Happy New Year to All ...

Although there are times the world seems sort of a grim place to many of us who are older (probably because we can definitly remember when things were _a lot different_ in the world several years ago) things are not all that bad. And although I for one am beginning to see many things in life becoming sort of seedy and thread-bare, and I won't be all that unhappy when my number is called, I can appreciate that many/most of you are just getting started in life and have many more years to go. So it is to you I wish a very happy new year, 2006, and many more of the same.

PAT

How Typical: Government Wants to Blame Whistle Blower

Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer

The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying program.

The inquiry focuses on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, officials said.

The Times revealed the existence of the program two weeks ago in a front-page story that acknowledged the news had been withheld from publication for a year, partly at the request of the administration and partly because the newspaper wanted more time to confirm various aspects of the program.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Justice undertook the action on its own, and the president was informed of it on Friday.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the paper will not comment on the investigation.

Revelation of the secret spying program unleashed a firestorm of criticism of the administration. Some critics accused the president of breaking the law by authorizing intercepts of conversations — without prior court approval or oversight — of people inside the United States and abroad who had suspected ties to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

The surveillance program, which Bush acknowledged authorizing, bypassed a nearly 30-year-old secret court established to oversee highly sensitive investigations involving espionage and terrorism.

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution's war powers provision. They also argued that Congress gave Bush the power to conduct such a secret program when it authorized the use of military force against terrorism in a resolution adopted within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Justice Department's investigation was being initiated after the agency received a request for the probe from the NSA.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been conducting a separate leak investigation to determine who in the administration leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the media in 2003.

Several reporters have been called to testify before a grand jury or to give depositions. New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail, refusing to reveal her source, before testifying in the probe.

The administration's legal interpretation of the president's powers allowed the government to avoid requirements under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in conducting the warrantless surveillance.

The act established procedures that an 11-member court used in 2004 to oversee nearly 1,800 government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

Congressional leaders have said they were not briefed four years ago, when the secret program began, as thoroughly as the administration has since contended.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said in an article printed last week on the op-ed page of The Washington Post that Congress explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in the United States.

"This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas ... but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens," Daschle wrote.

Daschle was Senate Democratic leader at the time of the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. He is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.

The administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress last week, saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said Bush authorized conducting electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella acknowledged "legitimate" privacy interests. But he said those interests "must be balanced" against national security.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press.


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Associated Press.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[PT Note: How very typical of Mr. Bush's government! Instead of being disgruntled about Mr. Bush (or Dubya as I call him for short) gross violation of the law with his spying on US citizens -- in fact he did not even ask for permission to do so -- just went ahead and did it -- the government bigwigs are instead angry at whomever had the audacity to tell the New York Times about it. This really should cause Dubya (the worst president we have ever had at least since Nixon, and maybe earlier than that) to get impeached and run out of office. But no, they won't do that, they will run an investigation for several months on the 'leak', just as they went on and on for a long time with the Watergate scandal which caused Nixon to get the essence of impeachment. Now people may understand what I mean when I sometimes say 'regular citizens should be in prison while the crooks are allowed to run free.']

To discuss this and other topics in this Blog, please go to our IRC chat room area: Social Issues Forum

The Case of the Lewd Long Islander

The Case of The Lewd Long Islander
By Boyd McDonald

In "People v. Thomas Kennedy," the defendant is charged with "public lewdness"; it is alleged that he "while riding on board train 6070 LIRR [Long Island Rail Road] ... did sit across from the complainant and did place both his hands on his clothed penis and rubbed same for a period of approximately six minutes in open view of the complainant in a lewd manner" thus causing complainant feelings of "annoyance and alarm."

The defense failed to point out that there are many millions of men and women who would love to see Thomas Kennedy rubbing his cock, even "clothed," and even with only one hand; that these millions would give him extra points for using both hands; and that he had no way of knowing that the complainant was not this sort of person.

The defense did try to get the charge dismissed on the grounds that "there are no evidentiary facts which allege that he exposed his private parts."

But a certain Judge Robinson (we are supposed to know his first name) in Queens County, New York City Criminal Court declared that "conduct can be found to be lewd without any exposure of private or intimate parts.... Clearly the duration of defendant's rubbing directed the public's attention to his genital area. Moreover such actions are a clear indication of a form of sexual activity [presumably jacking off] that, when done in public is depraved." Therefore, the judge ruled that the motion seeking dismissal of the charge is "denied....This constitutes the decision and order of the court."

The charm of the case is somewhat lessened by the fact that the complainant is a woman, which suggests that Kennedy, so admirable for what appears to be an unusually high degree of sexual heat, is just a common ordinary heterosexual.

Chances are that if the person Kennedy put on this show for had been a man, he too would have complained. In fact men in general are probably more likely to complain about such things than women; men are under more pressure to display heterosexuality than women are and men are probably closer to homosexuality than women are.

The New York Law Journal's report of this case does not say whether, during his six-minute exhibition, Kennedy got a hard on or creamed in his pants. If he did, it would be but a minor mess if he was wearing jockey shorts, which can contain a wad of cum better than boxers. A load of cream would slide through the leg openings of boxer shorts and slide down a man's thighs, thus tainting his trousers and requiring dry cleaning. But even dry cleaning can be fun; the last time I went to my cleaner's the handsome young Hispanic who attended me gave his groin a blatantly sexual squeeze without making any pretense that he was merely relieving an inguinal itch, and a New York Times writer has written (not for the Times but for my own oeuvre) that he licks the asshole of the Puerto Rican who delivers his dry cleaning and then sucks him off. The Puerto Rican is married; the Times man divorced.

The law journal clipping was sent by no less a personage than a professor at a top New York law school. Healthy man. Somewhat less healthy was a New York lawyer who attacked my sexuality in a letter to the New York Native and threatened to kill me-- presumably for not being as nice as he. I feel that to kill me would be in bad taste. Moreover, it is injudicious for a lawyer to issue such a threat. That he was not as chaste as his letter suggested can be seen in his obituary, which lists his C.O.D. as AIDS.

Also dead of AIDS is a gay writer who, in a review in the Advocate, like evaluated books this one as "dirty."

Both of these gentlemen are what I call "wax fruits" in honor of the middle class atmosphere from which they seem to have emerged-- the bowls of wax fruit and artificial flowers scattered through the lovely home, the plastic runner to protect the lovely carpet, the red light bulb behind the plastic logs in the fireplace, the sign in the bathroom reading "Thank you for washing your hands." Both seem to belong to that percentage of homosexuals who hate homosexuality (in themselves and in other homosexuals). They don't really have what it takes to enjoy homosexuality.

Author Profile: Boyd McDonald
Born in 1925 in South Dakota, Boyd McDonald entered Harvard as a high-school dropout after serving in the army in World War II. Jobs with Time, IBM, and several Wall Street firms preceded Boyd's career as a chronicler of gay sex. He was the founder and editor of Straight to Hell (alternatively the Manhattan Review of Cocksucking), and later published a number of anthologies of true sex histories. Boyd died in September 1993, two months after completing his final book, Scum.


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Boyd McDonald, 1989.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Discuss Boyd McDonald or other topics gay by visiting
our IRC chat area:
Social Issues Forum

80 percent of all Priests Jack Off, Study Says

80% of Priests Jack Off, Study Shows

The Roman Catholic church "condemns" masturbation, according to an Associated Press dispatch by George Cornell, but about 80 percent of its priests beat their meat "occasionally."

Cornell bases his statements upon a study of 1,000 priests made by A.W. Richard Sipe, a 57-year-old psychotherapist and lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University medical school.

The study should serve to bring the clergy into closer union with the parishioners, who also pay little attention to the church's sex rules.


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Boyd McDonald, 1992.


[PT Note: Boyd McDonald was the the late editor of the illustrious magazine
Straight to Hell alternately known as The Manhattan Review of Cocksucking, a magazine which was published from sometime in the 1950's until his death in 1993 more or less monthly. Mr. McDonald was very well aware of the scene where Catholic priests are concerned. The first instance of Catholic priests and pedophilia occurred in the middle 1980's in Chicago, and it was not until about 15 years later that the second instance of same, in Boston, exploded and took the church to the verge of bankruptcy in the United States. Boyd McDonald was not very well liked by folks in the so-called 'gay liberation movement' mainly because he was so abrupt and plain-talking about things. I'll do another one of his pieces in the next message I put here. PAT]


To discuss this in more detail, please go to our IRC chat room
Social Issues Forum

Police Get Away With Murder, Literally

This could be retitled 'Ho Hum, What Else is Old News?'

Homicide Ruled in 1966 Police Shooting


A man's death this summer has been ruled a homicide — nearly 40 years after he was shot and wounded.

Los Angeles police shot 23-year-old Malcolm McWilliams during a confrontation on March 7, 1966. He was paralyzed from the waist down but lived for 39 more years, settling in a Dallas suburb.

The coroner examined McWilliams' body and medical records and determined that his ailments — bowel and bladder problems, bed sores, gangrene that cost him some toes — were textbook examples of injuries suffered by somebody rendered a paraplegic from a shooting.

The determination doesn't mean the officers who shot McWilliams acted improperly.


[PAT's note: But of course not; this was just another instance of a Brave, Courageous Police Officer Doing His Thing ... and please continue reading, the man did not even sue the police after they might as well of killed him instead of letting him live as a paraplegic for another 39 years. PAT]

But the 1966 incident will be logged as a fatal officer-involved shooting for 2005.

"This is just kind of an interesting finding after all these years," said Capt. Jim Voge.
(Not that we are going to do anything about it.)

Police shot McWilliams after he threatened his wife and lunged with a 15-inch file at officers responding to an emergency call. McWilliams, age 63 at his death on July 31, never sued police or blamed them for the shooting.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Associated Press.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Welcome to a new group of readers effective today, at BLOGSTREAM.

To discuss this in more detail, go to our forum area Social Issues Forum

Another Victim of the Corrections Industry

Man Jailed for Over a Year Never Given any Lawyer

A man was jailed for more than a year without ever seeing a lawyer as he waited for a repeatedly postponed court hearing, gaining release only after a cellmate told an attorney about the case.

Walter Mann Sr., 69, was released Dec. 16 after a year and three months — more than twice the time he would have served if he had been convicted in his contempt-of-court case.

Mann's legal troubles began in 2002, when his 13-year-old son assaulted him and was sent to a juvenile detention center. Mann, who was unemployed and on disability benefits, was ordered to pay $50 a month for the boy's housing but never did, according to court records.

Prosecutors sought to have Mann held in contempt of juvenile court, which led to an order that he be brought before a judge.

The judge then incarcerated him in September 2004 for three warrants alleging that Mann wrote bad checks. Then he waited more than a year as his contempt case was postponed again and again.

"He wasn't lost in the system," said Sheriff's Department spokesman Sgt. Don Peritz. "We knew he was here ... we hold them until the judge says to hold him no longer."

An October 2004 court docket entry suggests the judge's order was lifted, but Sheriff's Department records do not show it being lifted or Mann's release ordered.

Had he been convicted in the contempt case, he would have served a maximum of six months in jail and faced a $500 fine.

His release came after cellmate Jim Brooks, 64, heard from Mann that he had never seen a lawyer.

"I said, 'Man, why don't you call your people?' He said, 'Nah, I don't want to bother them with anything,'" Brooks said.

Brooks, jailed on minor theft charges, told his public defender, who told another public defender, Shoshana Paige. She made several calls and Mann was released the same day.

"I was shocked, and then part of me was shocked that I was shocked because I've read enough other stories about things like this," Paige said. "This one seems to be pretty egregious."

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Associated Press.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


=======================================


I am reminded of a similar case at Cook County Jail in Chicago several years ago. They had a man who had been in jail for _seven years_ -- a couny jail yet -- who had never had any trial, had only been to court once or twice on preliminary stuff. The problem was he could not speak English and no one knew what he was saying. Police had brought him there on some trumped up charge, then got it off their books but no one ever dealt with it at the County Jail level.

After _seven years_ the jail happened to employ some young guy who spoke the same language. The new social worker spoke to this inmate and was simply astounded at the case. He got it before a judge that same day or the next. Police said the guy had 'littered the street' and 'refused to speak to them' (in a language they could understand, apparently) so they hauled him in to 'teach him a lesson'.

NYC Branch of Chicago Police Red Squad

Today's report, my Christmas Special as it were, was inspired by a regular writer in the TELECOM Digest (my other publication) who was so anxious to mouth off to me in the discussion which started there on the New York transit strike of this past week. I have complained in the past about the generally opressive attitude and posture of police in general. This reader today in the Digest claimed (I loosely quote him) that New York *is not like Chicago* (whose politics raise such a stench I am amazed anyone hangs around there anymore.)

The Chicago Police Department has a so-called 'Red Squad' a branch of Brave and Courageous Police Officers whose duty it is to spy on private citizens, to deliberatly stir up anger and discontent among citizens. Based on the article following from a current issue of my competitor New York Times if the police in New York are anything like those in Chicago -- which they seem to be -- the politics of New York are just as rotten of those in Illinois; there is no real difference. One of the main reasons I split -- got out of Chicago -- for the hinterland of rural s.e. Kansas several years ago was because I could not deal with being sick to my stomach so often by things I saw and heard from police and politicians around the Windy City. So please, do not tell me in any large city or many mid-size towns -- that police and politics are so much better and different. Over all, especially in larger cities, those people are rotten to the core. In Chicago I first learned about the Police Red Squad in the early 1970's during the VietNam war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 22, 2005
Police Infiltrate Protests, Videotapes Show
By JIM DWYER
Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.

In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.

The officers hoist protest signs. They hold flowers with mourners. They ride in bicycle events. At the vigil for the cyclist, an officer in biking gear wore a button that said, "I am a shameless agitator." She also carried a camera and videotaped the roughly 15 people present.

Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

Until Sept. 11, the secret monitoring of events where people expressed their opinions was among the most tightly limited of police powers.

Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at work but said that disguised officers had always attended such gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and provoke trouble.

The pictures of the undercover officers were culled from an unofficial archive of civilian and police videotapes by Eileen Clancy, a forensic video analyst who is critical of the tactics. She gave the tapes to The New York Times. Based on what the individuals said, the equipment they carried and their almost immediate release after they had been arrested amid protesters or bicycle riders, The Times concluded that at least 10 officers were incognito at the events.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, officials at all levels of government considered major changes in various police powers. President Bush acknowledged last Saturday that he has secretly permitted the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant on international telephone calls and e-mail messages in terror investigations.

In New York, the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg persuaded a federal judge in 2003 to enlarge the Police Department's authority to conduct investigations of political, social and religious groups. "We live in a more dangerous, constantly changing world," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.

Before then, very few political organizations or activities were secretly investigated by the Police Department, the result of a 1971 class-action lawsuit that charged the city with abuses in surveillance during the 1960's. Now the standard for opening inquiries into political activity has been relaxed, full authority to begin surveillance has been restored to the police and federal courts no longer require a special panel to oversee the tactics.

Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, said the department did not increase its surveillance of political groups when the restrictions were eased. The powers obtained after Sept. 11 have been used exclusively "to investigate and thwart terrorists," Mr. Browne said. He would not answer specific questions about the disguised officers or describe any limits the department placed on surveillance at public events.

Jethro M. Eisenstein, one of the lawyers who brought the lawsuit 34 years ago, said: "This is a level-headed Police Department, led by a level-headed police commissioner. What in the world are they doing?"

For nearly four decades, civil liberty advocates and police officials have fought over the kinds of procedures needed to avoid excessive intrusion on people expressing their views, to provide accountability in secret police operations and to assure public safety for a city that has been the leading American target of terrorists.

To date, officials say no one has complained of personal damage from the information collected over recent months, but participants in the protests, rallies and other gatherings say the police have been a disruptive presence.

Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a dead cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera - subverted the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made what was a really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made you feel like you were a criminal. It was grotesque."

Ms. Clancy, a founder of I-Witness Video, a project that collected hundreds of videotapes during the Republican National Convention that were used in the successful defense of people arrested that week, has assembled videotape of other public events made by legal observers, activists, bystanders and police officers.

She presented examples in October at a conference of defense lawyers. "What has to go on is an informed discussion of policing tactics at public demonstrations, and these images offer a window into the issues and allow the public to make up their own mind," Ms. Clancy said. "How is it possible for police to be accountable when they infiltrate events and dress in the garb of protesters?"

The videotapes that most clearly disclosed the presence of the disguised officers began in August 2004. What happened before that is unclear.

Among the events that have drawn surveillance is a monthly bicycle ride called Critical Mass. The Critical Mass rides, which have no acknowledged leadership, take place in many cities around the world on the last Friday of the month, with bicycle riders rolling through the streets to promote bicycle transportation. Relations between the riders and the police soured last year after thousands of cyclists flooded the streets on the Friday before the Republican National Convention. Officials say the rides cause havoc because the participants refuse to obtain a permit. The riders say they can use public streets without permission from the government.

In a tape made at the April 29 Critical Mass ride, a man in a football jersey is seen riding along West 19th Street with a group of bicycle riders to a police blockade at 10th Avenue. As the police begin to handcuff the bicyclists, the man in the jersey drops to one knee. He tells a uniformed officer, "I'm on the job." The officer in uniform calls to a colleague, "Louie - he's under." A second officer arrives and leads the man in the jersey - hands clasped behind his back - one block away, where the man gets back on his bicycle and rides off.

That videotape was made by a police officer and was recently turned over by prosecutors to Gideon Oliver, a lawyer representing bicycle riders arrested that night.

Another arrest that appeared to be a sham changed the dynamics of a demonstration. On Aug. 30, 2004, during the Republican National Convention, a man with vivid blond hair was filmed as he stood on 23rd Street, holding a sign at a march of homeless and poor people. A police lieutenant suddenly moved to arrest him. Onlookers protested, shouting, "Let him go." In response, police officers in helmets and with batons pushed against the crowd, and at least two other people were arrested.

The videotape shows the blond-haired man speaking calmly with the lieutenant. When the lieutenant unzipped the man's backpack, a two-way radio could be seen. Then the man was briskly escorted away, unlike others who were put on the ground, plastic restraints around their wrists. And while the blond-haired man kept his hands clasped behind his back, the tape shows that he was not handcuffed or restrained.

The same man was videotaped a day earlier, observing the actress Rosario Dawson as she and others were arrested on 35th Street and Eighth Avenue as they filmed "This Revolution," a movie that used actual street demonstrations as a backdrop. At one point, the blond-haired man seemed to try to rile bystanders.

After Ms. Dawson and another actress were placed into a police van, the blond-haired man can be seen peering in the window. According to Charles Maol, who was working on the film, the blond-haired man is the source of a voice that is heard calling: "Hey, that's my brother in there. What do you got my brother in there for?"

After Mr. Browne was sent photographs of the people involved in the convention incidents and the bicycle arrests, he said, "I am not commenting on descriptions of purported or imagined officers."

The federal courts have long held that undercover officers can monitor political activities for a "legitimate law enforcement purpose." While the police routinely conduct undercover operations in plainly criminal circumstances - the illegal sale of weapons, for example - surveillance at political events is laden with ambiguity. To retain cover in those settings, officers might take part in public dialogue, debate and demonstration, at the risk of influencing others to alter opinions or behavior.

The authority of the police to conduct surveillance of First Amendment activities has been shaped over the years not only by the law but also by the politics of the moment and the perception of public safety needs.

In the 1971 class-action lawsuit, the city acknowledged that the Police Department had used infiltrators, undercover agents and fake news reporters to spy on yippies, civil rights advocates, antiwar activists, labor organizers and black power groups.

A former police chief said the department's intelligence files contained a million names of groups and individuals - more in just the New York files than were collected for the entire country in a now-discontinued program of domestic spying by the United States Army around the same time. In its legal filings, the city said any excesses were aberrational acts.

The case, known as Handschu for the lead plaintiff, was settled in 1985 when the city agreed to extraordinary new limits in the investigation of political organizations, among them the creation of an oversight panel that included a civilian appointed by the mayor. The police were required to have "specific information" that a crime was in the works before investigating such groups.

The Handschu settlement also limited the number of police officers who could take part in such investigations and restricted sharing information with other agencies.

Over the years, police officials made no secret of their belief that the city had surrendered too much power. Some community affairs officers were told they could not collect newspaper articles about political gatherings in their precincts, said John F. Timoney, a former first deputy commissioner who is now the chief of police in Miami.

The lawyers who brought the Handschu lawsuit say that such concerns were exaggerated to make limits on police behavior seem unreasonable. The city's concessions in the Handschu settlement, while similar to those enacted during that era in other states and by the federal government, surpassed the ordinary limits on police actions.

"It was to remedy what was a very egregious violation of people's First Amendment rights to free speech and assemble," said Jeremy Travis, the deputy police commissioner for legal affairs from 1990 to 1994.

At both the local and federal level, many of these reforms effectively discouraged many worthy investigations, Chief Timoney said. "The police departments screw up and we go to extremes to fix it," Chief Timoney said. "In going to extremes, we leave ourselves vulnerable."

Mr. Travis, who was on the Handschu oversight panel, said that intelligence officers understood they could collect information, provided they had good reason.

"A number of courts decided there should be some mechanism set up to make sure the police didn't overstep the boundary," said Mr. Travis, who is now the president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "It was complicated finding that boundary." The authority to determine the boundary would be handed back to the Police Department after the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Sept. 12, 2002, the deputy police commissioner for intelligence, David Cohen, wrote in an affidavit that the police should not be required to have a "specific indication" of a crime before investigating. "In the case of terrorism, to wait for an indication of crime before investigating is to wait far too long," he wrote.

Mr. Cohen also took strong exception to limits on police surveillance of public events.

In granting the city's request, Charles S. Haight, a federal judge in Manhattan, ruled that the dangers of terrorism were "perils sufficient to outweigh any First Amendment cost."

New guidelines say undercover agents may be used to investigate "information indicating the possibility of unlawful activity"- but also say that commanders should consider whether the tactics are "warranted in light of the seriousness of the crime."

Ms. Clancy said those guidelines offered no clear limits on intrusiveness at political or social events. Could police officers take part in pot-luck suppers of antiwar groups, buy drinks for activists? Could they offer political opinions for broadcast or publication while on duty but disguised as civilians?

Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, declined to answer those questions. Nor would he say how often - if ever - covert surveillance at public events has been approved by the deputy commissioner for intelligence, as the new guidelines require.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, New York Times Company

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

To discuss this item in our forum, please go to:
Social Issues Forum

Do You Remember When Being Gay Meant You Were a Criminal and Insane?

As I think back now to all the indignities I suffered as a gay man in my younger years, I have to be reminded of how easy things are for younger gay people today. Today's report, from a gay newspaper in Australia brought back a lot of old memories, and served to remind me of exactly why I am so down on police in general. Read the report, then I will add some comments.


=============================================

Rights activists recall when gay sex was a crime
By Lorna Edwards
December 19, 2005

WHEN Victoria (In this instance, a town in Australia) finally overturned archaic laws that criminalised gay sex in 1980, some community groups feared the worst.

The Concerned Parents Association of Victoria believed decriminalisation of sex between men would unleash an "aggressive social epidemic" while the Reverend Bob Payne of the Frankston Baptist Centre thought all hell had broken loose.

"In terms of moral contamination, I see homosexuality today as akin to the leprosy of yesterday," the outraged reverend railed in The Herald in 1982, calling for the segregation of "sodomites" in Victoria.

As recently as the early '80s, the US had an immigration policy barring entry to admitted homosexuals, and authorities such as the police force said gays had no place among their ranks as they would be susceptible to blackmail.

These views show how far gay rights have progressed since the Hamer government made Victoria the second state in Australia to repeal anti-homosexual laws that had left the gay community open to routine harassment and discrimination for decades.

Even when the Hamer government changed the laws on December 17, 1980, many Liberals and Nationals still had strong misgivings.

National Party leader Ross Edwards said it was impossible for gay men to get real happiness out of life and the then minister for labor and industry Jim Ramsay suggested it would be better to help homosexuals "regain normal sexual behaviour".

Over the weekend, gay rights activists commemorated the 25th anniversary of decriminalisation in Victoria and the subsequent formation of the Alternative Life Styles Organisation, now known as the ALSO Foundation.

Jamie Gardiner, an equal opportunity commissioner and vice-president of Liberty Victoria, remembers the era when homosexuality was very much the love that dare not speak its name. As a young gay activist and president of the then Homosexual Law Reform Coalition, he was at the forefront of the campaign.

Up until 1980, sections of the Crimes Act outlawed the "abominable crime of buggery" and "gross indecency between male persons", but it was the summary offence of soliciting and loitering for homosexual purposes that thousands of men were charged with.

Fearing public embarrassment and the loss of their jobs, few ever contested the charges in court, even when police continued charging men a year after the laws were overturned. (Note: Same thing in USA. Clear into the early 1970's police in Illinois continued charging homosexuals as a routine thing.)

"This was the charge that caused most damage because it was used in an arbitrary and often discriminatory way against gay men in public spaces not necessarily where sex was involved, and it was an offence from which you could not defend yourself," Mr Gardiner said.

In the late '70s, a Melbourne gay couple who reported a burglary found themselves charged with gross indecency after investigating police noticed their apartment had only one bed. Ditto USA. If a gay person got beaten up or bashed by a heterosexual guy, the best thing to do was shut his mouth and take his lumps. IF he chose to tell police what happened police would arrest him, charge him with 'sodomy' and haul him off to prison instead.

The long campaign for decriminalisation included a protest picnic at Black Rock in 1976 following mass arrests by police in the area and a kissing protest staged on Collins Street after two men were convicted of offensive behaviour for kissing there in 1979.

ALSO chief executive Adam Pickvance said that for the gay community the 1980 victory of decriminalisation was akin to women first getting the vote but today many young gay people were unaware of the battle and took their equality for granted.

Copyright 2005 'The Age' (Australian gay newspaper)

**FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, The Age Newspaper.

=====================================

Here in the United States police acted-out with impunity until various times. For example, Illinois was the first state in the USA to totally abolish any/all laws relating to consensual sexual behavior. That was in 1960. Some twenty or so other states gradually changed their laws to decriminalize homosexual behavior over the next thirty years. The final 'holdouts' (if you wish to call them that) finally had their sodomy laws abolished a couple years ago. As those laws were gradually, thankfully tossed out, police generally did NOT obey them unless and until a court somewhere forced them to do so. Police do not like to obey laws -- unless they are laws the police support -- so always assume that any laws which give regular citizens -- like gay people -- more freedom will usually be ignored by police until a final very high court slaps them down and forces them to go along.

If the victim -- the gay person -- had money, of course he got a lawyer and would fight police in the courts, and in each of those instances, when it got to court (with an attorney present to represent the gay person)the victim would be released from custody. In Illinois, where I have some knowledge for instance, until 1960 when the law was changed, police routinely arrested gay men for no other reason than their admitted gayness, (or because police made that detirmination) and the gay men were (according to the laws against 'sodomy) either sent to prison for a period of two to fourteen years _or_ in the later years of the 'dark ages' (the pre-1960 recodification of the law) -- say the 1950's onward -- placed instead in an insane asylum. That is because many of the police and their supporters considered themesleves to be 'more enlightened' as time went on; an insane asylum was considered a better place than a prison.

If police chose to go that route (asylum rather than prison) the rule was you had to stay in the insane asylum for a minimum of two years -- the minimum period of time you would have otherwise been in prison for being gay, no other reason then they would cut you loose on parole to the asylum in the event you 'acted out' any further. In the asylum, technically you were to remain in custody until such time as you were fully and permanently recovered from your 'illness', but of course we know what a crock of shit that thing about your 'illness' is concerned.

As the laws changed, state by state over the next quarter-century or so there would still be instances where gay people would get into sexual situations in public places (or even in the privacy of their home where it was obvious to police) and continue to get arrested, have to spend a slight fortune on a defense attorney (who may or may not have been a sleazy son-of-a-bitch (most of them who did sex cases were in fact sleazy) in order to get out of the mess. I will discuss more about this in another installment here soon.

To discuss this in more detail, go to the Social Issues Forum

Rare Tribunal Accuses Priest of Heresy and Schism

Rare tribunal accuses priest of heresy
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif., Dec. 14 (UPI) --

The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino, Calif., convened a highly unusual tribunal to accuse priest Ned Reidy of heresy and schism, a report said.

"No one's going to be burned at the stake," said diocese spokesman Father Howard Lincoln.

Reidy, ordained in Joliet, Ill., in 1962, said he would not attend the hearing.

Should he receive an excommunication letter in coming weeks, "I won't even open it," Reidy said.

Reidy resigned in 1999 and the next year formed his own church near Palm Desert, Calif., that joined the Catholic Ecumenical Communion.

The new denomination rejects the authority of the pope and priestly celibacy and allows same-sex unions and ordaining women.

Catholic cannon lawyers told the Los Angeles Times they were surprised Bishop Gerald Barnes convened the rare hearing Tuesday, saying he could have simply ruled on Reidy's case.

The diocese said the tribunal's intent is to make people aware Reidy is not functioning as a Roman Catholic priest.

© UPI, Headline News

Gay Marriages in Iowa

Gay pairs sue for marriage rights in Iowa Ann Rostow, PlanetOut Network
Tue Dec 13, 8:17 PM ET

SUMMARY: The Des Moines case increases to seven the states seeing major litigation for marriage equality, and one religious-right pundit is worried.

Lambda Legal has opened a new front in the legal fight for marriage equality, suing the registrar of Polk County, Iowa, on Monday on behalf of six same-sex couples.

In addition to the Iowa case, gay advocates are litigating major marriage suits in six states -- Washington, New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland and Connecticut. The Washington case was argued before the state Supreme Court in March, and a decision is expected at any time. In New Jersey, Lambda Legal will face the state's high court early next year. The cases in New York and California are at the state appellate level, while the Maryland and Connecticut cases are still in the trial courts.

As for their prospects, Christian conservative Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, recently told Focus on the Family's newsletter writers that the fight for equal marriage rights is looking good for the LGBT side.

"They've already succeeded in Massachusetts," he warned. "And I expect that in the relatively near future -- six months to a year maximum -- they will also succeed in New Jersey, Washington state and quite possibly New York." Other court watchers have been more hesitant to handicap the various cases, calling the Washington suit a toss-up.

All these suits are confined to state courts; as a result, the final outcomes may not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, the community's top lawyers hope to delay an eventual high court showdown on marriage rights until more legal victories can be established at the state level and until public opinion can improve.

Lambda's 16-page petition for declaratory judgment, filed Monday in Des Moines on state constitutional grounds, makes the standard case for marriage rights and introduces six couples, three female and three male. The couples represent committed life partners of varying ages and professions who recently tried and failed to obtain marriage licenses at the county registrar.

Under Iowa law, "only marriage between a male and a female is valid." However, the state has not passed a law specifically banning recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, and an anti-marriage constitutional amendment died in the state Senate last spring. Iowa requires two successive votes in two legislative sessions before an amendment can be sent to voters, meaning that an initiative begun next year could not reach voters before 2008.

Although the state does not ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it does include sexual orientation in its hate crime statute, and it does not have any laws against gay adoptive or foster parents.

In addition, the Iowa Supreme Court in June implicitly backed a judge who granted a request of two local women to dissolve their Vermont civil union. The justices rejected an attempt by conservative lawmakers to challenge the decision, ruling that they lacked standing to do so.

Copyright © 2005 Planet Out.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Planet Out.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

To discuss this in more detail, go to our Social_Issues_Forum

I'll Bet Police Were Really Pissed Off by This!

DNA Tests Free Man in Prison 25 Years
By DANIEL YEE, Associated Press Writer

A judge Thursday freed an inmate whose claims of innocence in a kidnapping
and rape went unheeded for nearly a quarter of a century, until DNA evidence
proved him right.

At the end of the 15-minute hearing where Robert Clark was finally granted
his freedom, his attorney Peter Neufeld patted him on the back and said,
"You're free to go, fella." The judge commented "I sure hope there are no
hard feelings because of this".

A smiling Clark hugged and kissed family members, repeatedly saying, "I told
you. I told you."

Clark's mother died and his children grew up and had families of their own
while he sat in prison for a 1981 attack on an Atlanta woman. His lawyers
said DNA from another man matches not only that rape, but two others that
were committed later.

"This is a truly horrific case," said Vanessa Potkin, an attorney for the
Innocence Project, a legal clinic co-directed by Neufeld. "While Robert
Clark was wrongfully convicted, it appears the true perpetrator of this
crime was out there harming women and children."

Clark, 45, was convicted and sentenced to life plus 20 years after a woman
identified him as the man who carjacked her at gunpoint from outside an
Atlanta Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant and raped her repeatedly.

But recent DNA tests showed that Clark - who had no prior adult felony
convictions - did not commit the crime.

Tests against state and federal DNA databases of convicts matched samples
from the rape to Clark's friend Floyd Antonio "Tony" Arnold. Cobb County
prosecutors, who originally convicted Clark, are looking into whether to
seek charges against Arnold, spokeswoman Kathy Watkins said.

Arnold had convictions for sodomy and illegal gun possession when the rape
took place. He is in prison for cruelty to children and is scheduled to be
released Jan. 31.

A search by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation revealed that Arnold's DNA
matched two other unsolved Atlanta area rape cases in 2003, Potkin said.
Arnold has not been charged with either crime.

Clark became the 164th person in the nation and the fifth in Georgia to be
freed through post-conviction DNA testing, according to Potkin. Clark had asked for DNA testing several times in recent years, but prosecutors would never allow it, saying they were certain they had the right man.

Neufeld said an Atlanta law firm has volunteered to look into financial
compensation for Clark. Earlier this year, the Georgia Legislature approved
$1 million for Clarence Harrison, who spent nearly 18 years in prison before
DNA evidence cleared him of rape.

Clark's son, Rodrickus, said he and other family members looked forward to
celebrating his father's freedom.

"He always told me he was innocent. I believed in what he said," he said.
"We can't make up for lost time. I guess we've just got to go on. We want to
go fishing together, take a nice fishing trip."

Clark said he is not sure what his long-term plans are, but he is looking
forward to his first family Christmas in years.

"I won't be able to give them any gifts or anything, but I don't think
they're worried about that," he said. "They just want to have me home."

___

On the Net:

The Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Associated Press.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

As the judge said to the man when he was released from a quarter century
in prison,"Gee, I sure hope there are no hard feelings."
Nah, why should there be any hard feelings; after all it was just a few Brave and Courageous Police Officers doing their thing. In fact I suspect that when the man they had chosen to be guilty got out after 25 years (and not guilty!) it probably pissed them off a lot. After all, they had already given their pronouncement on the matter, and now a liberal judge gives the guy what he was asking for, A DNA test. Who the hell did he think he was, getting loose like that after police had already reached their decision?

To discuss this in detail, go to our IRC Forum Discussion Area

Vatican Bars Gay Teachers As Well

Not content to merely drive away all the gay guys who wish to become priests, now Pope Benedict has decided to crack down on all the seminary teachers as well ... shame, shame, shame!


Vatican bars gay seminary teachers
Richard N. Ostling, Associated Press


SUMMARY: The Vatican instructs Catholic bishops worldwide to ban gays as rectors or teachers at seminaries, and sends teams to look for "evidence of homosexuality" on campus.

A Vatican letter sent privately to Roman Catholic bishops worldwide instructs them to bar men "with homosexual tendencies" from being rectors or teachers at seminaries.


The cover letter, dated Nov. 4, accompanied advance copies of the "instruction" on gays in the priesthood that was released publicly Tuesday by Rome's Congregation for Catholic Education. That office is now supervising inspections of all 229 U.S. seminaries and has directed visiting teams to look for "evidence of homosexuality" on campus.


The cover letter was first reported on by America's Catholic News Service and will be published in Origins, its periodical that prints texts of church documents.


The letter tells bishops that the new Vatican document "does not call into question the validity of" previous ordinations of priests "with homosexual tendencies" or of priests for whom "such tendencies have manifested themselves after ordination," although they are expected to maintain celibacy.


It then prohibits gays from leading or teaching at seminaries. "Because of the particular responsibility of those charged with the formation of future priests, they are not to be appointed as rectors or educators in seminaries," the letter says.


The Vatican instruction itself prohibits seminary enrollment and ordination for men who are actively gay, have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or "support so-called gay culture." Those with only "transitory" homosexual tendencies must be celibate three years before ordination.


The letter also reports that the Vatican has been working on the issue of gays in the priesthood since 1996, long before a massive sex abuse crisis hit the American clergy.


The idea originated when the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- asked the education congregation to prepare an instruction on homosexuals and priestly vocations.


The panel of cardinals that supervises the education congregation discussed drafts in 1998, 2002 and 2005. During the process, the emerging text was reviewed by Ratzinger's doctrinal congregation and six other Vatican agencies. Benedict approved publication of the final text on Aug. 31.


The cover letter does not say what role the late Pope John Paul II had in the project.


Copyright © 2005 Planet Out.

To discuss this topic go to our Social Issues Forum

Women Sex Offenders

More women charged in sex cases
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAYWed Nov 30, 7:03 AM ET

In courtrooms nationwide this month, at least seven women - four of them
teachers - have been charged or sentenced for having sex with boys, mostly
teenagers. One of the women is pregnant.


Tuesday in Georgia, Lisa Lynette Clark, 37, was indicted in the molestation
of her son's 15-year-old friend, who she says is the father of the baby
she's expecting. She was arrested one day after marrying the boy.


No definitive data exists on whether more females are sexually abusing
children. Yet the number arrested for sex crimes has risen in five of the
past six years as more people consider molestation of boys as heinous as
that of girls.


"There's been a decline in the double standard. That's why you're seeing
more of these cases," says David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against
Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. As more women
enter law enforcement, he says the old attitude that boys are willing, even
lucky, participants has changed.


Richard Gartner, a New York psychologist and author of Betrayed as Boys,
says scandals involving Catholic priests and the case of Mary Kay Letourneau
helped focus attention on boys as sexual victims. Letourneau, a former
Washington teacher, had two children in the late 1990s with a former
student, whom she married this year.


Advances are confusing


"It's hard for boys to think of themselves as victims," says Gartner. He
says adult sexual advances are confusing to boys, who are easily aroused
physically but may be uncomfortable emotionally. He says boys are led to
believe they should take sex whenever offered and if they don't, something
may be wrong with them. "It is a trauma for many boys," he says, adding they
may - as adults - realize they lost some of their childhood.


Experts, including Finkelhor, don't know how often women molest kids,
because most offenses are never reported. They say boys, the target of most
female offenders, are less likely than girls to report them. Yet females
account for a rising share of arrests for all sex crimes since 1995,
according to FBI data.


Females account for 4% of those sexually abusing children under 18, a July
2000 Justice Department report found. The report says they account for 12%
of those molesting kids younger than 6.


In the past 18 months, at least 25 cases nationwide involved female teachers
molesting students, says Robert Shoop, a professor at Kansas State
University and author of Sexual Exploitation in Schools: How to Spot It and
Stop It.


In a U.S. Department of Education report released in June 2004, at least 20%
of students reported sexual misconduct - whether verbal or physical - by a
female teacher or aide.


"It is a big problem," says the report's author, Charol Shakeshaft, a
professor at Hofstra University. She says few schools train teachers in how
to identify and handle it. Four former teachers were charged or sentenced
this month for molesting teen boys: Kimberly Ann Cordrey-McKinney, Margaret
De Barraicua, Sandra Geisel and Debra Lafave.


Teen boys are less likely to have sex with older women than teen girls with
older men, but when they do so, the age gap tends to be larger, according to
a report released in September by Child Trends, a non-profit research group.


At least three women sentenced or charged this year were pregnant or
delivered babies: Clark, Tani Leigh Firkins and Rebecca Ann Boicelli. "These
women are psychologically not much older than their victims," says Gartner.
"They're attracted to kids they can handle. They're 14, too."


Sense of power


Shoop says men are more apt to be serial offenders while women typically
focus on one child and go through a falling-in-love courtship. "They see
this child as a significant other," he says, even if they have husbands or
kids. He says they like the sense of power.


"The female sex offender has more social and sexual inadequacies" than other
women, says Susan Strickland, a forensic social worker in Atlanta.


"They come from really weird, bizarre families where they don't get clarity
about boundaries," she says. "They have issues relating to adult partners."
She says female offenders, especially those molesting pre-pubescent kids,
are more likely to have been sexually abused or otherwise traumatized as
kids.

'I'm not the same boy'

Silvia Johnson, a 41-year-old Colorado mom sentenced this month to 30 years
in prison for plying teen boys with alcohol and drugs and having sex with
them, says she wanted to fit in with her daughter's friends.

"I think I fell in love with being part of the group," Johnson said in a
police interview, "because that was never something I was part of, growing
up. I was never in the popular group. Here I was considered the cool mom.
Guys would flirt with me."

Gartner says victimized boys have trouble developing age-appropriate
relationships. He says they are more likely as adults to suffer depression,
anxiety, drug addiction and resort to pornography and one-night stands.

Boys themselves have described their pain in courtrooms. As underage sex
victims, their names are withheld to protect their identity.

"I'm not the same boy. At school I became the center of attention. Everyone
knew my name," said a 16-year-old boy in a letter read in court in
Sacramento, this month. De Barraicua was sentenced to a year in jail for
having sex with him. The boy's mother also wrote a letter saying he has been
so traumatized "his hair is falling out."

The father of a boy molested in Colorado told the court that the offender,
Silvia Johnson, "took away my best friend, my hunting buddy. I can't have
him back now. He is gone."

Some boys defend the adults who molest them. The 15-year-old boy who married
Clark says she never seduced him. "She's done a lot for me, you know," he
told Atlanta TV station WGCL. "She's been good to me."

Yet his grandmother and legal guardian, Judy Hayles, is appalled. She told
ABC-TV her grandson is too young to get a driver's license, let alone become
a father. Asked about Clark, she says, "My skin just crawls thinking about
her."

While more women are getting attention for molesting children, their jail
terms often are less than what men receive. Last week in Tampa, Lafave, 25,
avoided jail time for molesting a 14-year-old student. She got three years
of house arrest and seven years of probation.

With jail time, says Gartner, "we definitely still have a double standard."


Copyright © 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, USA TODAY / Gannett Company.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

To discuss this go to our Social Issues Forum

Cold and Windy

About a month ago I complained here that the weather was 'too hot for this time of year'. Even though it was about the end of October and November was getting under way, temperatures each day were in the 80's and at night about 65. Well, mother nature made up for all that starting at the beginning of this week: temperatures all day in the 40's and overnight in the high teens or low 20's. Windy and blustery. Our Thursday night community supper had very poor attendance this week, partly because of the menu, I guess, and also because of the cold. The Independence Reporter (our daily newspaper) always prints our menu each week and encourages people to attend. Tonight it was beans and cornbread, and some salad. Apparently that was not 'delicious enough' to bring many of the usual crowd around.