a claim for what “don’t ask, don’t tell†has now become: a punch line. Gay service personnel, Mr. Frank says, have by and large been assimilated. Homosexual attachment and unit cohesion are understood to be different things. “I have never loved any man more deeply than some of the men I served with in Somalia, and I never had any sexual feelings for them,†one gay combat veteran says. And if popular culture provides signs of the times, as Mr. Frank suggests, then the subject may be even further defused. “I Love You, Man,†a Hollywood film in the newly mainstream “bromance†genre, about men who love their attractive male friends in no-big-deal fashion, opens Friday. It’s coming to a theater near you. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/books/19maslin.html

I could not agree with you more.

When you call me...a HOT guy shows up: I'm using someone else's pics.

Meanwhile, closer to home... Cops bust upscale prostitution ring Alleged ringleader dubbed "Heidi Fleiss of Houston" Investigators say women met clients in upscale hotels, charged about $350 an hour Police scour computer files and credit card records to verify a large client list (CNN) -- Police in Houston, Texas, say they have busted a prostitution ring that may involve more than 1,500 clients, including professional athletes, doctors and lawyers. Investigators were scouring computers files and credit card records on Monday, trying to verify a large client list that could ignite scandals throughout the city, CNN affiliate station KHOU reported. Police arrested alleged ringleaders Deborah Turbiville and her husband, Charlie, as part of a two-year investigation, the affiliate reported. Turbiville called herself the "Heidi Fleiss of Houston," referring to a woman who was dubbed the "Hollywood Madam" for providing call girls to famous and wealthy clients, police said. Turbiville, who reportedly recruited prostitutes through the online site Craigslist, was in court Monday on a charge of promotion of prostitution. Investigators said the women met their clients in upscale hotels and charged about $350 an hour, the affiliate reported. Clients also met prostitutes in a luxurious three-bedroom apartment, police told the affiliate. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/17/prosti...ref=mpstoryview

Move aside, Shepard Fairey! http://www.badpaintingsofbarackobama.com/

How legalization of sex work in New Zealand has gone so far. Selling sex legally in New Zealand In terms of attitudes towards prostitution, New Zealand and Europe are almost as diametrically opposed as they are in geography. Kiwis have opted for wholesale liberalisation of the sex trade, while Europeans are increasingly restricting it. Does the New Zealand liberal approach provide a model or a warning? Henri Astier looks at its prostitution industry six years after decriminalisation, in the first of two articles. When "Sophie", a medical worker from Christchurch, fell behind on her mortgage payments last year, she found that her job was not paying enough. Her only option was a temporary career change: she became a prostitute. "I needed money fast so I didn't lose my house," she explains. A soft-spoken 30-something with a shy smile, Sophie does not look like the stereotypical scarlet woman, even in the low-cut dress she wears at work. She does not feel like one either. "I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't do drugs. I'm a vegetarian," she says, adding that she had qualms about her new job. But the central-city parlour she joined - basically a pub with a sitting area at the front and bedrooms at the back - was not the drug-fuelled dive she had imagined. "All the women here are lovely," she says. "We spend a lot of time sitting and talking. I'll stick it out a bit longer." Good money Some might question the morality of Sophie's choice, but legally it cannot be faulted. Since the Prostitution Reform Act of 2003, brothels have been allowed to operate more or less freely. Sex workers have the same rights as everyone else. In the eyes of New Zealand's law, the oldest profession is just like any other. This policy stands in marked contrast to Europe. In 1999 Sweden criminalised the purchase of sex services, and several countries are introducing similar laws in an attempt to combat trafficking. Ask New Zealand sex workers what they think of Swedish-style strictures, and the response is overwhelmingly negative. "Whether you're prosecuting the men or the girls, you're still prosecuting the business," says "Lucy", 23, from Wellington. Lucy works in Bon Ton, an exclusive establishment in the capital where an hour-long session costs NZ$400 (£140; $200). She says the reform has given her the opportunity to work for a legitimate business in a safe environment. "I make twice what I was earning in retail. I am appreciated by customers and my boss. I can work whenever I want to - it's by far the most gratifying work I've ever had," she says. Legal rights Lucy's manager, Sarah, also believes criminalising clients would be a disaster for the industry and put the girls at risk. "This would scare away the quality customers," she says. "We would be left with the dangerous sort. The nasty men won't go away." Bon Ton - which thrives on "quality customers" like lawyers and civil servants - certainly looks like an ideal showcase for New Zealand-style liberalisation. The bedrooms look like luxury suites, the upstairs office looks like - well... an office, and the workers say they are treated with respect. Sarah insists she has zero tolerance for abuse and will back the girls even if they refuse a client. "I can't force a woman to have sex," she says. As she speaks another girl appears at the door, draped in a towel. "Myah" looks at the work ahead, and realises that a client who often insists on having oral sex without a condom wants to see her. "I don't want him," Myah says. "No problem," Sarah replies. "I'll tell him you're not available." NZ PROSTITUTION REFORM ACT Brothels allowed to operate Up to four prostitutes can set up collective as equal partners Advertising sale of sex legalised Brothels require certificate and registration by court Sex work subject to normal employment and health and safety standards Myah is not afraid to turn down work. Her health is at stake, and the law requires a condom for any commercial sex act. "It is my legal right to make that demand," she says. But are the benefits from legalisation confined to high-end businesses like Bon Ton? According to Catherine Healy of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective (NZPC), better and safer working practices are now the norm. Across the industry, she says, women are now aware of their rights and exploitative brothel owners are becoming marginalised as a result of the reform. "Sex workers say: I can work across town," she says. "The dynamic has altered." Anna Reed, who was a sex worker in Christchurch for 23 years and is now NZPC's local spokesperson, agrees that exploitative practices have become rare. "Owners used to demand huge fines for being late. They used to hire and fire workers without reason." But now, she says, "girls feel more able to stand up for themselves". Limited change Another key benefit of decriminalisation, according to Ms Healy, is a sea change in relations with the police: "If you're the one committing a crime, you won't ask the police for help." Now, Ms Healy says, the girls find law enforcement officials are on their side. This idea was borne out by a parliamentary report last year, which gave a positive assessment of the reform. It said prostitutes were more likely to report violence to police, and officers were treating their complaints seriously. Some brothel operators, however, are not so sure the reform has made a big difference. Bon Ton owner Jennifer - who got into the sex business after decriminalisation - says some old-style establishments are still exploiting people. "This is still an industry in transition," she says. Monique, who ran brothels before 2003 and now owns Capri, a "Gentleman's club and garden bar" in Christchurch, also plays down the impact of the reform - but for the opposite reason. She says relations with police were good even when bordellos operated illegally. And then, as now, exploitation of girls was never widespread, Monique adds. "We now have a fat, legal agreement with the workers but they are treated the same." Suspicions A sure sign that New Zealand's sex trade has not been entirely revolutionised is that society still frowns on it. Last year a teacher was sacked when it was learnt that she occasionally - and perfectly legally - moonlighted as a prostitute. Many sex workers keep a regular part-time job to avoid leaving suspicious gaps on their CVs. They tell only trusted friends about their main activity. None of the working prostitutes and madams interviewed for this report was ready to give their real names. Brothels may be legal but most New Zealanders prefer not to live next to one. Bon Ton never mentions an address in its adverts - only a phone number. In Christchurch operators had to fight a proposed zoning law that would have kept them out of most areas. But the overwhelming majority in the business feels huge progress was made when the industry emerged from the shadow. Anna Reed says she loved working as a prostitute - "I had sex, money and men!" - and resents enduring cliches about a job no-one in her right mind could willingly embrace. "We get so pissed off when politicians portray us as victims," she says. "It's important to blow down the stereotypes about sex workers - particularly that of the poor girl who is coerced into doing it." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7927461.stm

Bit of a retrograde view, but something to it... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimberly-bro...f_b_170965.html Likewise, saw another column the other day (can't find it now) that made interesting points to the effect that Facebook incents living in the eternal present, abrogating emotional-absorption-of-past as well as imagining-the-future. Or something like that.

How Dante would judge Madoff: worst of the worst... If Bernie Met Dante ... By RALPH BLUMENTHAL Published: March 14, 2009 Know that as soon as a soul commits betrayal The way I did, a devil displaces it And governs inside the body ...     Canto XXXIII of Dante’s “Inferno†(translation by Robert Pinsky) Yes, Bernard L. Madoff went to jail on Thursday after pleading guilty to a gargantuan Ponzi scheme, and yes, he may face the rest of his life in prison when he is sentenced to as much as 150 years on June 16. But if even that dose of clinical justice seems like paltry penance to his many bilked and ruined investors, including charities, they can always turn to literature for a further measure of satisfaction — and to pronounce, perhaps, another kind of final judgment. Mr. Madoff was 700 years too late to join Dante’s Who’s Who of sinners, but it is easy to imagine where the poet would consign this scam artist, who admitted to stealing as much as $65 billion: to the Pit, the Ninth (and deepest) Circle of Hell. It is where sins of betrayal are punished in a sea of ice fanned frigid by the six batlike wings of the immense, three-faced, fanged and weeping Lucifer. In Dante’s frightful underworld, sinners face a descending funnel of worsening torments keyed to their sins. The lustful are blown about in a whirlwind; the violent boil in a river of blood. But betrayers, alone at the bottom, are savaged by the one called emperor of the realm of grief, in person. “You’re buried in ice, because you’ve buried yourself in ice,†Mr. Pinsky, the nation’s poet laureate from 1997 to 2000 and a Dante scholar, said in an interview on Thursday. Poetic justice, indeed. It is fitting, Mr. Pinsky says. Betrayal destroys the trust that binds humanity, and with it, the betrayer himself. Dante was consumed by the sadness and mystery of sin — and what it did to the sinner: How is it that we choose to sin and wither? Like waves above Charybdis, each crashing apart Against the one it rushes to meet ... “It’s not a poem about ‘you did this, you get this,’ †Mr. Pinsky says. “It’s about the mystery of how you hurt yourself. It’s like the Talmud says: the evils others do to me are as nothing compared to the evils I do to myself.†But ice? In the pit of Hell? Exactly, Mr. Pinsky says. To Dante, sin is an absence of energy and moral force — freezing cold and darkness — and betrayal is an ultimate shutting down, a failure to exist. “Even murderers may be feeling something in other ways,†he says. Which could explain why the 70-year-old Mr. Madoff faces a sentence harsher than that given some killers. (He offered a brief apology in federal court in Manhattan without shedding much light on where the money went, how he stole it, and who may have helped him.) But if outraged victims still felt cheated — “I hope he is incarcerated with other rapists,†one said — there is comfort to be drawn from the rich imaginings of the Florentine master who began his “Divine Comedy†with a tour of Hell and its denizens. With the shade of Virgil as his guide, Dante (confessing his own struggle against sin and the depression of middle age) descends through levels of damnation beginning with Fore-Hell and Limbo, where the souls of those judged neither blessed nor wicked languish. Below, lesser sinners writhe in bogs, and yet further on, across the Plain of Fire to the Seventh Circle, violent sinners simmer in blood and are torn limb from limb by dogs. The Eighth Circle opens the way to Malebolge where sins of fraud are punished in vales of pitch and excrement. Thieves suffer a particular torment: Their hands were tied Behind their backs — with snakes that thrust between Where the legs meet, entwining tail and head Into a knot in front A ring of giants guards the Ninth Circle, the pit enclosing betrayers of family, of country and political faction and of guests and benefactors. In a particularly diabolical twist, some sinners have their souls consigned to Hell while they continue to dwell on earth, a devil inhabiting their body. And in the deepest pit of Hell, sunk in the ice, looms Lucifer himself, with three faces, red, black and whitish-yellow, and unfeathered wings fanning the winds to freeze the ice. Gripped in his fangs are Judas, Brutus and Cassius, the last two Caesar’s assassins, who serve, Mr. Pinsky notes, to make the ultimate betrayers more than an extension of Christian doctrine. “Dante was interested in what a soul could do to itself,†he says. “To betray everything you’re connected to is the bottom.†http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/weekinre...,%20Bernard%20L.

Hmmm... George Michael was able to be pretty droll about himself on 'The Office'... Separately, just reminded myself why some have a book deal and others don't. High-quality sound clip of Flight 1549 tower communications, with chilling graphic keying voice to flight path: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...plashdown_N.htm

Knew I had overlooked something on the road to riches... Cashing in You knew it. It was only a matter of time before America's most-celebrated hero signed a book deal. But who could have guessed that Chesley B. Sullenberger's book would be part "inspirational poetry"? No matter. He reportedly got $3.2 million to sign the deal. (Search for more.) But whether you're an instant celebrity cashing in on fleeting fame or a major superstar just padding your bank account, the book deal has become part of the trip. Here's a roundup of some recent authors who can be fairly described as "cashing in." Everybody remembers Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber," from the last election cycle. His book, "Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream," was available well before the inauguration. (Search for more.) Had Rihanna's bruises even healed before reports surfaced this week that she was teaming with Chris Brown on a book about abuse? (Search for more.) Not sure what the governor of Illinois makes, but since he got fired, Rod Blagojevich has apparently signed a six-figure deal to tell his side of the story. (Search for more.) After the Blagosphere, the blogosphere is a great place to find authors. Remember Jessica Cutler, aka the "The Washingtonienne"? The low-level Senate staffer blogged about her D.C. sexploits but was outed by Wonkette. Then she wrote a novel that suspiciously mirrors her experiences. (Search for more.) And while it's par for the course for most celebrities, we have to ask: Are we really ready for a memoir "written" by 16-year-old Miley Cyrus? Apparently so. (Search for more.) If you're not a celebrity and haven't yet had your 15 minutes of fame, sometimes just being a fan works. Jeannie Holleman wrote an "unauthorized tribute" to Clay Aiken. Unfortunately, she lost her lawsuit attempting to force the singer to endorse the book. (Search for more.) http://a-list.msn.com/default.aspx?cp-sear...xt=Cashing%20in

OK, hijack time. Looks are -- at least arguably, at least later in life -- the one area where Updike may have had it over Cheever. Their joint appearance on Cavett: http://goateedlibrarian.blogspot.com/2009/...nd-cheever.html This is all by way of sneaking into saying that, amid the mandatory encomia following his recent demise, I felt like one of the 3 people in America who have never been able to stomach Updike. To me he was, as the to some insufferable but to me infallible Harold Bloom put it, "a minor novelist with a major style." P.S. Contra the gladhanding on Cavett, gratuitous gossip on what Cheever really thought about Updike: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10052008/gossi...skin_132208.htm P.P.S. Even more gratuitous link to a profile of said uber-critic Bloom: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/01/spec...m-colossus.html

...then again, maybe some porcelain IS just too too...

... Idea picking up steam? Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy? Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic State Assembly member Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale — a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion annually, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion in much-needed revenue a year, offsetting some of the billions in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget. "The state of California is in a very, very precipitous economic plight. It's in the toilet," says Ammiano. "It looks very, very bleak, with layoffs and foreclosures and schools closing or trying to operate four days a week. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment we've ever had. With any revenue ideas people say you have to think outside of the box, you have to be creative, and I feel that the issue of the decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana fits that bill. It's not new, the idea has been around, and the political will may in fact be there to make something happen." ... Cont. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...00.html?cnn=yes

Abjuring antiques and porcelain seems too great a price for anything. No wonder he took to drink. Although he was right about gift shops.

Before his apparent acceptance, then rejection, of a woman's right to choose abortion, RNC chair Michael Steele also seemed to go two directions at once on gay rights. Andrew Sullivan sums up in his 'Daily Dish' column: Steele And Gay Couples: WTF? "I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay.' It's like saying, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black.'" - Michael Steele. Josh Marshall follows up. The interview was given on February 24. In that interview, Steele also says about gay couples' rights: "Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage." And yet the very same day he gave another interview to rightwing talk radio host, Mike Gallagher: GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions? STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn't something that you just kind of like, "Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage." [...] GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind? STEELE: What's the difference? He makes Palin look smart. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-for-th-15.html

Could it be...? A Choice for Drug Czar R. Gil Kerlikowske, the chief of the Seattle Police Department, was chosen Wednesday to be the White House drug czar, signaling a shift in emphasis from arrest and prosecution to intervention and treatment. The selection of Mr. Kerlikowske, which had been expected, was announced by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who said Mr. Kerlikowske understood that “combating drugs requires a comprehensive approach that includes enforcement, prevention and treatment.†If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Kerlikowske, 59, would become the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, as the drug czar is formally known. “The success of our efforts to reduce the flow of drugs is largely dependent on our ability to reduce demand for them,†Mr. Kerlikowske said in a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. “Our nation’s drug problem is one of human suffering,†he said. “And as a police officer, but also in my own family, I have experienced the effects that drugs can have on our youth, our families and our communities.†Mr. Kerlikowske’s stepson, Jeffrey Kerlikowske, 39, has had several drug-related brushes with the law. Mr. Kerlikowske has been the Seattle police chief since 2000. He was previously the police chief in Buffalo and Port St. Lucie in Florida. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/polit...zar.html?ref=us

On the other hand, a little more digging into Quirin suggests that, despite being a unanimous opinion, its production was enough of a muddle that the current Court's willingness to revisit the issues may not be so remarkable. A detailed account of the case: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31340.pdf One of the conclusions: Recent studies of Quirin have been quite critical of the Court. To Michal Belknap, Stone went to “such lengths to justify Roosevelt’s proclamation†that he preserved the “form†of judicial review while “gutt[ing] it of substance.†So long as Justices marched to the beat of war drums, the Court “remained an unreliable guardian of the Bill of Rights.†In a separate article, Belknap describes Frankfurter in his “Soliloquy†essay as a “judge openly hostile to the accused and manifestly unwilling to afford them procedural safeguards.†David J. Danelski regards the full opinion in Quirin as “a rush to judgment, an agonizing effort to justify a fait accompli.†The opinion represented a victory for the executive branch, but for the Court “an institutional defeat.†The lesson for the Court is to “be wary of departing from its established rules and practices, even in times of national crisis, for at such times the Court is especially susceptible to co-optation by the executive.â€

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA http://encyclopediadramatica.com/NAMBLA http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/NAMBLA http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/406/

Conway, thank you for taking the trouble to set down this substantive response cataloging the precedents on which former administration policy was based (this is the way to do political threads). Also appreciate your noting the nation's long history of acting this way, then subsequently repudiating it. From the Alien & Sedition Acts, through Lincoln's use of military tribunals against Copperheads, to WWII internment of Japanese citizens. As Stu reminds, will be fascinating to see if Padilla's current case continues this trend.

Further to the topic: Teen ‘sexting’: Youthful prank or sex crime? With child porn charges being leveled, some say laws are behind the times March 10: Many teens who “sext†– or use cell phones to take and send around nude pictures – are now facing child pornography charges. Internet safety expert Parry Aftab and attorney Larry Walters discuss the issue. By Mike Celizic TODAYShow.com contributor updated 11:21 a.m. ET, Tues., March. 10, 2009 A 15-year-old Pennsylvania girl is facing child pornography charges for sending nude photos of herself to other kids. A 19-year-old Florida man got thrown out of college and has to register as a sex offender for 25 years because he sent nude pictures of his girlfriend to other teens. The growing phenomenon of kids using their cell phones and computers to share racy photos and videos is known as “sexting.†It is a problem that society is having trouble dealing with, and the punishments do not fit the perceived crimes, attorney Larry Walters told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Tuesday in New York. ... Cont. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29613192/

Quite possibly. Thus in part my caveat that media source was NY Post. So very likely that was not the whole story. Agree, but fear you have managed to find a social issue that is even less susceptible of rational treatment than drug policy or sex work. Fascinating what the cultural-studies academics have uncovered about the social construction of "childhood" and "adolescence." One at random: http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/mitc/vande...20Childhood.htm

Can't make this stuff up. NY Post is reporting: PERV GROUP PUTS 10G 'HIT' ON ANDY SECURITY TIGHTENED: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has been targeted for death by a person claiming to be an official with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. ALBANY - A $10,000 Internet bounty was placed on Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's head by a suspected agent of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, The Post has learned. The shocking death threat by the infamous organization of pederasts was posted three weeks ago on an Internet news-group bulletin board that originated in The Bronx, law-enforcement sources said. The threat, described by a source as "unprecedented" because it is believed to come from an organization, prompted a sweeping and ongoing criminal probe by the Attorney General's Office and at least one other law-enforcement organization, and subpoenas were issued, sources said. The "reward" was offered under the headline: "$10,000 to shoot Andrew Cuomo in the face!" "I am an official of NAMBLA, and I can confirm that we have raised the cash to reward any individual who manages to accomplish this task. Thank you," read the message, a transcript of which was obtained by The Post. The message, which investigators have linked to an imprisoned pervert with strong NAMBLA ties - and whom Cuomo's office is seeking to keep behind bars under a "civil commitment" law - was spotted by a citizen who brought it to the attention of Verizon, his Internet service provider. Law-enforcement sources declined to reveal the imprisoned man's identity. But an informant connected to the man's case told investigators NAMBLA is, in fact, out to kill Cuomo, sources said. "He said he believes the death threat on the Internet is connected to an effort by NAMBLA to kill the attorney general," an investigative source said. "It is our understanding that people in the, and I hate to call it this, 'pedophile community' are angry at Cuomo's office because he's been making the [internet service providers] take responsibility for policing child pornography - and he's been very aggressive in seeking to keep NAMBLA types behind bars through civil commitment." Verizon security officers quickly removed the posting and notified police agencies, including Cuomo's office, sources said. "An aggressive criminal investigation" was then launched with subpoenas issued targeting the Internet site and the person who sent the message, the sources said. Security around Cuomo - normally light to nonexistent - was immediately tightened. The attorney general, who has recently garnered national and international attention through his investigation of huge bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch executives as their firm was being acquired by Bank of America, is now being accompanied during public appearances by several armed investigators who work for his office. Criminal investigators, working with Verizon, tracked the message to a news group maintained by a woman living in a private home in The Bronx. The woman denied any knowledge of the message, allowed investigators to examine her personal computer, and was eventually told she was not a suspect, sources said. "She was clearly not involved," one source said. Investigators, meanwhile, tried to track the source of the message itself - locating a partial e-mail address - but computer-tracing efforts "led to a dead end," according to the source. Cuomo's office has kept at least 75 convicted sexual predators, including several linked to NAMBLA, in state prison under a tough, new civil-commitment law approved in 2007. The measure allows sexually violent offenders to be confined even when their sentences would otherwise be up. A Cuomo spokesman called the threat "an ongoing security matter that we take very seriously." Security surrounding public officials is a sensitive subject rarely discussed openly, but in early 2007, after then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer authorized State Police protection for former Gov. George Pataki, it was revealed that Pataki had been the subject of 146 "high-risk" threats during his 12 years in office. NAMBLA, once a publicly active organization with chapters in New York City and on the West Coast, has largely been driven underground by a series of criminal prosecutions, civil lawsuits and aggressive infiltration by law-enforcement organizations. http://www.nypost.com/seven/03092009/news/...andy_158663.htm

Just the kind of substantive, thoughtful contribution that makes online forums such a pleasure.