This is a heartbreaking story, but I can't help but think his worsening behavior has something to do with the quality of treatment he received. Simply put, somebody with his behavioral problems should NOT have been placed in an environment where he was able to deteriorate as he did. I worked at a group home for relatively "normal" kids, mostly victims of abuse and neglect without any pervasive disorders such as autism, and our clients were simply not able to go to restaurants unsupervised, or left unsupervised with each other for long periods of time (as I assume this child was, if he was somehow able to trade sexual favors with other clients). In fact, if a lot of things the author reports about her son's behavior in treatment happened where I worked, I am sure there would have been state investigations, which would have inevitably resulted in the place being shut down.

I don't blame the mother for this at all -- improper placement is a major problem, especially given the cost of caring for children with special needs. The more restrictive environments cost more, and the state is often loathe to pay the higher rate when it can place the child in a less restrictive but less appropriate placement. We had a number of situations where staff had to fight tooth and nail with our supervisors and state agencies in order to get inappropriate referrals moved to placements that were better able to meet their needs. We had a few runaways and what I thought of at the time as legitimate safety problems. But even dealing with wildly inappropriate referrals, it never came close to the environment the author is describing.

Mr. Prez is usually thoughtful with his answers. Why would it not be a good strategy? Give us some reasons.

It's always good when you actually try to contribute something, as opposed to just having fun. Fun is bad, and should be punished. I agree that boys shouldn't have to register as sex offenders for snapping bra straps. So it is consistent to think that prosecuting "sexting" (what a hilarious name!) is also pretty stupid. It makes a mockery out of actual child pornography. But its not my problem, so its pretty hilarious, right?

Undergrad with "high" honors (get it? hehe) top 5% of my law school class. Still smoking, still capable of thinking. A lot more of us out there than you think.

He's going to have to be Darren Arronofsky, both Andersons, and Scorsese rolled into one to atone for his crimes against music. Frankly, I can't see that. My argument against his movies will be the same as against his music: take a look and I guarantee there are scores of better bands / directors. Don't sell yourself short.

I would be interested to know more about how the ISI fits in here. They've been implicated in several terror attacks and clearly do not act in the best interests of the people (much like the CIA, but I digress).

One reason I have heard that the US uses Predator strikes without informing Pakistan is that any information we give them goes immediately to al Qaeda through the ISI. Is there any indication that Pakistan can make some progress towards accountable intelligence agencies, who are not in league with radical elements in the region?

Here in the U.S., you can't be imprisoned for associating with the wrong people. Its a general principle of what we consider "justice": if you're not guilty of a crime you can't be sent to prison. Once again, we are missing the point: It is not the quality of the people being "abused" that should provoke outrage, its that we would betray our cherished American principles of justice for so little.

I would vote for some mild censorship. Like you said, its easy to spot the posts that add nothing to the discussion. I've noticed that ER's latest incarnation no longer appears here, although he is still posting insane ramblings elsewhere on Salon, which makes me think you've remained vigilant at least with respect to that yahoo. I would think the deterrent effect of simply the option open would help cut down on the dreck.

As a side note about the comments at the AV Club (Onion), sad to say there are usually better substantive discussions there, excepting the cult of the first. I guess tensions don't run quite as high when you're talking about music and movies.

Regarding decriminalization, I have been struck by the ignorance in the general public about marijuana. A lot of people seem to think that stoned zombies will roam the streets if it is decriminalized. In reality, most people with a strong urge to smoke the stuff already are, and the zombie paranoids are probably running across scores of stoners every day without realizing it. And of course a lot of regular smokers remain valuable members of society, even if there are plenty of lazy people who have found a valuable excuse for their behavior in marijuana.

Finally, growing: one of the great thing about the plant is how resistant it is naturally to pests. It is quite easy to grow organically, and I'm sure a lot of people would opt to grow small crops themselves if it was legal. (Disclaimer: All of the above knowledge comes from reading, not personal experience) As such, nobody would be forced to buy from some mega-conglomerate unless the growth industry was heavily regulated.

...still commands quite a bit of respect in the intelligence community, and is one of the few journalists who deserves the title. Cheney remains reprehensible. Just amazing.

N: What allows Glenn Beck to babble into a camera, and not in the general direction of frigntened passersby in parks and other heavily populated urban areas. Just think, if Reagan hadn't cut off funding for community mental health centers this guy could be getting the treatment he so desperately needs.