Monday, November 26, 2012

Generate shadow reports -- on New York City's stop-and-frisks -- and snail mail copies to everyone


To graphically illustrate how unbearably intrusive 24X as many stop-and-frisks per reported crime in New York City has become (4X less crime achieved by former mayors followed by 6X as many stops begun with the current mayor) innocent victims should generate shadow reports (mirroring cops’ reports cops) for every stop -- copies of which to be snail mailed -- as in paper form -- to your city council person or, if you don’t know who he or she is, to the speaker of the city council and to selected media outlets, etc.

This could potentially to generate over 2000 shadow reports daily – multiplied by any number of persons you wish to snail mail them to – potentially millions of shadow reports a year swamping mail rooms (700,000 stops a year multiplied by however many copies).  

If a victim is reluctant to go to the trouble of making out a paper report, neighbors or an advocacy organization may offer help (doing with other people is motivating – why they have walks to raise research money for cancer, etc.).  

Ideally, advocacy groups would create a standard shadow stop report form and pass out copies to be copied – listing whatever particulars on the front and perhaps listing useful snail mail addresses to on the back.

Jump start the shadow report blizzard by inviting everyone who has been stopped for no reason in the past to submit their shadow reports now – potentially millions at once.

Might add utility to post intruding cops’ names and numbers on a stopped-by-so-and-so web site to make stoppers feel just a little bit as uncomfortable as they make us feel. 
Graphically wake the world to just how maddening Mad Mayor Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk (ethnic/low income-cleansing?) really is – by reporting each and every intrusion to as many listeners as possible.  It only costs a stamp -- to prove the pen is mightier than the sword.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

ONLINE poker is good for you – not bad for you


ONLINE poker is good for you – not bad for you

I am 68.  20 years ago I couldn’t remember what movie I had in the bag on the way home from Blockbuster (mucho cortisol, not alcohol; both melt the “CPU” that accesses memories).  A few years back I couldn’t remember a phone number for long enough to switch web pages and type it down.  No problem either now – only explanation must be taking up online poker three years ago.

Most of this month I have been stuck in the house taking care of a mucho chores – do online poker first thing in the morning just to feel like I’m connecting with the outside world.  Makes me realize there must be a lot of old or disabled permanent shut-ins for whom internet play may be their only opportunity to feel they are getting out an about.

Online poker is not bad for you.  Out at the card room a compulsive gambler can lose the mortgage money (and even the house) in a hurry – the lowest live poker game going at $200 no limit.  That wont happen online because at online $200 no limit somebody who doesn’t know what they are doing will get killed almost every time – not like black jack or the horses; not very many good memories to fuel hope.

Online poker levels off players to their own level on (in?)competence.  A compulsive gambler is not likely to spend years of study and practice to move above the micros – which micros probably will probably not give enough of a gambling thrill anyway – all of which argues against compulsives choosing online poker to throw their money away in in the first place.

Looking up player records online the very few who have lost $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 generally have played good fraction of a million hands.  Say a player has lost $10,000 over 250,000 hands (typical) and he plays (single table) 100 hands an hour; that comes to a big $4 an hour (and he doesn’t even have to tip).  Scour the records and try to find anyone that fits a compulsive gambler profile – got to be rare.

Poker is the national indoor pastime – has been forever – but most people cannot get out to the card rooms or find a friendly game – sort of like chess which a lot more people are likely to find the opportunity to play online than in chess shops these days (like I use to see in Greenwich Village decades ago – are they all gone).  Most people want to play so very conveniently --- and most importantly so very cheaply, the micros – online.  The explosion of online poker once it became available supports this broad appeal of this very happy and reasonable play opportunity.

Where does one senator get off sneaking a virtual prohibition of the safest, cheapest and most convenient version of the national indoor pastime into a completely unrelated bill that most (or all) other senators had no ideas was there?  It is time -- especially that next elections are years away (for chickenhearted congresspersons -- if chickenhearts be their problem) -- to take a democratic second look (or is that really first look) at the revoking of the average person’s first practical internet opportunity to partake of the sport of congresspersons and presidents.

Monday, October 8, 2012

My new equal protection analysis of school corporal punishment (paddling)


Equal protection analysis of school corporal punishment:

To justify use of what is ordinarily considered a violent felony beating to discipline students, several students would have to be acting up so disruptively -- in many classes; not just one -- that the school could no longer perform its function: a legitimate self-defense argument.

If just one student is acting up in just one classroom, that class may be protected -- may be able to continue performing its function -- by removing the student either by suspension or expulsion.  Whether beating is better for the student than suspension or expulsion is not the proper equal protection concern -- would at least be a completely different equal protection question than self-defense in the face of an immediate threat.

It should be obvious that beating kids for being late for school or not doing homework, etc. should be a complete equal protection non-starter.

Courts these days are mostly sacrificing individual rights in fear of harming bureaucratic interests.  Whether beating or suspending is better for the student (talking about one-student disruption) is not likely to be a motivating concern for them.  In any case how can legislatures -- in the light of equal protection concern -- legitimate violently beating one class of people for their own good? 

For full treatment: economic, liability, practical, ethical and constitutional click on: http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2009/11/corporal-punishment-in-schools-economic.html 

Saturday, October 6, 2012

How to survive standard (not nailed) Roman crucifixion


How to survive standard (nail-less) Roman crucifixion.

Mostly all Roman crucifixions were performed by tying up your wrists up, not nailing them up.  When you no longer had the strength, after several hours, to lift you rib cage to breath you died.

When I was a kid my father showed me that he breathed raising his stomach instead of his chest, keeping his abs in perfect shape without exercise.  Breathing through your stomach might not be, shall we say, a load bearing exercise while you are crucified.

You'd still have to fake being dead somehow.  After a few hours the soldiers come around to break the legs on anyone still breathing -- to hang more weight on their arms I suppose.  Then there is that nasty old spear through the heart thing.

If you make it to burial -- and your legs haven't been broken -- you can make a mad dash for it.  The ditch digging slaves probably wont put out much effort if any at all.  The soldiers will be too weighed down with armor.  Can't do anything about recovering your belongings that the soldiers gambled for.

California forgot to outlaw the other "Reparative Therapy" ;-)


Now that California has outlawed psychotherapy for people under 18 to remove attraction to the same sex ... 
... the state must follow through with the converse issue: whether or not to outlaw psychotherapy to add attraction to the opposite sex -- to go AC/DC; which is actually practical. 

In the late 1970s, I inquired of a random Bronx psychiatrist (not silly NARTH which seem to have no clue what gay is) whether gays could become straight.  His words were: "I can treat a homosexual so they can make it with a sympathetic member of the opposite sex."

The difference between gay and straight in my observation is whether you perceive the "self-important, territorial ego" in males or females -- apparently all painted on reality in either case.  Anybody who gets in my (self-important) space with no idea in the world they are getting in my (self-important, territorial) space always turns out to be gay.

Just as guess; maybe pointing out the incongruity of a male seeing only in members of the opposite sex the ego image he recognizes in himself -- and pointing out that 90% of the world sees it the other way around -- could be one angle to work.  

(No need for gays to freak -- if there were no such thing as sex, such a mix up would only be seen as a quirk -- heteros don't have it exactly accurate either or course.  Another no-freak note -- AC/DCs don't worry about being attracted to their own sex anymore than the opposite; one big sex world to them; I don't think they sweat homophobia much either.)

Another therapy angle?: males, not just gay males, do not give the kind of recognition that females give -- "I know you're there; I know you're there -- constantly blinking like a lighthouse.  Males need this or they feel lonely (leading gay males to be somewhat more hedonistic to make up for it I believe).  Pointing to women as a social resource to make up this lack might be a angle; just guessing. 


For full treatment click on: http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2012/08/taking-male-leo-hands-of-females-late.html

Sandusky and his like -- looking for power not sex?


"... child molesters spend years grooming both children and adults, testing limits, and then pushing past them so slowly that it is very difficult to recognize when they have finally, definitely crossed the line."  From: "The Cost of Costly Punishment" by Megan McCardle.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/20/the-cost-of-punishment.html

It occurred to me shortly after reading this article that (I am sort of mister "voit-comp" -- I know all what's going on all around me) that I have been spotting boys and men all my life -- consensual connections.  If you are gay and into boys there are plenty of males -- 10% if you believe Kinsey; I do -- hitting the age of puberty, desperately looking for who of that 10% they can spot.  Without getting into it, once boys and therefore obviously men figure out what to look for, they "get together" as I used to hear the phrase around Times Square, decades ago.

The boys and men are like the young girl and the old man: one has the young body and the other has the money and the toys (car).  I was propositioned -- between the lines -- about getting into something with an old man on my teenage paper route -- by a 14 year old boy.  Michael Jackson did not need to molest for sex: if 3000 boys were going through his ranch every year, 300 of them saw things his way (and were too deeply in the closet to tell), not to mention another 300 AC/DC (Kinsey).

So why do Sandusky types work so hard to sneak up on unwilling victims when there is so much socially available?  Must be pedophile molesters want an unwilling victim.  Maybe it is the thrill of the hunt.  Rape is supposed to be about power, not sex.



While we are at it, priestly celibacy cannot induce whatever makes child molesters tick. 

Thoughts for today.


Sunday, August 26, 2012

END ROUTINE MALE POLICE SEXUAL BATTERING (frisking) OF FEMALES



Three videos of male officers trained to subject female victims to (ever so slow motion) sexual battery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RxH1CnYhd8&feature=related (groped in first minute – released at tenth minute) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NI7JEA4iK4&feature=related
http://www.wktv.com/news/local/FULL-DASHCAM-VIDEO-OF-21111-Utica-traffic-stop-136602198.html (groping begins at 12 minutes -- no longer available)


The NYPD’s atrocious policy for male-on-female cross-gender friscking is that  “a woman is just like a man."  To most police departments around the country this is policy – including slipping hands down hips, over legs and even lifting breasts with the back of the hand (the supposedly less sensitive side).  That's policy; as far as they are concerned the criminal statuted doesn't prohibit a male officer doing pretty much anything likes to a female. 

Departments cite Terry v. Ohio’s “hands over clothing” formula as carte blanche to ingore the differences between sexes – the magic words of supposed "empowerment."  Terry spelled out the limits of police leeway to conduct a bodily search imposed by the Fourth Amendment.  Terry in no way dealt with felony prohibitions against sexual battery.

Courts may only decide issues brought before them -- may not reach out and mandate anything beyond that: checks and balances.  No female -- no ruling.

Were criminal law at issue the judiciary would more likely have been at work elaborating limits in the same sense that Gardner V. Tennessee set limts -- by reinforcing the prohibition against sexual battery as Gardner reinforced the prohibition against unjustified shooting of suspects.  No way any court would -- could -- set aside the felony prohibition, categorically saying: "A woman is just like a man."

Any woman groped privately by a male officer except under the most dangerous exigent circumstances should sue for a million dollars.  I don’t understand why there are not hundreds or thousands -- or hundreds of thousands -- of these cases across the country.  

The eighth-grade math: New York City has 30,000 male police officers.  If they sexually batter one woman apiece over their twenty year careers (maybe 90-95% of them have more sense -- maybe it's the other way around -- I have no way of knowing), that multiplies to 600,000 sexual attacks on women over twenty years -- to possibly save one or two police lives?  

A teen girl recounts her ordeal -- much resembling the last video above:  “He started on my left ankle and worked his way up, with the FRONT of his hands until he touched, well you know. Not for very long but still. He then continued down my right leg and then around my waist and up my sides until his hands rested under my armpits, his fingers touching the sides of my breasts. WTF IS GOING ON??? I didn't stop him because I couldn't speak. He then started digging in the pocket on my sweatshirt, which was large because it's my boyfriend's and the pocket hangs low over my...you know. I felt his hand in my personal area quite a few times, as he's trying to play it off by asking me about the simple objects he's pulling out of my pocket.”  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110420051241AA7ncqq 

These are felony sexual assaults -- that is what the law says -- police department policy is irrelevant.  In my opinion, a woman may not legally give her permission to a male officer to grope her sexual areas -- anymore than she could give her permission to perpetrate any other kind of battery.

Balancing tradeoff claimed (if anybody else objects):
"Officer safety comes first": 8 out of 8 citing “officer safety.”  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090210210037AAXeuFi 

You can run a small flashlight [*] or similar object along anywhere a hand can reach and a gun might be concealed (checking wrists, ankles and waistline by hand not wrong). A rear-cuffed female -- checked for guns -- would have to, first, do the Houdini and slip the bracelets and, and then, do the Incredible Hulk and tear aside the police car partition in order to draw a sharp object from her bra and scratch the police officer (don't drive a bus. or God-forbid a taxicab, if you are afraid of that).

[*] "Searches are usually conducted in one of two ways either with the hands or with the aid of a mini-flashlight or Kubotana. Personally, my preference is for the mini-flashlight or Kubotana technique. It has been instilled in me repeatedly during my career that personal contact with anyone other than extremely close friends and/or family members should be avoided, whenever possible. The mini-flashlight or Kubotan search methods allow for thoroughness yet remove the intimate, up-close, personal contact."

He seems to include both sexes in avoiding "personal contact" -- nevertheless he advises the following -- as if  male hands where we know they don't belong were remained a legal option:
"When searching a female it may be helpful to:
    · Have a female officer present, if possible.
  • Be certain that the written report of the incident contains details of the arrest, mention of any weapons or contraband that were being sought, what if anything was found in the search.
  • The more immediate or important the arrest the better. If there is a legitimate belief that she is carrying weapons or contraband a search should not be delayed.
  • Do not search a female alone unless it is absolutely necessary.
  • Conduct the search of a female in the same manner that you would search a male.
  • Before starting to search the front of a female, tell her that the search is not meant to embarrass her. Ask if any weapons or contraband are concealed in her clothing or body. She may deny having any weapons or contraband, search anyway. If she admits to having weapons or contraband locate it, seize it, safely secure it and resume your systematic search.
  • Use good judgement and discretion. These basic steps may be employed similarly when a female officer searches a male."]   http://www.correctionsone.com/products/apparel/articles/1334679-Optimum-Search-Frisk-Techniques-For-Law-Enforcement-Personnel/
Law enforcement doesn’t really think there is any legislated need to do any balancing trade off at all.  "We are professionals doing a job” – even -- "We are like doctors.”  Law enforcement thinks Terry's words allowing frisking "over clothing" gives them -- undifferentiated -- carte-blanche to treat females just like a male.

Terry went out of its way to state that cops are nothing at all “like doctors”:   "… it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public [my note: presumably straight male on straight male] by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a 'petty indignity.' It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly." (392 U.S. 1, at 16–17) 

"One lawsuit alleged—and the then-corrections commissioner largely confirmed—that an instructional videotape that DOCS then used to train officers suggested that a pat-frisk was to be conducted as follows: “An officer begins by ordering the inmate to stand against the wall with her back to him. The officer then approaches the inmate from behind, placing his hands on the inmate’s neck and inside the collar of her shirt. He works his hands down every inch of the surface of her body. Probing for small items, the officer runs his hands under and over the woman’s breast, brushing her nipples. Searching the woman’s legs, the officer grips one inner thigh. His hands press against the woman’s vagina before moving down her thigh toward the ankle. He then grips the other thigh and repeats this procedure on the woman’s other side.  [Emphasis mine]

“The policy mandated that officers conduct this procedure in certain situations. For instance, officers were required to pat-frisk every woman returning from a visit in which she had contact with un-incarcerated people. But the policy also allowed officers—regardless of their gender—latitude to conduct random pat frisks when an inmate aroused suspicion."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Chapter+four%3A+A+clash+of+rights%3A+decades+of+debate+over+male+guards...-a0257675118  (13th-14th paragraph)

In the New York example there was no question of prison security – or even convenience of prison security. The prison system did not want males routinely frisking females – only in emergencies – or even guarding females in housing areas where naked viewing and clothed frisking most likely come into play. In the New York case it was the Department of Corrections’ effort to be in compliance with the fair employment provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that introduced male sexual battery into female lives.

But that cannot happen to female travelers at the airport, right?  Think again: 
“B. The STSO must ensure that the following notice is provided to an individual of the opposite gender before the individual enters the WTMD:
1) A TSO of the same gender as the individual presents him or herself to be is not available.
2) A TSO of the opposite gender will be required to complete the screening process, which may include physical contact between the TSO and the individual.
3) An LTSO or STSO, if possible, will be present.
4) Once the individual enters the WTMD, the individual must complete the screening process.”

[Note: how to avoid a gay male frisking you -- a male -- at the airport: “present yourself” as a female.]

Do touch; don’t tell:
“No personal or identifying information must be taken from the passenger for purposes of this report. For example, “three female passengers underwent opposite gender screening at Airport X” is an adequate count; however, including the names of the three female passengers in the count would be inappropriate.”  
http://ontodayspagelinks.blogspot.com/2010/12/tsa-opposite-gender-screening-mandatory.html 

”There is a standing legal decision in the 9th Circuit US Federal Court called Jordan v. Gardner (986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir.1992) that found it is cruel and unusual punishment to have male officers conduct clothed body searches on female prisoners.”   
http://www.examiner.com/article/san-diego-women-doing-time-california-prisons-vs-human-rights 

Violates the Eighth Amendment in jail: automatically violates the Fourth Amendment in jail.  But not at the airport? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRPS0pSScQ  (The gay acting TSO in this audio would not likely have performed this frisk -- division of labor.)  Why does the TSA want to strip or grope air travelers arriving from outside the US without cause?  Haven't the federal court precedents specifically barred invasive searches of persons arriving over land borders without probable cause? Wouldn’t such even fail the Fourteenth Amendment’s  “rational test”: does the TSA fear air passengers will blow up taxi cabs?

Put an end to the training of male law enforcement and security to routinely molest females (and of gay males doing the same to males) with the kind of lawsuits that stopped dead same-sex strip searching for traffic violations in Chicago (only women; men not bothered); ACLU, are you awake?; Ms. Foundation, are you there?  Next is to give notice to law enforcement professionals that felony prohibitions of sexual batter actually apply to them.  (“There is no rule that a male cannot frisk a female.”)  New Hampshire and Texas, are you awake ---- do you want the courts to be wide awake when your legislation goes to the airport? 

For the meantime they think nothing of it:
They even staged it (!) with a female TV journalist -- would they have staged a stranger molestation – he even runs his hands up a leg he has already run down:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEML_BlRrc&feature=related 
They even practice teenage boy cadets on teenage girl cadets (!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-dcSUDPE8&feature=related 
Talk about inexcusable -- even in a safe courthouse -- a widely reported AP story that notes without taking any notice of a mother with two little boys groped -- scanner stripped at the courthouse entrance too; fear panties bombs in the courthouse (?):  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/us_news/2010/Nov/24/full_body_scanners_popping_up_at_courthouses.html 

For the meantime ladies, your driver's licenses; don't leave home without them!




Male officers cannot currently be prosecuted for sexually battering females as long as they are trained by the state to do so -- as long as they have any job motivated fig leaf: agent provocateur. 





Thursday, August 23, 2012

A prolife constitutional amendment you can't refuse


A prolife constitutional amendment you can't refuse:

Even is we accept that a fully human fetus (medical consensus: 14 to 20 weeks?) is not a legal person until born -- if liberals incongruously insist on going Robert Bork, Edwin Meese-strict construction on this lone issue -- everyone should agree to the inalienable right to life of prenatal humans (and all other human rights) whether recognized by the Constitution or not.  

Therefore, all should equally easily accept a constitutional amendment insuring full equality of born and unborn rights -- to be regulated by legislatures prior to the stage of medical consensus on humanity.

Someday medical advances will permit prenatal humans to go temporarily postnatal -- to be temporarily removed from the womb and then returned to complete gestation.  Extracted fetuses will travel as legal persons and must retain that status upon return.  Will the courts then allow one class of fetuses to be "slave" and another "free"?  So much for strict construction.

Under strict construction, if a future traveling fetus leaves a stay behind twin, does the left behind become a legal person at any point in the travelers journey; and if so, when?  Under strict construction I would say that at the moment the traveling twin sees the light of day, the stay behind becomes a legal person: the social equal of my legal equal must be my legal equal.  For certain, when the stay behind is rejoined with the company of now a legal person it must be a legal person.  So much for silliness. 

For full silliness: if the courts use the kind of logic (or whatever it was) that produce the old "born alive" common law rule -- that if you injured an unborn baby and it was born alive and died you could be charged with murder (but not if it died prenatally) -- then in the case of a traveling fetus not rejoining the left behind, the courts could possibly rule that the left behind would not become a legal person; but if it returned the stay behind was a legal person from the beginning of the other's journey.  So much for the silliness of liberal-strict construction.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Is New York's stop-and-frisk disease all about ethinic cleansing -- or plain foolishness -- or both?


Next spring I may return to New York (after 30+ years absence) to cure New York City of stop-and-frisk disease – by organizing folks there to walk up to police and take their IDs off their badges (mimicking police asking citizens to ID) and then ask them one of more questions that make them feel uncomfortable (too). 

The likely question : “What is your private address?”  There are laws preventing the publishing of cops’ personal addresses – for obvious reasons.  But a legislature could not constitutionally pass a law preventing asking the question -- most especially if the question has a political aim. 

(Male) police may react fiercely to the question (note: females don't have the balls -- to make them want to react fiercely anyway), but that is not a true measure.  Look at the question as a "tickle."  When we are tickled we feel vulnerable but we really are not.  The political aim to to educate New York City police to stop ruining everybody’s sense of freedom with unwarranted (pun intended) personal intrusions -- by giving them a harmless taste.

Another ploy to give cops a bad taste about stop-and-frisk disease is to point out that New York’s mayor enthusiastically supports his ethnic group’s criminally brutal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from even the remaining 22% of their historical homeland the 1949 partition which was supposed to leave them 45% but the Jews grabbed 78% instead.  

(Am I an anti-Semite? No: but I am not an ethnic cleansing "denier" -- as in not a Holocaust "denier."  I am not afraid to embarrass Jews over here to get Israel to behave over there -- better for them here in the long run.  Right now, Jews here are being tarred with the actions of rouge Israel.  If you switched the 6 million Jews here with the 6 million there -- Israel would never cause trouble again.  The Jews here would never act like the crazy Jews over there [only 1 1/2% from US] -- but support Jews there.  Everybody understands their absentee amorality on Israel -- aren't we all guilty?  Embarrassing them here while -- explaining the difference -- is the only thing that will make a difference there -- and wont hurt them here.  And now back to our regular program.)

The only practical consequence of making 24X as many stops per reported crime (6X as many stops after something like a 4X drop in crime) is making the poorer ethnic groups’ lives (even more) difficult.  Could New York’s self-made, billionaire mayor be so foolish as not to understand that? 

Sad to say he could be that foolish.  In first years of this century – after crime had dropped 4X -- the Mad Mayor Bloomberg built a new $400 million dollar courthouse in the Bronx – right next door to the old-new $120 million courthouse that had been opened in 1977 to take the crimewave overflow from the stately not-so-old landmark courthouse up the street.  He built another $670 million dollar courthouse in Brooklyn -- after crime dropped 4X.


So Mayor Bloomberg could be a complete fool, about crime and justice -- or he could be a make-room-for-more-yuppies (now moving in on Harlem and the South Bronx) ethnic cleanser – or both.  Nice choice.  

Addendum:
http://www.thenation.com/article/170413/stopped-and-frisked-being-fking-mutt-video
Watching this video reminded of the racist Chicago I arrived in back in 1980.  Now Chicago has been cool racially for a very long time -- but this video makes me wonder if New York City has gone the way of the old Chicago.  ???

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Should gay males who admit attraction to boys be scout leaders (or school basketball coaches, etc.)?


Should gay men who admit attraction to boys be scout leaders (or school basketball coaches, etc.)?  Even "pretend-liberals" should be able to figure out the rest out for themselves.

In a lifetime of observations -- I usually know who is in the closet (Mr. voit-comp) -- most gay males I have known have "light up" around early pubescent girls.  I'm not saying they molest them -- not at all -- but it illustrates they have a problem and it is not just shortage of male partners (maybe especially if they are in closet) that can make their sex drive cross normal border lines looking for fulfillment.

Gay males also do not get enough of something else they need from fellow males (gay or straight).  Females give a lot of recognition -- I know you're there; I know you're there -- like a light house that keeps going off.  Males do not give that much of that (even gays to gays).  I believe the classic understanding is that this lack makes gay males go more hedonistic -- heavily into their pastrami sandwiches or whatever -- for compensation.

This can lead to some pretty bizarre compulsions.  When I first showed up in San Francisco in late 1996 the sneaky feel scene was unbelievable.  I had to keep my hands behind my back like I was handcuffed while browsing the shelves at the public library or inevitably the light touch would brush across my back (first time I remember was at the motor vehicle, bent over a shelf, filling out a form -- infuriating).  It was 100 times out of 100 -- and, the opposite of the bar scene, age and condition meant nothing.

When gays first made a move on the Boy Scouts back then I "panicked" and wrote and described this zany scene to Pat Robertson's ACLJ -- whom I addressed as "homophobes" BTW; I'm not; I just understand that gay males are every inch males -- also the early pubescent girl thing.  The drive dropped after that -- Pat and company confront them in the background?

A month after I sent said letter, in January, later I returned to San Francisco for three months -- one of them got me within five hours; in front of the checkout at the hardware store in the first block of Fourth Street (across from the Marriott) -- the light brush -- nothing but room to pass behind.

Next January I returned for seven months.  Somebody must have put it to them (Pat's folks?): perfect behavior.  No more leaning out of the way on the bus to let your girl friend by and then leaning hard up against you as you pass. 

But, next to last time I was in San Francisco: for four months every other gay male who rode in my taxicab had to pat on the soft part of the shoulder two or three times at some point in the ride -- or alternately extend their hand hard against the same place waiting for their change.  Not sex but intimacy.  Infuriating, but I didn't have the heart to tell them; they would have felt so mortified (which I might have mollified by assuring them that we -- heterosexuals -- see and accept men as predators, not as nice girls). 

(This would be a good spot to note that homosexuals of both sexes see the big, giant, overweening ego in females and completely miss it in males -- seems the core difference -- programmed between 3 and 6 years old.) 

Last time I was there for four months (2004/) it had stopped.  Somebody put it to them again?

I have always assumed that most gay males are attracted to boys.  I have been spotting boys and men since I was a boy -- propositioned between the lines to join the fun (nothing is between to Mr. voit-comp) by a 14 year old boy on my paper route.  About 25 years ago I witnessed two uniformed Chicago cops grabbing at the butt of a 15 year old boy on a bike about 15 times -- easy to figure out.  About a mile away was a store where I believed one of the two owners was running delivery boys -- or the boys were running themselves (sounds like a logical opportunity if you understand that 10% of males are gay; maybe even another 10% are serious switch-hitters).

It's just what they do.  The young boys have the bodies and the old men have the money and the toys.  Sound familiar?

Even if a gay male thinks he is not attracted to boys (most, I have always assumed, are extremely attracted) when he is surrounded by 25 boys he may find he has a change of mind. 

Age 13, I heard an openly gay male admonish another openly gay male against approaching a very young teen: "Don't play with fire and you wont get burned."

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Does it make any legal difference where Obama was born?


Does it make any legal difference where Obama was born?  Even if he was born in Indonesia -- just to make up an example -- he was an  American citizen -- born of at least one American parent.  As long as he lived his life in the states from the time he was aware -- say, from the age of reason (7 years old) -- would any court disallow his right to be president?

The Constitution is not clear on this -- plenty of room for "judge made law."  Democratic judges would definitely rule in favor -- (most of the) Republican judges would be afraid to take the heat. 

BELATED DISCOVERY:
I found this: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


ALSO: 
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

FUNNY

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Halt the spread of New York stop-and-frisk disease



Parkinson’s constitutional law: If New York cops can ignore the Fourth Amendment there, then other cops can -- and soon will -- ignore it anywhere. Stopping kids (about half of New York stops mean a frisk) on their way to school or home from sports practice is as about as far from Fourth Amendment acceptable practice as any police can get.
                  
”The demographics of Teachers Preparatory High School in Brownsville are 99 percent black and Latino.  It takes only five minutes to find a group of 14-year olds here who say they have been stopped by police two, three, even seven times.”  “Last year, there were more than 120,000 stops of black and Latino children between 14 and 18. The total number of black and Latino boys that age in the entire city isn’t much more than that – about 177,000 …”  http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2012/may/29/city-teenagers-say-stop-and-frisk-all-about-race-and-class/

Males 15 to 34 who live in one Brownsville housing project are liable to be stopped on the average five times a year.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/nyregion/12frisk.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

And for what?  “The 13,200 stops the police made in this neighborhood last year resulted in arrests of 109 people. In the more than 50,000 stops since 2006, the police recovered 25 guns.”  Police could find more criminal evidence – likely much more – kicking down 50,000 random doors without warrants.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/nyregion/12frisk.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

For what?  56 stops, 36 frisks in sector E of the 75th precinct on one day -- May 13, 2012 -- yielded no weapons, one arrest for transporting building materials without proof of ownership, one ticket for open container.  http://www.bkbureau.org/one-day-life-stop-and-frisk

All for what?  2005 – 2009 violent crime fell nearly 20% across New York City – in the "assume the position" 73rd Precinct only 1.5%.  http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/07/11/nyregion/1247468422062/stop-and-frisk-in-brownsville-brooklyn.html

Before other American habitats emulate New York's mayor’s hyperactive stop-and-frisk habits, would do well to ponder too his concomitant, out of control mega-courthouse constructions.  The late '60s, early '70s crime blowout overloaded Bronx County Courthouse – the architectural anchor of the Grand Concourse since 1933 (seen in home plate views from the old Yankee Stadium).  To catch the overflow the city built a brand spanking new $120 million courthouse down the block in 1977. 

Beginning in the '90s crime receded something like 4X across New York City.  But Mad Mayor Bloomberg thought nothing of upping another $400 million for a mega-courthouse down the block from the old-new Bronx courthouse and the not-that-old landmark in 2005 (in the poorest congressional district in the country). Same year, same post-4X drop in crime, same Mayor "over-do everything for nothing" Bloomberg dumped another $670 million for a mega-courthouse in Brooklyn. 
The new:

6X as many stops and frisks – inaugurated after -- New York crime dropped 4X = 24X as many stops and frisks per reported crime. All visited upon minorities who never possessed much more of this world's goods than their personal dignity (they used to possess that). Now San Francisco's Mayor Lee (and doubtless many local governments; Oakland's for one) is reported pondering what benefit imposing New York style Fourth Amendment nullification might do for his poorest neighborhoods.  If it’s all pain and no gain for New York's minorities (nullifying the Fourth Amendment is not acceptable even if it does accomplish something), it’s no good for anybody, anywhere.

[LATE NOTE -- TO BE WORKED IN SOME WHERE ON THIS BLOG: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120921/concourse-village/stop-and-frisk-data-projected-onto-bronx-buildings] 

Thursday, July 12, 2012

I would love to offer a million dollar prize for A REALISTIC answer to America's problems that did not include sector-wide labor contracts


I would love to declare a contest prize of million dollars to anyone who could propose A REALISTIC answer to most of America's economic and social cancers ("cancers" is not too strong a word at this point) that did not include legally mandated, sector-wide labor agreements -- just to make the very vivid point that there is no other realistic way out. 

The -- innate -- behavioral block that prevents even the most momentary consideration any new direction in economic policy in human males (hunting pack imperative?) to refuse to think through any new policy direction on MERIT ALONE if it is too different than what society is doing already -- have to see all the wheels within wheels working together in one second or wont consider it for a single second.

Tragic case in point: human males will not consider the efficacy of legally mandated, sector-wide labor agreements as the cure for most all of America's economic and social cancers -- as the only possible cure or at least the only practical cure anyone has ever thought of -- not to mention tried and tested in the first world (Germany, France, etc.), second world (Argentina), third world (Indonesia) -- not to mention for as long as 60+ years.

Instituted by post WWII industrialists (not Marxists or left wingers) to limit labor's race to the top, it works just as wonderfully to limit labor's race to the bottom -- and -- keep the political muscle of the average person in heavy lifting shape.

Human females are capable of evaluating any idea on MERIT ALONE (individual gatherers imperative; shoppers) -- and then, if it seems practical, actually believing they can sell the idea to others on merit alone.

Monday, July 2, 2012

When does $15 million + $10 million + $15 million = $15 million? Chicago parking meter rip


When does $15 million + $10 million + $15 million = $15 million?  When Chicago sells its parking meter system for $15 million a year -- $1.15 billion all at once averaged over 75 years ...
... and the new owners sue Chicago for $15 million a year for street closings ...
... and the new owners sue Chicago for $15 million a year over handicapped parking ...
... and the new owners levy a "street tax" -- raise rates across the board -- which wide spread character I have to imagine adds at least as much to the take as the two fractional charges (closing and handicapped).

Now for the really big question: If Chicago were getting the $15 million one year at a time instead of all at once -- would this multi billion dollar bamboozle be allowed to continue -- for one more year?


http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/12299030-452/chicago-parking-meter-company-wants-more-money-mayor-balks.html 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-rahm-emanuel-parking-meter-lease-20120630,0,1767149.story?dssReturn 

http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,945663 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/new-york-to-repeat-chicago-s-parking-meter-catastrophe-20120613