Sorry, boys..

Alignment Meme's

As a one-time huge D&D nerd, one of my absolute favorite memes is the "alignment meme." That's the one where you take nine people or characters fitting a given theme and arrange them according to the twin spectrums of AD&D's character morality model: From Good to Evil and from Lawful to Chaotic.

Here's a particularly relevant one (for this blog) that I came across recently:

What I love about these is the possibility for interesting debate.  (Among HUGE NERDS, granted but still...)

For example, I didn't really see Truman as "Lawful Evil." Until I read his quote. Then I was was like... "Oh... Yeeeeah. Riiiiiight." (awkward)

Also... I REALLY can't see JFK as "Lawful." Don't get me wrong, I like Kennedy but if he belongs anywhere it definitely on the Chaotic spectrum. (But yeah... TR and Jackson? PERFECT choices already.  For Lawful Neutral, I'd have gone with either Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, both of whom supported the legal, yet morally reprehensible institution of slavery.  (And sure, one can argue that they belong in the 'Evil' category of that, but there actions were taken to AVOID a war, whilst Truman's were taken to WIN one, so I can see leaving it as it is as well.

Another brilliant one was this:

Now calling the media "True Neutral" is not suggesting, in the least, that they have been unbiased. On the contrary, the fact that they have even tried to maintain the appearance of neutrality here is proof-positive of the Systematic Conservative bias of our Corporate Press: THIS WHOLE MESS IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS.

PERIOD.

It's not even a question of who supported what during the debate, or whether one side of the other (or Obama) supported the sequester deal or not. If the Republicans did play bullshit politics with what should have been a routine piece of maintenance-level legislation, namely RAISING THE DEBT CEILING, then none of this would have happened.

And make no mistake: It WILL harm the economy. (Not our security though: We spend twice as much on defense as France, England, Russia and China COMBINED. So we'll be FINE, militarily. The problem of defense spending is entrierly an ECONOMIC one, just as all other spending questions are!) (What do you know? Eisenhower was RIGTH!)



(Too bad we didn't listen!)

And remember: The Debt Ceiling has NOTHING, at all, to do with either the national debt or the federal budget deficit.  Raising the debt ceiling only allows the US to pay the bills it has ALREADY RUN UP when Congress drew up the budget. It has NOTHING, at all, to do with "blank checks" or "new spending" or ANYTHING like that.

But hey: Just as Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) have contended form the beginning that Obama it "trying" to wreck the economy, in order to adopt some [straw-man argument that they keep harping about which has no basis in reality], I have also contended that the Republicans actually WANT to forestall economic recovery, and even force us back into recession.  The difference between me and Limbaugh?  I can demonstrate actual MOTIVE, and can point to ACTUAL ACTIONS, both taken and obstructed, by the Republicans to demonstrate MEANS and OPPORTUNITY.

Motive: Tank the economy on Obama's watch and the Dem's will get blamed for it.  Hey - it has some precedent. (George Bush Sr. in 1992, for example.) And it's also why you only hear about austerity and reducing the deficit when there's a Democrat in the White House: Because the ONLY possibly result of Government Austerity is a shittier economy! There is no other possible result! And when there's a Republican in the White House?

"I think Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

~Vice President Dick Cheney

As for means & opportunity?

- Obstructed the American Re-Investment and Recovery Act, and sought only to weaken it.
- Unprecedented use of the filibuster
- All this nonsense about the debt ceiling
- All the anonymous holds on Presidential Appointees, also unprecedented both in terms of number, and the positions in question
- All their talk about cutting spending. Where was that under Bush? Nonexistent, because they wouldn't want to tank the economy under Bush!

(Though they managed to anyway!)

(Now watch as anonymous forces us to rehash the debate over the CRA with the same, tired debunked talking points we already beat in to the ground! LOL)

Evil indeed. Without a doubt in my mind.

Music Page

I've added a page to collect some of the songs I've highlighted over the past couple of that I really like and that I feel are of great social importance and carry an important message.  The tab is at the top- right, check it out, let me know what you think!

Two Republicans

You know what's really frustrating? One - someone like Obama who seems to be full of good ideas, but would rather give in to his opposition at the first opportunity.  But even more so?  Hard-Right Conservative Republicans who make sense just often enough to make you think they don't have their heads up their asses.  (I say "often enough" because it usually only takes a few minutes before they prove this wrong, but still...) This started out as a "top X Republicans I like" kind of post, but it was really triggered by recent comments by the whopping total of TWO.  And that's not a list.  All the same, I'd like to tip my cap to a couple of guys who are absolutely hard-core Right Wingers, but who, on many occasions, GET IT RIGHT just often enough to frustrate the hell out of you: Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham.

Ron Paul is always an interesting guy to listen to.  For one thing - as he'll gladly tell you - he really the only TRUE Conservative in Politics today.  And I think there's a lot of truth to that.  And his conviction to stick to his principles, even when it would be unpopular with "conservatives" was on full display recently when he, along with the ACLU, condemned the killing of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.  Yep: One more example of Ron Paul getting it right, while his party and the masses of ignorant Red Necks who support it, CELEBRATE getting it WRONG.  Now I am a true-blue supporter of all that the ACLU does, including those times when the DEFEND Churches and Right-Wing Talk Show Hosts in court.  Because MY OWN principles regareding Civil Liberties are also neither negotiable, nor partisan.  Classic Liberal had a great write up on this a while back too, so check it out! 

How can anyone think that the RIGHT and the AMERICAN thing to do was ANYTHING other that (1) arrest him, (2) extradite him, (3) try him, and (4, most likely) Execute him?  (OK... I know, I know... We've already debated #4. I just threw that in to aggravate you.)

Now... Don't get me wrong: RON PAUL IS A KOOK.  One of my thresholds for Right-Wing / Libertarian / John Birch / Kook is anyone who argues for the ABOLITION of the Federal Reserve.   It's one thing to disagree with a specirfic Fed policy or practice, but to argue for the outright abolition? That's kook territory. And if you don't agree with me, then you've never passed a college-level economics or history of economic course.  (Glenn Beck? I'm looking at you!)  But hey - I will ALWAYS give credit where it's due, and Ron Paul makes too much sense, too often, for me to reconcile that with the fact that he's goes off the la-la land deep end as often as he does as well.  It's to bad he's not electable ("conservatives" hate him) though, because of ALL the Republicans out there right now? I honestly think he'd be one of the better choices. (And before all you crazy liberals start flaming me over that, please consider how low I'm setting the bar with that statement!) ;)

The other guy who makes me nod and say "Now see? THAT GUY gets it!" too often for the level of Right -Wing kook that HE is, is Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans to recently come out in favor of trade sanctions against China for their unfair currency manipulation:

"The institution I need to be protecting is the American workforce, who is having their clock cleaned by a communist dictatorship who cheats."
~Lindsey Graham

BOOM!

You go, Lindsey!

And this happens A LOT!  There are so many times that I find myself nodded my head and rhetorically high fiving this very Conservative, Southern, Republican Senator!  And yet...  Get him talking about Abortion, Gay Rights, or any other of the Right's pet anti-causes and suddenly he's an ignorant Redneck again!

And please, don't for a minute think that I'm suggesting that OBAMA is somehow winning over some Republicans. No way.  I've been watching these guys for YEARS, vacillating between loving them and laughing at them.  What I DO think is happening, in the case of Graham, is that he's looking at inherently good legislation and, once again, sees his party opposing it on the basis of it still being Obama's watch and he's saying "Fuck You" to his party and their four year plan to screw America for the sake of sinking Obama.

Anyway, as far as Republicans go, I do like these guys...

...But I'd still never vote for them.

(OTOH, I'm still registered as Republican in Michigan, so if there's ever a Paul/Graham ticket, I WILL give them some love in the Primary! LOL.)

(Never happen.) XD

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to You All!

Many's the time I've been mistaken
And many times confused
Yes, and I've often felt forsaken
And certainly misused
Oh, but I'm all right, I'm all right
I'm just weary to my bones
Still, you don't expect to be
Bright and bon vivant
So far away from home, so far away from home

And I don't know a soul who's not been battered
I don't have a friend who feels at ease
I don't know a dream that's not been shattered
or driven to its knees
but it's all right, it's all right
for we lived so well so long
Still, when I think of the
road we're traveling on
I wonder what's gone wrong
I can't help it, I wonder what's gone wrong

(me too, Paul)

And I dreamed I was dying
I dreamed that my soul rose unexpectedly
And looking back down at me
Smiled reassuringly
And I dreamed I was flying
And high up above my eyes could clearly see
The Statue of Liberty
Sailing away to sea
And I dreamed I was flying

For we come on the ship they call the Mayflower
We come on the ship that sailed the moon
We come in the age's most uncertain hours
and sing an American tune
Oh, and it's alright, it's all right, it's all right
You can't be forever blessed
Still, tomorrow's going to be another working day
And I'm trying to get some rest
That's all I'm trying to get some rest



I'm signing off for the year, folks. I hope to hear again from all of you (and I do mean ALL of you!) in the New Year.  Until then, take care of yourselves, have a safe and happy holiday and thank you so much for the time we've shared.  It means more to me than it probably should.  LOL.

The last two year have each been better than the one before them.  Let all make sure to keep that trend going and make it three.

Cheers.

S'more Rambling...

Just some random rambling, because I feel to compelled to write something tonight, but as too sick, achy and tired to be profound.  So I want to share something with you that will make you laugh your asses off.  BUT... I want to share the emotional roller coaster that got me there as well. (Of course, you may also feel free to skip down to the link if you don't care! I won't mind!) ;)

Earlier tonight I was giving my two boys a bath.  And when I do that, i sing to them.  I sing both loudly, and fairly badly.  But they don't really care, the bathroom tile does wonders with acoustics and since it is the first fifteen minutes since they got home from school that my wife doesn't have to deal with them, she's usually keen to keep her otherwise witty comments to herself during this time.

So I'm drying them off, and singing Paul Simon's 'American Tune' (yeah, we sing GOOD SONGS here, not this 'wheel's on the bus' shit!) and he's gently rocking to the music, and I just feel... good.  But the song is pretty moving, and it's not entirely a feel-good tune. (It's not depressing, juts... solemn.) So, after we were finished, I tried looking on you-tube for a karaoke  version (no vocals), that I could sing to while my wife was out. (Being a firm believer in the eighth amendment, after all!)  And I found one, but... a very different version than the one I knew (from the "Concert in Central Park" Live Album?)  So I couldn't really sing to it.  (Even beyond the fact that I can't really sing!)

So I started surfing YouTube, watching Paul Simon videos, when I saw one with Paul and John Lennon, appearing in some really chessy 1970's talk show together.  No music, really awful jokes.  But from there I started watching some John Lennon videos, and eventually came to the one's related to John death.  Now... I was 7 years old when John Lennon died, and my parents were not Beatles fans. I have no first hand memories of John Lennon from when he was alive, and was not really aware of the man or the story at the time.  (The first artist's death that I was aware of was Harry Chapin's, two years later.  I didn't cry then; but I almost do now, thinking of it.)  And something just struck me... Between Paul McCartney trying to play it cool to the British press later that evening, yet obviously too stunned to pull it off (probably the first time in his life that's happened) to the news casters, half of whom treated it like the weather report. (And fine, I do truly long for the days when the news was presented without all the sensationalist grandstanding, but considering what John Lennon meant to the world, reading the release with the emotional involvement that you give a sports score from a game that doesn't matter in a sport that you don't even follow hardly seems appropriate.) And finally there was the reaction of then President-Elect Reagan, who it seemed to me could barely contain his apathy. Granted it was the Reporter who brought up gun control, but Reagan positively BOOKED it from the interview at that point.  He actually answered the question with a talking point as he walked quickly away. The "great communicator." The president elect.  Upon being informed of the grisly murder of music's greatest living icon.  (Even if his was a damned, dirty, pinko, commie, hippy -  A fact that no doubt drove Reagan crazy!)  Anyway, I don't know why but after watching so many utterly lifeless news reports about this terrible event, possibly the first "JFK" moment of my lifetime, albeit one I don't remember, I started feeling depressed. 

Really depressed.  (And to be honest, it hasn't taken much lately.)

So I decided I needed to laugh. A lot.  I needed a good dose of the only alternative medicine that's worth a damn.  And my dose was expertly doled out by Seanbaby, the two-time Silver Star winning contributer to Cracked.com.

Here you go:
The four most irresponsible sex advice books of all time

(The funniest part might be that they're all written by the same guy!  I guess... Seanbaby wants his money back? IDK.) (Sorry, Seanbaby: You know I love you, man! PLEASE don't give me the "Godek" treatment if you happen to read this!)

It's 99% genius, and here's a piece of gold worth remembering:

#132: There's always nude dusting, nude room painting, nude dish washing... (You get the idea)

To which Seanbaby replies:

Yeah, I get the idea that after you clean something, there's more pubic hair on it than when you started.

There's more, but I almost fell out my chair when reading that.  So you'll have to check out the rest for yourselves.  If you ever need a really good laugh (and you know who you are!) there are few writers out there better than Seanbaby to give you an overdose.

Cheers!

-----------------------------------------------------------

BTW... I only plan to do two more posts this year, since we'll be busy with the holidays, and travelling to boot. (No, not to "Boot," to BOSTON.  I meant "as well!") The next one will be the December Gold Star Winners, and the last is just a year's-end / holiday sign off.  Starting next year, I'll be trying to go back to something resembling my former writing schedule, but I don't see another month like October anytime soon.  Plus I'm finally taking an actual drawing class, (which I've never actually done before!) so I should be getting my next comic strip off the ground a couple of weeks in.  I'll probably create a tab at the top of the blog, where I can stash anything related to the project, and have a place to link to any of the older posts that I've put up about it.  Anyway, until then, take care, get your shopping done (the economy needs it!) and enjoy your holidays!

Two men, one woman

As much as I would have loved to have left my last post up at the top of the blog, and as much as I really appreciate everyone who played along, unfortunately a story broke that just made me sick, and that I feel I must comment on.

By now I'm sure most of you are familiar with the following video:


Now... I'm going to describe this as objectively and as neutrally as my stomach will allow:

Two large men, grabbed a very small woman, (wearing glasses, no less! hollywood couldn't have cast her that well!) wrestled her to the ground, and stepped on her.

Those are facts, BTW, that are not in denial. They are plain for all to see. No one can look at this attrocity and conclude anything less.  What is also not in duspute in the these large, burly men, who look like they outwieghed her at by least three-to-one, were supporters of TeaParty seperatist candidate, Rand Paul.  Also not in dispute is that the woman, Lauren Valle, is a member of MoveOn.org, a Progressive Political organization that is opposed to Rand Paul and the Tea Party's agenda.  These are facts, that are undistputed and which do not depend upon any party afiliation or political ideology to accept.

Now... there is something else which, until now, I would have though thought could also be universally accepted, regardless of Political Party or Ideology: That violence perpetrated by men, against women is WRONG. Period.

Apparantly this maxim, which is self-evidenct to me, is not universally held by the Right, the Republicans, the Tea Party, or the Conservatives.  Do I say this merely on account of the two hulking rednecks in the Rand Paul tea-shirts? Not at all.  For the true position of the Conservative movement, I'll defer to it's very voice.  Here is Rush Limbaugh, rationalizing this attrocity:



Now... let's take a look at the mentality at work here:

1) The Secret Service would have done the same thing if someone approached Obama.
2) The man stepped on her SHOUDLERS, not her HEAD
and
3) She's a "radcial," "liberal," "professional agitator," who [has protested things before.]

Well... let's start with... the Secret Service.

For those of you who are unfaimilar with that organization, they are an officially sanctioned arm of the Federal, Untied States Government responsible for, among other things, the safety of the President.  You know... as opposed to an unruly mob of violent rednecks.  And I've seen an awful lot of footage of both CANDIDATE Obama, and PRESIDENT Obama being close enough to huge crowds to shake the hands of every person, three rows deep. 

Do you know what I've NEVER seen?

OBAMA'S SECRET SERVICE DETAIL TACKLING A PROTESTER AND KICKING THEM WHILE THEY'RE DOWN!

I've never seen that!  And you have footage of it?  I'd be keen to watch, but I'll simply go back to the more apt point: Authorized Agents of the Federal Government vs. Unruly inbreeds!

Second Point:

Thug #2 stepped on (or "put his foot on" in Limbaugh-speak) her SHOULDERS, not her head.  Well... seeing as how neither of these genetic defectives were authorized agents of law enforcment, and that she had made no violent gestures herself, the instant that they even laid one finger on her, they were guilty of tort assault, at a minimum.  By the time she hit the ground, they were guilty of criminal assault and battery.  Where they stepped on her is immaterial.  THAT they stepped on her is immaterial!  And even "stepped on her" is, by itself, a pretty forgiving description.  I'd say "kicked her while she was on the ground" is a bit more accurate. Take a look.  That fact that it happened to be the bottom of his foot that he drove into her prone body does not magically turn a kick into a "stepping on."  If that were the case, Chuck Norris spent most of his acting career "stepping on" people!

Finally:

She was a  "radcial," "liberal," "professional agitator."

Translation: THE BITCH HAD IT COMING.
 
That's it folks.  He can make the same Glenn Beck-style exculpatory claim about not condoning violence, BUT... whenever there is a "BUT"... he can not at the same time also be making a serious claim to be condemning it either!  In fact, there IS NO condmenation of it here! At all! Not a single word of it! He's says he doesn't condone it, even against against a "radical, liberal woman" (why is that even relevant?) and then spends several minutes RATIONALIZING IT!  And what is his rationale?  That she's been at protests before.
 
I cannot make any more clear a translation of Limbaugh's remarks from conserva-speak to english:
 
THE BITCH HAD IT COMING.
 
And just for the record, I cannot state this any more strongly or clearly: I would absolutely demand that anyone who acted this way towards Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman or Chistine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle, be arrested and punnished to the fullest extent of the law. And I would utterly condemn any such action, on no uncertain terms. It is thuggery, and it is criminal, and it has no place in this Country, or our political process, regardless of the political ideology of the victim. To believe otherwise is profoundly un-American.  And fine, so maybe when it's against the candidate herself it's different. Fine. How about Jenny McCarthy?  Would I forgive or even attempt to rationlize any violenece against even a despicable woman like her, who has the blood of dead children on her hands, due to her her anti-vaccine crusade?

NO. Absolutely not, no way, no how. Not for one single moment. I would not condone it; I would not rationalize it; and I would have the prepetrators punnished to the fullest extent of the law.

Becasue violence against women is wrong. Period.

Any attempt to rationalize this kind of behavior is a clear indication that the speaker DOES NOT believe in America, DOES NOT believe in free speech, DOES NOT believe in civil discourse and debate, DOES NOT believe in Democracy, DOES NOT believe in LAW and ORDER, and DOES NOT believe even in BASIC HUMAN CIVILITY.

Thes men in this video are scumbags. Period. And any attempts to rationalize their behavior is pure scumbaggery. Period.

----------shifting gears------------

Just in the interest of not being a hypocrite - something you just won't get from the Right, BTW - I'd like to take a look at every TeaBagger's favorite malingerer, Kenneth Gladney.

Here's the tape:


Now... I'll be the first to admit that, unlike the video showing the attack on Valle, you can't see shit in this video. (Not that this has stopped the Right from trying to milk it for all its propaganda value) But here's what I see:

1) I see two men pulling Gladney off of an SEIU member, who was on the ground, under him.  That's the guy who's later seen holding his shoulder in pain.

2) I see Gladney, in the tan shirt, end up on the ground, as a result of the attmept to seperate the two men, after which he IMMEDIATELY GETS BACK UP.  So he knows where he can stick stick his sob story about "still being in pain" from the "injuries" he sustained.  Looks to me like the SEIU guy (in the purple tee) by far got the worst of it.

Because do you know what I don't see?

Well for one thing, I don't see Gladney getting kicked while he's on the ground. The way the Right describes it, you'd think he was Rodney King!  (Of course... they all lined up agianst King, but maybe if he voted Republican it would have been different.)

Know what else I don't see? Unlike in the attack on Valle, anyone throwing Gladney to the ground!  Gladney only ends up on the ground becasue the guy pulling him back TRIPS on the guy who was ON THE GROUND!  (You know, the other guy that Gladney was on top of?)

Another difference?  Gladney got up and started SHOUTING again! Whereas Valle stayed in a fetal position in hopes that she wouldn't get KICKED anymore!

And there one more thing I don't see: WHO STARTED THE FIGHT.

And that's pretty improtant.  But fine, let's assume for, the moment, that it really was the SEIU guy.  Does that magically make these two incidents the same?

Umm... NO!

Unfortunate? Yes, absolutely.  There is no (or at least there should be no) place in our political discourse for violence.

But are they the same?  Well... you tell me:

One man, versus one man of roughly equal size.

Two very large men, versus one very small woman.

That sound the same to you?  Would you put the equal money down on the outcome of both of those altercations? Of course not.

It ain't the same thing at all, and not by a damned sight!

But if the SEIU guy DID start it?  I'd still throw his dumb ass in jail for it!

Because, BTW... did you notice?  I did not spend one single word trying to rationalize the actions of the SEIU guy.  I was willing to completely give the Right the benefit of the doubt on this, and they STILL basicaly have nothing. And that's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives: It comes down to having PRINCIPLES.

And no one who attempts to rationalize what happened in the Valle video has them.

Period.

Some stuff that I want to spout off about... LOL

Reader Jonny Macartney gave me a great quote yeatserday, attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

"It's better to be ignorant than misinformed."

Well now, in Texas, it's possible to be both.  And these people call OBAMA a fascist?!  (Well, I guess when you re-write history, anything's possible!) It's unbelievable.  If you have to go THAT FAR to INDOCTRINATE CHILDREN into you ideology, at what point does it become easier to just admit YOU'RE WRONG?!  RELIGION doesn't even take indoctrination this far! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of which...Here's one for Steve: The Devil is in the Vatican, according to chief Exorcist.

Dude, it's MADNESS.  MADNESS, I say! And this ins't some wierd sect or cult, it's the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.  The single largest Christian denomonation IN THE WORLD.  Are people responsible for their own shortcomings? Nah.  It's the DEVIL.  And of course it's GOD that's responsible for all GOOD.  B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.  PEOPLE should be held accountable for their fuck-ups and PEOPLE deserve CREDIT when they do good things!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Krugman should be the Fed Chairman.  Or head of the SEC.  Or treasury Secretary.  Or just run our WHOLE DAMNED ECONOMY.  But what does HE KNOW, right?  While Libertarians were busy bringing about the biggest economic meltdown since Herbert Hoover all THIS pinko liberal did was win the NOBEL PRIZE in economics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Here's a sexty one from SLATE.  And I think it typifies their Conservtaive bias, or at least their tendency to fall into the trap of framing issues from a conseravtive POV.  Here's what I mean...

from SLATE:

A teenager in Wisconsin named Anthony Stancl set up a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be a girl. Seventeen or 18 at the time, Stancl used the profile to lure 30 of the boys he went to high school with to send him nude pictures or videos of themselves. Then Stancl threatened to post the material on the Internet unless they performed sex acts with him. Seven of them say they did—and that Stancl took pictures of them with his cell-phone camera.

OK, the CRIME here... has NOTHING whatsoever to do with SEXTING!  Since when are rape and blackmail not illegal?  The sexting is completely IMMATERIAL to the crime being committed!  They go on to give the following insane false-equivalency:

How can states draft laws that protect against Anthony Stancl without sweeping in more innocent behavior, like that of the students in Valparaiso?

Umm, sorry... WHY would we need NEW LAWS to protect people from BLACKMAIL and RAPE?!  Especially when the rape was coerced by the blackmail, and largely perpetrated on MINORS?!  Last time I checked that kind of behavior carried some of the strictest penalties allowed for non-lethal crimes!  What the hell are they TALKING ABOUT?!  In the words of my good friend, Jules Winfield: It's aint in the same ballpark.  It ain't in the same league.  It ain't even the same fucking SPORT!

Should sexting be a felony? NO, morons.

Should blackmailing minors into letting you rape them be illegal? Um... YES, but it already, most profoundly, IS, morons.

Is sending someone a naked picture of your 16 year old ex-girlfriend a crime?  Arguably, but it falls under "general harrassment." Is it a SEX CRIME? NO. FUCKING. WAY.  Is is CHILD PORNOGRAPHY? In the words of Gorobei Katayama: Are you kidding me? 

The difference between sexting and kiddie-porn is the same as the difference between 16 and 6.  I'm not saying that a victim doesn't have some right to redress, but, OTOH: You GAVE the other person the picture. It's THEIRS NOW.  They can do anything they want with it, unless they're making money, and then you're just entitled to your cut.

EDUCTAION, not CRIMINALIZATION is what's needed here.  There is a very easy way to not have your naked ass posted all over the internet: DON'T SEND SOMEONE YOUR NAKED PICTURE.  It's pretty easy actually.  I'm 37 years old and the olny picture of me naked, ANYWHERE was taken in 1976, when I was three and sitting in the tub.  Oh... and maybe another one from about a year later of me taking a leak behind a tree in our back yard.

The other real answer here is that we need to stop being so hung up on nudity and teenaged sexuality.  Someone see you naked? Guess what? Despite what you might have been told, it's NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.  Embarassing? Sure.  But you DID distribute naked pictures of yourself, so...

I'm sorry.  While I'm not a nudist/naturist myself, I've read a lot of their literature and I'm convinced that they've got it right when it comes to the human body.  Our hangups are largely societally conditioned.  I'm strongly convinced of that.

But EDUCATION.  Give people the infomration they need, and let them make their own choices.  Good or bad, there's no reason AT ALL to be talking about jail-time and sex offender lists!  Civil suits, for invasion of privacy or harrassment maybe.  And you'd have a pretty steep burden of proof even then.