The Agenda:

Testing the Premise: Are Gays a Threat to Our Children?

What the "Dutch Study" Really Says About Gay Couples

Federal Hate Crime Statistics: Why The Numbers Don't Add Up

Refuting Christianity Today

  Favorites:

Still Life At Sunset

Anderson Cooper and Scooter

Wandering, Wondering

The Aperture of Memory

Easter's Birthday

The First Time I Cussed

  Photo Essays:

The Anasazi Ruins of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico

Monsoons of 2004

Miracle Mile

Now Showing / Reflection on Hayden, Arizona

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?
A discussion of gay sexuality and homosexual molestation
Monday, September 26,2005

“...Evidence showing that pedophilia is in fact a common part of the homosexual lifestyle is staggering… Homosexuals, while representing perhaps 2% of the population, perpetrate more than one-third of all reported child molestations.” – Colorado For Family Values [1]

“Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one third of the sex crimes against children.” – Timothy J. Daily, Family Research Council [2]

“Our laws and social policies should protect children, not cater to the whims and sexual desires of sexual predators. We must oppose homosexual activism ‘for the children’s sake.’” – Traditional Values Coalition [3]

When men molest little girls, they’re called “pedophiles” or “sexual predators”; heterosexuality is never blamed for the abuse. But when men molest little boys, they’re simply called “homosexuals”, as though sexual orientation were responsible for driving these men to their crimes.[4] Gays are singled out for suspicion of molesting children in numbers far out of proportion to their presence in the general population.

Child sexual abuse has a profound impact on victims and their families. Because we want to protect our children, we must ask: Are gays disproportionately abusing children?

The Starting Point: What Do We Know?

When it comes to numbers, we know surprisingly little about child sexual abuse. Official statistics are notoriously incomplete because too many cases are never reported. Many researchers believe that many male victims who are molested by men may not come forward because of the stigma surrounding homosexuality. These victims often not only fear the false label of being gay; they may also fear harassment or condemnation because of it. Fortunately, our society has recently shown an admirable steadfastness in supporting these victims when they do come forward, and their example has, no doubt, emboldened other victims to do the same. If anything remotely positive could come from the tragedy of the Catholic sexual abuse scandals, it is this: the stigma of same-sex abuse has been lowered considerably, allowing more victims to come forward.[5]

Unfortunately, this picture is very different with boys who are molested by adult women. Sociologists and case workers have noted that many boys who are sexually involved with adult women rarely complain simply because they don’t believe they’ve been molested. In fact, they’re likely to brag about their exploits to their friends, who in turn admire them for being enough of a “man” to have sex with an older woman.[6] Such sexual encounters are not only celebrated as a rite of passage, but are glamorized in television programs, movies, music videos and advertising. Because there is very little incentive in our culture to view this as harmful, such encounters rarely turn up in official statistics.

Indeed, this very fact may result in a very significant undercount of heterosexual activity between adults and minors. “Pedophilia chic” has been a very important part of mass-media advertising for decades, and by no means is it limited to glamorizing young males. Brooke Shields was only fifteen when she announced that “nothing comes between me and my Calvin Klein jeans.” Britney Spears has taught an entire generation of elementary school girls to show their midriffs, and Jon-Bonett Ramsey's murder introduced millions of Americans to the child-pageant circuit in which parents dressed their little girls as sexualized adults for competition and prizes. Indeed, there is a remarkable lack of shame in our culture surrounding the heterosexual exploitation of young children and adolescents.

Against this backdrop, it is impossible to know how many boys and girls are having sex with adults. And it is impossible to know how many adult men and women are having sex with under-aged boys and girls.  But among those cases which are reported, males make up about 25-30% of all child molestation victims, with females making up the remaining cases.[7] And as of July, 2000 about 94% of all sexual predators against juveniles who were reported to police were male.[8]

A Simple Question

So it would appear that according to official statistics, men who abuse boys make up less than a third of all men who abuse children. And we know that the proportion of gays in the general population is very small – certainly much smaller than one-third. Some gay-rights activists claim that gays make up 10% of the population, but this is not supported by modern surveys. Others, especially those who oppose gay rights, claim that the number is much smaller, on the order of 1-3%. While there are many reasons to believe that this range is artificially low, most large-population surveys support a figure of around 3%.[9], [10]

What does this mean? Well, let’s say that we have gathered 10,000 adults in a stadium and asked them one simple yes-or-no question: “Are you gay?” If our 3% figure is correct, only 300 people in that stadium would answer "yes" to that question, with the remaining 9,700 saying "no."

And for someone who answers “yes” to that question, what would we know about him? Most people would consider the answer to be obvious: if he’s a man, he dates other men, he is sexually attracted to other men, and because he is comfortable enough to answer “yes” to a stranger with a clipboard, he is probably known by his family, friends and neighbors as being gay. He certainly isn’t married to a woman, nor is he dating women or doing much of anything else which would lead anyone to conclude that he is anything but gay. And you can draw the same conclusions for a woman who answer “yes” as well: she dates other women, is attracted to other women, and is comfortable enough to answer the question in the affirmative. In other words, visibly “out” gay men and women are typically the ones who are confident enough to answer "yes" to these surveys.

This point may seem simple-minded, but it is very important to keep in mind exactly who we're talking about when we're discussing this three percent. Anti-gay activists claim that upwards of a third of all child molesters who happened to show up at our stadium can be found among these 300 “out” men and women, while the remaining two-thirds would be scattered among the 9,700 “straight” people (or at least, those who claim not to be gay or lesbian). Using just this assumption, Focus on the Family concludes that “a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.”[11]

And how do we know that this three percent represents those who are "out"? It's simple: these same surveys show that this three percent does not include everyone who is behaving homosexually. Not only does it exclude bisexuals, but it also excludes those who don’t identify themselves as being gay for any number of reasons even though they engage in homosexual behavior. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 57.1% of men who had sex with another man did not consider themselves to be homosexual – or even bisexual.[12] Another representative survey suggests that more than 20% of all men admit to having had a homosexual experience[13], a figure which, by the way, comes close to closing the proportionality gap of men abusing boys. While this gives us our first clue that the claim made by anti-gay activists is not all that it seems to be, it is far from convincing. But it does show that a lot of people behave homosexually without being among the three percent who identify themselves as being gay.

To better understand what is going on, we need to look much more closely at those men who are abusing children. Fortunately, the professional literature is loaded with such studies.

Are Gay Men Abusing Boys?

In the 1992 campaign for Colorado’s Amendment 2 (which would have prohibited anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation), the group supporting the amendment, Colorado For Family Values, repeated the charge that 3% of the population was responsible for 30% of all child molestation cases. By constantly repeating this charge, they were able to persuade voters to approve the amendment (It was eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court). But Denver-area doctors, case workers and investigators knew something wasn’t right with this charge based on what they were seeing in their daily work.

This lead Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues[14] to review 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults. Of the 50 male children, 37 (74%) were molested by a man who had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child’s relative. Three were molested by women, five were molested by both parents, and three others were molested by non-relatives. Only one perpetrator could be identified as being possibly homosexual in his adult behavior.

Let’s consider what this means. If these men who abused boys in this study were in our stadium, all but one would have answered “no” to the question “Are you gay?” More importantly, if authorities were on the lookout for gay child molesters, they would have missed 49 of these 50 sexual predators because they would have been hidden among the 9,700 in our stadium who said they were not gay. And not only did they say they were not gay, they were married, had girlfriends, or were otherwise known to have sexual relationships with women. If law enforcement had  been looking for the perpetrators among gay men, they never would have found them.

Dr. Jenny and her associates concluded that even if you use the worst case possibilities in their sample, no more than 3.1% of child sexual abuse cases reported to the Denver clinic were abused by someone who could be identified as possibly being gay, a proportion that is not far from the number of gays in the general population.

Two Types of Predators

As surprising as this may be, it only confirmed what Dr. Nicholas Groth, one of the leading experts in the study of child sexual abuse, demonstrated some sixteen years earlier. In 1978, Dr, Groth and Dr. Jean Birnbaum published a study of 175 convicted male child molesters in which they determined:

“The child offender is a relatively young adult either who has been sexually attracted to underage persons almost exclusively in his life or who turns to a child as a result of stresses in his adult sexual or marital relationships. Those offenders who are sexually attracted exclusively to children show a slight preference for boys over girls, yet these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males.”[15]

Dr. Groth identified two classic types of child molesters which he labeled fixated and regressed.[16] The fixated molester is one whose development is “fixated” at childhood. In other words, he has never grown up. He typically lives a Peter-Pan existence, in a Neverland of childlike identity and behavior. Even though he is physically an adult, he continues to identify himself with childhood and with children. He does not form adult relationships easily, or if he does, the relationships tend not to be very stable; instead, he sees children as his peers. He surrounds himself with children and is most comfortable with them. Other adults often see him as being “very good with children”, which allows him to obtain a position of trust, possibly as a role model, leader, caretaker or guardian.

Because his primary sexual interest is in children and not adults, he offers us the classic definition of a “pedophile.” Because he is fixated on children, he could not properly be considered to be either heterosexual or homosexual – the idea of having sex with an adult of either gender is often repulsive to him.

The regressed molester is very different. His attraction to children is usually more temporary. It is sometimes a matter of convenience, at other times, a matter of violent control or punishment. Unlike the fixated molester, the regressed molester’s primary sexual attraction is toward other adults. But stressful conditions which go along with adult responsibly or difficulties in his adult relationships may overwhelm him, causing his sexual attraction to “regress” towards children. This regression sometimes serves as a substitute for adult relationship, and his attraction to children may vary according to the varying stresses he encounters in his adult life demands.

In some cases, he may temporarily relate to the child as a peer, much as a fixated offender relates to children. But more often, he is simply lashing out or relieving the stresses in his life, and the child becomes a vulnerable and convenient target. He may find a sense of power in his sexual relationship with a child that he is unable to obtain with adult, and in these cases it is not unusual for this relationship to become coercive or violent. But regardless of the nature of the relationship, the gender of the child is often irrelevant – it is easy access and vulnerability that makes the child a target.

Research has shown time and time again that regressed offenders are very typically heterosexual in their adult relationships. Unlike our three percent sample, they date women and marry them. They often are parents, stepparents or extended family members of their victims. By all appearances – and by their own self identification – they are straight. Drs. Groth and Birnbaum emphasized this point, saying:

“In over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult relationships is heterosexual.” [17] (Emphasis in the original)

Are These “Straight” Abusers Lying?

You’re probably shaking your head right about now. Why would a man who claims to be straight molest young boys? How could he not be gay, even if he refuses to admit it?

This concerned Dr. Kurt Freund and his associates at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, where many convicted sexual predators were sent for treatment. Dr. Freund devised a test to determine whether their supposedly “straight” child abusers were lying. Using an instrument connected to the subject’s penis, Dr. Freund and his colleagues measured changes in its volume while the subject looked at pictures of nude men, women and children. These phallometric (penis-measuring) tests[18] supported their conclusion that as a group, gay men were no more likely to respond sexually to male children than straight men. Furthermore these tests supported these sex offenders' statements when they claimed to be gay or straight:

“These studies show that only rarely are sex offenders against male children diagnosed as androphiles (homosexual in adult orientation) and that phallometric diagnosis of gynophilic (heterosexual in adult orientation) and androphilic volunteers almost always corresponds to their claimed erotic preference.”[19]

So, they are clearly telling the truth – at least according to how they responded physically to the nude pictures. When they say they are straight, they respond to pictures of adult women, and when they say they are gay, they respond sexually to pictures of adult men. Yet Dr. Freund and his associates determined that gays are no more attracted to young boys than straights.

How Could “Straight” Men Be Attracted To Boys?

If these molesters aren’t lying when they say they’re straight, why would they abuse boys? What could possibly be the attraction?

Dr. W.L. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a similar set of phallometric tests on a sample of gay and straight men, except this time they used more photos of young boys and girls covering a wider age span. They noticed that for those gay men who were attracted to males under 18, they tended to be attracted to young men who were well past the age of puberty (age 15 or older), with fully-developed adult genitalia and other features which were characteristically masculine. But heterosexual men, when they showed an attraction towards younger males, tended to be attracted to pre-pubescent males (ages 9-11). Dr. Marshall and his colleagues noted:

“Amongst the heterosexuals, the commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies were soft and smooth.”[20]

In other words, it was the feminine characteristics of the young boys that straight child molesters found attractive. This explains the apparent contradiction of straight men abusing young boys. They really are straight, and when they abuse young boys, they are responding to the feminine qualities of pre-pubescent boys, qualities which the gay men in the study didn’t find appealing. After all, gay men are, by definition, attracted to men; the feminine characteristics of young boys were a turn-off to them.

“Homosexuality” and “Homosexual Molestation”

Part of the confusion between homosexuality and the molestation of young boys comes from the terminology used by researchers themselves. If an adult male molests a young boy, that type of molestation is typically called a “homosexual molestation”. But when described this way, the term “homosexual” is used as an adjective in its most literal sense – the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex. It does not refer to the sexual orientation of either the victim or the perpetrator. [21]

Unfortunately, researchers aren’t always careful with how they use the word “homosexual” in their academic writings. After all, they understand the clinical meaning of the word and how the meaning shifts according to the context in which it is used. “Homosexual abuse” merely describes the same-sex nature of the abuser and victim, not the sexual orientation of either the abuser or victim. They often use the shorthand “homosexuals” to describe the men who abuse boys. But when they go the extra step of determining the actual sexual orientation of child molesters, they tend to be much more careful in their choice of words. Some, like Dr. Freund, prefer the clinical terms “androphile” (attracted to men) and “gynophile” (attracted to women) to describe those who are attracted to adults.

This distinction is a very vital point, one that most anti-gay activists refuse to acknowledge. In fact, some are very hostile to this idea. Peter LaBarbera, of Concerned Women of America, exclaimed, “Who cares if a guy is married? If he’s molesting boys, that’s homosexual behavior. It’s academic nonsense to talk about these people as heterosexuals.”[22]

But it’s not nonsense at all. If a man is married, he’s not among the 3% who claimed to be gay in our stadium survey. He’s certainly not among the gay couples who are adopting children or seeking to marry. Instead, he’s among the vast majority who claim to be straight. If law enforcement were to focus their efforts on finding sexual predators among the “out” 3% who claim to be gay, 97% of male abusers of young boys would go unpunished. [23]

A Firmly Established Tactic

Yet anti-gay activists insist on spreading this misinformation. Dr. Timothy Dailey (PhD, religion) of the Family Research Council quoted Dr. Freund’s statement of “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children… This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children.”[24] But he ignored Dr. Freund’s clarification in the very same report that:

“the observed difference between the proportion of offenders against boys among offenders against children, and the proportion of androphiles (homosexual in adult orientation) among males who erotically prefer physically mature partners, is so large that it should not be overlooked. ...Androphiles actually responded significantly less to the male children.”[25]

This clinical language can be condensed this way: There is a big difference between men abusing boys and homosexuality, with gays (androphiles) being “significantly” less interested in male children. This echoes what Dr. Groth reported in 1982:

“The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be a homosexual.”[26]

But of course, you don’t see what the research really says in Dr. Dailey’s article. Instead, you’ll find it filled with massive misrepresentations of research findings – including those of Dr. Groth, who denounced Dr. Dailey’s misrepresentation of his work:

“Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.”[27]

But no matter how loudly researchers denounce these misrepresentations, the damage is done. This tactic has become so firmly established, these activists are even willing to lie to the courts. The Family Research Council submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999 for The Boy Scouts of America vs James Dale, in which they said that “although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters.”[28]

Easier to Nauseate Than Educate

But no matter how often a lie is told, it is still false. Dr. Michael R. Stevenson conducted an exhaustive review of the social science literature in 2000, and concluded that “a gay man is no more likely than a straight man to perpetrate sexual activity with children,” and “cases of perpetration of sexual behavior with a pre-pubescent child by an adult lesbian are virtually nonexistent”.[29] The research is so strong that the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists[30] and the American Psychological Association[31] have issued statements stating that there is no correlation between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.

Anti-gay activists know that their claims are false. They’ve read – and misquoted – research from the most knowledgeable experts in the field. But they keep spreading it because they know it is effective. Every parent would consider it his or her worst nightmare to discover that their innocent child has been sexually violated. And anti-gay activists feed on that fear to further their agenda because, as Colorado for Family Values founder Tony Marco  observed, “It is easier to nauseate than it is to educate.”[32]

And while this lie is horribly libelous to gay men and women, that’s only a small part of the damage. The real harm is to our children. As long as we remain suspicious of the wrong people, predators will continue to have free reign to abuse innocent children. If they remain free from scrutiny because everyone else is focusing on gays and lesbians, more young lives will continue to be shattered and more parents will suffer the agonizing heartache of learning that they trusted someone who destroyed their child’s future. We must not allow the far right to cynically jeopardize our children’s safety to further their agenda. The consequences are far too severe for the next generation.

REFERENCES:

1. Colorado for Family Values, “Pedophilia: The part of homosexuality they don’t want you to see.” CFV Report (March, 1994), http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/CFV/cfv.report.pt1-03.94.txt (accessed April 2, 2005). [BACK]

2. Dailey, Timothy J. “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse.” Family Research Council. (undated), http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3 (accessed March 28, 2005). [BACK]

3. Traditional Values Coalition, “Exposed: Homosexual child molesters.” (undated),  http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/HomosexualChildMolestersUrban.pdf (PDF/218 KB, accessed February 26, 2005). [BACK]

4. Kort, Joe. “Homosexuality and pedophilia: The false link”.  Kort’s Corner. No. 38, 2005, http://www.joekort.com/articles50.htm (accessed September 21, 2005). [BACK]

5. Finkelhor, David. “Commentary: The legacy of the clergy abuse scandal.” Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003): 1225-1229. [BACK]

6. Holmes, William C.; Slap, Gail B. “Sexual abuse of boys: Definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management.” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 21 (Dec. 2, 1998): 1855-1862. [BACK]

7. Finkelhor, David. “Current Information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse.” The Future of Children: Sexual Abuse of Children 4, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 31-53. Abstract available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed
&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7804768. [BACK]

8. Snyder, Howard N. “Sexual Assault of Young Children As Reported To Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics” (July, 2000) Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ-182990. Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
bjs/pub/pdf/caycrle.pdf (PDF/129 KB). [BACK]

9. Smith, Tom W. American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior. (April 2003) Chicago: National Opinion Research Center ; shows that in 2002, 3.3% of men and 2.6% of women participated in exclusively same-gender sexual activity in the preceding twelve months. The survey notes that these percentages fluctuate depending the length of time in which the same-gendered sexual activity occurs, (12 months vs. 5 years) and the age of the respondents. For example, 5.1% of all men aged 30-39 participated in same-gendered sexual activity in the past five years, and 3.7% of all women aged 30-39 participated in same-gendered sexual activity in the past five years. This survey also reviewed numerous other surveys between 1970 and 1997 which indicated percentages of adult Americans with same-gendered sexual partners or identifying with homosexual/bisexual orientation ranging from 1.6% to 6.5%, depending on the definitions and methodologies used. [BACK]

Some People's Kids Are Cuter Than Others
Thursday, September 22, 2005

© LookingForSam / Chris Gerron

This is Archer, the dog Chris and I dog-sat while we stayed in the house we house-sat in San Francisco.

If you think this whippet is graceful while lying still, you should see him when he runs.

Open Your Golden Gate
Saturday, September 17, 2005

So, I've been meaning to update this with another post for a week or so, but the truth is that I have been on vacation in San Francisco for the past two weeks, doing absolutely nothing. No tourist sights, no Fisherman's Wharf or Napa Valley, none of that. Instead, Chris an I have been hanging out pretty much as if we lived here.

Believe me, if I ever thought I could scratch out a living in San Francisco, I'd leave Tucson in a heart beat. This place is intoxicating. Sometimes literally.

There is an energy about this city that is unlike anywhere else in the country. Chris and I have spent the past two weeks house-sitting for a friend who is taking his first European vacation. Our own vacation here has been a breath of cold, foggy, yet crisply fresh air.

So, what have I seen? Not much of the sun, that's for sure. But I have seen Berkeley's campus, Union Street, Fillmore, Japan Town, BART, Oakland, at least one guy who hates Bush and another one who voted for him, handsome men and golden boys, North Beach, an aborted run at the Tranny Shack (What? The show starts at midnight? We're getting old after all), the new De Young museum in Golden Gate Park, a dating disaster unfolding in Super Slow-Mo at the Samovar, and get this: someone smiled at me at the Midnight Sun. This can only mean one thing: they have a thing for pasty-faced and balding middle-aged tourists from square states – a subculture I had not been aware of before.

And yes, you're right Panchesco, that aquarium does look like it has an algae-covered phallus in it, something I hadn't noticed before. Strange the things you see in San Francisco.

Tonight, we're off for a seafood dinner at Catch, and then one more day in the hood tomorrow. But some jerk reminds us that all good things must come to an end, which is why we'll have to journey our butts back to Tucson on Monday. And after that, just to let you know, I'm going to be in a really bad mood for the next week or so.

Would You Like Some Cake with that MRE?
Tuesday, September 6, 2005

If it ain't clowns, it's the return of Marie Friggin' Antoinette:

"Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston. ... What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality... And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this –– this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

Incredible! Now I can understand where George gets his preference to "faith based" solutions. All you gotta do is close your eyes and wish really, really hard! But where he got the idea that "Intelligent Design", well, that's beyond me.

You know, my wise old great-grandmother always said to me, "The apple never falls far from the tree." But then, when the chips were down she was never one to bake cakes.

Fire the Clowns
Tuesday, September 6, 2005

I've been on quite a theme lately of not liking clowns. I think it's the sad clowns that are to be feared the most.

Why do these clowns still have jobs?

Oh, I forgot. The Clown-In-Chief thinks they're doing a "great job".

◄ August 2005
► October 2005

Speechless
Monday, September 5, 2005

I'm on vacation, house-sitting for a friend in beautiful San Francisco. The plan was to take almost three weeks off of work, hang out with no expectations or schedule, and just sit back and relax with nary a care in the world.

But how can you relax when you watch CNN as thousands struggle to survive in harsh, unsanitary conditions as law and order breaks down in the aftermath of a huge catastrophe? We watched in horror as a country delayed in bringing it's meager and halfhearted resources to bear on a situation. The people in the highest ranks of government, well ensconced in their enclaves, had little inkling of the suffering of the poor and the sick as the tragedy unfolded. And the few high-ranking government ministers who were responsible in responding dallied, offered excuses, protested that they really didn't know it would be that bad, and finally were shamed into acting. But even there, gross incompetence led the authorities to withhold truckloads of water, cut communications lines, and leave helicopters parked on the tarmac.

No. I'm not talking about Bangladesh. They were able to evacuate their people as the monsoons bared down. Nor was I talking about Bombay, which pretty much recovered from a disastrous flooding within the week. I am talking about the most powerful nation of the earth.

Resignations are in order of course, but Bush has never fired anybody in his life. You can bet if this were some third world country, the authorities involved would be out on the street. But we don't even have the level of accountability in our government that you would find in Bangladesh. Bush gave Brown and Chertoff nicknames instead.

I don't have anything insightful to say about this. I wish I could summon a modicum of eloquence to put this in perspective. But when American citizens are dying in the streets for want of food, water and medicine while FEMA argues over organizational charts, I simply don't know what to say. Nor do I know what to do.

But I know what to feel: shame. Deep abiding shame. And outrage. Yes, that too. And despair.

Well that's a fine state – only do I not know what to say, I don't even know what to feel.