Stuck on Stupid with Sexting

This week has been chock full of articles written by people who are supposedly intelligent discussing things with what I can only say is shockingly weak supporting arguments. The latest from Alternet (which seems to have had a good run of this type of stuff of late)Super Prude Prosecutors Charge Teenagers with Pornography and Worse For Sexy Text Messages which leads with:

Sending a nude or semi-nude picture to a friend's cell phone is apparently a crime -- if you're a teen.

Lets understand a few things:

1) Minors, by and large are legally unable to consent to various things. One of those things is to be photographed or filmed while under the age of 18.

2) Minors who are photographed or filmed engaging in sexual activities are legally victims of child pornography. There is no provision that the photographer be a certain age.

3) the Dissemination of photographs or video featuring a nude minor engaged in sexual activities is a crime. It's called distribution of child pornography.

Now it is apparently clear that parents have their heads stuck in the ground regarding these little facts. Furthermore; while many parents rail about sex-offenders living in their neighborhoods, they are completely blinded to the idea that their little boy or girl is in fact a sex-offender. And many of them are now caught in the "careful what you ask for situation." Of course little Johnny is not like THOSE men out THERE. Sure. Whatever.

Somewhere along the line the parents neglected to inform their sons and daughters about the RESPONSIBILITIES that comes with this thing called a camera-phone. Let's take for example the young man who was on Good Morning America a couple of weeks back. His ex sent him pictures of herself. They broke up, he got mad, posted the pictures to the Web. Boo-Hoo. Now he's a registered sex offender.

Back to the Alternet piece though. I'm not saying that girls and boys ought to be barred from sending certain types of photos to each other. However; it needs to be understood that the photo in question is only for the recipient. Any other distribution of the photo/video is dissemination. That needs to be clear. Paedophiles love it when these guys (and gals) post this stuff to the net and I believe this is asking for legal trouble. If a teen can give permission to have her picture taken then why can't any OTHER man be in possession of said material? Or for another example is a porn star from the 70's or 80's, I can't recall her name but she starred in a few films before it was found out that she was under-age. Being in possession of any material of her when she was underage can land you in jail even though she willingly performed, willingly signed contracts, and is now "old as dirt."

I simply cannot see how if it is allowed that a minor can view and distribute what is legally child pornography, that one can prosecute and convict an adult for the same. Oh I can see the emotional arguement, but if justice is blind, that won't fly.

Meanwhile I suggest parents have serious sit down's with their children if they are giving them phones or other devices capable of multimedia. I think schools should hold assemblies or hand out documentation about the relevant laws. A part of growing up is learning the rules.

RE:'I Was Raped' Should Horrify

An agreeable article marred by faulty writing. Let's take for example this:

Clearly this was not a fun experience for Kitsch, and you feel for him. Doing badly 
on an audition sucks. But it does not suck as much as sexual assault, something that happens every two minutes in America.

My dictionary defines rape as "The unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse," is experiencing a dangerous shift in meaning.*

My first and major objection here is the apparent equivocation of "rape" with "sexual assault." Yes all rapes are sexual assaults. No, all sexual assaults are not rapes. Yet this, and a great deal of other writings on the subject continuously (and I believe purposely) exchange the two. Clearly it is easier to, and more "shocking" to make a statement about something that happens every two minutes (a statistical argument) rather than one that may happen, statistically speaking, once every five minutes (and that's a quick hack up based on 1996 numbers 71/100,000 females and using the current US population of 300,000,000 divided in half. the rates of rape have dropped since then).

Also given that a great deal of rapes occur between people who know each other, it's not likely that on average a woman outside of a war zone is going to be grabbed up by a man.

So that 'quibble" aside, we get to the next problem. The use of rape by people to describe bad situations they've found themselves in. While I can see the point of the author that the random use of the phrase "raped" to describe a non-sexual intercourse situation, I think it also is a recognition of rape as a power play by the rapist imposed upon his or her victim. If one says one feels "raped" by a certain situation, one is saying that one felt powerless and victimized by the other party. Usually when I've heard the term used, it is in connection with the taking of something valuable or a great defeat. So in a sense those wishing to get the point across that rape is about power have succeeded.

I think that if the author is serious about keeping rape "serious", then I think it should start with not exchanging the general category of sexual assault (which can be an unwanted pinch on the ass), with rape.

Andre 3000 speeding in GA

Apparently he was caught doing 109 in a 65 in his Porsche. I ask: Is that all? I had a rented Mercury Sable which I hit the rev or speed limiter on between Tuskegee and Montgomery. On the NJ Turnpike I hit 116 MPH in a rented Taurus and the best Andre could do in his Porsche was 103? Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy.

And dude if you're going to push that kind of speed you need to have a built in omni-directional radar/lidar detector/jammer. Seriously.

The dumb part though is the law that Ga wants to pass a law adding an additional $200 fine for speeds over 85 MPH. 85? Clearly these idiots haven't been to Michigan, where going 85 will get you passed by grannies.

Anyway the problem is not the extremely rare 1 ton crowd out there. It's the damn cell phone users. I mean I've seen fools driving through parking lots while texting! But in a country full of nervous nellies 85 MPH speed surcharges scores political points. Asking people to pay attention to their driving: not so much.

LG Shine and Nokia N800

If you're looking for a phone to use as to tether your N800 to the net sans wifi, the LG shine works out of the box with the standard N800 Diablo OS. Inexpensive with a contract (free at some places with contract).

Technorati Tags: N800

New iPod Shuffle

So Apple has released a new Shuffle.

Clearly the person who made the decision to put the controls on the earbuds doesn't run or has had earbuds fall out repeated during runs. They obviously don't think you could possibly prefer to use other headphones. I was in the market to replace my now dead shuffle. I guess not.

RE:New Mac Mini Misses the Mark for Small Business

PC World Writes:

Now, back to what I did not realize: There is no way to add a second network adapter to a Mac mini. Apple does not offer one, nor do any third parties. I called tech support to inquire about my options and decided that running Leopard Server with only one network card was not a very good idea. I abandoned the project.

Five minutes of Google:

Mac USB-Ethernet Adapters:

I understand Apple's USB-to-Ethernet adaptor should work on other Macs running Leopard 10.5.2 or later (Daniel Sumorok has verified this)

Will PC World pay me?

Good For Coach Calhoun

I saw that the Governor of Conn. claimed that Coach Calhoun was an "embarrassment" for the way he answered a question about his salary. I say the Governor ought to have kept her mouth shut. Clearly Calhoun did not appreciate being questioned about his salary. It was clear from when the question was started; "Not a dime back."

Sometimes reporters ask some assinine questions and sometimes they try to act like they are owed an explanation for anything that pops into their heads. This particular disease is in evidence with Senator Burris, where certain news organizations have, in my opinion, willfully distorted his testimony in order to push a particular agenda.

In Calhoun's case it was that he is the highest state employee at $1.6 million/year. The reporter was attempting to make the point that with the state in a budget crunch (which is most of the time), there may be something amiss for the Coach to be making so much. Calhoun clearly didn't feel so and made the excellent point that the team he coaches brings in $12 million a year. He gave a nice hint to this issue when he said "what was the take?" meaning how much money did the game they just played bring in to the University of Connecticut. See unlike the Wall Street people. He does his job and brings a direct monetary benefit to the state. In light of that the question was rude and I'm glad Calhoun put the reporter in his place.

Also as Calhoun pointed out, the press meeting was about the game, not Calhoun's salary. As he pointed out the reporter would have been free to see Calhoun after the report or at any other time since Calhoun can be found on campus for his position on his salary rather than try to call him out.