The Loveshade Family Blog

Wait, didn't we see this already? No, it's happening yet again.

This time, it's a 14-year-old New Jersey girl who's facing child pornography charges, and possible lifetime registration as a sex offender, for posting photos of herself on Myspace.com.

If convicted as a sex offender, she'll be restricted on how close she can get to a school. This is to punish her--or is it to protect her? Is she the perpetrator or the victim?

According to a late 2008 study by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, this kind of thing is commonplace. "Sex and Tech: Results from a Survey of Teens and Young Adults" was conducted between September 25, 2008 and October 3, 2008. According to the study, 20% of teens overall, 22% of teen girls, 18% of teen boys, and 11% of young teen girls (ages 13 to 16) said they sent or posted nude or semi-nude pictures or videos of themselves.

In other words, a high percentage may qualify for being a registered sex offender--just for showing somebody pictures of themselves.

And that's not even including those who engage in sex play with their peers or siblings. In the "good old days" of the 1970s, that sort of thing could get you a spanking and lecture. Now, just showing someone her photos could get that 14-year-old girl 17 years in a New Jersey prison.

This is just another fundamental absurdity in Megan's Law, which ironically was designed to protect young people from something that had nothing to do with Megan's case.

And there's also the legal idiocy of a 14-year-old being charged as an adult for a crime against a 14-year-old child. Do 14 years make you an adult or a child? The law doesn't know, even if you're the same person.

If the law is going to be ageist, discriminating against people unfairly because of an arbitrary age, can't they at least be consistent?

Read the story at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102386952

See the survey at http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/PDF/SexTech_Summary.pdf

(Alden Loveshade and Lorien Loveshade contributed to this)

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)

options

In case you aren't an American who has or works with young children, you may not know what all the fuss is about.

Dora the Explorer is a popular cartoon character on the Nickelodeon cable television network. She was introduced at the end of the 20th century, and became extremely popular with the pre-tween or pre-preteen set. The very young girl (age about 5), goes on little adventures to find things or help people, and is nice to everybody.

But now Nickelodeon and Mattel, the toy company, have unveiled a version that shows Dora in her tween/preteen years. Parents are horrified.

Part of this is because they first hinted at the new version's look with a silhouette.

In the silhouette, Dora looks like she might be wearing (Gasp!) a miniskirt. This so outraged parents that Mattel/Nickelodeon decided to reveal Dora's look this month. That's well before the planned exposure date in fall (Northern Hemisphere--spring to those of you in the Southern Hemisphere). The older Dora is also wearing leggings. (Apparently they plan to continue the original Dora).

Parents, grow up. Have you looked at your daughter lately, the one who was 5 years old when she started watching Dora in 2000? Doesn't she look a little taller than she did? Doesn't she look a little less androgynous and more (Gulp) girlish? Hasn't she found that her, uh, pants and (OMG!) shirts don't fit her quite the way they used to?

I have news for you: kids grow up. I understand that, as concerned parents, you don't want your children to know this. But in today's world they can learn it anywhere. They might learns from friends or even on the (OMG!) Internet that it will happen. Some of them might even discover that they could grow up to be, dare I use the word, teenagers?

We live in an amoral world. Soon, your young children might even (horrors!) ask to play with dolls that aren't built like babies. I hear there's this new doll called "Barbie?" She actually has, you know, bumps. For God's sake keep your children away from that!

(Lorien Loveshade, who spends a lot of time with young children, contributed to this report)

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

options

If you saw it on FOX News it must be true, right?

Turns out some news shows will take VNR (Video News Releases) from major corporations, add their own comments on top of it, and air it as news. From a candy ad disquised as a Halloween report to a toothy news bite that's really an ad for the American Dental Association, media will spoon feed it to your brain. Close mind, open wallet.

Learn more and learn from the Center for Media and Democracy at http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/findings/vnrs

We ripped off the link from http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/09/the_real_fake_n.html

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 03:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

options

It sounds like a joke, but it's not. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the the Drug Enforcement Administration will stop raiding state-approved marijuana dispensaries.

In other words, the DEA will start recognizing the law.

Maybe the days of George W. "We Are Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong Including America" Bush and Karl "You're a Good Puppet George W. Here's a Baseball Card" Rove are finally over. Could we be entering a new era where the federal government respects the law, the constitution, and American citizens?

Let's hope so.

See the good Alex Johnson's article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 06:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

options