Mirror of Justice

The Tryanny of Experts (part Ii) – Experts and Civil Society

July 18th, 2009 at 02:54am Under Civil Rights Law

Experts are valuable, necessary contributors to our diverse and specialized society. But they cannot and should not be used to constitute or replace civil society. Indeed, the idea that anyone can claim to be a civil society expert is troubling. Civil society needs to be composed of a broad and diverse array of people throughout our societies. The internet offers us an opportunity to radically expand civil society, to debate all of the ideas and ideologies that shape the world, and to publish our speech around the world. We cannot abandon this field to experts, particularly not the much vaunted experts of civil society.

What is an expert? Experts and expertise are usually recognized through degrees earned, publications, experience and notoriety. There are good reasons for each of these things. But each of them can also be troubling. If degrees and titles make experts, then we need to carefully, critically examine the curriculum, the quality, and the ideological biases of our degree offering institutions. If publications make experts, we need to be aware of the obscurity or audience of journals and the public and private funding sources for research. Experience is very valuable; but there are plenty of rich political donors who have become consular officials without a shred of expertise. Notoriety is the most troublesome of the signs and symbols of expertise. Famous experts are often assumed to be better experts – false. Famous people and celebrities often mistake themselves for experts and think we ought to care what their expert pronouncements are – really false! In addition, experts tend to congregate together and pat each other on the backs by awarding one another fellowships, grants, distinctions and prizes. The Ivy League is the country club of expertise. The longer you hang around, the more your expertise will be burnished, brightened and expanded by all of your expert pals who slap you on the back. Finally, success begets success. People who gain degrees, earn awards, grants and fellowships will earn more of them. If you have not broken into this club by the first year of graduate school, you are unlikely to join it later. Civil Society Experts

A wide array of civil society experts are called in to analyze, explain and advocate prominent policy issues. From the scientist and the statistician, to the economist and the literature professor, to the historian and the constitutional lawyer, to the retired general and the retired ambassador; there is no shortage of experts to tell us how to think and act and vote in this complicated world of ours. Now we even have technocrats – those elite experts who blend modern technological training with state power to produce utopia in developing nations like China and Chile, well, eventually maybe. Then there are the experts who are not experts. Politicians and rich people, reporters and pollsters get tired of having to ask the experts or hire the experts or hunt around for someone with an advanced degree to advocate their position. So they step up to the mike themselves and are transformed into pundits. But in the end, none of these civil society experts provide us with civil society, or solutions to the problems we must work together to solve.

In the last generation we have seen the rise of a new expert – the technocrat. This is the ultimate melding of expertise with power. Now instead of simply elevating the powerful to power, we elevate (powerful) experts to power. Hey, I love meritocracy. But let us not confuse engineering, business or science degrees with the ability to lead nations and states. Scientists, engineers and CEOs are no better or worse than anyone else at voting with principle, debating important issues, or leading communities.

Perhaps most prominent among civil society experts are scientists and statisticians. Statistics is an important tool for making valid conclusions based on small data sets. But statistics is also undoubtedly the most commonly misused tool for lying in politics, the media and civil society. Next, scientists are specialized professionals who master specific tools and methods for investigating specific, narrow questions. They arrive at provisional, evidence-based answers to those questions. They do not claim to discern truth, morality, wisdom or sound public policy. If you hear a scientist claiming any of these latter findings, then you are listening to a person, who happens to hold a PhD, who also holds an opinion that may or may not be informed, effective, wise or true. Scientists and scientific research are also very expensive, and so they are paid by someone or other. The sources of funding do not determine scientific results, but they can reflect policy analysis and advocacy.

Social scientists form a lower tier of civil society experts. These can include – Political scientists: who analyze politics and may try to tell you how to vote. Economists: who analyze the economy and may try to predict the future (with predictable results). Sociologists: who may or may not perform experiments on small groups of people, then tell you what is wrong with your society and what to do about it. Historians: who analyze the past then complain that you do not know about your past and that everything you think you know about the past is wrong. Anthropologists: who used to study remote cultures and now study ritual in any culture and will tell you how your culture is oppressing some other culture. And so forth. In related fields, literary and cultural critics abound in English, foreign language, and comparative literature departments. Scholars of literature and the arts consider themselves the primary experts on culture, mediators of high culture, and interpreters of all discourse, rhetoric and cultural expression. As a historian myself, I love social scientists and scholars of the humanities. They are often passionately devoted to civil society. But that does not make them experts on civil society.

Lawyers, constitutional lawyers, and law school professors form another common array of civil society experts. These people are trained to think critically, to read and write carefully, and to debate with acumen and rhetorical skill. Lawyers are legal experts, and so if you have legal problems, they come highly recommended. But in other circumstances the society of lawyers tends to make communication incomprehensible, extremely expensive, combative, and fraught with hidden landmines (read any small print lately?). The central problem with trusting a lawyer-expert is that you can find a lawyer who will argue any position. They may believe passionately in it, or they may simply believe in the virtue of arguing for their client. In short, lawyers are useful people to pay to support your position; but that does not make them civil society experts.

Finally, former government officials and diplomats are ubiquitous civil society experts. Former domestic or foreign policy advisors-now pundits, former generals and military officers-now private contractors or military advisors, former ambassadors-now think tank fellows, former congressmen-now lobbyists, former spies-now novelists, former bureaucrats-now whistleblowers. These people may or may not have done effective service for their governments in the past. They may indeed have garnered very useful experience. But you may be sure that these particular civil society experts certainly cultivated well placed friends, political favors, and public notoriety. Listen to such experts with care. Experts who aren’t

There are a variety of people who by virtue of their professions or positions voice their opinions and ideas with great authority – as if they should be listen to, believed and followed. Many of these experts are not experts at all.

First, politicians – Politicians are experts of campaigns and fund raising. They may be statesmen or stateswomen; they may be wise or principled; they may be experienced or expert in some field; but they are not necessarily any of these things. Generally, politicians (as politicians) are not experts. Elected government officials deserve respect on two levels. First, they have succeeded at communicating their ideas, marshalling personal and monetary support, and managing a campaign in order to attract democratic votes. This is a real achievement; but it does not make them a civil society expert. Second, successful politicians eventually accrue a great deal of experience in the halls of government. This is a mixed blessing in that these politicians have opportunities to contribute toward functioning governance and to help solve societal problems; but they just as frequently take those opportunities to perform bad governance, to fail to solve societal problems, and occasionally to become part of the problem. Few politicians are experts.

Rich people and celebrities – wealth, power and notoriety do not grant expertise. Celebrities are almost never experts and should not speak any louder than anyone else. Rich people are able to buy and broadcast louder speech, but it does not make them experts. (And then there is the stray expert who somehow gains celebrity. Expert-cum-celebrities sometimes deserve their notoriety. Some of them have gained celebrity through a lifetime of achievement crowned with high awards – Nobel Prizes, medals, honors, etc. These people mark an exception to the celebrity rule, but their celebrity is usually fleeting. How many Nobel Prize winners for the sciences can you name?)

Reporters and pundits – the press has become increasingly openly ideological. As the media has opened its ideological content, journalists, columnists, news analysts and pundits of all kinds have proliferated and expressed their opinions in ever increasing volume. Reporters and pundits are often widely informed by virtue of their interviews and reportage; they are also often very good rhetoriticians. Personally, I believe that open, honest, ideological expression by the press is much better than veiled or even unconscious bias contained in misleading headlines or buried ledes. But being published in print or being broadcast on cable does not make anyone an expert.

Pollsters – the ultimate non-experts. These are people who are paid to ask a representative sample of regular people what they think, then to use statistics and their analytical powers to discern what everyone thinks. Well, polls can be interesting; they might even in some cases be beneficial to policy makers or civil society. But how any of this makes pollsters experts is beyond me. Nevertheless, pollsters have become increasingly common media experts who provide journalists and pundits with a window into the mind of the common woman on the street. Where is the expert here? Wizard of Oz, we see you behind your curtain!

Finally, there is the all too common spectacle of the expert parading in public who establishes their credibility by lambasting their field of expertise – the expert insider critic or expert whistleblower. Have you seen the accredited psychologist who attacks the field of therapy or psychoanalysis right before lathering their audiences with a thick layer of relationship advice? What of the conservative scholar (tenured) who bravely eviscerates academia from within? Or the anti-medicine MD? How about the government civil servant whose civil rights (and political views) were so trampled that he had to give hundreds of media interviews to show how reactionary the government is? We could multiply examples. These experts are remarkable because they attack the root of their expertise, while all the time utilizing the same expertise to convince us we ought to trust and listen to them. Most remarkably, the slickest exploiters of the expert-insider-critic shtick actually manage to make us trust them more than other experts, even as they savage the root of their expertise. Your Civil Society

One of the major critiques of new media on the Internet is that it accumulates much noise and little substance – too much riff raff and too few experts. Wouldn’t it be better to gather quietly at the feet of wise experts, rather than sift through all of the shouting, competing voices in new media echo chambers? Oh, I have heard elderly reporters wax lyrical as they recalled the days when everyone listened to Cronkite and read the New York Times, because back then we knew that was the way it was. This common, elite meme argues that we actually need fewer media broadcasters, fewer experts, fewer points of view, and a lot fewer people speaking. But to the contrary, our civil society needs more people to be more engaged, to speak more openly, to broadcast their voices further, to test and debate more ideas, new ideas.

If Ideology Forum is to succeed in helping strengthen our civil society, together we need to enable a very wide range of people to thoughtfully engage one another about as many ideas and principles and movements and causes as possible. Doubtless, some will criticize saying that regular people – common internet users – lack the expertise to make newsworthy, publishable, original contributions to the big issues and debates that shape our world. In other words, ‘Shut up and listen to the columnists, pundits, politicians, professors, scientists – the experts.’ But civil society must be broad and inclusive; it ought to be active and democratic; the Internet makes that increasingly possible; and Ideology Forum strives to make that civil society real. We need more people to throw off the tyranny of experts and speak.

One Nation Under Law

July 14th, 2009 at 10:11am Under Elder Law

Inconceivable, with Liturgy and justification for all.The story of my life starts with my awareness that nothing I saw made much sense. I just couldn’t see a happy ending. There was an observable pointlessness. Although at the age of eight or so I really wouldn’t have used words like this. The sense was that this world wasn’t going to end well. It wasn’t heading anywhere. That’s what it was in a nutshell. It was going nowhere.

One of the real sore spots was the rules. People kept telling me to do things. I kept asking why. They kept saying things like, “that’s what people do…” or the dreaded, “because I said so…”. Let’s just say that as far as I was concerned there was no good reason for me to follow any of these rules. The real reason that I was being asked, no commanded, to follow these rules was not really clear to the people giving the orders. They couldn’t tell me, because they didn’t know. When they did attempt to give me the reasons, as they understood them, I was always left with the same underlying feeling of, “sorry but that doesn’t add up to anything”. This was the beginning of my walk in society. My “knowing” that it would end badly. It had to. Because it’s not designed to go anywhere. It could only end in – nothing. Nothing has changed.

So I went on from confrontation to confrontation. Here’s a rule that I didn’t get: respect your elders. Look around for the origin of that. You’ll find that it comes out of indigenous settings where the ritual and stories are passed along from generation to generation by the elders of the community. The only relationship our forefathers had with the indigenous tribes was to kill them or corrupt them – for profit. They did it then, they are doing it today. Right now. In our society it means, coercion. It has nothing to do with anything else. It’s just the big older children (adults) trying to make the small people (kids) obey them, or leave them alone. Or so the “grown ups” be treated “like they want to be treated” without the inconvenience of deserving it. As far as I know this collective life of law started with the old testament bible. Someone came up with the “God Decree” and it’s just gotten increasingly stupid with each generation.

The culmination of this obsession with telling people what to do came when a branch of this insidious creation granted the corporation the rights of a person. Sometimes we have thoughts and feelings about things and don’t no where we got them. One of these would be our ideas about judges. Judges are just the upper echelon in the life of law. They aren’t necessarily wise or just. They don’t even have to be smart. With the passing of the law concerning the corporation it came to pass that you can hold a seat on the supreme court and be, not just dumb but, insane. Anyone in there right mind who was approached with this “corporate” idea would immediately, without hesitation, show the petitioner to the door. If you don’t you’re either an idiot or a crook. Who were these petitioners? That’s right, lawyers.

One of the big failings of law is that it doesn’t protect anyone from anything. It doesn’t insure a society of safety or sanity, peace or freedom. In fact, if one looks at the history of society and the history of law, I’d think it would be clear that it is a failed system. In the long run, it doesn’t help. That one rule of law concerning the corporation meant that a few goofballs could ruin the lives of millions. Including those whose lives it was written to enhance. The law was written to protect corporations from common sense. In fact the idea of law itself is the replacement of common sense. It has done this, one thing, to perfection. Not only is there a ever increasing lack of common decency and judgment but common sense has vanished completely. Sense has become compartmentalized. It’s no longer common. There is no sign of it anywhere. There are those who have good sense, it’s just not common to the society. The elders are gone. We are a nation whose only tradition is that we take possession of things under the system of law. If a law prohibits the acquisition then the law is changed or a law is written.

This one event, the corporate rights law, shows that, as a system, it’s flawed. There is no fixing a flawed system. The system is what you start with. Everything that follows are results. If you want different results you have to get a different system. There is no other way. If we wanted to make a good law it’s not all that tough. It could be written like this – Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you. Now this could never really be a law. It is to close to common sense. Also we would have to try and figure out a way to enforce it and then it would just start the whole process up again and in a few generations we be as balled up as we are now. Law doesn’t work for people ( unless you’re a corporation ). So what does? What is it we need to do? We need to do something and we need to do it now. We need to do it “commonly”. That means we need to do it as one. At once. Meaning as one movement at the same time. The first thing we must do is break the law. Not commit a singular criminal act. Break the tyranny of law. Revolt with a unanimous and resounding – No More. No more stupidity. No more greed. No more insanity. No more rulers and ruled. No more armies in sheep’s clothing. No more patrioticide. No more lies.

The reign of law must end. Either that or we just take every thing we hold dear and turn it in, now. We might as well get it over with. We either do it voluntarily or we do it when we’re told to – under the law – that will be written. We already live without freedom, safety, peace of mind, good health. The list is long. We don’t even have the right to ownership. If you don’t believe this stop paying the money that the law requires and see who really has ownership. Ownership will revert back to the cartel set up “Under the Law” to control every possession known to man. Even things “common sense” would never think of as a possession. Like life. Yes there are laws that made it possible for an insane person to get a patent on a life form. Common sense laughed at the idea. Law prevailed. The life we dreamed about is gone. It will never come back. The past is indeed lost to us. There is no way to reroute the ship. We have to board a different ship. We will have to come up with a new dream. A common dream that will re-establish our common sense. The re-emergence of common sense will overwhelm law. Common sense is not dead. Like all ideas it can’t die. It is in the dormant phase of the inactive idea. We can activate it and we should.

It’s a good idea. Unlike the idea of law.

Some Sobering Information About Drunk Driving

July 13th, 2009 at 03:02am Under Drunk Driving Law

An article entitled “Drunk Driving” was featured on the “Insurance Information Institute” website in February of 2007. Pardon the pun, but the following three statistical facts that were discussed in this article are quite “sobering.”

Alcohol-Related Fatalities

First, in spite of increasing the number of anti-drunk driving laws and campaigns, the number of people who died in alcohol-related accidents went down by only .2% from 2004 to 2005 (16,919 in 2004 versus 16,885 in 2005). While every life saved is important, this decrease, from a statistical standpoint, however, was not significant. In other words, the fact that 34 fewer people died in alcohol-related accidents in 2005 than in 2004 could have happened totally by chance rather than because of stricter drunk driving laws or because of the influence of citizen activist groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD).

Repeat DUI Offenders

Second, even with the passing of stricter DUI laws and consequences, over 50% of US drivers arrested for drunk driving are repeat offenders. This statistic is disturbing when viewed on its own merits. What has also become “newsworthy,” however, is the number of repeat offenders who have received an outrageous number of DUIs.

For instance in early 2006, an Ohio man who received 12 DUIs within a ten-year period of time killed two Hiram college students in an alcohol-related accident. Not surprisingly, many people in the local community were outraged with the driver who accidentally killed the two college students.

What was perhaps more revealing in this case, however, was the number of phone calls made to the radio talk shows by people asking who the judges and prosecutors were and what the consequences were for this driver after he received his 3rd, his 8th, and his 11th DUIs. In other words, people starting asking the “tough questions” regarding the accountability of those who received multiple DUIs as well as the accountability of the judges and prosecutors who were involved in the repeat offenders’ legal proceedings.

Many Drivers with Suspended Licenses Still Drive

Third, 67% of US drivers with suspended licenses still drive. From a logical standpoint, many people must be asking themselves how this is possible in an age of technological advancement that features capabilities such as “real-time” computer access to driver registration information that is available to the law enforcement community.

Drunk Driving Countermeasures

According to the authors of “Drunk Driving,” a number of countermeasures have been undertaken that have targeted alcohol-related fatalities on the US roads. For instance, existing drunk driving laws have become stricter, new laws have been passed, drunk driving task forces have been established by many states, and citizen activist groups such as MADD have influenced some of the attitudes toward drinking and driving in our society.

As noteworthy as these anti-drunk driving laws and campaigns have been, however, the fact remains that only 34 fewer people died in alcohol-related accidents in 2005 than in 2004. Obviously, other measures must be undertaken in order to significantly reduce the number of US people who die in alcohol-related traffic accidents.

Additional Anti-Drunk Driving Initiatives

In response to the need for more ammunition in the “war” on alcohol-related traffic accidents, I propose two additional anti-drunk driving initiatives. First, those who are incarcerated due to alcohol-related offenses need to receive mandatory alcoholism treatment while they are in jail or in prison. True, other drivers are safer when the offending persons are “off the streets” and incarcerated. When the jail or prison sentence is completed, however, the vast majority of alcohol-related offenders will return to the “real world.” Acknowledging this reality, I submit that alcohol-related offenders who have received alcoholism treatment while incarcerated are more likely to become responsible people who refrain from drinking while driving and less likely to become repeat DUI offenders once they return to society.

Second, significant and observable changes in our attitudes about drinking alcohol need to take place in our society. Due to the fact that drinking alcohol is so accessible, acceptable, and intimately ingrained in our society, however, it has been extremely difficult for many individuals, especially the youth, to truly understand the destructive, unhealthy, and fatal aspects of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. This needs to change.

Our Enlightened and Aware Society

Our society has become more enlightened and more aware of the health hazards, fatalities, and destructive consequences of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. It is therefore time for us to balance the prevailing marketing “message” with a more realistic and healthy perspective regarding alcohol consumption. Stated differently, drinking alcohol needs to be less advertised, less glamorized, and seen as less “cool” while the commercials, advertisements, and public service messages that emphasize healthy, safe, and alcohol-free activities and lifestyles need to be increased.

Conclusion

Obviously, something besides our current anti-drunk driving laws and campaigns needs to be done in order to significantly decrease the alcohol-related fatalities on our highways. I assert that mandatory alcoholism treatment for people who are incarcerated for alcohol-related offenses and noticeable and significant changes in our attitudes toward drinking alcohol are important factors that will help contribute to the significant reduction in the number of people in our society who die in alcohol-related traffic accidents every year.

Copyright 2007 – Denny Soinski. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Reprint Rights: You may reprint this article as long as you leave all of the links active, do not edit the article in any way, and give the author credit.

Plight of the Pedophile

July 12th, 2009 at 06:19pm Under Appeals and Writs

The Plight of the Pedophile

By Punkerslut

The condition of the Pedophile today is the same as the
condition of the blasphemer 200, 300, 400, or 500 years ago. He
is outcast from society, branded with the marks of infamy,
detested from every social class and every nobility. To the
children, they say he is heartless. To the adults, they say he
is merciless. And to the old, they say that he is brutal. In
every crevice of the world, there is no sympathy for lovers of
our youth. It is widely broadcasted throughout every television
and radio program that Pedophilia is equatable with rape — that
if one below the magical age of 18 were to have sex with some at
or over the age of 18, it must be a forced act, that it is the
deplorable thing we call rape. It is impossible for them to
believe that someone under 18 — even though with the very tools
for sex readily available — could possibly consent to sex. To
those who are not bondaged to this uncivilized belief that youth
lovers are rapists, it is quite easy to understand that court
cases prosecuting for Pedophilia are simply prosecuting an
individual for sharing affection physically.

To outlaw sexual activity between adults and children is
perhaps one of the most irrational actions of any legislative
branch. In this writ, it believes it is both capable and needed
in governing the personal relationships of the people. It finds
itself to be intervening a sort of injustice. But what sort of
injustice has there been? When two individuals consent to do
something together, when they harm no others, how can this be
called an act of injustice? There will be pleas made by iniquity
to justify their Xenophobia, their absolute fear of breaking
custom’s laws. They will say that children are incapable of
making a choice for sexual activity — that, by some writ of
human DNA, until their 18th birthday, every question concerning
sexuality is blurred into some unrecognizable form. However,
this supposed fact is highly emphasized on smaller child who may
be 12 or younger. They will claim that such children are
incapable of consenting to sexual activities at all. However,
such naive thinking is rather typical of those who adhere to the
dogmas of their time. Anyone who has any sort of familiarity
with children understands that children are fully capable of
consenting to certain activities. They may choose to act they
wish, selectively playing with certain toys, or choosing one
food over the other. Once sex has been explained to them, there
can be no doubt that they would be able to consent to it with
knowledge in mind. However, it has even been the work of the
Conservatives to disallow knowledge of sex, to claim that sex
questions themselves are inherently sinful! These advocates of
making information illegal are only oppressing freedom of
thought, and thus curtailing every freedom that we have!

The authorities will make every possible public mark about his
actions, save for the Scarlett Letter, and when the sex criminal
has been harassed, beaten, and abused by the so-called
good-hearted community, once this is done, the authorities will
look the Pedophile and say, “That man is cruel and heartless,
deserving of no affection, deprived of all beauty.” Think of
that! They will throw on to him the burden of guilt while they
themselves endeavor only to cause suffering. Megan’s Law, for
example, requires a Pedophile convict to give notice of his
name, address, and crime to all people who live within a three
block radius, using the methods deemed appropriate by probation
officer, including, “signs, handbills, bumper stickers, clothing
labels, and door-to-door oral communication.” This is no longer
a case of sexual exploitation. It’s a case of incredible masses
of uneducated, unintelligent people making oppressive laws. When
things have come this far, it is no longer a battle between the
youth lovers and the Authoritarians, but a battle between the
Humanitarians and the tyrants, a battle between compassion and
depravity. These laws are not only opposed by the lovers of
youth, but the lovers of affection. To what sentiment of
humaneness can one appeal to when proposing such a law? There
can be none. And so this law, Megan’s Law, is just a barbaric
sentiment that arose from the ancient scaffolds, the
dismembering of hands of thieves, the imprisonment of those in
debt — it is simply barbaric and cruel. Opposed not only by our
brotherly Pedophiles, but also by anyone who has any sort of
emotion of kinship with their fellow human beings.

Like the blasphemer, though, the Pedophile is civilized and
produces good things for our world. The infidels and heretics
questioned what was popularly believed, relieving from the minds
of men that they need to fear an afterlife. And so today, youth
lovers work to give the minds of men and children the peace of
knowledge that pleasure is not to be abhorred, that happiness
and joy are intrinsically valuable and good things. Those who
oppose Pedophilia are only attempting to relinquish one taboo
from the minds of our society. Instead, they work to cause
suffering and to degrade those who hold that adults and children
may have sexual relations between each other. Yet those who
defend Pedophilia will continue to assert that forced sexual
acts are an abomination, a cruelty which cannot be replaced.
Pedophilia is not at all about forced or coerced sexual
activity. Pedophilia is about freedom and the liberty to govern
one’s own body without harming others.

Still, though, the assertion will ring throughout the halls of
injustice that Pedophilia is rape under any condition. They will
claim that, judging by the years a person has existed on this
planet, that this scale is perfect for determining exactly when
they are ready to use their own bodies for their own will. I can
say this of rape — forced sexual acts are horrible, whether
between two individuals of the same age or of a different age. I
could never excuse such a brutality on the grounds of any
philosophical assertion. Some may say that Pedophilia should be
outlawed entirely because of the few incidents of rape, but then
it should follow that all sex should be outlawed because of
those few incidents. And the legislators fail to understand that
rape occurs, regardless of what the laws say. Outlawing
Pedophilia only deprives human beings of the right to govern
their own bodies without harming anyone around them. I must
oppose age-consent laws as I oppose any form of tyranny which
works on the assumption that liberty is unnecessary.

And so, to oppose Pedophilia is to oppose justice and liberty.
To say that a child or an adult has no right to govern their own
body, even if they cause no suffering in their actions, to say
this is the worst form of brutality. It makes it illegal to show
affection physically, it makes it a crime to express compassion,
it villifies those who desire to give the kiss of warmth to the
youth of our world. To the man who has offered his body and his
affections to children, the authorities will call him a rapist,
they will throw him in jail, and upon release, they will force
him to inform those around him of his activities, relegating him
to abuse and harassment. This can be defined aptly as the rogue
state — a government which holds that sex and love are illegal.
Just as it was illegal for the races to engage in sex with each
other, today it is illegal for the ages to engage in sex with
each other. This is but the worst of crimes — to call sex and
love a crime. It may be true that the love between a man and a
child will forever remain a mystery in the hearts of people. It
may be true that physical affection and warmth will forever be
lost in the abyss of ignorance. It may be true that justice will
fall victim to merciless brutality, that affection and kindness
have no place in society, that considering everything of value,
liberty cannot be found — but it is the heart of the
Humanitarians and the lovers of youth and compassion to oppose
these possibilities with every ounce of strength that can be
mustered.

www.punkerslut.com

For Life, Punkerslu