Kid Tested, Dipshit Approved

ClownHall retard Kevin McCullough ineptly attempts to command a veritable army of strawmen, in his futile attempt to smear the always-unnamed "liberals" of sympathizing with an admitted pedophile:

Liberals love pedophiles, because they must do so to keep their own belief system intact.

This is quite a bold contention, especially for a guy who is so fucking stupid, he blogs in a short bus. Can this contention be upheld even remotely? Of course not. Does this stop ClownHall from passing off this vicious nonsense as something resembling clear thought? Again, of course not.

Still, it's a fascinating glimpse into the recesses of the conservatard "thought" "process". Talk about ass-spelunking.

Consider the bizarre case just this week of thirty-four year old Phillip Distasio.

Distasio runs a "school" called Class Cutters near Cleveland Ohio. The goal of the school is to somehow counter the "No Child Left Behind Act" by getting kids to rush through a few academic excercises each day on the computer - and then to spend the majority of the time performing some sort of "community service." It seems to be set-up to help the child find "productive" use of their time in after school hours. On Distasio's web-site he even makes mention that even kids who attend a traditional school can join the program for the "after school activities."

A disturbing element also seems to be that Distasio seeks parent's involvement in "choosing the curriculum" that their child engages in. They even have a chatroom blog to log into the program with.

McCullough, three sheets to the wind in his "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" breathless throes of impending librul perfidy, never quite gets around to explaining exactly why it's "disturbing" that parental involvement was actively sought to design the curriculum. If Distasio's curriculum is of an entirely elective nature, of the underwater-basketweaving sort, then sure, it's useless from an educational standpoint. But "disturbing"?

What's really horrifying is that Distasio is an admitted pedophile of 20 years who doesn't even have the decency to be ashamed of his craving for sexual activity with boys.

In fact... he embraces it.

Presently Distasio is finding himself facing 74 charges of molestation of boys in his "program." Instead of denying his guilt he's trying a new approach - claiming his sexual intent is a civil right.

Of course! Now McCullough's discursive preamble makes perfect sense. Um, no....wait. What the fuck is this clown going on about? Apparently he thinks he's connecting dots here, instead of milking yet another pedophile-cleric case to pimp his crappy book.

Yes, that's right, Dr. Strawmanstein here has penned a tome, presumably with the same great care and attention to detail he lavishes upon his columns -- which are also available in two-ply from ClownHall's ancillary-products division. Just tell 'em Heywood sent you, they'll give you the good-guy price.

In my brand new book MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking I point out how painfully obvious it has become to us all that the clear-headed absolutes of right and wrong and good and evil were thrown out with the modern feminist bathwater of the 1960s. But few of us ever thought it would get to the point that we are now seeing - pedophiles claiming constitutional civil rights protections for their desire to engage in homosexual pedophilia.

So where does Distasio get the boldness to make such ludicrous claims?

How about modern liberalism, academia, and the Clinton administration?

As I document in MuscleHead Revolution, Judith Levine, the academic who released the book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, argues that it is harmful to protect children from sexual activity. As I point out, she goes so far as to encourage adults to not think prudishly about sexual activity between adults and children. She even advocates for the "rights" of children to be able to "give their consent" for "legal" and "healthy" sexual activity with adults.

One might think that Levine is just a nutcase, except that she was published by the University of Minnesota Press. Her book was endorsed by Dr. Jocelyn Elders who also wrote its forward. Elders was the Clinton era, surgeon general.

Hoo-boy. You knew it was gonna be good, you just didn't know how good, right? Go ahead and review all that for a second -- unorthodox quasi-clerical edumacator abuses his position and molests his students. Knowing that he's about to spend the rest of his life being used as a receptacle for every prison gang in the Ohio state penitentiary system, he cravenly extrapolates a half-assed defense concocted from a very selective reading of a text which was already infamous in the usual sex-obsessed puritanical circles. The logical conclusion is tantalizingly evident -- Bill Clinton, and by association all "liberals", love pedophiles. QED, muthafuckas!

Bonus points for perhaps the stupidest name for a "revolution" -- as if some dickless turd like Kevin McCullough could ever get off his hamster wheel long enough to mount such an undertaking. His "PeckerHead Revolution" probably involves a different color of plaid, or seersucker slacks instead of the "liberal" gabardine. Guess he showed you wage slaves, didn't he?

Jeff Wells covered the Distasio case pretty well just recently, much better than McCullough could ever hope to. The case is indeed as creepy as all hell, and any rational person -- regardless of political persuasion -- hopes that Distasio gets what's coming to him. But the case, no matter McCullough's tortured rendering, has fuck-all to do with liberalism, Clintonism, or any other political or pseudo-political ism. Distasio's just another in a long line of scumbags that misused a position of trust to abuse the helpless, then tried to justify and rationalize his conduct by any means necessary. The guy's a fucking child molester; being a disingenuous weasel requires little or no effort, as McCullough is clearly aware.

And what of this text of ineffable liberalism, this tome of unspeakable dread, indifferent -- nay, exultant -- in the abject sexualization of our children?

As Levine documents throughout the book with copious studies and reviews of news sources, fears of rampant pedophilia, child abduction, ritual abuse, and Internet sexual predators are at best exaggerated, at worst completely unsupported by evidence.

For example, studies commissioned by Congress show that between 50 and 150 children are kidnapped and murdered by strangers each year, yet in a Mayo Clinic survey three-quarters of parents said they are afraid their children will be abducted. And a 1994 U.S. government report analyzing over 12,000 accusations of Satanic ritual abuse found "not a single case where there was clear corroborating evidence."

Nevertheless, parents are nervous -- even squeamish -- about their children's and teens' sexuality, often seeking to deny their offspring the sexual freedoms they themselves demanded at the same age. (Physician Victor Strasburger has even penned a paean to hypocrisy entitled "Getting Your Kids to Say 'No' in the '90s When You Said 'Yes' in the '60s."

In the past two decades youthful sexual desire has become widely pathologized. As Levine notes, "It's as if (parents) cannot imagine that their kids seek sex for the same reasons they do: They like or love the person they are having it with. It gives them a sense of beauty, worthiness, happiness, or power. And it feels good."

Keep in mind also that Levine is referring to teenagers having sex, whereas all but one of Distasio's victims was under 13 years of age. Furthermore, Levine is clearly not endorsing teen sex, but analyzing parents' paranoia about it, and the counterproductive effects that can have.

That a lying sack of shit like McCullough can't or won't acknowledge the obvious is no surprise. He's not out to find facts or truth, obviously; his goal is merely to string the usual gaggle of ClownHall rubes along on yet another snipe hunt. I don't know if it's a sign of desperation or dementia that he's led them so far afield from terra firma, but he quickly sinks in his own intellectual quicksand.

The panic surrounding youthful sexuality can perhaps best be compared to the war on drugs: Both are based on ideology rather than science, and no amount of evidence can change the minds of true believers. Both mask underlying social agendas in which concern for children is used to control the behavior of adults. And both engender problems of credibility as young people reject exhortations to "do as I say, not as I did."

Many adults recognize that they made mistakes in their youth and understandably wish to spare children similar missteps, especially in the age of AIDS. Yet too often, Levine contends, censorship and abstinence-only sex education are really an effort to hold back children's coming of age, offering parents an illusory "freedom from watching their kids grow up."

But denying young people knowledge about sex will not help them become responsible sexual citizens. As Levine notes, children today know about IPOs and the hole in the ozone layer, just as they know about abortion and sadomasochism. Parents cannot block out all uncomfortable knowledge.

In order "to give children a fighting chance in navigating the sexual world," Levine says, "adults need to saturate it with accurate, realistic information and abundant, varied images and narratives of love and sex."

If a person truly has the good of young people in mind, one would hope he or she would be interested in what research has to reveal. "Harmful to Minors" offers a plethora of findings, from studies showing that exposure to sexually explicit images does not harm children, to evidence that teens' sexual relationships with adults are not uniformly devastating, to research on the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education in delaying sexual activity.

But more crucial than research is listening to what children and teens have to say about their own experiences, honestly acknowledging our own experiences at those ages, and applying a healthy dose of common sense. While we are constantly reminded of the importance of believing young people's allegations of coercion and abuse, too often we give considerably less credence to their avowals of consent and pleasure.

Most of us came across sexual images in our youth, and most of us did not turn out to be sexual monsters. Further, there is no evidence that cultures in which explicit sexual imagery is prevalent (such as Denmark or the Netherlands) produce more sexual pathology than those in which such material is forbidden; in fact, there are indications that quite the opposite is the case.

My own experience and development essentially mirrors this thesis, and I suspect it does for most people. Many if not most of us probably rifled through our fathers' stack of Playboy or Penthouse, or saw a movie with nudity in it, even as pre-teens. This is normal development; this is not harmful sexualization in and of itself.

Now, Levine does go further and opines that teen-adult sexual relationships are not necessarily more harmful than such relationships between peers, which I don't buy. But that is an entirely different matter than saying that Levine is endorsing the type of predatory conduct Distasio indulged in. In fact, as Jeff Wells pointed out, Distasio actively cultivated a relationship with Nambla, which tells you right where his purported sexual philosophy was at.

The truly sick and disgusting part of all this is that there is a disturbing pattern of attempting to sexualize children at younger and younger ages. But it's not from sick fucks like Philip Distasio, it's right under our noses. It's shit on the TV that we're apparently too lazy to turn from (or god forbid, turn off), but not too lazy to forward chain letters to our congresscritters about. It's clothes, especially girls' clothes, carried at every major department store across the country.

I remember the last time we went clothes-shopping for our five-year-old daughter, at Target, reputedly the bastion of middle-American values and mores. We ended up buying boys jeans for her, because everything was hip-huggers, lowered to show the proverbial coin slot (and attendant butt hat, one presumes). Either that or things like "Juicy" or "Booty" bedazzled across the ass. Who the fuck is buying this shit for a kindergartner? What the fuck is wrong with these people? That would be something worth writing a column about, but no, Shit-for-brains has to lay this, bizarrely, inexplicably, at the feet of the Clintonistas, the liberals.

For liberals to denounce pedophiles, ultimately they would have to denounce,[sic] lesbianism, homsexuality [sic], and their particular favorite - adultery. And that's just no [sic] going to happen.

At the end of the day there are such a thing as moral values, and liberals despise them - because as they see it - those moral values limit their sexual freedoms. And if this is "America" - isn't it all about the freedom to get your groove on?

Liberals love pedophiles.

This is the sort of deep thought, the level of brilliant logical thinking, that you're up against, folks. Pedophilia=homosexuality=adultery, the imputation of which alone should make at least the philandering wing of the Republican party (and their gay family members) a tad nervous. (Wonder what Moron McCullough has to say about Newt Gingrich, for example.)

Still want to meet these weirdos halfway?