goneroner
1,060 plays
12,291 views
12,291 views
yello. music.Band/artist history
im sitting in front of my bedroom window slouched phone in lapYour musical influences
life and sad stuff.
dark places.
light wavesWhat equipment do you use?
computerAnything else?
Dear Sirs:
Your broadcasting of the television-movie DO YOU KNOW THE MUFFIN MAN? on
October 22 displayed extremely shocking bias and disregard for the truth.
To the extent that this film is interpreted by audiences to represent the
general truth behind the epidemic of day-care "Satanic child abuse"
witch-hunts which have convulsed this country for the last several years,
you will be responsible for the encouragement of further injustices of the
most traumatic kind on innocent people falsely accused of such horrors.
You may shrug this off by citing the fine-print disclaimer at the end of
the film that this was a "fictional" drama. Yet the references to real-life
incidents ("the Presidio, El Paso, and West Point") in the film as though
they were proven examples of the kind of crime depicted, coupled with the
TV GUIDE and on-screen announcement that "according to government
statistics some 39,000 children were sexually abused last year", made it
clear that the film was to be understood as thinly-fictionalized
"docu-drama".
From McMartin onward, the epidemic of day-care "child abuse" scares has
been characterized by spontaneous and violent attack upon chosen targets
the moment they are selected. Presumably child sexual abuse is so heinous a
crime, as witchcraft during the middle ages, that it is unthinkable for
anyone to be accused of it unless he or she is indeed guilty. Everyone
wants to go on record as denouncing such individuals vigorously, lest one
become suspect oneself for not showing sufficient enthusiasm for the hunt.
On the other hand, no individual or official wants to take responsibility
for stating that the alleged abuse did not occur.
Permit me to itemize the more conspicuous fallacies of Muffin Man:
(1) YOUR TV GUIDE/ON-SCREEN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT "FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH
ESTIMATES THAT APPROXIMATELY 39,000 CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF SIX ARE
SEXUALLY ABUSED IN THE UNITED STATES EACH YEAR" IS MISLEADING, IMPLYING AS
IT DOES THAT "DAY-CARE SATANIC" EVENTS SUCH AS THAT DEPICTED IN THE FILM
ARE THE PROBLEM.
What your announcement failed to state is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF SUCH
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE OCCURS IN THE HOME, NOT IN DAY-CARE CENTERS. According
to David Finkelhor, Associate Director of the Family Violence Research
Program, University of New Hampshire, the primary threat of sexual
molestation comes from MEMBERS OF THE CHILD'S FAMILY, NOT FROM
PORNOGRAPHERS OR PEDOPHILES WHO ARE STRANGERS. Projection of such crimes
upon day-care personnel may be a device to cover up incest, or to destroy
women's options for child-care outside the home, thus forcing them away
from personal/professional lives of their own and back to the
fundamentalist model of "a woman's place". In CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE: NEW
THEORY & RESEARCH, Finkelhor writes:
In many respects the moralists were mistaken about the problem, since
they portrayed the greatest danger to children as coming from strangers and
depraved individuals outside the family, not from within the family, where,
as recently documented, the more serious threat is.
(2) USE OF ROLAND SUMMIT AS THE SOLE CONSULTANT TO THE FILM.
Dr. Roland Summit testifies so consistently for any accusation of "child
abuse" that he has become nationally known as the "prosecution doctor".
(Cf. Paul & Shirley Eberle, THE POLITICS OF CHILD ABUSE, Lyle Stuart 1986.)
He now has a distinguished record of participating in several celebrated
"child abuse industry" scandals in which scores of innocent people were
randomly accused, put through nightmarish ordeals, and professionally
ruined.
Why did you not also consult some of the many distinguished physicians
who expose and deplore the "child abuse industry", such as Dr. Lee Coleman,
Director of the Center for the Study of Psychiatric Testimony in Berkeley,
California? Were you afraid that you might discover "inconvenient" facts
which invalidate the pre-determined theme of the film?
(3) SCARRING IN RECTUM AS EVIDENCE OF CHILD-RAPE.
This was presented in the film as "conclusive proof" that one of the
children had been raped. In the case of at least one real-life witch-hunt -
that at the Presidio of San Francisco - it was also used in the case of the
child whose parents originally instigated the scare. Later on the physician
who originally diagnosed the child's rectum as injured retracted that
diagnosis on a television news documentary. By that time, of course, the
witch-hunt was in full swing and no one paid attention to this inconvenient
development.
Dr. John McCann, Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the
University of California, San Francisco, has produced a study that reveals
far more normal variations in the vaginal and rectal areas of children than
most physicians are aware of. He and his assistants examined the vaginal
and rectal areas of some 250 prepubertal children with no history of sexual
molestAll comments (1)
1,060 plays
12,291 views
12,291 views
Admin
fer
@goonstock
yo digging it man turn the hi hat up a lil more cus it not plain ya know. other than that do ur thang i like it