I realize this is an unpopular and unusual perspective. As a father, these things concern me. However, this stuff is getting out of hand. The next thing they'll do is start a network just for To Catch A Predator.

I'm sure that probably all of you have seen the show To Catch A Predator on MSNBC or the highlights shown on Dateline NBC. At first I thought "Holy crap! These are just the guys they're catching at that location on that particular day! There must be millions of these people!" How alarming. I'm pretty sure that the makers of the television show hope that we think just that - we're beseiged by sexual predators just waiting for an easy opportunity to molest our children. Watching more "To Catch A Predator" is the only solution.

There are really two problems with this as I see it. The first is a simple sampling error. These scenarios where a guy shows up at some house to meet a willing teenager are stings. Of course, the fine fellows that are chatting online with who they think is a young teen, are not among our society's finest. They are basically guys with too much time on their hands, poor judgement, and just basically losers. So they get in these chat rooms and lo and behold they "accidently" stumble into a chat with a willing teen, who just happens to say all the right things. They are sexually curious, interested in older men, and willing to meet a complete stranger for sex. Wow, and is it surprising that these internet losers sometimes go along with it and show up at a house?

Here's the problem... If these fellows were on a normal chatting session they may have a vague intention of chatting to a young teen, but probably not much more planning than that. Normally, real young girls (or boys) will not encourage these guys. They won't even chat with them, let alone offer sex. They'll simply see that there is some sicko online and block that person. End of story. These guys are surely capable of having bad judgement; the kind of judgement that may make it seem rational to go to the house of a teenager's parents in hope of having sex. Yes, the potential for that terrible judgement is there. But, it almost always has to be they never have the opportunity to indulge their bad judgements. "To Catch A Predator" creates an artificial situation designed specifically to indulge these individuals, and they find them. But I don't for one minute think that this is an epidemic. The sampling error is due to specifically targeting this population of men. It's not representative. The men are self-selecting themselves into the the pool by getting on the chat, then the show goes further by luring them in with exactly the right words. I think we can rest safely that this is not going on ten fold. Without question, there are people around us everyday who may be susceptible to terrible judgement if they get in one of these chat rooms. But it rarely goes past the chat room.

The second problem with all of this is the fact that it's entertainment. On the one hand, the show may discourage some guys from following through with a real encounter (which I'm theorizing is very rare). Those with slightly better judgement may think twice before going to the house because they don't want to be on MSNBC. So there is theoretically a deterrent effect. However, for all the rest of us, it's plain and simple voyeurism. We enjoy relishing the embarassment the guys go through. We laugh at them and respond with horror, and it's all a bunch of good fun. MSNBC is getting great rating from these shows. Why? Because we love to watch the humiliation.

Are some of these guys complete creeps? Probably. The naked guy is clearly insane. He's a total compulsive sex addict. The rest of those guys simply have bad judgement. If placed in the situation, they'll make the wrong choice. Fortunately, the situation is rare. Consequently, the show is far more about public humiliation than serving a useful purpose. They could snare those few true predators without putting them on TV. I don't pretend to think the issue of sexual predators and the internet is simplistic, but it isn't the way it's presented on "To Catch A Predator".

Labels: Catch, Dateline, MSNBC, Predator

Months of newspaper and magazine reading and television watching have led to me to one conclusion: Our leaders are letting us down. They are doing the wrong thing by the American people and the Iraqi people. We have a moral obligation and we're backing down.

I'm more discouraged than ever about the current state of political discourse in this country. More to the point, I'm discouraged about Iraq. I don't like the way either Democrats or Republicans talk about the issue. I don't like it when the Democrats say that we need deadlines and benchmarks and that the US should redeploy troops or bring them all home now, or in 2008. And, I don't like it when Republicans say that we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, and that if we leave it would be a victory for the terrorists, and that if we set a deadline for troop withdrawal they bad guys will just wait us out, and that we must "win" and "achieve victory". This rhetoric has been going on for at least since 2004 and it's getting the country nowhere.

The Democrats are saying what they think the left wing of the party wants to hear while trying not to put off conservative Democrats too much by going completely anti-war. Essentially, very few Democrats have a sensible strategy. They may have personal opinions but they don't say them. Publically, the line is that Iraq is a distraction from the War On Terror (boo!), so we should get out as soon as possible. That position is mostly crap. Likewise, the Republicans are saying what they think the right wing of the party wants to hear while paying lip service to moderates and brushing off the Democrats. Consequently, the Republicans as led by George Bush have a strategy. Their strategy is to keep trying to achieve victory, even if the meaning of "victory" is more than a little unclear. The Republicans frame Iraq in win/lose terms, victory or defeat, as if it were a straightforward old fashioned war. Obviously that's a bunch of crap as well.

My opinion is that the US should never have invaded Iraq. I thought it in 2002. I thought it on the day before the war started, and I still think it. It goes without saying that I never voted for George Bush. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter because George Bush became president under the rule of law of the United States, and now we're four years into this war. The US did go into Iraq, and made a huge mess. Even if it gets better someday, this is all a total disgrace. Nonetheless, I believe that the United States has an obligation to do right by those people. We screwed up their country. We unseated a cruel dictator, but his rule was better than the way it is now. The way I see it is that we owe the Iraqi people big time. Some anti-war people may chafe at such a suggestion that WE are obligated to get Iraq right because they, like I, was never for the war and never voted for Bush. However, this is the United States. The President represents all of the people, not just the ones who voted for him. That's the deal. If one lives in the United States, that's part of it. Read the Constitution.

Now, I will fully admit that I have no idea what "doing right by those people" entails. It could very well be leaving tomorrow. Or it could be the troop surge, or it could be setting a deadline. Or it could be letting them fight it out among themselves and then having a Marshall Plan for what remains. I don't know. Thats fine because I don't have to know, but I don't think any of our leaders know either.

What I think should happen, and what I think the American people should be demanding is that our elected leaders get together and figure this thing out properly. Talk to experts, talk to scholars, talk to the military brass, talk to the troops, talk to Iraqis of all sects, look at history, then put it all on the table and determine the best way forward as a country. And I mean that both Democrats and Republicans should stop playing politics with this and have the courage to do the right thing. One thing the Republicans and Bush have right is that the stakes are high, and that leaving Iraq in a mess could be calamitous in the long run. I don't think the course they are pursuing is going to prevent that, but at least they know the stakes. The Democrats have to admit that even though they hate the war, they have to deal with it. It's real and it's bad and it's not going away. They have to be willing to forsake the anti-war faction in their party just as the Republicans have to be willing to forsake the pro-war faction in THEIR party.

I have absolutely no expectation that the above scenario will actually happen. The closest we came to it was the Iraq Study Group. Each member was out of politics, spend a great deal of time on the issue, and as a group they had to reach consensus. The only thing missing is what I feel is the moral obligation to do right by the Iraqi people whose lives we have destroyed either by death, death of family members, injury, or dislocation. We have a moral obligation that is bigger than George Bush or the new Democratic majority. I simply wish someone would have the courage to take this position. That person would win the presidency.

Labels: bush, democrats, iraq, republicans

In the time since I last posted, it seems like blogs have become even more usual. I have used this site to post my opinions about various things. So have I not had any opinions in the last year? Unfortunately no.

The main reason I haven't posted anything in over year is because I couldn't figure out how to fix the way Firefox rendered the left sidebar. This was so discouraging that I didn't want to deal with it at all. On at least two occasions I tried to fix the problem and failed. Finally, I struck gold and got the sidebar to render properly.

So many things have happened over the past year, and I've had opinions about all of them. I missed out on the mid-term election, more Iraq mess, Britney Spears going crazy, Anna Nicole Smith dying, and probably some more stuff that I forgot.

I don't really think anyone reads this stuff; certainly not now. Why bother? Its always the same. Some of blog friends have gone belly up altogether. That is always a possibility for me too, but for now I'm just going to see how it goes.

No one else is saying it. I have no idea why. Sometimes it seems like I'm the only genius around. Well, I'm going to break ranks and suggest what somebody who actually has power should have DONE a long time ago!

As some of you may know, the U.S. Senate is about to vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to send his confirmation to the floor for a vote by the full Senate. And we should all be honest with ourselves why the vote was split this way - abortion. The Democrats HAD to vote against Alito because he may very well find no Consitutional grounds for allowing abortions. The Republicans HAD to vote FOR Alito for the same reason.

See, no matter what else the man said or what his views were on other issues, or how he answered questions, the votes were basically going to be split. This is simply an example of what goes on in the larger body politic - pandering to the base on the abortion issue.

My suggestion is that Democrats give up the ghost on this one. Its time to stop opposing restrictions to Roe v Wade. In fact, Democrats should simply stop opposing ALL effort to restrict and outlaw abortion. This makes sense for so many reasons that it should be obvious. But I'll spell it out a little.

Most Americans do not want to make abortion illegal. They only want to restrict abortion in certain cases, particularly when the fetus is viable. Only the very religious oppose abortion in all cases. But because of their fervent disapproval of abortion, there is a politicized evangelical movement which is capable of raising tons of cash, and turns out on election day. Make no mistake, this movement is fueled entirely by abortion. Things like gay rights and the other cultural issues are mere appetizers for the main abortion course.

Democrats have a radical base that wants to abort actual babies. These people are a big part of the base. What I'm saying here is that Democrats should cast these people into the ocean by ceasing to oppose restrictions to abortion. They shouldn't switch over to the anti-abortion position. Rather, they should simply stop fighting. In time, it will become nearly impossible to get an abortion. The evangelicals will give their thanks to God every Sunday, erect large memorials to the aborted and generally lose their purpose in politics.

Meanwhile, Democrats will be on the popular side of this issue with a good majority of Americans wishing to ease restrictions. The entire impetus for political action will have switched sides. Democrats won't need to worry about that small group of disaffected abortion fans that feel betrayed by the Democrats. Between the loss of the force of the evangelicals and the voters who want their abortions back, those old "pro-choice" people will be irrelevant.

Do you think this is giving up principles? Maybe, but so what?! Have any of you seen what these elected officials do once they win office on the backs of evangelical voters. They wreak havoc in every area of public life EXCEPT abortion. Yes, abortion is perfectly legal. President Bush isn't even trying to outlaw it. It isn't a priority in Congress either. See, the Republicans are smart. They want to keep the issue out there for the exact reason that I'm talking about here.

What Democrats are doing by opposing abortion restrictions is allowing the country to turn into a impoverished piece of shit imperial state that is hated by the world. It isn't worth it. Abortion shouldn't be THAT important. No one is going to be paying $1400 gas bills and going without their medication while thinking "At least abortion is still legal. Thank you Democrats!".

When people are enjoying themselves, it is my duty as a patriotic American to be dismal and nasty.

I live in Pittsburgh. Perhaps some of you readers know that already. Long time readers may even "remember" a post I made last year called Pittsburgh, Where I Live. Usually, my posts have nothing to do with Pittsburgh. Hopefully, there is nothing in my posts to indicating that I'm even from Pittsburgh. I suppose saying so will have to not count. But because of some recent football events, I must comment on some Pittsburgh-related topics.

Yes, football. It is what average Pittsburghers, and their ever increasing suburban-folk have come to life for. I will admit that when the Steelers were a great team in the 70s and went to the Super Bowl four times, there was no bigger fan than yours truly. Now lets get something straight, though. I was nine years old the last time the Steelers won the Super Bowl. Heck, sometimes even seeing those old players, and the Steelers logo brings me a pleasant nostalgic feeling.

My objection here is to basically everyone who is not nine years old. This city has gone mad I tell you. Everyone is running around in black and gold (a very unflattering color combination, mind you). The major newspaper ran a story on the front page about which Steelers were the "hottest". This is big news in Pittsburgh. I hope nothing else happened that day. Everywhere you go there are stickers and signs. One unfortunate fellow decided to combine his patriotism with his enthusiasm for the Steelers in a wonderful horrible flag.

I have to assume that most other cities would be the same. I have to "assume" this because the alternative is too terrible. Hundreds of thousands of people, in my city, with their hopes and dreams absorbed in the ups and downs of a professional football team is truly frightening to me. After the victory on Sunday, hundreds (or thousands) of them poured out on to the city streets in a celebratory fervor. It looked like Nazi Germany to me.

So what do I want then? What would I have these fine folk do? What should "shake your black and gold ass girl" do instead? What should "Steelers and American flag guy" do? What on EARTH should all of these people do.

God, maybe read a book? How about learning the names of a couple US Supreme Court judges? Or the name of your congressman? Or how about debating which Pennsylvania State House Congressmen are the hottest? Seriously, this maddening behavior is acceptable ONLY in nine year old children. Anyone older than that should know better. People in their 20s and 30s should be locked up for these antics.

Yes, I wish to spoil everyone's fun. I am truly a sour creature.

Remember when the internet was kind of cool? No? Me neither. So why am I here? Oh yeah, another misanthropic rant.

Just when I thought the internet had reached its apex of banality, I'm proven wrong. In fact, I'm even wrong-er than usual. Aside from this web page, what else is there really? There's like... Amazon, some site about poodles, a whole lot of porn, and this douchebag's site on "myspace". So lets discuss...

I found that site randomly. And yet it is a fine example of everything that is wrong with the internet. This individual states that "I like to laugh at and with people. I like to have fun and drink some alcohol." Sounds like a real character, eh? Then he states "That's all for now." as if there is some more to come, but just not now. Fortunately sites like myspace exist to expose such profundity to the world.

Hey, look he has a lot of cutie friends doesn't he? Well, I was enjoying The Smiths until I clicked on one of them and the sound of some lonely jerk plunking away on his guitar took over from Morrissey. After the first line of the song, I quickly clicked away from the page. Too bad, she probably had the cure for pain.

And that is what is has come to. Hosting pages like "Myspace" have millions of users with their own "pages". I assume they provide some editing capabilities, but it looks like everyone does the same things: puts a huge picture in the background, plays a terrible song, takes a picture of themselves from the side, and chooses the worst possible and most unreadable font available. Myspace has taken the internet back to 1996. I wonder how many dancing jesus pics are lurking on Myspace pages.

These sites purport to serve some purpose. If I'm not mistaken, the point is to "network". Now, why on EARTH junior high school kids need to network is beyond me. No good can come of it. Isn't going to school enough? Clearly not. I have to assume that all of the jerks in school have pages and all of their friends have pages and they are all "friends" of each other and they all cross post to each other's pages. It seems like some sort of reverse mutually assured destruction among the teen set. No self-respecting non-cool kid would have one of these myspace things. No, they would have a "blog" filled with page after page of myopic senselessness about "life" and "religion". Although, apparently myspace has been a boon for pedophiles. I wonder why.

Oh, this is success. So now, in addition to stupid blogs (which was bad enough), and all of the porn and spam, we now have this junk. Myspace isn't the only one either - but its the most popular. Its getting to the point where I wish terrorists would fly a plane into the whole internet. Sure, I wouldn't have this site anymore, but I could live without it in just as much obscurity. I would lose a couple things I enjoy but sending letters would be okay too. When is the last time you received a letter from a real person?

I know that someday I'm going to quit. I'll sign-off and pretend the internet doesn't exist. The damn internet has brought me closer to things I like and things I hate. At the moment, I think I'd rather have to work for it a little harder.

Something I know about myself that I will now share with the world.

I'm generally a fairly passive fellow. And maybe even a little passive aggressive. Anyone who has ever dealt with passive people of either type can tell you that there are going to be some problems. And even though its problematic for everyone, its virtually impossible to change.

I offer this as a prelude to a related concern. I have also realized that I'm a dickhead. Normally, I just go around thinking "Oh, I'm not a dickhead. That guy is a dickhead, but I'm not a dickhead, blah, blah, blah...". But I'm wrong. All of the people that I think of as "dickheads" are in fact, people with much more assertiveness than me. Hell, sometimes they may even be some hostile fuckers, but it doesn't matter. The reason why they aren't REAL dickheads is because they dole out their dickhead-ish-ness in small doses. A beating here or a yelling there or a well placed "go fuck yourself" in tiny increments is like a little too much salt in your potatoes. See, you can still eat the potatoes - they're just a little salty.

You will hear these folks described as "dickheads", but that is really just a short hand way of saying "He/she does a lot of really stupid or insensitive things, but deep down he/she's a really nice guy. You just have to get to know him/her". Their actual words are even dismissed and rationalized away as "Oh, he doesn't really mean that". Even individual acts of shittyness can be ascribed in terms of severity. "Oh that's nothing. Last week he took a shit in the sink". Sometimes, it comes down to "He's retarded. I mean he's literally retarded".

And now for the reason why those people ARE NOT dickheads, and I AM. It all comes down to my comments about passivity. See, someone like myself doesn't say shit. I think a lot of things, but I keep my mouth shut. Hell, I don't even DO anything. I usually just lie back and take it in. Except I'm also frequently building up an terrible anger. Most people will look at me, or think of me, and think that I'm a nice guy. And for the most part it will be true. And the less they know me, the longer it will be true.

What will eventually happen is that I totally lose it. I get fed up, or simply lose my temper. And then I say what I've been thinking, or maybe I say only some of what I've been thinking. And thats when people realize that I'm a dickhead. And...? There are no handy excuses. It doesn't get dismissed. I don't get any do-overs. Why? Because I have no dick headroom! Regular dickheads are dickheads so much of the time that they have pushed the normal social boundaries so far that they actually have different standards than other people. Consequently, they have a lot of room to do some seriously shitty things and totally get away with it. Me? I have no room for this sort of thing. When I fuck up, I have nowhere to manuever. I haven't built up a wonderful history of dickishness to buffer my occasional individual acts of dickishness. No dick headroom. Back to my potatoes analogy: you can't eat the potatoes I'm serving up because I didn't give just a little too much salt. I emptied the whole salt container on your damn potatoes. Try to eat them now!

This leaves me with a predicament that I'm unlikely to solve soon. I could try to build a reserve of dickish behavior in order to protect myself from later recrimination. But thats just not in my nature. And I'd probably only further be seen as a dickhead. It takes a lifetime to build a reserve of "good" will to offset dickhead behavior. And I'm pretty sure you can't consciously do it. It has to seem innocent. So, I guess I'm screwed.