Firstly, every state has different legal definitions of the age of consent to sex. Some states are 16 for full consent, while others are 14 so long as the other person is no more than 2 years older. Clearly here in this case, the definition of "child" varies from state to state as a reservation of rights to the states under the 10th amendment.

Remember that the film "Kids" was filmed with actors who were not minors... but they depict minors doing not-so-minorly things. The film may have received an NC-17 rating for its sexual content, but just because the actors LOOK below the age of consent did not make the film fall into the category of 'child pornography.'

So, it's already been determined in the courts so long as the actors of pornography/sex scenes are of the age of consent, it does not constitute child pornography because the person the doing the act, or having the act done unto them, is of the age of consent. How in the holy hell can this apply to cartoons? I don't recall fictitious characters created in the world of imagination having any legal protections other than copyrights.

What a bloody grand time to be a lawyer in our litigation-minded society.

You antiwar types are really funny... as if I'm pro-war, even though I'm the one with friends who never made it home, or came home severely injured. So that 30879 number listed as the "Official" number of wounded troops... we can account for that via medical records reporting to the DoD... that 100000+ estimated number is utterly bullshit. The military provides for psychological treatment to combat troops, and there isn't any reason to believe those wouldn't be included in the numbers. My unit was thoroughly screened when we came home by VA counselors... that is the standard practice these days.

OOooH GOODY! An anti-war activist! I love you guys... in your fervent shouting for an end to hostilities, you will often be hostile to guys like me, who being part of the great "military-industrial complex" are either viewed as baby killers, mother rapers, father rapers, or any other number of really bad things. This past year, thousands of Christians in Iraq were able to celebrate Christmas as an official holiday for the first time in decades. I served my nation's military which through our actions helped make that happen, in addition to giving millions of people freedom from a brutal dictator... how's that protesting coming along?

Yeah, and 10% of the population also pays 90% of the tax burden. Quick question: Have you ever been hired and given gainful employment by a poor person?

No, it's not just "Republican propaganda." The CRA was a large factor in the current mess... you're very correct about it being a combination of greed, over-optimism, poor judgment and risk-taking. Real-estate securities have always been a stable investment because real-estate lending has always been of a very conservative and regimented nature. Before the CRA, the idea of lending to a sub-prime borrower was simply out of the question... banks wouldn't do it, because the business of foreclosing on houses owned by the bank is simply a write-off for the bank to stop the bleeding... not exactly a money-maker. The CRA fostered an environment in which borrowers who had poor credit, no down payment, and an income too low to be deemed a safe percentage of total income for payment were suddenly turned into victims of racism or bigotry because the banks wouldn't lend to them. The appetite for real-estate investments was also growing to huge levels due to the increase in many nations' government investment strategies to buy real-estate related investments.

Glad you bring that up. Driving is a privilege, not a right. As such, it is a reserved right of the states as per the 10th amendment to license drivers and establish standards of licensing. As with any license, there are certain terms and conditions of that license. The laws don't FORCE any driver to buckle up, or to stay sober... they simply establish punishments for failing to do so. Owning, or rather, buying, a house is not a right endowed unto someone by their creator. While someone may have property rights (what the 'pursuit of happiness' clause has been often interpreted to be) once they OWN that house, it is not a right to be given the means in which to PURCHASE that house. When I bought my house, I could very easily have acquired a mortgage of about a quarter million, far beyond my means to pay on a 20 year loan. I instead opted for $75k, which bought the fixer-upper that I wanted, and is within my means. Yes, while it was unethical for lenders to seek giving out the biggest loans possible to a buyer, banks were essentially forced to do so or face penalty for not loaning to sub-prime borrowers. In the end, it's the responsibility of the individual to not try to live beyond their means.

Wow, killing Vietnamese people is now linked to voting for Sarah Palin... incredible! What astute political analysis! As far as the millions of dead Vietnamese are concerned, I think you will find that those numbers are due to the fact that 1) communists didn't like American forces defending a free South Vietnam, 2) picked up weapons to engage in hostilities with said American forces, and 3) were subsequently killed by their decision to fight a better trained, more disciplined, better equipped military force. The Communists and the Khmer Rouge really did a bang up job once we left. As far as your vague reference of war belonging to Republicans (I'm guessing by your rather obtuse Palin reference), it was Kennedy (a democrat) who started the war, Johnson (a democrat) who escalated the war, and Nixon (a republican) who ended the war. Just thought I'd remind you of those facts.

I'm sorry if I offend any of you pro-communists out there by debating your views... actually, no, I'm not. Communism killed more than 100 million people in the last century, and self-proclaimed intellectuals will still try and say that as an economic model "it can still work... it just needs this or that or those..." For those of you who took offense to my post about it being terrible that the U.S. withdrew from Southeast Asia even after militarily pummeling the various communist groups we faced, please read the words of this letter from Sirik Matak of Cambodia to American Ambassador John Gunther Dean. His words should haunt any true believer of liberty, and the absolute crime it was for our nation to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

---

Dear Excellency and Friend:

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].

Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.

Sirik Matak

Keep in mind that the credit crisis is due to government manipulation of the free market system. During Carter's tenure (he's not just peanuts), we had the Community Reinvestment Act, then doubled-down on it during Clinton's tenure because of this absolutely insane notion that you can create legislature that will foster individual responsibility. Well, all that legislation and bailout money, over 90% of the original foreclosures are still defaulting on their new fixed rate, low interest, low amount payments. Like I said, you can't force people to be responsible.

The fact that your post gets 5 informative for score only leads me to believe that the moderators are firm believers in leftist ideologies. To date, there has not been a single nation of "benevolent communism" like all you pro-Marxist lemmings like to believe. I've heard a million times how communism "is perfect on paper" but it "has never been executed properly or to its original intent like Marx modeled." Shall we go down the list? Of the nations who are or have at some point claimed to be communist, please tell me which one is a shining example of freedom while at the same time exercising this "economic concept." Read Marx himself, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." What happens when those of us with ability don't want to take care of others' needs before our own wants and ambitions? Oh, that's right... "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521!"

Oh wise moderator... please do tell me what exactly is flamebait. If the moderator is a communist, and my anti-communism statements disagree with his philosophy, does that make me a troll?

Yeah, I have thought about the real situation in Vietnam: a small tin hat group of asshats who will stop at nothing to manage and control the society in which they govern. Being a "small" or a "weak" state militarily these days means nothing... good countries (as in the freedom loving kind) will always find friends amongst strong free states. Unfortunately, the same is true for communist states. Keep drinking the koolaid, friend. I know, communism just needs a little more tweaking and adjustment in order to work... it's sound in theory... ad nauseum.

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)

Yeah, I'll bet the Vietnamese are really loving that communism now. Good thing the U.S. withdrew and left an entire region of the earth to the whims of that benevolent political philosophy.

One of the niftier missions I flew was delivering bomb-resistant vehicles to a few Army units (poor bastards... they didn't join my beloved Corps :-). The reason the Army wanted them was 1) Roadside bombs suck 2) Shortage of armored humvees and 3) armored humvees don't hold up for shit against anything but grenades and small arms fire. We always used to joke that the truly roadside bomb resistant humvee was the Abrams... which unfortunately holds true. So, the DoD, really in a very wise move decided that rather than trying to hob-job jerry rig humvees and the like to be minimally resistant to roadside bombs, it would be better to avoid the bombs all together by sweeping convoy routes just prior to a convoy deployment. Guess what? During the first few months' use of those vehicles, there was an over 90% drop in successful (ie bad for us) roadside bomb attacks. Bombs were being either 1) destroyed by the vehicle's raking action 2) dug up by the vehicle and detonated with little effect, or 3) discovered and dismantled by EOD personnel called onto the scene. When I was home after that deployment, I turned on 60 minutes to watch an ENTIRE segment they did about how we're ill-equipped for roadside bombs by showing the home-made armor guys were putting on their humvees. CBS completely ignored the bomb sweeping vehicles in use, and in so doing lied by the sin of omission. As for the mod who gave me a -1, eh... I don't really give a shit. He is king of his little anthill, and would rather check -1 than debate my argument. Bravo, Mod, bravo.

Absolutely. Great post... I wonder why it only received a score of 1. Oh, that's right, the scoring Gods of /. have about the same amount of objectivity as the Gray Lady.