To the Web site viewer: The people I am referring to in my second presentation are the same Library employees as my first presentation. This involves the same issue of exposing chronically underage children to sexual themes and materials.
Please pardon, again, my way of doing a rather unorthodox opening point. I will go a little bit off our subject matter for a moment – before getting back to it. Now, have you ever heard of an Evidence Whisperer?
True story: I once did some pro bono investigative work for a wrongfully convicted person. During my evidence whispering (someone who vets evidence for missed clues) I noticed several witness interviews with some odd statements. Just sifting through this evidence, it led to a critical conclusion. For seventeen years a witness had been known to the prosecutors – but had been suppressed from the defendant. This witness could have verified his claim about where he was.
And thus, you have the tragedy involved. For seventeen years this truth could have come out earlier – if other investigators had simply noticed the connections. But they hadn’t: there had been seventeen years of wrongful incarceration when the evidence was available to stop it. To be fair though: the evidence in this case did need a little bit of whispering, it was somewhat hidden.
Now to get the present set of issues: though there is no physical incarceration involved, we are now jeopardizing the welfare of an entire generation of Americans. But, unlike the case mentioned above, we are doing it despite clear – nothing hidden about it – evidence that what we are doing is wrong. That we are, effectively, subjecting not just one person – as in my investigative case – but literally of millions of people to a grave injustice. And there is a reason for this that has some parallels from the criminal justice system. It sometimes happens in the justice system – and in public policy debates – that people will often ignore clear evidences just because their minds are already made up.
In my last presentation, for example, I highlighted a horrific problem with many adolescent youths in the State of California. They are being condemned to a life of mass, and unnecessary, confusion. I don’t have time to go in depth on it but this is done on notions that many would consider utterly ridiculous. Or even against, what most people would consider anyway, basic common sense.
As I noted in the previous presentation about the mass confusion in California: “So what causes a rare confusion to become such a rampant one – if it is not the type of people that are seated in the front of this room tonight? It is not nature since, just left to nature, it would be rare rather than rampant. It is not choice since no one would choose to deliberately make themselves become confused – by choosing to have other people make them become that way. So, what does leave left?”
This was what I would describe as one of those basic, common sense arguments. But, if simple common sense is not enough, what about some more actual evidence to justify my previous claims – about how mass confusion can get started? I can give you an overwhelming case for how you can massively, and again unnecessarily, get young children into complete confusion. And I can do this by simply stating one word: McMartin.
McMartin? Yes, but because of time constraints, I can only summarize. This was a very high-profile criminal case that demonstrated – and beyond all question – just how easy it is to induce confusion into young children. It resulted in numerous false convictions – on what was utterly fictitious testimony from these same young children. It further demonstrated that such confusions can happen, and easily so, even if there is not any deliberate effort being exerted.
So … what in heaven’s name are we doing introducing young children to sexually sensitive themes and materials? Why is there even a debate on the question of whether this is right or not?
I will conclude by going back to my opening point: I am someone who worked long and hard, and minus the compensation, over an injustice to one person – and where the evidence wasn’t always easy to extract. So how can I say nothing when things are being done that are unjust to potentially millions of people – and where the evidence of wrongdoing is obvious. And where, at least according to many, you shouldn’t even a new slug of evidence because the practice violates even the most basic common sense.
Stop with the clear absurdity of what you are doing.