Duggar: Pedophile

A person can't stop being a pedophile. They can't. As of right now, in medicine, there is no known cure for the mental disorder that is pedophilia. Praying may help a person to never become an offender, or- if it's too late for that- to restrain from offending again, but it is a life long struggle. Seriously. Just ask admitted pedophiles. Non-offenders that own their illness and try to seek help for it. They do exist. Really: http://www.upworthy.com/this-19-year-old-pedophile-has-never-gone-near-a-child-and-he-needs-you-to-hear-his-story?g=2 And it's something they have to work at everyday. Most decide to avoid parenthood- for obvious reasons. Even though they'd like to be parents, they decide it's best to choose a different path. Unfortunately these individuals do not get half as much help as they need. Even the most advanced psychiatry shies away from these people. Bad choice. If we helped these people we could plug the problem at the source. Instead their offending counter-parts get all of our attention. We hate them. They disgust us. What they do or have done makes our skin crawl. And for good reason. Even in prison, they are more the most hated and preyed upon inmates. We as a community have decided that this, child rape and molestation, is the MOST heinous of all crimes. Okay. So why aren't we trying to stop it by treating the source? If we'd demystify this topic, stop hating and start researching, then potentially it would be easier for individuals (usually male, but not always) to seek help before they offend. The limited research that has been done tells us that pedophilic tendencies start to emerge during puberty. The average age is about 13, but we all know it's a spectrum. These kids find themselves confused at first, not realizing that they may have a problem. Because they are 13 being attracted to 10 year olds doesn't seem that far off. It's when their age increases and their subjects' ages decrease that the problem becomes clearer. Unfortunately then there is too much self-disgust and fear to say anything to anyone. Even a licensed psychiatrist. Most psychiatrists won't take these people as patients. How exactly is that helping anyone? It doesn't. Most especially it puts our children at risk. Because someone with a closet case is a dangerous individual. Having not fully accepted themselves, how can they fully control themselves? Not talking about this issue pragmatically and medically is hurting us all. I imagine this is what this Josh Duggar experienced as a teenager. And in such a severely religious family, where exactly could he turn with these urges? His victims. And that's what happens. And, usually, keeps happening. What is sickening about this case is that everyone seems more concerned about the fate of the television show then the girls, now I'm assuming young women, that Duggar molested. (pause) I'm sorry, I couldn't write for a second. My stomach was turning. Whatever the Duggar's, Josh included, would like to believe, he is NOT cured, or over this illness. It isn't some teenage thing that just goes away. A teenager developing a healthy sex drive is, excuse my crudeness, jerking off to photos (or videos) of grown women, not little girls. This isn't just a THING that disappears with prayer, penitence OR a summer spent doing landscaping work for family friends. That man, Josh Duggar, needs a specialist. That whole family does (because they obviously have not accepted the severity of their son's/brother's/HUSBANDS/FATHERS) condition. That's a REAL BIG PROBLEM. This is must bigger then some stupid show. And the idea that TLC has any choice but to cancel this show is crazy in itself. I don't know why anyone would even ask. Reality TV has been harsh on other stars like Paula Dean and The Duck Dynasty Folks (and their offenses weren't as bad as child molestation) as well as the Honey Boo Boo clan. This show is good and canceled folks. And it should be. Because a family that uses God, Christianity and conservatism as a smoke screen for defending child molestation is NOT a family that deserves a television show. What on God's earth was that dumb-ass Huckabee thinking? Does he want everyone to stop voting conservative for all eternity? Why doesn't he pay Sandusky a couple prison visits while he's at it? Put some money on his commissary. That guy is an idiot. Beyond the mess in the press though, much more importantly, we have to start dealing with molestation like adults instead of scared and hateful children. If we allow the psychiatric community to conduct the research it needs to really start treating this illness, we could save a lot of innocent kids, who deserve better from all of us. Getting back to my biggest concern: the victims- I believe children who are raped and/or molested that have parents or surrounding adults that instead defend or protect the perpetrator are the ones that will most likely grow up to be adults with permanent mental issues of their own. Just imagine, your older brother creeps into your room at night and feels your private parts but your parents defend him. And what exactly did the Duggars do for their victimized daughters? For the other girls that their son attacked? There hasn't been any discussion of this, AT ALL! BUT THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!!! What?! Why?! How?! has this slipped everybody's interest? Oh God. We all need serious help. A MUST READ- the link is in the body of the blog above but it's too important to not list again: the most unique and I would argue important report on this topic created to date: http://www.upworthy.com/this-19-year-old-pedophile-has-never-gone-near-a-child-and-he-needs-you-to-hear-his-story?g=2 Helpful links on this topic by people who are better writers then I am: (MSN Entertainment) http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/us/josh-duggar-child-molestation-allegations/ (CNN- Dana Ford) http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/politics/josh-duggar-molestation-2016-conservatives/index.html (Mike Huckabee) (CNN, Politics - Alexandra Jaffe)

STOP! Mandated Health Care- from a liberal

Circulate this PLEASSE!!!!

If this health care plan is passed we will be
forced to PRIVATELY pay (yes that's right, pay out of pocket or be FINED!!!)
for health care insurance. It doesn't matter how cheap they make it, that's still
our government forcing us to support the profits of private companies. This should
be completely illegal. We shouldn't be forced to pay for car insurance either. It doesn't
help, doesn't contribute to safe road infrastructure or make safer drivers it simply gets
fat from all the profits we give them because we are forced to do so by our governments (both
state and federal) and now the government wants to help Health Insurance companies in the same way.
It was Nixon's first sell out to Health Insurance companies that RIPPED apart our system to begin with.
If this plan passes their claws will sink so deep we mine as well give over our brains to them. Like the Borg on
Star Trek, we'll be completely assimilated and they will have control over our finances.

Can you imagine?

Having a legal obligation to buy any kind of insurance, (any privately contrived product at all) and now the government wants to make it
a law to buy even more insurance. Since when did the government have a right to force us to support private
industry??? That's not even capitalism. The government is supposed to be protecting us from situations like this,
not shoving us under the bus.


This is government at its worst and it needs to be stopped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy Crap!

I think the dreams and woodies of young men 'round the world just got a major cock block. Announced recently were Amsterdam's decision to institute new laws and stricter regulations on prostitution and the sale of pot at local coffee shops in attempts to get organized crime out of the area. Where will all the pot smoking youth go on vacation? I'm laughing on the inside, not because I take the slightest offense to the "Activities" that occur in Amsterdam, but because, well the thought of those activities has always made me giggle and the thought of a young man reading this article, and his reaction to the facts,..... I just can't help myself. What surprised me most about this article however was how truly unbiased it came across as. I found it on AOL and I've come to expect AOL to be extremely biased on many issues, to the point where I've actually stopped reading most of what I see on there, knowing I'll not only be upset by what I read, but that I can't trust it. It drives so extremely to the right of issues that it completely disconnects from what is happening in the world and literally promotes it's own platforms. During the presidential race, all of AOL had me believing the presidential race was close and could go either way, and in fact, up to the day of the election were reporting McCain ahead in many survey poles. Perhaps these were just surveys taken of it's own participants, many being conservative, but they were so disconnected from every other pole that it proved useless to partake in.
http://news.aol.com/article/amsterdam-to-shut-some-sex-pot-shops/269838- is the link to the article if you want to torture yourself with inevitable disappointment. Still I wonder what the reaction of the people living in Amsterdam is. There is no mention of that. Perhaps this fact is itself biased, but news reporters aren't obligated to report every angle of the story. This is sort of biased by omission, still by AOL standards this article remains pretty neutral.

HOLD UP! I just found another article on the same topic and it's got a much different tone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/amsterdam-crackdown-prostitution-drugs-crime
Now this article is taken from the view point of rep. groups for the prostitutes and coffee shop owners. Ohhhh, see now, I was right there is a big public back lash, which AOL mentioned nothing of. It simply announced these new policies as happy announcements to conservative America. I'm sure they've prayed for years- LOL!
But still the difference in these two articles is stark. Although AOL has left out it's biting sarcasms and soft criticism of liberal issues so often found within their articles, they've omitted a whole other side of the situation. To read the AOL articles one would think everyone is completely happy about the situation and that the city views these changes as progress. It's such a passive and peaceful toned article. I'm sure the conservative AOL crew is happy. Jesus is winning in Amsterdam, but the public sure isn't and neither is tourism. According to the the article from the UK (article #2) there are already counter reactions, an out poring of disappointment from tourist companies and fear that this is only the beginning of bigger problems to come.
What a stark difference, and how my opinion of the AOL article has changed. Though one could play devil's advocate and say the UK article is biased from the liberal perspective, mostly covering the out poring of groups negatively effected by these new policies. Still one has to read both articles to really get a glimpse of the truth. One thing I can deduce is this, in both articles, only the mayor himself, a long time proponent of tighter regulations, was quoted as being optimistic about the situation, and if more people where happy about it, wouldn't AOL have jumped on quoting them? Hmmmmm, something to stew about.

For now, all the wild children, looking to Amsterdam as an adult Play Land of sorts, will not be able to make our travel plans to Amsterdam without a little disappointment in our hearts. After all, wasn't part of the allure that there was one place on earth where good times and crazy activities wasn't something we had to be ashamed of. And isn't that what these new laws imply, that in fact there is some shame to be felt in what goes on down those alleys and streets of Amsterdam? The mayor blatantly assigns responsibility of organized crime to the shoulders of prostitutes and coffee shop owners of the city. As with many politicians who start making heavy laws to "protect" people and make situations "safer", perhaps it's just a cover up for his lack of ability to control the city with wisdom and invention. Or, perhaps it's his way of stifling some of his own sins. I just can't wait for the follow up expose' reports! Of course, we'll have to look to the UK for any reports of that sort.

Mani-Pedi Media

I watched the Barbara Walter's Interview with Barack and Michelle Obama on You Tube Saturday night. I thought to myself, is this media? I mean I guess it is, but it's not as "serious" or "logical", from an audience point of view (because I have no idea what Barbara goes through to prepare for the interviews). Still, I rationalized, this is part of the media. It's a kind of reporting that goes on to give us, the public, information on a person, place or thing. Walters attempts to remain removed, though her views are thinly disguised, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's very entertaining, involving and palpable (for women especially I would think) and so it communicates with audiences on different levels like emotional and psychological. Since I love to over analyze everything my brain jumped to the question "Is this right?" "Is this a fair kind of interview for a president and first lady to do" being that it hits the public at home, where they are most sensitive? My answer to my own question was in true Devil's Advocate spirit, "this interview is happening BECAUSE these people have ALREADY hit us at home, their history, their journey, has inspired people throughout this country and already worked it's way into our hearts." Oh, okay, so entertainment and journalism marry in this sort of situation. Where as traditional journalism utilizes drama to spiff up their "emotional" impact, they seek to keep it to a barely noticeable minimum (or at least they're supposed to). On the other hand most entertainment news seeks to keep fact, logic and morals at bay and survives almost entirely on its emotive qualities. Along comes Walters or Winfrey with their celebrity profiles and, especially when said celebrity is a world leader, they bridge the gap between news and entertainment, allowing them to co-exist quite neatly. It's a smart move from a politicians point of view, to endear themselves to the homes and hearts of the public. People are much more prone to listen and trust, thinking they are cooperating with their leader as opposed to obeying.
Trust does amazing things then. It allows the followers to believe they are in fact equals and have inalienable power, where maybe they do not. Once again I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, inspired by a conversation I had at the NY Public Library Skating Rink over the vacation. A young man I struck up a conversation with had voted for Obama, but decided remaining skeptical was essential to remaining vigil. I absolutely LOVE the idea of a trust worthy, sincerely GOOD human being as a president, but couldn't help but agree with him. He, an African American, pointed out how appealing and kind both Mussolini and Hitler must have first come across. I couldn't argue with him. Even though I feel that we both really believe in Obama's goodness some how I like the idea of remaining on my toes. We should rejoice at the prospect of change, but not settle of the prospect. We should continue to put our young and energetic president elect to the test, like a doubting Thomas, always showing up to the event, here if he needs us, but not close enough to get lassoed. It makes me feel, well, not so freakin' dorky and teen-bob, heart - throbbed in love with an ideal. I like the feeling of my legs beneath me.
So, getting back to the media, Obama has found his way into our hearts and into our homes. He connects regularly with us through our computers, podcasts and YouTube videos, and it's all very modern and clever. He's using the media to his EVERY advantage, and now, I'm wondering if maybe it isn't a bit much. Perhaps it isn't and he's just as clever and on the ball as I believe he is, but my doubtfulness makes me happy. It keeps me fully loaded and ready to rip in case I start to see things I don't like. He is not yet in power, so everything is still in theory at this point. He seems to be on the ball with picking out a cabinet for himself, there's a new update every day as to the rumors of new appointments or announcements of the appointments and yet, so many of these people were a part of the Clinton administration, and so, how much is really new? Or does it need to be new as long as the person in the helm is new and is pointing everybody in new directions? Everything is unclear and will remain unclear until, ohhh, four maybe eight years from now when we can look back and view everything from a distance and look at things from the arrogant safety of hind sight. So, right now all we can do is wait, and see, and remain vigil because that's what being a responsible citizen is about, always staying alert and INVOLVED, responsible for our own destinies and not expecting miracles. The only thing about our new president that is clear is that he is using the press in a way never seen before by other candidates and boy is it effective. He utilizes communications of all sorts to put himself right into our faces, our homes, our lives. Maybe it's to guide, not control, maybe... the future will tell. Still he's changing the game where political media is concerned, and right now, it's really very exciting.

My Problem

This is gonna be a short log, I can feel it. I just wanted to voice my disappointment on the subject of media coverage, or more specifically, what media chooses to cover.
I've been working in the restaurant/food service industry since I was fifteen years old. Being that I'm now 30, that's a pretty long time. I've been coffee/counter girl at 6 a.m. in the morning, busser or hostess at night and that progressed into waiter and bartender. It's a happening field. It changes with the times and as exhausting as the work is, it's exciting too. But it comes with many complications. Tips are a tricky issue, both for taxes and wages and the laws designed to protect servers are almost always ignored. I recently ran into trouble with my current boss and I've been running into trouble with potential employeers. Even with 15 years of experience and a list of patrons that will follow me anywhere I have trouble getting hired because I insist on my employers meeting CT labor law standards and they're pretty content with ignoring them.
When I researched my rights, and the laws that protect them, I found I had to dig and dig and dig to get any information at all. There were finally articles I found, most that had been posted by Law Firms themselves with regards to cases they had won. There was absolutely no main stream coverage of Lawsuits against restaurateurs, even though they did exist. According to the online law pamphletts and advertisements, tens of millions of dollars had been won by the prosecutors (in most cases the servers) in one case alone yet no significance had been given to the topic by the media.
I understand the subject is extra sensitive to me, everyone who has problems wishes others thought them important enough to print on a front page, but when workers through out the US are getting taken advantage of, where's the press? Don't they have some sort of moral obligation to uncover unfairness of this sort. The sad conclusion I came to was no, they don't. The press has absolutely no moral obligation to the public. What they decide to report is entirely inspired by how much attention they think it will get them. If a topic is about a group of people other's don't seem to give a damn about, then they don't care if laws are being broken and lives are being degraded. It's sad really.
After reading the Shudson book I wondered if this phenomenon is solely based on media's dependency upon advertising. Perhaps if their primary concern wasn't volume then they won't care as much, but it will never be realistic to think media groups won't be concerned with volume, as revenue is what drives everything they do. So how does someone get the media to care about what they themselves care about? It seems the only way is to first heighten public awareness through word of mouth, or education and inject the community with a sensitivity to it first. In this respect the media doesn't influence us, we've influenced them; we've actually gone farther then influencing them, we've down right dictated what they're going to pay attention to.

WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!

God has blessed America!

http://information.travel.aol.com/news-and-tips/air-traffic-controllers?ncid=AOLCOMMtravdynlprim0418&icid=100214839x1212308153x1200804449

Do you ever read something, or see something, experience something in any way that has premonition written all over it? Everything about that something screams "something really bad is about to happen" and it's made worse by the realization that absolutely nobody else sees it? After reading the article above, which I hope you all read, I got such a feeling and can't help but hope we start to talk more about this. "This" is the phenomenon that's happening in all professions every where. Experienced veterans of the field are being let go in order to replace them with three new-bees for less money then the one original was getting. All this is done for the purpose of corporate finance cut backs, under the premise of creating new jobs. One person looses a job, but three new people get one. That's progress right? What it's really doing is creating a terrible, potentially dangerous situation by putting novices in the drivers seats, before they're off their learning permits. In the case of this article, they're at the wheel of a vehicle capable of killing 300 in one misstep.

I've seen so much media coverage of the plite of airliners and gas prices. I've read so much coverage about how travel has been effected, yet this is the first time I've heard anything like this. Anything directly connected to public safety. And the quote with in the above listed article about the novice radar controller's "conspiracy" theories. I thought that deserved to be looked into. It's natural after all, since 911 occurred and we all experienced the terror that can be unleashed using the airways. Now an article like this comes out and reveals the volatile situation from day to day, it brings up some old fears. Fears that never got the answers or actions from the authorities in "control" to really be quelled or put to rest, just buried deep in attempts to hold on to our own sanity. Here I believe is an amazing opportunity for a reporter to really dig into the politics behind these cut backs. Why are veterans being let go at a time when our airways need to be tighter then ever. Cut backs began about two years ago. They happened in the midst of most of the press covering concerns and complaints about tightened air port security. Supposedly airports were getting safer then ever, yet airways were being left to novices, and 'near misses' increased from 20 in one year to 62 in two months?

WTF??????

Where was the media on this topic? And why is more not being revealed or dug up. If you all remember there were a ton of conspiracy theories about test drills run in exact replica of the Sept. 11th attacks just the day before the attacks themselves. There were conspiracy theories floating everywhere about the US government being able to clearly see the redirection of those planes, and doing nothing about it. Now air traffic controllers that have experience are being laid off, or have experience salary cut backs SOOOO insulting they have no real reason to stay on. They're being given what I (as an avid Yankee fan) would call a "Torre" ultimatum. It's the kind of ultimatum that plays so closely on everything you know about that persons character that it's really not an ultimatum at all, but a "go fuck your self" dressed up as one. These ultimatums are designed to basically displace responsibility onto the victim of the situation and relieve the guilty party of any ties to it. Any and every veteran air traffic controller will be "choosing to retire" and "leaving the industry when it needs them the most". They'll play the bad guys and the industry will get off cheap in more then just a fiscal way. There's terrible written all over it. But that's just the surface.

The bigger terrible here is that people who don't know what the hell they're doing are directing our planes in and out and around the skies. Chills and shivers couldn't be generated better by the likes of King, Craven and Hitchcock combined. Media has JUMPED on stories of industry cut backs, job reduction and foreclosures, but this story slipped through their fingers for two years now. Two years over which the skies have become significantly more dangerous, just as we started to think we were healing from the terrorist air attacks of 911. I mean, it's one thing for an advertising company to let go it's top graphic executives to hire intern designs right out of FIT for half the price. It's sad and sell out, but it's not immediately dangerous. But this IS immediately dangerous. We were being told airport security was tightening, when it was really decreasing- wasn't it?

I hope the media jumps on this. Digging further into this story would be absolutely meaty and rewarding. Perhaps not just to the media, but to travelers at large. It's a topic we need to know more about.