Sarah Palin’s atheist bikini
posted at 6:04 pm on April 13, 2009 by The Other McCain
Allahpundit’s been using atheism and Sarah Palin as traffic generators, and I’m the guy that pulled 250K visits in September by titling a post “Sarah Palin bikini pics,” so why not try to start out with a bang?
Just so you don’t feel you got nothing out of this test post, however, via Hot Air Headlines comes this bizarre story from Vermont:
The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called “sexting” between teenagers.
Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.
Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don’t want to condone the behavior but they don’t think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.
Further thoughts on the slow slide down the slippery slope at The Other McCain.
UPDATE: Headlined! Wow, thanks. I feel as happy as Susan Boyle!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
You’d be amazed at the things that our administrators find in cell phones taken away from students…and the parents never have a clue. Sex scenes, kids with guns brandished gansta-fashion, drugs, you name it. Staff regularly (a couple of times a year) catch students copulating on campus (there’s a “list” of places around campus that the kids try to do during high school–the tennis courts, D-wing stairwell, etc.).
If you had every kid who had a picture of himself while his girlfriend is taking care of business (the second most common photo), half our kids would be sexual predators (yes, that’s hyperbole). There’s got to be a better way, starting with some serious parental education–when you have a high school student, his/her parent, and grandparent all under 40, you know you have a problem that is more than some grainy boob photos (the first most common photo). It’s generations of people who never get out of their teen years. You learn parenting from your parents, and if they are only 15 they probably aren’t in possession of many mad parenting skilz.
Bob's Kid on April 13, 2009 at 10:15 PM
May I assume that neither Hollowpoint nor MadisonConservative are parents themselves?
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Can we leave “ooh their permanent record” for these little pervs out of the argument already?
These are minors and they aren’t being charged as adults. Nothing they do short of murder is going to follow them for the rest of their lives and unless they have a record a mile long already they aren’t getting anything more than probation.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
I’m not. I’m 26 and graduated high school 9 short years ago. Yes, we had cell phones and internet and all the rest. My parents still kept me from doing too much, as was done with my friends, my brother’s kids, etc.
Now go ahead and tell me how it’s different now and you either have to call the cops or beat them.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Sex offender registry. Familiar with it, and what you have to do when you’re on it?
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 PM
May I assume that you’re now conceding that you’ve lost the argument? Or would you rather just dodge the questions and arguments made against your own some more?
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Yes I am. Go ahead and search them. You won’t find a minor on one and you won’t find an adult on one for an offense committed as a minor.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 10:38 PM
I think you are safe with that assumption. If they were they would realize the problem is not with people having trouble disciplining their kids but with the people who refuse to.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Took me all of 30 seconds to find one.
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
–
OK, just wanted to confirm a hunch that my beliefs about parental authority were being questioned by non-parents.
Hollowpoint: Let me begin by saying that my tendency in argument is (a) pick a side, and (b) employ every available means of forensics and rhetoric toward vindicating my point. Or at least making people who agree with me feel like there’s somebody smart who’s on their side.
In this case, I see Vermont’s what’s-a-little-porn-between-kids loophole as a precedent whose potential ramifications are dangerous. The Founders had a tremendous concern with precedent, and wisely so. The problem is that we are already far down the slippery slope, and it is hard to disentangle the numerous points of the argument in such a way as to satisfy everyone.
MadCon: I don’t beat my kids. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to beat my kids. I also don’t own a .44 Magnum, but I have the right.
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Wait…did you just say you had the right to beat your kids?
And you’re making an implication about being told about parenting by non-parents?
Niiiice.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM
He was 16 and had sex with a 13 year old, not took pictures.
He wasn’t charged with child porn.
He was facing 25 years and got what? Probation and Accelerated Rehab, he got it. It’s a total bureaucratic screwup he was ever even on the registry. This story is from November 2008. By now he already has a lawyer and is on his way to a big payday.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I want my money back.
The Other McCain = Don King
LevStrauss on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Think again.
Still required to register, and will be unless the law is changed. And yes, it was for a different scenario, but the point is that your contention that there is no one on the sex offender list for crimes committed as a juvenile is false.
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Who is “The Other McCain”? Introduce yourself, Sir!
long_cat on April 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM
MadCon: Did your parents never spank you?
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 11:16 PM
By the way…I’d love to see a correlation of the sudden crackdown on children for sex crimes, and the emergence of the “To Catch A Predator” series of Dateline episodes.
Not that I would dare to imply that television influences public attitude towards policy.
Never.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Robert Stacy McCain
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Except your “arguments” have thus far consisted of:
1. “That would take too long to answer”
2. “Since parents aren’t allowed to beat their children, they aren’t able to punish them and thus we need a law”.
3. “Kids who send each other nude pics = juvenile drug dealers”
4. If you’re not a parent, you can’t have an opinion on the proposed legislation.
You’ve thus far not been very effective in defending your argument. Unless you really want to pursue the angle of “I have the right to beat my kids, but because it’s illegal we need the justice system to discipline them instead”.
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM
TOM: Have you never broken the speed limit? Illegally downloaded an MP3?
Because you have done something doesn’t mean you had the right to do it. People seem to make that mistake quite often.
Go ahead. Beat your kids, and send a videotape of the incident to Child Protective Services, so they can stop by and enlighten you on your “rights”.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Yeah I saw that Hollowpoint. The little pecker is really embarrassed isn’t he? Been on TV and radio a number of times now.
The story is total BS. I searched the OK Registry. There are 44 Rickys on the list. Only one of them is under 28 years old and that one is 20.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Mad Con: As to the the effects of television, etc., on kids, what you’re dealing with is a two-fold problem in modern child-rearing:
1. NON-PARENTING — Single-parent homes and/or two-career families tend to deprive children of the influence of direct parental supervision.
2. LACK OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY — Our child-centric culture tends to invert the natural hierarchy, so that too many parents spend all their time jumping through hoops in an effort to please their children. In a sane world, children strive to please their parents. But in contemporary America, children exercise more authority than their parents, and everything else follows in train.
I note your horror when I assert that the parent has the right to employ corporal punishment. It is only very recently — the mid-1970s — that corporal punishment fell into such disrepute. Were American children prior to 1975 universally victimized?
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 11:30 PM
It is only very recently, the 1950s, that corporal punishment against your wife fell into disrepute. Were American women prior to 1955 universally victimized?
Either way, your question is moot. It’s a question of what we as a society recognize as wrong, and such things change over time. My fiancee’s grandmother once whacked her straight across the face as a child. As a result, her mother never took her to see her grandmother again.
It’s no more your right to whack your child across the face than it is for me to react by whacking you across the face. However, you seem to have backpedaled on the term usage, so I’ll assume you had a momentary lapse of civics awareness.
I agree that the relationship between parents and children has grown out of whack, but that is not the fault of the children. It’s the fault of a great many parents who have not themselves grown up yet. The answer to the lack of parenting on their part is not a demand that the state step in and take over. Quite to the contrary, such action is exactly the kind of thing that authoritarians in the government would want: to cut the parents out entirely and raise obedient, mindless drones. Yielding to the presumed advantage the government has in child-rearing is a frightening step in that direction.
Now, parent or not, it’s pretty damned simple. If they ask for a phone, you force them to have to justify it for emergencies. You then get them the cheapest phone possible, set only to contact you, with no picture or texting capabilities. If they manage to get a phone on their own, you either take it away, or routinely check it. If you don’t know how to use the damned thing, find out how.
Your arguments indicate that you are yielding parental authority while defending only corporal punishment as a parental ability. That’s out of whack to an alarming extent. Take the phone away, put the PC in the living room so you can see where they go, etc etc. Be a parent.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 11:41 PM
96 Richards on the OK Sex registry and only one under 25 and he’s 21.
So, this “Ricky” is a total fraud. He isn’t on OK’s registry and if he ever was he was taken off the moment someone saw he was under 18 years of age. He is a prop for the liberal media.
Does he have conditions related to his probation and his neighbors and school are aware of it? You bet. But his name hasn’t been published anywhere accept by the MSM and his own web site.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Well, MadCon, my mother and father married in 1947, and I was raised to believe that a gentleman never strikes a woman, nor permits a woman to be struck. “We don’t hit girls” is a stern rule for my sons. (BTW, don’t believe revisionist historians who tell you that your great-grandparents were backward barbarians.)
We have digressed. My original point was that we are far down the slippery slope when Vermont lawmakers feel compelled to create a loophole exempting from prosecution 13-year-olds who are sending pornographic images of themselves via cellphones or computers. Every other argument here has been collateral damage.
No offense taken, and if any offense were given, it is all my fault, for which I apologize.
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM
And BTW, it isn’t confirmed as false. You are quoting a news article and the guy’s own web site. I would think as Conservatives you would have enough sense to know not trust the media and check it out yourselves. It’s pretty clear the reporters didn’t bother to. The story fit a liberal stocking horse and they ran with it. Search an actual registry and find a minor on there.
From a news story on “Ricky”:
This part of the law will get thrown out in 15 minutes the first time it gets before a judge. This is just an attempt to get the whole thing repealed even for adults.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Agree on your larger point, disagree on the arguments which emanate from the situation. Truce. No offense meant or given.
But if you really don’t own any guns you’re a beta.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 11:59 PM
MadCon, I said I didn’t own a .44 Magnum. Other weapons were not mentioned.
The Other McCain on April 14, 2009 at 12:07 AM
And BTW, it isn’t confirmed as false. You are quoting a news article and the guy’s own web site. I would think as Conservatives you would have enough sense to know not trust the media and check it out yourselves. It’s pretty clear the reporters didn’t bother to. The story fit a liberal stocking horse and they ran with it. Search an actual registry and find a minor on there.
From a news story on “Ricky”:
This part of the law will get thrown out in 15 minutes the first time it gets before a judge. This is just an attempt to get the whole thing repealed even for adults.
Rocks on April 14, 2009 at 12:07 AM
With regard to kids and sexting, what about, until at least sixteen years of age, parents issue phones? You know, something with which to make a phone call.
OldEnglish on April 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
FWIW…
I don’t like linking Wikipedia if I can help it but they do actually quote each state’s statues in this case.
Spanking, which is what The Other McCain meant I’m guessing, is legal in all 50 states.
Rocks on April 14, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Vermont is also a big goat cheese state.
I’ll leave your imagination to the rest.
Kini on April 14, 2009 at 2:36 AM
I clicked in for the Article. Seriously, I did…
RedSoxNation on April 14, 2009 at 7:37 AM
You never disappoint.
So how many sex laws are there that try to demonize children for the rest of their lives? Would you please give us a few references of this avalanche of sex laws aimed at demonizing children for the rest of their lives?
Akzed on April 14, 2009 at 8:22 AM
if you wanted to use sex to draw attention to your post then why not announce the death of 1970′s pop culture icon porn star Marilyn Chambers who was found dead in her home on Sunday.
stormin1961 on April 14, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Thanks for the tip.
The Other McCain on April 14, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Give it up. You were proven wrong with multiple sources that you haven’t bothered to check.
Hollowpoint on April 14, 2009 at 12:19 PM
You are friggin joking right? I read the article linked, “Ricky’s” website and all his news appearances. No once does anyone actually publish his listing on the registry or link to it.
You link to an article and a website and claim you’ve proved something? All your sources are for the same incorrect story for the same kid I went to Oklahoma’s sex offender registry. It’s online. I searched it for both Ricky and Richard and not only is there no one who fits the criteria for this kid none of them are minors, none.
If this kid’s name was ever on OK’s registry it was removed long ago.
So the ball is back in your court. You have sex offender registries in 50 states, find one minor listed on one that isn’t there by mistake, just one.
You won’t find one because no state publicly publishes the criminal record of a minor, not one.
Ask any criminal lawyer or probation officer you can find.
The Feds are using the threat of cutoff of funds to get states to comply with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. None have and they won’t. If one did the ACLU would have in court in a heartbeat. You don’t get to break plea deals and terms of probation for some cash.
Give it up? Get a clue.
Rocks on April 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2