Sex Offender Advocacy Websites Need​ Teamwork

When I think of teamwork, I try to imagine everyone working toward a common goal or solution. In fact, the most successful teams are those that compliment a unified message even if there are disagreements within the organization.

Over the past seven years or so I have listened to many sex offender stories. Each story has similar circumstances regarding misleading information, false allegations, questionable evidence, deceitful police tactics, and the list goes on. I too have engaged or read sex offender advocacy websites and witnessed somewhat divide between those significantly affected by the registry.

Personally, I try to become as open-minded and sincere as my heart will allow. However when individuals somewhat overstep boundaries by becoming a bit overly ambitious or schooled as to their particular set of circumstances are superior to others, I blow it off and not take it personally. I am keenly aware that some people have an agenda to habitually become contrary or contradictory as if to assume their style of research or opinion holds a better rationale. However, the definition of leadership continues to embrace qualities like intelligence, extraversion, fluency, and most of all followers. If you don’t have a sustainable or credible following, then an individual may be spinning his/her wheels in place with an illusion that people are indeed listening – when in fact nobody is looking.

A lesson of collaboration or teamwork is somewhat like going to a favorite restaurant. The menu (agenda) is preset allowing some adjustments or substitutions but in a minor setting. The restaurant is sometimes packed with lots of diverse people with a few wait staff attending to the overall experience. But for some reason, there will be one individual that will assume the role that they must be the loudest and most recognizable person in the room. The restaurant mood can immediately sour based on one poor guest experience – especially if that guest commonly interrupts the environment with negativity. Not every advocacy website is intended to be a Yelp version of your experiences. Instead, it ought to be a resource for successful strategies so that others may learn, support, and utilize them.

Perhaps a lesson learned moment to share is that no matter how depressed, down, or burned out one may feel there shouldn’t be a daily agenda to be a real-life version of Debbie Downer. Try to be supportive of one another. Listening is the most effective quality of leadership next to positive interaction. There is currently lots of anger on the internet. Providing positive stories, feedback, and an ounce of hope may be the decision between followers and a fad that just didn’t get off the ground. Personally, I know first hand it is a hard task. But we must begin working as a team embracing a bit of unity for an issue that has created some problematic matters in our or a loved one’s life. If we don’t, then the restaurant will eventually close leaving some that are hopeful unemployed and no longer providing advocacy for our needs.

Stop Dividing Families and Ideals

North Korea has a long-standing law called “three generations of punishment.”  If one person is found guilty of a crime and sent to a prison camp, so too will their entire family, and the subsequent two generations born at the camp must remain there for life. Perhaps President Trump sought to infuse a bit of that energy altering it by dividing parents from children housed at immigration camps. The President has a personal agenda that went a step further by hinting during his campaign suggesting Hispanics are rapists, criminals and responsible for gang warfare with sad commentary that some are good. Perhaps this is where the far-right embraces its unscholarly rhetoric because enforcement and creation of our policies seem somewhat North Korean, East German, and Soviet.

Before we begin slinging the hammer and sickle of change, we may want to reflect on how our perception and approach has significantly changed. Many may recount the days of Jane Fonda controversial visit to North Vietnam which branded her the name of “Hanoi Jane.” Another similar instance is when basketball star Dennis Rodman visited North Korea during the Obama administration. These individuals were hounded and scorned by media, the general public, and naturally politicians. Because high profile individuals attempt to try to mediate truce or other politicized means, there is a level of contempt that they are doing more harm than good. Today we are witnessing a dramatic shift in how sworn enemies or those where a majority of citizens are wary of relations, this President wants to stride in to assert that “these are good people.”  The implication is that tough and ruthless leaders are good and democratically elected individuals are not so good? At least that is the takeaway points I am witnessing. The punishment that Trump is conveying is the media is unfair to him, liberals are dividing this nation, the FBI is not to be trusted, anyone that disagrees with the President is not loyal and deserves public admonishment. Does this sound like a nation built upon free principles?

If you want to understand the platform of the traditional Republican Party, then reflect on a time where Nancy Reagan once touted, “say no to drugs” campaign. Shift forward to modern day platforms where heroin and drugs from Mexico is the biggest threat to American society. Attorney General Jeff Sessions guidances from former President Barack Obama’s administration that allowed states to legalize marijuana with minimal federal interference. Now Trump says he is likely to support ending a federal ban on pot. Perhaps that recent United States/North Korea summit had an ah-ha moment? Marijuana is legal in North Korea. It’s perfectly legal to buy and smoke cannabis in public and private. Cannabis grows wildly in North Korea and has been sold abroad by government agencies as a way to earn foreign currency.   Maybe Trump took a whiff and passed and saw a potential job creation moment? (after all, we didn’t see Dennis Rodman, but he was at the summit somewhere?)

What I do not understand is how our neighbors to the south are considered rapists, gangs, and drug dealers but the North Korean people are suddenly, in the eyes of the President, worthy of a sit-down? Ironic that North and South Korea are in negotiations to tear down its demilitarized zone in exchange for peace and prosperity. However, Trump continues to hammer at legislation to build a wall. North Korea has political prisoner camps that lock up families, and now we witness our administration locking up families but dividing them. I personally find it interesting that President Trump executive order 13767 to deploy all lawful means to secure our Nation’s border but then signs Executive Order 13841 to stop his initial order? Trump’s order legislation is becoming somewhat similar to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.

Folks, the United States is critically divided because our President is not committed to stability instead it policy or diplomacy. In fact, the Presidential behavior of Trump has become someone similar to his Twitter feeds. It changes like the wind as to stir and generate so much buzz that we forget about the previous issue. The conversation that should bring us together to work out our policial differences sounds like a moment with Pope Francis. This is where positive LGBT experiences of inclusiveness are met with rug pulled moments. It usually begins where traditional Catholics are not so welcoming followed by a slew of sad commentary and misrepresentations of LGBT people become labeled and divided from membership with their families. At least that is where Americans learned how to become prejudice, in my opinion.

Might I suggest that we leave our political preference at the door when discussing how to repair the nation? For a brief moment, can we forget about our identities and the skin color, religion, or other distinguishable features at the door? Let’s have an open session involving how to fix things rather than what our political platform or religious doctrine says. When I build a table or chair, I don’t need my local politician or priest to discuss or influence how to make it better. It is people that get things done, no different than Dennis Rodman or Jane Fonda. They weren’t elected but at least facilitate to some form of reasonable change. Could we attempt the same path?

People Are People

There is a time in our lives where meeting someone we may be attracted to leads to some somewhat embarrassing moments. That particular moment is when you approach someone at a bar or social setting and ask them out only to learn that they are gay or lesbian. Immediately the apologies and blushed faces are apparent where the brain exclaims, “I wish there were labels to identify who is who?”  Our obsession with labels or our own personal gaydar has become slightly problematic that when someone hears pansexual, gender non-binary or aromantic. It becomes a lesson defining moment sometimes leaving us more confused than educated. Even for the LGBT community, such labels create a learning moment. At least LGBT members embrace most anything thrown at them to learn and assimilate. It is a shame that same quality isn’t shared in the heterosexual community as a whole.

But when labels transfer away from sexual identity towards registered offenders, those on parole, individuals with criminal records, or just everyday humanity, then the labels become forms of weapons with mass destruction appeal. Often we hear of the stereotypical and somewhat sexist, racist or name-calling tone of “Tyrone, that black dude that looks like he was just released from prison” or “Chris, the guy that looks like a molester.”  There is no basis as to why people enjoy appalling and unpleasant descriptive values when attempting to describe one another. But such sarcasm spills over without defense from humanity to uncomfortably laugh at such descriptors. It is slightly similar to how Nazi’s attempted to label Jewish citizens by nose size, eye and hair color, or particular skull features. It was all hocus-pocus noise however people actually believed it – and some supremacists still do today.  Perhaps our obsession to label is a convenience? Somewhat like unofficial nicknames were given as a child that stuck with us. However, if someone has a criminal record, is a registered offender, or is a member of the LGBT community shouldn’t be the sole basis to stigmatize or label individuals. Doing so is not only wrong and hurtful but is nothing more than adult versions of bullying. The past is the past, but adults should learn to act like responsible adults.

I don’t introduce my friend Martin as, “this is my black friend Martin.” Instead, I introduce as “this is Martin.”   I don’t say, “this is my dike friend Carol.” Instead, I say, “this is Carol.” If an individual wants to learn more about them instead it is an LGBT or perhaps rumor that need put to rest, there are times and appropriate places to continue that conversation as long as it is respectful and allows open dialog.

Recently there was a discussion about how to label registered sex offenders.  This was perhaps a thorny issue to tackle. However, I strongly feel and suggest that all forms of labels that diminish the humanity value offer more harm than good. I suggested, “this is Steve” followed by “someone affected by the registry.” That way the conversation can begin if Steve is a registered offender or if Steve has a family member on the registry. But we will constantly learn that ill winded people will suggest “Steve, that dude that looks like a creeper.”  We see the postings and hear the noise all the time yet do very little to advocate or redirect improved language. Comedy is one thing if you are a skillful comedian. However, there is nothing funny about the misuse of labels and how it stigmatizes others.

Gender may create a bit of an issue for many trying desperately to become politically correct. First of all, there is no political correctness in the LGBT world. It is learned as you go because diversity knows no limits. The term mister goes a long way but can be interpreted as differences between LGBT members. However, straight men shouldn’t begin throwing the enthusiastic term of girlfriend around unless you are sensibly fashionable, have perfect teeth, and can recite all song lyrics by Madonna. I have discovered that titles should be a doctor, professor, queen, princess, mom, dad or other obtainable and qualified appropriate titles. Sure, the LGBT community does occasionally throw the term Miss Thing around, but in a lighthearted joking manner. The LGBT community is one of the communities that embraced people of color, those affected by HIV or AIDS, the homeless, transgendered, convicted, and registered offenders. Why? Because it was those labels and human beings that were shunned and abandoned as a second-class citizen. While the heterosexual community tends to forget its cruel past, the LGBT community continually reminds its members to not forget how we got there and keep moving forward. That is the real gay agenda to allow everyone to become inclusive and break down barriers that divide us.

There was a time where there was a gay club, and a lesbian bar usually separated miles apart from one another (because gay men could figure out where to put the pool table as it would take away from the dance floor). Today, the gay clubs are united dance clubs where people of all backgrounds are free to be themselves and sometimes experience conditions they never thought would be mentally possible. You don’t turn a person gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Just as you don’t make a criminal or sexually deviant. People make mistakes and poor judgments. Pay the price and move on. There are situations no matter how brief that people experience for themselves. Labels create obscurity of learning from one another. But labels are an eerie reminder of the pink triangles during the Holocaust. Never again will LGBT members be labeled and ridiculed by policy.

The musical artist Depeche Mode wrong a song called People Are People. The lyrics are:

People are people so why should it be

You and I should get along so awfully

So we’re different colors

And we’re different creeds

And different people have different needs

It’s obvious you hate me 

Though I’ve done nothing wrong

I never even met you

So what could I have done

I can’t understand

What makes a man

Hate another man

Help me understand

These lyrics from the 1980’s describe a time where racism, religion, sexuality, and only being different created a mound of labels. Perhaps people should learn from those lyrics as to become less obsessed with labels and more driven to become assimilated into a society that embraces and accepts them for face value.

Sexting Is Not Pornography

Growing up as a teen I had no idea what age of consent meant. Typically most teenagers understanding of the law is obey the speed limit, don’t drink and drive, and basically, don’t harm another person. However, in today’s modern society age of consent issues have become an uncomfortable leap forward in birds and bees education because of its effects on families and anyone capable of holding a smartphone. Studies show that sexting and exchanging nude photographs is somewhat common among youth. Kids do not understand the law because sexting, to them, is a private exchange between two consenting parties.  Essentially, to their interpretations, is has become a new safer sex method and replacement to defunct gloss magazines. When a parent or adult explains to youth the consequences of sexting as an issue that could wind them up in jail, it seems like a parental discussion rather than a stern warning. That is until it actually affects them with criminal charges. Youth understanding the effects of sexting is a hit and miss market because of public embarrassment to begin discussions about sex education. Long gone are the boy’s bathroom gang holding up proof of girls panties too as a measure they have reached some form of adulthood. Smartphones have replaced such high-school rituals. When parents become involved because of policing private exchanges, the complications get much worse and in most cases places adults in a precarious situation because there is no pamphlet to explain what crosses parental discipline versus notification of authorities. This is why children are now the most vulnerable to be listed as sex offenders in the United States because in many cases police bypass the parental obligations and enforce laws intended for professional performance to become cosigned parents and social workers.

 

If you ask youth in American what is the age of consent, meaning what is the legal age to engage in sexual intercourse or behaviors, then you indeed hear varied answers. A reason for this is that America has differing age requirements. Some states begin the age of consent at 16 and others allow at age 18. A few states remain at 17 throwing a wrench into what is the actual standard age. All of Canada age of consent is 16 while Mexico ranges from age 12 to 14. To make matters more complicated many states enacted stipulations for example where participants must be no more than five years older than the minimum age requirement. In many cases, the law is vague but enforced with rigor under a complicated and somewhat prejudicial system. When you throw in sexting requirements let’s say a boy from West Virginia meets a girl over the border in Virginia then it becomes a legal fiasco and a miscarriage of justice because the consent elements differ. If its confusing for youth or teens, imagine how it may be viewed by legal scholars?  But it is more confusing for visitors from either Canada, Mexico, or Europe to understand our convoluted age of consent despite all those Hollywood films that assert two kids sneaking away while the folks aren’t home. The innuendo is clear, but the lesson for society is assorted and troublesome.

 

If the age of consent isn’t bad enough to understand imagine when kids lie about their age in an attempt to be older than they really are? Many children listed on the sex offender registry are placed there because the age mentioned is not a legal defense according to law. Police and prosecutors will defend that kids should be vigilant in requiring proof such as to never assume. Yet will continue to seek criminalized sanctions to send a message to others. It seems to me that any arrest sends a strong message which may be strong enough to curb particular behaviors. We have become a bit puritan without attempting to regulate reasonably the age of consent policies rather than teaching sex education, safer sex techniques, or perhaps why abstinence is beneficial? America continues to sideline critical conversations because it may lead to curiosities creating a mound of issues.  The fact is that sex among youth is a crucial dam about to break because Americans have created cumbersome laws and basically criminalized the ability to openly discuss how to fix it.

 

First and foremost, children should never be listed on the American sex offender registry. But it appears to fall on deaf ears because youth are the most exploited segment of choice by police because of strict felonious anti-child pornographic laws. Essentially, the police mantra of “protect and serve” means protect the law and serve warrants.  I agree that pornographic laws should be enforced if producers fail to maintain proper accountability and record keeping. However, youth exchanging should be left to the consideration of judges to provide a blanket of discretion. Prosecutors should be the peoples advocate rather than the politicized ax men relegating its interpretation of the law. Prosecutors and police should begin to embrace the spirit of the law to advocate communities how to curb or suggest improvements. Yet those individuals continue to pass the buck by saying, “if you want the law to change, talk to your politician.” Youth are not out trying to professionally produce porn materials as some in the moral leaning right tend to assume. Teenagers are caught in the middle of interpretations where technologies surpassed the law. As for sex education in schools? Don’t get me started. Just remember that President Clinton could expend his load on Monica’s dress. But Joycelyn Elders was fired for talking about it.

 

Sexting isn’t going away anytime soon. Youth have learned to circumvent technology by no longer engaging in SMS texting or using software to delete its traces. This is why smartphone applications such as Snapchat, Signal, or Smiley Private texting are huge hits. Applications such as Blur, WhatsApp, and Digify allow photos to self-destruct. I learned all about these apps from my cousin. He said, “its two people sharing intimate photos instead of having actual sex. But the way the law is written means that if we have [consentual] sex then its legal and we risk an accident of maybe getting pregnant. But if we get caught sending photos then its jail. It doesn’t make sense?”  That phrase alone should make any person’s hair stand on ends. A 16-year-old kid appears to have more common sense than how a law was crafted. Additionally, it demonstrates that kids are responsible by reducing unwanted pregnancies. He went on to mention, “I can have sex at 16, but cant buy condoms until I’m 18?”  Laws are just as convoluted as the age of consent laws. The amount of technology is outpacing public policy and keeping a step beyond authorities. The critical question is when will it backfire and be evidence down the road? Current public policy and laws are not attempting to facilitate a unified national age to protect young people.

 

This is a discussion that folks must engage in and advocate updates to current policy. The conversation shouldn’t be centered around what you find acceptable because any family can create its own house rules. However, the conversation should be at the heart of a feasible and humane age in keeping with the rest of the industrialized world. Once we institute a level field that everyone can understand then and only then will be able to engage in sensible dialog.

 

For more information about American Age of Consent may be found here. I am unsure how accurate or up-to-date the information is. However, it does provide a sensible discussion value that in America the spirit of the law and determining a basic understanding is critically flawed.

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states

 

When Not To Talk Politics With Family

Tonight I was visiting my cousin that lives nearby. Her mom, my aunt, happened to be visiting her. What was intended as a pleasant visit quickly turned into a heated argument.  Having a graduate degree in political science seems to be a lightning rod towards political assessment. Based on that education qualification I seem to be bombarded with political affiliation questions as if I am the official spokesperson for all politics. I typically assess that all politicians rarely do much in the form of actual draft legislation. It is the people behind the scenes that actually do most of the real work. But I digress. An argument ensued because I was being candid and shared my critically laced viewpoint as academically possible all while presenting a similar discussion of the opposing parties.

 

My aunt is an individual that loves watching Sean Hannity and Fox news religiously. In fact, each time I hear her talk she is spewing anti-Hillary rhetoric and an occasional jab at Obama with racial undertones. I pay no attention to the noise because I believe in freedoms of speech and decorum for each person to be heard – requiring that they listen in return as a caveat; which in this case didn’t occur. I replied my aunt, “what did Hillary do for you to be so angry with her?”  She couldn’t answer and immediately switched the subject towards Trump. She said, “Trump has done more than any other president in history.”  Naturally, I disagreed and said, “I’ve not witnessed anything earth-shattering that would surpass other presidents.”  I could see the veins pop out of her face and neck with a burst of anger and disgust when she yelled, “ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? You are the first person that has ever said anything negative about Trump. Even people I know as Democrats have praised Trump!”  I said, “everyone is entitled to opinions, but can you tell me one thing the President has done?” She couldn’t name anything and placed the blame on me as to what is wrong with this country. I sat and let her unleash her barrage of fueled Fox rhetoric without one ounce of law, policy, or comparison that would shed an instance where President Trump has done anything she claimed that had been done. I basically took this instance as an individual looking for for an argument for the pure sake of arguing.

 

I avoid political discussions with family members because it does always leave a sour taste when debating about any President or political leader. I give points where they are deserved and of course, reflect on how things could be a bit better diplomatically to be fair and allow the ability for others to share openly without scorn or ridicule. But one thing was evidently clear that when one disagrees politically, the assumption is there is a political motive. This is not always the case. I would be equally as critical of Democratic, Libertarian, and Independent leadership as I would any Republican. But this seems to be the apex point of arguments that a political compass determines influence and the way individual answers politically minded questions. Fairness is something I strive for. It is when one drinks the cool-aid of one-sided politics then constituency is ultimately alienated. Basically, people love to argue as if they are winning or increasing their political know-how.  This is why, I believe, there is political indifference in America because we do not listen to one another. Additionally, as Americans, we once were a nation of diplomacy and bipartisanship. No longer. We much rather take our frustrations out on social media, each other, or on bumper decals affixed to cars/trucks and taunt how idiotic minded people are; at least that is how others describe it to me. And we wonder why very few enter politics?

 

Eventually, my aunt left fuming that I didn’t agree with her, or something to that effect. She was visibly worked up that I challenged her. I don’t expect any individual to read a Cliff-notes version of politics taught by a television commentator using carefully constructed clips to educate the public. But the reality is media has become the classroom of learning and its showing cause and effects. I am not angry, disappointed, or upset with her. As I said before, everyone is entitled to his/her beliefs and opinions. That, to me, is what real freedom is all about. Naturally, I would have relished in a moment of overall fairness that my side could have been constructively heard and recognized. There was a time where we could “agree to disagree.”  That time seems to have passed long ago. Afterall, politics is nothing anyone should get worked up about. The beauty of law, public policy, and elected officials is that they or it can be replaced at the swipe of a pen or the pull of a leaver, unlike the permanent corporate fixture.

 

A talking point as to why I am writing this is to share that some people in crazy moments like to argue just to argue. I’ve never really understood that rational about such dialog? I guess some people want to feel intellectually gifted or academically equal as if I am prejudging them? I enjoy a good debate here and there as long as the debate facilitation is constructive and doesn’t become personal or off-topic. It is no secret that I enjoy the academic world of debate and try to apply where and when possible such conduct of viewpoints. To me, there is no winner. There are moments of victory to prove a point. But ultimately the greatest takeaway is when both sides learn from one another to effectively make an issue better and relevant for all. Wishful thinking on my part. But I still have hope for humanity.