Jane, you ignorant...just kidding.

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Sigel, James J"
Subject: Jane, you ignorant...just kidding.

>Child pornography is
>protected and funded through organized crime.  Drug trafficking and
>distribution is also handled by organized crime.  The two are linked
>obviously.

Lord.  That is a stretch.
There's been no evidence brought forth that the two are linked, or that the
same  "crime" organizations are responsible for both.
Plus, the use of internet porn generates enough money on its own to continue
the business without additional funds that are left over from the drug trade
after those expenses and profits are handled.

>You are putting money in the pocket of purveyors of child
>porn when you buy illegal narcotics, there's no getting around it.

That's even a bigger stretch.
If I'm buying kelo's of Coke, or Heroin, there may be a long, long trail
that could ultimately lead back to child porn in some sort.
But, the point of all of this nonsense is in the intent, isn't it?

When (HYPOTHETICALLY) I purchase a joint, am I going  "here, take my money
Mr. Child Rape Web Site supplier and go use it to continue the horrific
crime of child rape".
No.  And I doubt any user/purchaser of drugs is saying that either.

Can you say that Pete didn't think his money was going to go help this site?
Can you say that Pete didn't think he was crossing a moral line?

I personally have more faith in Pete's street smarts and over-all
intelligence than that.

>And
>if you held the "accomplice" theory to that, anyone who ever smoked a
>joint is equally guilty.

I *completely* disagree.  Sorry.
No point really re-hashing this over and over.

>Finally, if I wanted to play devil's advocate, there is no difference
>between buying reefer for "personal use" or purchasing child porn for
>"personal use".  What's the difference?  Both are illegal, and both are
>provided by murderers and rapists.  By purchasing one or the other, you
>fund the same criminals.  The analogy is sound.

If  "The analogy is sound" than you must view all people who smoke pot, the
same way you view pedophiles.  Wow.  That's kind of scary.
If this is true, your perception of people is way off.
And, the rest of society is on my side on this one.
The sheer numbers of pot smokers, the reaction by society to pot smokers,
vs. the numbers of pedophiles and the reaction of society toward pedophiles
is all the proof anyone needs, that you are wrong.

>Then you and I are reading two different things.  You called Pete an
>"accomplice to child rapists".

When I wrote that I was referring to the perception that the public will
have, and to the support of child rape that giving money to a site that
distributes it causes.
Please read Ken in MD's depiction of this.
He explains it in much better detail than I ever could.

>"without flinching".  I personally think he already is standing
>tall, but he is flinching as well.

I don't have a problem with the flinching, that's understandable, but it's
also counterproductive, and it's this counterproductively that is upsetting
me as well.
Pete has always been bi-polar (not making a diagnosis here).  He's a rowdy
take no shit guy, but also an intellectual.  As Time put it "One of rock's
great human conundrums - aggressive softy, poetic guitar buster".
This also gets him in trouble from time to time.
At this time, he needs to focus on the softy and poetic part of his
personality.

>I know I would be flinching too, so I don't hold him to a higher
>standard than I have for myself.  Only human, you know.

Yet, that shouldn't prevent someone from pointing out this mistake and
saying "hey, you've fucked up enough, why you making it worse??  Give 'the
people (NOT JUST US FANS) what they want...an apology".
And I don't buy for a second that an apology is a sign of weakness.  It's
actually the opposite.

> That being said, he's completely IN
>character.  Not to mention the fact that when you operate the way a Pete
>Townshend does, then you are also vulnerable.  Remember the "I know what
>it's like to be a woman" bullshit that was so controversial?

My apologies if I've insulted you, but I can't imagine that you really
believe Pete is just another shmo.
If you do, then ok.  But even so, wouldn't the word apology come to your
mind if you were in his shoes?
Right during the "furor" of what Phoenix House is saying, would you come out
and be all denial like?
I wouldn't.
I'd humbly apologize for the giving of money and the pain that it has caused
those who have suffered pedophilia abuse.
If he cares so much about the abuse victims, why wouldn't he apologize to
those same people who now are angry with him??
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHH!
The very people he's tried to help, are now against him!
Don't you think he should be motivated to try and quell that storm?
If I were in his shoes, I would.

I fail to understand his actions at this time.

Regarding his character, yes he's in character at the moment.  But, that's
the problem.  It's making a bad situation worse.
Can't a person who really cares about this point that out and be upset by
it????

>But I'm not going
>to attack him anymore than he's already been and is being attacked.

I'm not attacking him.  I'm venting and verbalizing what many in the world
who are paying attention must be thinking.
I'm being the bull horn, if you will, and wishing it would reach Pete.

>I stopped idol worship a LONG time ago,

Pete's not my idol.
He's been like a big brother.
I look up to him.

> very capable of fucking up and not "standing tall" as the
>superhero I can easily make him out to be.

You don't have to be a superhero to stand tall and make amends with those
that you have hurt.
On one degree it's just common sense, on the other, it's just the right
thing to do.

>and once you realize that Pete is not a demi-god, you
>can find more understanding of his very human reactions.  More food for
>thought.

Oh my god, dude, I hope you're not implying that I believe Pete is a
demi-god.
If you are, you're way off.

> The "whopper" I referred to, and still disagree with, is calling Pete an
>"accomplice" in child rape.

Yet, the person who buys a joint to sit by himself and feel a bit better,
is.
I'm with ya now.

> I would kill the fucker, plain and simple.  And very slowly too.

There's an emotion that I can relate to.
The emotion that I believe Pete is not paying attention to at the moment.

I still hold out hope that Pete will calm himself, and revert to his
"softy - poetic" side, and address the hurt that he has caused.

Kevin in VT