Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food

Junk Food entices our children to destroy their health
Junk Food entices our children to destroy their health

Human Stupidity at its finest: We crate our children to be unhealty fat and sedentary. We actively entice children to become unhealty!

In the study, which is published this week in the journal Pediatrics, Roberto and her colleagues presented 40 children ages 4 to 6 with paired samples of graham crackers, gummy fruit snacks, and baby carrots. Each pair of sample foods was identical down to the clear packaging, except that one of the packages had a sticker of Shrek, Dora the Explorer, or Scooby Doo on it.

Between 50 percent and 55 percent of the children said that the food with the sticker on it tasted better than the same food in the plain package. (The percentage varied with each food.) And between 73 percent and 85 percent selected the food in the character packaging as the one they’d prefer to eat as a snack.

Study: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food (cnn)
Study supports motion to pull plug on food porn: Cartoon-adorned packaging catalyzes America’s journey to obesity

Probably everyone knew this already. The interesting thing is that the cause of premature death of about 30% of our population is not reason for concern and for emergency action and emergency legislation.

“Parents may not set out to buy unhealthy products,” says the lead author of the study, Christina Roberto, M.S., a doctoral student at Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, in New Haven, Connecticut. “But kids can be really, really persuasive. They see them and they want them, and it gets difficult to have that battle in the grocery store.”

Facts about Childhood Obesity (CDC)

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food” »
Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to ju…
» continues here »

EU Requests To Retain User Data From Search Engines to protect children from pedophiles

The most recent tension came from Pakistan’s decision that it will monitor Google, Bing, Yahoo (and other sites) for blasphemous content. Now it is the EU’s turn to try to impose checks on search engines through its controversial "Written Declaration 29."

Written Declaration 29
Italy’s European Member of Parliament, Tiziano Motti, is the author of the proposal, commonly known as Written Declaration 29, adopted last week. His aim was to protect children from abusers and paedophiles lurking on the web by requesting that user data from search engines be stored and used by governments to track sexual offenders.

Source: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/100629-053942

Don’t we have enough REAL problems?

  • A large percentage of children grow up in poverty stricken families, unintegrated into middle class society, condemned to low level of schooling and an unsuccessful life. 
  • Hundreds of millions of our children will live an unhealthy life and die early, due to obesity, wrong nutrition, lack of exercise.
  • Hundreds of millions of children also will be victims of bullying at school, threatened, intimidates, psychologically damaged.

And now, search machines are supposed to become government spies? In violation of civil rights of hundreds of million law abiding internet users. With the intent to catch a few dozen dangerous "pedophiles" and entrap a couple of thousand harmless surfers who have bad taste and seek photos of young kids?

Watchdog Privacy International immediately stepped up to the plate by issuing a joint statement with search engine Ixquick, entitled: Ixquick: Search Engines Should Become Government Spies, Says EU Parliament. Ixquick has built its reputation on not storing any user search data and therefore feels it has been singled out by the Declaration. For Robert Beens, CEO of Ixquick, Written Declaration 29 would jeopardize the privacy of over 500 million people across Europe when it should really uniquely concern known offenders. "Sex offenders exchange files through underground networks. They don’t find this stuff through search engines," Alex Hanff of Privacy International said in the statement. "I spent eight years helping law enforcement track down online sex offenders and never once did we see a case where search engine data was useful."

Source: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/100629-053942

Human-Stupidity wrote more about these issues are in these topics: Child porn wich hunt and Teenage Sexuality witch hunt

 

Related articles about European Union Data Retention Plans
  1. EU Politicians Tricked Into Supporting Data Retention On Search Terms… ‘For The Children’ (techdirt.com)
  2. European MPs back web-search data retention plan (newstatesman.com)
  3. MEPs back web search history plan (independent.co.uk)
  4. Ixquick: Search Engines Should Become Government Spies, Says EU Parliament (eon.businesswire.com)
  5. Italian MEP Wants To Eliminate Anonymity On the Internet (search.slashdot.org)
  6. EU Request To Retain User Data From Search Engines Sparks Widespread Anger (searchenginewatch.com)
  7. EU Parliament plans Google-powered paedo detector (go.theregister.com)
  8. MEPs call for search engines to store web search histories for two years (telegraph.co.uk)
  9. EU Ministers Want ISP and Google Logs To Fight Paedos (dvorak.org)

"Once Fallen" Derek Logue about sex offender registration

ONCE FALLEN is a site that provides comprehensive information site on sex offender
issues. The ONCE FALLEN mission:

  1. Provide fact guides on a variety of sex offender laws and related issues
  2. Provide support and referral services for individuals impacted by these laws

The site ONCE FALLEN: comprehensive research about all topics related to “sex offenders”.

I am a FORMER Registrant currently residing in Alabama. On February 20, 2000 I was arrested in Alabama for making sexual contact (kissing) with an 11-year-old girl I had known while I was in college (around my 23rd birthday). I plead guilty to one count of 1st degree sexual abuse and received a six year sentence. I served 3 years at Bullock County Correctional Facility in Alabama, voluntarily took sex offender treatment sources, and was released on April 1, 2003.  About Derek Logue

We cannot really know if this story is true, because by our language distorting laws, a child kisser gets called a “child rapist”. This is how our language has been redefined (see other articles   about Child porn wich hunt and Teenage Sexuality witch hunt in this blog)

In 2003 I began posting at www.sexcriminals.com under the screen name “fallenone.” From my time as a regular poster there and at www.sohopeful.org, I found my calling as an advocate for the rights of sex offenders who have paid their debts to society and seek to rebuild their lives.   About Derek Logue

Murderers, burglers, arsonists, extortionists, mob killers, child kidnappers, child mutilators, child killers, everyone gets a chance after they served their term. Interestingly, society is much more afraid of a child kisser then of a child murderer.

As a former sex offender, Derek Logue humbly questions the life sentence of the sex offender law, the fact that they are singled out forever.  He does not even dare question the obvious:

Why would one have to spend 3 years in jail for kissing a 11 year old, if she participated willingly. Maybe her father should have watched the child more closely and slapped Mr. Logan. Looks more appropriate to me, That is what would have happened 50 years ago, before the underage witch hunt began. When age of consent was 12 years old, but that referred to sexual activity, not to kisses. (human-stupidity.com)

If these sex offender laws applied to predators that drag little children into the forest and mutilate and kill them, they probably would make sense. But even then, why are these people singled out? An arsonist who sets a school ablaze with a few child victims, he does not need to register after he gets out of jail! Nor will his neighbors and schools be notified of his presence.

Meet Derek Logue, legal rights activist, book author and former sex offender. Derek speaks out about the sex offender registry, Adam Walsh Act and Ohio’s sex offender residency restrictions.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “"Once Fallen" Derek Logue about sex offender registration” »
"Once Fallen" Derek Logue about sex offender registratio…
» continues here »

Why a doberman is better then a security guard or policeman

A doberman guard dog does not know about human rights. If your attacker kicks or shoves a Doberman, he get what he deserves, and nobody feels pity for the attacker.

(in case you don’t get the joke.

  • If you shove a policeman and he gives you one single punch only, the policeman already suffers an inquiry.
  • if you punch a guy, and he knives you in self defense, your punching victim may go to jail
  • You mess with a dog, the dog has no human rights training. The dog has no scruples.
  • The dog is like a mobster, like a motorcycle gang member. The has a short trigger, and reacts impulsively, with no mercy.
  • You don’t mess with a mobster, a gang member, a motorcycle gang member. Nor with a dog.
  • so if someone invades a yard guarded by 3 dobermen, he gets dilacerated. And nobody pities him.
  • if a group of punks invade a yard guarded by 3 security guards, the security guards are too afraid to respond in force

)

"Human Rights" protect criminals to the detriment of law abiding citizens

A woman started a scuffle with a policeman over a jaywalking ticket.  Then she resists arrest. Her friend shoves the policeman.  The policeman, faced with 2 unruly women scuffling with him, punches one girl in the face and then arrests both.

Again and again, he [the officer] tried to subdue the 19-year old. But the struggle continued. Suddenly, from the sidelines jumped the girl’s 17-year old friend. She shoved the officer out of the way. […] He closes his fist, winds up, and lands a hard right to her face.

[Human Rights proponent:] I don’t excuse her behavior. She was clearly in the wrong. But again, a force of a punch to the face is not justifiable.
See the entire video with transcript & subtitles

Human Rights seems to be mainly concerned with protecting criminals. People who are wrong. You don’t resist a police officer. You don’t shove a police officer. First you put yourself outside of the law, and then you look for protection of the law.

How does a police officer arrest 2 unruly women? If he maced and tasered them, that would be ok? He has to do a profound analysis, if the girls will escalate? How does he know if more people will interfere? Or if one woman has fighting skills, weapons? So a police officer has to take risks to protect the human rights of girls that are clearly wrong and that attack him!?

Interestingly, dictatorships do not have major crime problems. Nor do Brazilian shanty towns dominated by criminal gangs, or cities controlled by the mafia. Most smaller criminals can get subdued by rigorous law and order.

Devli’s advocate s provocative proposal
The suspension of due process, normal in alleged rape, child abuse and child porn cases, should be applied to crimes with real violence and real victims, where public safety is at stake. If simple unproven accusations would suffice to arrest and try bullies and street criminals, maybe public safety could be reinstated

.

“Human Rights”-in-favor-of-Criminals Scheme

Example: ->

Pattern

 Girls shoving Policemen Gang attack victim stabs attacking gang banger Rodney King
(Los Angeles,1992)
“Bad guy” does something wrong or illegal Girls start scuffle with policeman, resist arrest & attack policeman on duty Group of thugs attack innocent students. Already knocked down one victim. Attacks next victim * Rodney King takes LA police on high speed car chase

* risking life of many innocent drivers and pedestrians on the way,

* He resists arrest, resists handcuffs, and attacks arresting policemen.
“Good Guy” reacts Unable to handcuff 2 unruly girls at the same time, policeman returns a punch to the girl that shoved him Next victim pulls a knife, and stabs attacker in throat. Police taser and beat in attempt to subdue and handcuff.

Rodney King keeps getting up. Police takes necessary measures to subdue him.

Even if they were overreacting, how serious is that compared to felony reckless driving, parole violation and drunk driving?
“Human Rights” worry about the guilty criminals Girl interferes with police work. Attacks policeman who is busy with another unruly girl.

Poor girl got a punch after attacking a policeman who, alone, faces 2 attackers

 A group of thugs attacks innocent guys with punches. A victim defends himself with a knife.

How unjust for the attacker to get stabbed without prior warning

 If police tells you to lie down and you get up, you must be aware of the consequences.

Even more if you are clearly wrong, drunk driving, parole violation and reckless driving on escape attempt.

Poor guy: almost killed innocent citizens with his car, could have injured police officers on duty, and got some beating with no long term effects.
“Human Rights” don’t get concerned about victims, safety of society and law abiding citizens Police should engage in half hour scuffle with the girls. If girls use weapons, or more people enter in the fight, tough luck.

If the girls escape and thus learn that it pays to resist police, tough luck too.

 Attack victim has risk his life

  • by first warning the gangster that he will stab him,
  • losing the element of surprise.
  • allowing the gangsters to get their own weapons,  or
    to regroup and gang up on him, or

When attacked by a group of thugs, victim has to do a legal analysis of the case before acting.

 Safety of policemen is not important.

Safety of society against criminal reckless driving felons is not important.
“Good Guy” gets into trouble Police get suspended, suffer inquiry. Press and “anti-racists” attack the police for doing their duty. In this case the attack victim, a student, got 3 years 9 months unsuspended jail sentence! Police suffered inquiry, legal challenges.
Either way, “good guys” get into trouble, even if they act differently At other occasions, police may get injured for reacting too lightly or too slow Had he wasted time with warnings, and not defended himself, he could have been knocked down, beaten to death. The attackers could have gotten out their (bigger) knives.  He might have been attacked by the entire group of the agressor. If police is too lenient, they may suffer consequences:

  • police may get hit, injured,
  • if the criminal happens to have a weapon police can get shot and die
  • or if he escapes due to police leniency police will be reprimanded
  • if he escapes, he will continue endangering innocent bystanders
The exact “human right” of the criminal Attack police trying to arrest your friend and have the human right not get punched You may knock down one person, attack the next person. You have the human right to be politely warned before getting knived in self-defense. Human right to resist police, flee for an hour endangering hundreds of people’s life, continuing to resist, try to attack police, being potentially armed, not surrender to police. You have the human right not get beaten into submission until you get handcuffed
Sources of information Video with transcript & subtitles Prison for Self Defense
Prison for Self Defense (2)
Prison term length reconsidered		 Rodney King (Wikipedia)

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “"Human Rights" protect criminals to the detriment of law abiding citizens” »
"Human Rights" protect criminals to the detriment of law…
» continues here »

Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent

Change.org silences dissent

Hi Stupidity, it seems that you have been on a bit of a crusade the past day or so on lots of posts from the last month related to rape.

Call it an anti-crusade. Feminists have been on a very successful crusade to re-define language and change legal due process. So a vengeful women’s lone unproven accusation can instantly get the real victim, the falsely accused, into jail. Unlike all other crimes, where proof or multiple witnesses are needed.

Specifically, you have posted fairly demeaning dismissals of victims and the definition of rape.

Demeaning dismissals of linguistic definitions. That is how far we have gotten. Even definitions of terms can not be questioned. The essence of taboos to perpetuate witch hunts and make sure the masses are deceived by misleading perverted re-definition of terms like “rape”

Your comments are not particularly welcome here. Rape is a serious offense and it is incredibly traumatizing for it’s victims. I have removed all of your comments, links and have blocked your account before you post any more comments which would cause pain to real victims of real crimes.

And real victims of real rape get confused with “victims” that consented to fondling!? That is demeaning. And the “perpetrator” of consensual acts then gets gang-raped in prison, because of a pervasive attitude that (falsely convicted) rapists deserve getting raped. That is pain to real victims of real prison rape.

‘Women’s rights at change.org perpetuate manipulative language distortion to foster feminist political goals

It is essential for a witch hunt that dissent gets silenced, made taboo.  Change.org’s feminist watchdogs invoke emotional terms (“cause real pain to real victims of real crimes”) in order to avoid discussing the issues and silence dissent easily.  This is the central issue of Human-Stupidity.com: how Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, “stupid”. And self deception makes the censor believe s/he is a liberal person.

Thus, of course, the real pain caused to real victims of witch hunts is totally ignored.  Guys who spend years in jail for consensual sex with an adolescent, or for a unproven false rape accusation. And who get special attention from prison rapists who like to prey on alleged rapists in order to exert cruel and usual punishment.

But my main issue here is not even sex laws. It is manipulative Abuse of Language to deceive the masses. The concerted world wide conspiracy to use the word “rape” for “seducing an adolescent” or for “indecently fondling a minor”. And the perverted inversion of due legal process. Alleged sex offenders are “guilty until proven innocent” and any accusation by a lone alleged victim is taken as proof of a crime.

Change.org dispute: full text follows here

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent” »
Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor &…
» continues here »

Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language

Abused Language: When a “rape” is not a rape

“Fondling a child”, or “consensual sex with an adolescent” nowadays can be called “rape”, in press reports, even in legal code (“statutory rape”).
This purposeful confusion created by the dilusion of the word “rape” helps to whip up punishment frenzy for crimes of “adolescent seduction” or “child fondling” at the expense of banalizing real forceful violent penetrating non-consensual rape.

So the word “rape” is abusively re-defined to serve an agenda: to make smaller transgressions look like heinous crimes.

The entire World Press,  the United Nations, everyone swallowed the bait and became manipulated! Amazing!

Similarly,  “adolescent nudity” no can be called “child porn”.  Defining 17 year olds as children has the collateral effect that now there is no word for real children of 12 and under, as there is no word  left for real rape.  This confusion must have a manipulative motive, as there is no logical need to change the meaning of words that had a clear definition for centuries.

Real meaning of the word “rape”

What do most people understand by the word “rape”? What was the meaning of “rape” for centuries? Non-consensual intercourse with penetration, usually involving violence or threats.

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,[1][2][3] a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.

Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl

A barman who admitted raping a 12 year old girl he met through a social networking site has walked free from court after convincing a judge he was tricked into believing she was 19. Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl (telegraph.co.uk)
Man who had sex with girl, 12, admits rape but is freed after woman judge says he was ‘duped’ into thinking she was 19

Shocking, is it not? He raped a girl and was set free because he was mistaken about her age! It is ok to rape a girl if she is 19 years old?

Well, he did not REALLY rape her. If she is 19 years old then consensual sex, initiated by the girl who brought the condoms, is not called rape.  Dear Reader, haven’t you understood that any sex with a 12 year old is rape?  Our language has changed in the last 25 years! But, of course, this is on purpose. Once you understand that rape is not rape, the intended shock effect gets lost.

So the 12 year old was eager to have sex with him, actively initiated sex and purposefully deceived the barman into thinking that she was 19.  So, miraculously, he was freed. Doesn’t sound so shocking any more.

See Why I hate statutory Rape Laws | A Public Defender

After breaking marriage vow, sex becomes rape

Having a sexual relationship with a woman with a false promise of marriage can also be termed as rape. The case was being heard in a Delhi Court and it involved a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbour. The man was found guilty of rape and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the present case, Chhotey Lal, the convict and father of six children, had eloped with his neighbour in New Delhi in September 2004, and took her to far away places like Jaipur and Chandigarh. According to the girl, the duo established sexual relations after Lal assured her that he would marry her ‘very soon’. Meanwhile, the girl’s father lodged a ‘missing’ report with the police. The police detained Lal and the girl in March 2005 at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Terminal when they were returning to Delhi. Chhotey Lal was prosecuted for abducting the girl and having sexual relationships with her on false pretext.

“The so-called consent under a false promise to marriage is no consent,” additional sessions judge Mahavir Singhal said.

Highlighting the difference between ‘will’ and ‘consent’, the court said that a nod for sexual relations obtained by a man on the false pretext would not amount to a ‘legal or valid’ consent to save him from punishment for rape.

The Court observed that, even if the woman is assumed to be a willing partner in having a physical relationship, that the accused had no intention to marry her would make it a case where consent was given under misconception of facts, nullifying the efficacy of the nod.
Rape by promising marriage in India

Adolescent raped repeatedly?

Due to the language confusion, we really can not know if she was raped, or more likely, seduced. But most women don’t get raped repeatedly on various days.

In 1997, 15-year-old Tina Anderson became pregnant after being raped repeatedly by an older man she knew from church. Shockingly, when her pastor found out, he forced her to apologize in front of the entire congregation in Concord, New Hampshire, and then promptly helped whisk her away to live in Colorado.

According to Tina, the first time she was raped by Ernest Willis, it was in the backseat of car after he’d given her a driving lesson. She didn’t tell anyone because she was terrified that she’d be blamed. After being raped by Willis again, Tina became pregnant.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/ teenager_forced_to_apologize_to_her_church_for_being_raped

Did she get “raped” or seduced? we don’t know

What does the average reader of this article think? They guy attacked the girl in a dark alley and had sex with her under the threat of violence.  Strange, though, that he raped her repeatedly on different days.
Now it is amazing that feminists and moralists managed to put such manipulative language even into penal codes. It is easier to promote your agenda with misleading language. “Teenager forced to appologize for being seduced” does not sound so shocking.  The word manipulation must  be planned and purposeful.
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

Language confusion obfuscates facts

So no matter if you think sex with underage should be punished, I hope you agree that the truth should be said and that manipulative language should be abolished.
By the way, Ernest Willis is a child rapist. Because according to new definitions of child pornography, a child now is anyone under 18. The United Nations, the US, and Europe have adopted that definition.

Whoppi Goldberg differentiates “rape-rape” and non-violent so called “rape”

Hollywood has rallied behind Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland over the weekend, with the actor Whoopi Goldberg suggesting that whatever he was guilty of it wasn’t “rape-rape”.

As a guest on The View chatshow on US television, she said: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying.’ So that’s why he left.”

Polanski was not guilty of ‘rape-rape’, says Whoopi Goldberg

Age discimination: why is a 15 year old capable to consent to sex with a 16 year old but not with a 35 year old?

Then we can disagree on the last point: if a 15 year old can decide who to have sex with. Interestingly, she can decide to have sex with a 16 year old. How come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?

Mandatory psychological counselling before underage sex?

Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? what about legalizing sex with underage girls, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. And it would be a good idea even for sex between consenting teenagers. So there would be no age discrimination!

Click on “more” for the rest of the story ……..

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language” »
Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not…
» continues here »

Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.

Indefinite detention for possession of photos ok’d by Supreme Court.  But violent Robbers must be freed after their term is over. Strange justice.

People who watch tasteless photos (youth erotica, or real child porn) in the privacy of their own home, first spend years in jail, then can be held indefinitely, the US Supreme Court confirmed. People who rob, threaten, pick fights, bully, hurt children while driving drunk, these offenders are set free after their prison term is over.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.[…]

“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37192279

So far, so good. I wonder, though, why don’t you add dangerous violent people, who habitually commit violent robberies, habitually drive drunk and get involved in accidents, gang banger bullies who will return terrorizing others on the street. The idea is good, just why exactly worried about sex offenders  only?

The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said
there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

Here is the serious problem: People who possessed computer files, a set of 0’s and 1’s that decode into the depiction of some nude teenagers, can be detained indefinitely? Even if it were the rare and unusual case that they possessed real violent rape photos of 5 year olds, what danger do these people pose to you, me, or our kids? Did they abuse? No! did they even take the photos? No! So why all the fuzz?

So the Supreme Court legalizes locking up, indefinitely, people who in the privacy of their home look at pictures? To protect whom? I worry about being run over by a habitual drunk driver, my kids being beaten up by a gang bully or robbed by a violent drug addict in urgent need to rob 5 times a day to support his drug addiction. But why should I care about a guy who stares at child porn in the privacy of his home? No matter how gross the pictures might be! And one can go to jail for nude photos of 17 year olds.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.” »
Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. B…
» continues here »