Monday Kickoff

So much to say, so little time. So let's get right to it:

1. Car-dinger update - After nearly a week of telling me every day that the incident report was almost done, the security folks at my job passed the ball to the human resources department on Friday afternoon, saying in the 11th hour it was too sensitive for them to handle since it involved a potential dispute between employees. HR wasn't sure what to do initially and seemed to be under the impression that I nudged the security folks to pass the ball to them. I didn't. One HR person did give me good advice though: don't park next to the door dinger. Hmmm. Must bite tongue. Must bite tongue. Moving right along, by the time I left work Friday I was so frustrated with the whole thing that I told HR to drop it. So there you have it. I meant well. And all that got me was a headache. This isn't a huge deal. My good intentions haven't paved any road to Hell. But I'll certainly think twice before ever asking an employer to step in and help, if I ever find myself involved again in a non-work-related incident at work.
2. Politics - With the plans the White House is pitching to bail out people who suddenly can't afford their ARM mortgage loans, I don't want to hear any gripes from anyone of either party about individual welfare recipients mooching off the hard-working taxpayer. This is welfare by a different name. And just like the "brand" of welfare that got lambasted in Ronald Reagan's political ads back in the '80s, this brand involves using tax dollars to bail out people who wanted their American dream to start now, even though they couldn't afford it in the long run. And yes the banks are at fault for issuing so many shaky loans in the interest of quick profit. But ultimately, before you sign on the dotted line, if you don't have sense enough to do a little homework and find out what ARM means then you don't deserve to be bailed out. And BTW, if you run an investment bank (hint: BEAR STEARNS) and you put all your eggs in the quick, easy money basket of high risk mortgage loans, then you're stupid too. Where's my govt. money for making my mortgage payments on time?
3. Sex Study - I might have been reluctant to post about this one, since this is a rated PG-13 blog and all, but since the Miami Herald ran an article on this last week, I consider it fair game. Apparently a recent survey of sex therapists says that the ideal duration for intercourse is three to 13 minutes, 'cause on average it doesn't take longer than that for most women to feel "satisfied." Ladies, don't kill the messenger. I'm just reporting what these fine experts shared with us. So here's what I want to know: If this duration - three to 13 minutes - is acceptable to women, where did guys ever get the notion that they have to be able to perform non-stop for hours on end? Seriously, EVERY guy I know - I mean my buddies, not casual acquaintances - has always had the same fear in this department, that they won't be able to hang in there long enough to get the job done or to at least adequately display their stamina. It's the reason pornos, from what I've heard, loop the same scenes over and over to give the impression that sex between the stars always lasts for 30, 40, 60 minutes or more, before a conclusion is reached. Well, thank you very much Penn State University - Erie researchers. I am A OK....I think.
4. Crime - This and this are what I meant when I posted a couple of weeks ago about parents being responsible for their juvenile children's criminal behavior. If you don't wanna click the links, one is to a story about a 7-year-old in Baltimore who went to school earlier this week with a loaded handgun in his pocket and a loaded handgun in his backpack. Authorities say he didn't mean any harm and probably snagged the guns while spending the night at his uncle's house. I'm pro-gun for honest, law-abiding folks, I mean if honest, law-abiding folks want guns, that is. But the adult(s) who left those guns where this kid could get them should be locked up for at least six months each. And they should have to do a year's worth of community service in a hospital ward, working with kids who get shot in avoidable circumstances. The other link is to a story about a group of third graders who brought handcuffs, duct tape and other crap to school so they could do harm to a teacher who'd pissed them off. Little bastards. Where in the world did they get handcuffs? Somebody's parents are either cops or freaks...or both.

Bedtime Stories

What's crackin' folks? It is Saturday night, and I admit I am three sentences away from taking the lazy way out with this post.

Here, my friends, are the links - here and here - to the two articles I had in today's paper.

The latter, some of you have seen the video for already, but the accompanying article just got published.

Enjoy! More rants tomorrow.

This has really been bugging me

I'm not a parent yet, most of you know. But I think I have a little good sense.

So think about these rhetorical questions, these scenarios: First, you have a teenage daughter.

BTW, this is a long post. So I hope you have a few minutes to read.

Anyway, let's say your hypothetical daughter is 15. God forbid she's an irresponsible child, but let's say like many teens she's sexually active. Conceding that it is a given you would be angry to find out that your daughter is engaging in sexual activity, how old would the boy have to be for his age to make you angry too?

If he was also 15 would it enrage you that he was engaging in sexual activity with your 15-year-old daughter? What about if he was 16? Seventeen?

My snap judgment upon hearing about the criminal case of Genarlow Wilson was that (A) I too would be angry, period, to find my teen daughter was having sex, and (B) my go-bananas point would come if the boy was older than 17.

Don't ask me why. I guess I figured that at 17 the boy would also be a minor. So they'd both still technically be kids.

Last hypothetical: Flip the script, and imagine that it's your 15-year-old son we're talking about and the 17-year-old girl who's crushing on him. Or your child is the 17-year-old.

OK, enough meditating and cryptic talk. A couple of weeks ago I was driving back to the office from an interview, doing my usual AM talk radio channel surfing. And I came across a show where the host was talking about a young Georgia man named Genarlow Wilson.

I was doing a little homework earlier this evening and inadvertently stumbled across a story on the Web reminding me about Wilson.

A few years ago at a reportedly wild New Year's Eve party in Douglasville, GA, then 17-year-old Genarlow Wilson and five buddies engaged in sex acts with two 15-year-old girls. There was lots of booze being consumed and pot being smoked by some of the guys and one of the two girls. The second girl later told police she didn't drink or smoke anything that night. The sex acts were even videotaped. None of these kids was up for saint child of the year.

Girl number one, the one who did drink and smoke, awoke on New Year's Day in the hotel room where the party took place and she was naked, except for socks. She called her mother in a panic. Mom picked daughter up, took her home, and told her to bathe right away 'cause she reeked of booze and weed. Daughter complied but then broke down and told mom she thought the guys at the party might have raped her. Mom and daughter went to the local police and filed a report.

Police went to the hotel where Genarlow Wilson, the other guys, and girl number two (and some other kids) were still sleeping off their wild night.

Cutting to the chase, several of the guys told investigators they'd had consensual sexual intercourse with girl number one, the girl who called her mom. Wilson told investigators he'd received oral sex from girl number two. And girl number two reiterated to investigators that she drank nothing, smoke nothing and had no intention of pressing charges against any of the guys, because she had willingly (and reportedly eagerly, according to the videotape) performed on the guys.

The guys faced a variety of charges, including rape and child molestation. Five of them had been in trouble with the law before. One of them had even faced other sex charges and had a pending case at the time of the New Year's Eve party. The five who had been in trouble before copped pleas for lighter sentences. Wilson, the only one with a clean record (as well as a 3.2 GPA and multiple scholarship offers, etc.), refused to accept a deal.

His logic: he was 17, she was 15, and they both wanted to do what they did. Witness testimony and the videotape would clear him, he thought. So he'd be OK with the jury.

It wasn't OK. Aside from all their behavior being dumb, irresponsible, dangerous, etc., in Georgia having oral sex with a person under the age of 16 constitutes Aggravated Child Molestation. It carries a mandatory sentence of 10 years in prison and the lifelong label of sex offender. Ironically, actual intercourse with a teen under 16 carries less mandatory jail time in Georgia.

Wilson was charged with rape and child molestation. A jury acquitted him of raping girl number one, with whom he had allegedly engaged in intercourse. However, in accordance with Georgia law Wilson was convicted of Aggravated Child Molestation for the oral sex with girl number two. He got the 10 years. During his trial, down the hall in another courtroom a 27-year-old female high school teacher was convicted of having a sexual relationship with a male student. He was 17. The teacher got three years probation and just 90 days in jail.

Wilson has been in prison now for two years, with many more to go. The Georgia legislature has since altered the applicable law. Had he been convicted after the alteration Wilson would have faced a max of 12 months in jail.

It's important to note that the guys and girls told investigators that they really hadn't considered each other's ages 'cause they were all classmates, under 18, etc. In other words they figured as long as everyone was willing what they were doing was OK, 'cause they were all peers.

Am I the only one bothered by this guy serving a 10-year prison term for having consensual oral sex with a teen who was two years his junior at the time? Or did none of you, as 17 or 18-year-old high school seniors, even do "things" with classmates who were two or three years younger than you?

Oral sex. 15, 17. 10 years. Maybe I'm getting soft, but that seems harsh.