Thursday, January 02, 2003

Totalitarianism nears
Without protest, Americans are giving up freedom

By Glen T. Martin

[...] Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold spoke the following words from the Senate floor on Oct. 11, 2001, when he was the only senator to vote against Attorney General John Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act: "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or would-be terrorists! But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live."

[...] Government intimidation for political reasons is real and it has begun. Our government already is using its secret data bases to harass Americans. Political activists checking in at airports at the airline desk have had their names come up from a secret government list as "flight risks." They and their luggage have been supersearched to the point where they are made to miss their flights, and then released to fly. Obviously if they were really "flight risks," they would not be allowed to fly.

Attorneys have found that their attorney-client privilege has all but disappeared. The government has even placed hidden cameras in prisons to record attorney discussions with their clients. The government has begun harassing people maintaining Web sites they consider politically objectionable.

The Justice Department announced a plan to use its newfound power to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" to place such people in concentration camps. Declaring them "enemy combatants" would strip them of their constitutional rights, their access to the courts and allow the government to indefinitely hold them without trial.

This is identical in purpose to some of the Nazi concentration camps.

Campaign to Dump John Ashcroft. The Better Rhetor has begun a campaign to dump Attorney General John Ashcroft. He's not coming from a vindicative point... [TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime]

I would like to urge visitors to different strings to check out The Better Rhetor's post on why it's time to dump John Ashcroft.  He has laid out some very compelling arguments, and provides two excellent sample letters to send to your Senatorial representatives.  Currently, there is no direct permalink to the entry, but the main entry is from January 4, with the sample letters in a separate entry immediate following it.

If you agree with the campaign, but don't necessarily want to take the time to write and send a "regular" mailed letter, another option is available through Congress.org.  If you scroll down this page a bit, you'll see a box under the heading "Contact your Congresscritters".  If you enter your zip code into the Federal Officials box and press "go", it will take you to a page where you can select from your state's represenatives and help you set up and write a letter to them.  The letter can be sent via e-mail, at no charge.  Congress.org uses the C-Mail system that helps ensure your e-mail message will get to your representative (as some are now only accepting e-mails if they are sent from a specific site or using a specific format.) You also have the option of using their "Extra Impact" hand-delivery service, where your message will be printed out and hand-delivered to your Senator's office.  That option is $4.95.  In any event, they can help you figure out who you want to contact and then get your message to them.

Granted, there are plenty of other reasons why Ashcroft should not be Attorney General, but right now there may still be some legs left to the race issue following Lott's resignation as Majority Leader, making racial concerns one of the more viable justifications at the moment.

Report: Sting nabs convicted Calif. molester
Posted 1/4/2003 8:59 AM

[...] Lt. Dennis Ahearn, a spokesman for the Berkeley police department, said Kenneth Parnell was arrested after a tip.

"We became aware of the fact that Mr. Parnell was attempting to purchase a child through another party. We intervened in that purchase," Ahearn said. He said Parnell never received the child and that the other party had not been arrested.

[...] He was convicted in the 1972 kidnapping of [Steven] Stayner, who was then 7, and the 1980 kidnapping of a 5-year-old boy. He served five years in prison in the kidnappings.

Parnell had earlier been convicted of sexually abusing an 8-year-old boy he had abducted.

If there was ever a poster boy for why child molesters should be subject to some of the harshest penalties possible, it would be Kenneth Parnell.

Just in the crimes of his that we know about, we can see that he has been molseting children for over 30 years.  His abduction of Steven Stayner in 1972 is his most infamous crime, but it certainly is not his only crime - and he served less time in prison than Stayner had served as his sexual plaything. Even before he kidnapped Stayner, however, he had already been caught and convicted for molesting another boy, and Stayner finally escaped from Parnell when Parnell brought home a new "toy" for himself, in the form of 5-year-old Timothy White. Stayner hadn't wanted the child to go through what he had, so he took the boy and made his way to a police station.

Now Parnell is accused of trying to buy a child, ostenably to use for his own gratification again.  Given his past history, it is highly unlikely that after his release from prison that he simply avoided molesting children for over 20 years, and now, all of a sudden, is starting up again.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if any investigations resulting from this most recent arrest turns up many other boys who have been used by this nithing.

I understand why some people feel that sex-offender registries are inappropriate, and why it would be wrong to confine a sexual predator to a mental institution after he's served his prison term.  At the same time, though, I look at the case of Kenneth Parnell, and see exactly why those solutions have been suggested, and, in some places, implemented.  While there will always be exceptions, by and large, sex offenders can't be reliably rehabilitated - especially paedophiles. And the repercussion of their actions generally spread further than just their immedate victims. 

Children who are molested often grow up to be molesters, creating victims of their own.  The families of molested children are also strongly impacted.  Steven Stayner's older brother, Carey, has been convicted of killing four women in and around Yosemite National Park.  While I fully agree with the death penalty sentence recently given to Carey Stayner for his crimes, and while there no definitive proof that wouldn't have done the same thing even if his brother had never been kidnapped and molested, in books written about Steven's kidnapping,  years before Carey was identified as a killer, you can see ways in which Carey's life and personality were impacted by the events.  It's possible, and maybe even likely, that  Carole and Juli Sund, Joie Armstrong and Sylvina Peloso were victims, in a way, of Parnell's as well.

I've never been a fan of ultra-violent video games.  I don't really think they're good for people to play, and - with kids in particular - I think they really can help desensitize them to not only the violence depicted in the game, but to the concept of violence being bloody, victims truly being in pain and other things that, for most of us, help remind us that being violent is a bad thing. I also believe that games which cast the player as the villian can help create a mindset that being "evil" is fun.  Granted, not ever person (or even kid) who plays an ultra-violent game is going to become violent themselves - and I don't think the games alone can cause violence in an otherwise non-violent person.  But I do think that they can - and do - have an undesirable effect on some of the people who play them.  

So, games like "Postal", "Grand Theft Auto III: Vice City" and others aren't ones I really want to see be successful, nor do I want to see a lot of kids playing them.  What do I do about it?  Well, for starters, I don't buy them and I don't rent them.  I don't let anyone get money from me or on my behalf for making, selling or renting such games.  I post messages like this one to make my views known.  I participate in public discussions on the issue.  I encourage parents I know to carefully monitor what their kids are playing and to talk to their kids' friends' parents to find out what they might be playing or getting into over at the friends' house.  If I think a game is bad enough,  I may even write letters to game companies and retailers, letting them know of my dissatisfaction and asking them to give greater consideration to what they choose to create, manufacture, release and stock in their stores.   

What don't I do?  I don't ask or expect the government to step in and decide what kinds of game can be made or sold.  I don't ask or expect them to determine who can or can't buy or rent a game.  This isn't an issue that the government should be involved in at all.  Capitalism in and of itself has all the power needed for society to govern itself on a matter such as this. 

If enough people buy a product, even if there are some protests, a product will still get made and sold in plenty of stores.  If, on the other hand, enough companies think that the backlash against a product is strong enough and might hurt their overall corporate health or corporate image, they can choose not to make, publish or sell a product.  If there's still a market for it, more specialized companies may decide to go ahead and create, publish or sell stuff like it for a niche market.  Regardless, the marketplace decides what it will or won't tolerate based on whether they think they can make a profit off of it or not, and whether it will hurt their overall reputation.

There is also another mechanism that is very effective in specifically keeping these games out of the hands of children.  It's called a parent.  And a parent is what prompted this whole diatribe, because she doesn't seem to understand what being a parent means.

"Basically, I guess I never even realized it was a problem until my (then 15-year-old) son came back from the video store with a game," she said. "I really wasn't paying that much attention at first but then I walked into his room and saw he was playing some game with blood everywhere. It was not something I thought was appropriate."

[Terri] Tinsey said she asked her son where he got the game. He had rented it.

"I couldn't believe it," she said. "First of all, you have to have a sick mind to come up with that stuff -- but to just let anyone get their hands on it is ludicrous."

Now, see, I don't think that it's any more ludicrous than a parent letting their 15-year-old go to a video store to rent whatever he or she wants.  Most video stores will allow a parent to restrict what kind of materials can be rented to a minor child.  Typically they can specify what ratings should be off limits to their kids, and then the store won't let them check it out.  Both the movie and the video game industry have voluntary ratings systems to help alert parents to what the movie or game might contain.  The rental industry and parents can then make use of this system to help restrict access to inapporpriate material - no government intervention needed.

State Rep. Patricia Lockwood, a Fenton democrat, spearheaded the legislation, which focuses on games with the "M" or "AO" rating.

"Games like 'Grand Theft Auto: Vice City' are extremely violent and shouldn't be in the hands of our kids," Lockwood said. "This bill will restore parental authority into the equation, and that is a good thing for parents and children alike in Michigan."

What I want to know is, when was parental authority taken OUT of the equation - except through the parent's own negligence and ignorance of what their child was doing?

Terri TInsey has been lobbying for several years for a bill that would make it a crime for a video shop or other store to sell or rent games with certain ratings to children under certain ages.  Yet this law would be totally unnecessary if parents would simply do their jobs.  Go to the store with your kids.  Look at what they want to rent.  Watch them playing the game - see what the game involves and how the child reacts to it.  If you think the game and the way your child is reacting is fine, then go on and do your other business, otherwise, take it away from the kid.  Yes, your kid will probably throw a temper tantrum, but they need to learn that making a scene won't get them whatever they want, so letting them get as pissy as they want and not giving in to their demands helps teach them an additional, valuable lesson.

I suppose, in a sense, this kind of a law does put the parents "back" into the equation, but the only reason they were ever removed from it is becuase they chose to remove themselves.  Laws of this nature, while certainly allowing a parent more involvement (by requiring that the parent or an of-age guardian be the one to actually rent the material), shouldn't be needed.  Parents should be doing this sort of thing on their own initiative - and if they're not willing to or capable of it, then they need to think carefully before having any kids.