The important part that many people seeem to miss (even doctors and legislators) is that there are clearly two VERY different groups involved for VERY different reasons and with VERY different tactics.
That's not to say there isn't likely some cross-over, but there is a vast difference between the core of those groups.
Child sex abuse claims have dropped drastically over the last decade according to the US Department of Justice...
Your argument just submarined like an airplane without wings... but i'm glad you were curious about the actual statistics instead of blindly accepting the drivel that mass-media puts out.
"an epidemic" is a media catchphrase used to scare people into watching their crappy infotainment broadcasts and it is marketing FUD.
The "epidemic" of school shootings is in the same boat... school shootings have dropped by 900% since the late 80s... but "we have an epidemic" is a pretty common phrase on news stations when discussing school shootings too, isn't it?
Don't believe the mass media. Dateline once strapped TNT on the back of a truck to "demonstrate" how a faulty gastank could cause explosions in some SUV. They almsot destroyed the sales of that entire line of SUVs in the process. Real journalistic.
And to quote the "leader" of the Perverted Justice group who runs "To catch a predator" (yes, a direct quote)
My goal is not to protect minors...It's to go after pedophiles...it's because pedophiles are disgusting people...That's why we go after them.
There is the crux of the issue. People like feeling indgnant, because it makes them feel morally superior.
From what I've seen and read, paedophilia is triggered in the vast majority of cases by the abuser having been abused himself.
Careful with your wording. Imperical studies show that preferential molestors (aka pedophiles) are slightly more likely to have been abused, but it's not a large number.
"Situational molestors" (non-pedophiles who get off on the power, etc) are far more likely (into that "vast majority" category perhaps) to have been abused, but that abuse is usually primarily physical and emotional abuse.
The REAL fact is that there is no known "trigger" that is statistically and emperically consistent with real data and populations. People just like to assume (and say) there is to get their legislation passed or fund thier 501c non-profit.
More access to child porn will accomplish nothing to stop children from being abducted and abused.
This is not the question. I'm not sure that many people will disagree with you. There is no proof at all. but taht's the thing... there is no proof at all in EITHER direction... so the the question remains:
Does the prohibition on virtual porn have such a compelling public interest that we can tolerate a substantial weakening of the first ammendment to support it?
MOST CHILD ABUSE is perpetrated by non-pedophiles. These are "situational molestors" to scientists who study this and they are triggered by power and violence. These people are highly unlikely to look at child porn. These people are highly likely to have mental illness.
The rest of child abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles. These are "preferential molestors" to researchers and they are highly likely to be interested in child porn, however, are very unlikely to be seeking the violence/power/domination relationship and often see themselves on the same level as the child, as a peer (of sorts). Within this group, there are actually very low rates of mental illness and according to studies, most in this group are regarded as "highly normal" by psychologists except that they are attacted to children.
Fred Berlin and Johns Hopkins University, probably the world's most prominent researcher on this topic, says that with these people, their attraction is most effectively studied in a similar contest to other, more normative "sexual orientations", and not studied as a mental illness, because it, clinically, has more in common that direction.
The trick is that differentiating these two groups is critical to understanding the issue.
They just arrest anyone they think they can pin the crime on and the results filter down based strictly on how much cash you have for a decent attorney.
Great way to put all the poor people in jail.
Solves a lot of social problems doing that you know.
And by jail I mean "penal colony"
and by "social problems" i mean "moral complications"
The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.
By this logic, 'gangsta' rap music should be illegal in the highest degree.
Take an underprivledged kid, put them on the street and bathhe them in masoginistic, violent, crime ridden lyrics and he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.
Now that I've said it that way, does it not reflect on how absurd the argument is?
The supreme court has rejected the idea of thoughtcrime, thankfully.
In this case.
You know most child pornography laws state that any image of a child "intended to cause arousal" is child porn, whether clothed or not.
There are many court cases where the prosecution has been successful in prosecuting someone even when the case hinged on "what was this person thinking or feeling at the time they viewed this image and what might their intent have been in doing so?"
How is this not thoughtcrime.
The example i have is the man in New Jersey who was arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for a collection of underwear catalogues of young boys.
He was convicted based on the evidence that he at one time in the past had "real" child porn, and therefore it was conclusive that he "intended" these underwear catalogues to be arousing, therefore, he had thousands of child porn images...... that happened to also be Sears underwear catalogues.
There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not.
From the owner of www.perverted-justice.com and creator of "To catch a predator" on Dateline NBC.
(and this is a direct quote)
My goal is not to protect minors...It's to go after pedophiles...it's because pedophiles are disgusting people...That's why we go after them.
guys have been arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for having a stash of underwear catalogues in the US (Granted, these are previously convicted sex offenders, but still).
There are cases of men being convicted of child porn posession for having cut-out images from a Sears underwear catalogue.
The lynchpin in that trial was that he was a sex offender.... therefore the images were intended to be arousing to him..... and thus were porn.
Wouldn't that line of reasoning make it illegal for a pedo to go in public.... period... i mean if you see something (anything) and are aroused, it's a crime, right? Why are printed images so special? heh
I won't even go into the guy in California who got 45 years for licking a kid's foot (bleh, but 45 years?)
Your post is a series of "yes, but" and "what if".
What if child porn incites pedophiles? Is there any evidence at all of this? No, there isn't. People claim it's "common sense" and site statistics that show 70% of molestors have viewed child porn.
Know what? I'd bet 90% of married men have viewed straight porn. Can I conclude that porn incites marraige?
There is no provable connection, nor is there even anicdotal evidence that shows a causal link.
I, personally, believe that porn is a great outlet for people who would otherwise do freaky things... like that guy in college who had the bestiality porn.... (not joking).
THe law against soliciting a minor is clearly defined. Why must we even TRY to put together piles of "special" laws applying to the Internet, except as a route for kudos-seeking politicians to pander to sensationalist media?
I seriously can't see any other reason why assaulting a girl on the street is different from sending her an email and THEN assaulting her on the street, except the media will talk about it like "EMAIL CAUSED THIS - SAVE THE CHILDREN!!"
But don't you see the absurdity of the law in the first place?
"soliciting a minor using spoken language"
hmmm
hopefully that sounds absurd to you.
it's merely an example.... what makes "email" extra-specially illegal so that it demands a nearly 3x longer sentence.... except the fact that it is a sensationalist media-hot button for campaigning politicians to win a pissing contest about who is "tougher" on "cyber crime"?
But Florida seems to think that it is uniquely EXTRA illegal to do it via "e-mail".
That distinction was put in place by some legislator trying to get re-elected.... since soliciting a minor is illegal already... they're just seeking brownie points for being "hard on cyber crime"... which is a euphamism for "pandering to sensationalist media"...
Of course, anyone who stood up and rightfully says "this law is bunk" gets voted out of office immediately, as they have attack ads run against them that say "Mr Senator HATES CHILDREN!!!"
assume.... judges should be able to interpret each case and assign punishment on its own merits rather than based on which particular RFC they are using when chatting with said 13 year old girl.
coorilary... a law that specifies "email" as a somehow "unique" method of meeting and then jumping said 13 year old girl is contrary to "interpretation" as specified.
conclusion... this law is bad.
Has nothing to do with the email vs IM debate... just an observation.
From a TOTALLY ignorant standpoint, this makes sense..... from a totally ignorant standpoint.
A cellphone is constantly "sending messages" to the tower.
So uhm... if you're carrying a cellphone, you are now "transmitting email" by nature of answers.com and their overly generalistic definitions.
Yes, sensible.
My company has to maintain "email records" for 2 years, by law, for auditing purposes.
I think, by definition, you just proved that we now have to archive ALL TRAFFIC to/from our network for 2 years. Wow, that's practical.
Or... wait... do I hear....
do you want to exclude certain laws from your specification of email? OOooooo lemme guess, YOU get to choose which laws you like to be included and which you don't.
It was a military secret. Akin to nuke production today.
But let's suppose that the making of steel was patented by someone, and somehow they were able to enforce this throughout the ancient world. Would this have been good for society?
Lets suppose the construction of Viking longboats was patented. Then all of the people who saw longboats in battle were subsequently prohibited by their government from making their boats substantially similar, because of an obscure patent on file with the uhhh "viking government". Now if it were only on a specific unique way of bonding the keep, and was only in place for 5-10 years, then it is practical as it protects the guy who designed it.... But if it were nearly indefinite and supported by massive cartels of corporations, it would have absolutely stifled shipbuilding innovation for years throughout the region. Right?
While we're on ancient technology, it only stands to show that patents, while perhaps useful for extremely innovative things, for very limited periods.... but in those days, a 10 year moratorium on using a technology was a trivial matter because of the speed of change. A ship design would be in service for 200-300 years sometimes. Today, technologies are out of date in 2-3 years... and if patents last longer than that, they serve more to stifle innovation than to encourage it.
1) how likely are you to find porn if you start at a well-known non-porn site and randomly click on links?
Very unlikely, but depends on the site.
2) how likely are you to find porn on the first page of results on a search engine, if you are NOT searching for porn?
Somewhat likely, but not frequent.
3) for the parents of 14 year old boys: a) how hard is it for my child to find porn if he IS looking for it, b) how effective are i) machine-, ii) router-, and iii) ISP-level blocking tools, and c) how easy can my son or his friends evade them without getting caught?
Trivially easy. Most teens I have heard talking about it, do so openly openly and say it's very simple to get porn on a computer that isn't totally locked down to the point of being virtually unusable... and even then in some cases.
I heard of one using TOR to circumvent ISP blocking. I spoke to another who uses his cell phone to "tether" an internet connection using EDGE wireless, avoiding ISP-level blocking. I know of one who installed VMWare and runs whatever he wants under the virtual machine, without the censor-ware having any idea what's going on.
Several online games I know of also have integrated browsers. In addition, there are lightweight java browsers that can display most pages and can run under limited permissions. There are web-based proxies and ran across a posting online of a 12 year old who claimed to have set up apache with a squid proxy on his father's web-hosting vserver that he helped administer.
The first two will keep truly-innocent kids and adults from stumbling on porn. #3 demands both a technical and a proper-parenting solution.
Without raising your kids in a bubble or under constant camera surveilance, I don't see this as very practical. When I was 10, porn was a novelty and kids would sneak around with a cutout picture from an older brother's Playboy... But by the time I was 14, it was pretty damn ho-hum ordinary for kids to have regular access to porn.
Frankly, surveys indicate that 90% of parents of young teens think their kids are "ignorant" to issues such as pornography, where the ACTUAL case is that something like 70% say they have had unrestricted access to hardcore porn, even if they don't use it... (and the other 30% are catholic, I guess);-)
And your evidence is...... uhm.... I saw a group claim that "more than half" of rapists view porn before they rape.... They claimed it as evidence that porn was bad and should be made illegal.
What they neglected to mention is that in random population samples of ALL SINGLE MEN, the numbers are exactly the same.
the conclusion? Porn viewers are equally as likely as non-porn viewers to be rapists.
Shocked?
Didn't think so. You're shaking your head saying "it can't be true because I don't like what that means".
Whoop, see, you've already dismissed what I said without investigating it. hah!
Slashdot Mirror
The important part that many people seeem to miss (even doctors and legislators) is that there are clearly two VERY different groups involved for VERY different reasons and with VERY different tactics.
That's not to say there isn't likely some cross-over, but there is a vast difference between the core of those groups.
back to work now....
Stew
Sorry, i'm at work and can't go searching around for 'sex abuse' in google too much.
I think i had an article i squirelled away somewhere when i get home.
Stew
Child sex abuse claims have dropped drastically over the last decade according to the US Department of Justice...
Your argument just submarined like an airplane without wings... but i'm glad you were curious about the actual statistics instead of blindly accepting the drivel that mass-media puts out.
"an epidemic" is a media catchphrase used to scare people into watching their crappy infotainment broadcasts and it is marketing FUD.
The "epidemic" of school shootings is in the same boat... school shootings have dropped by 900% since the late 80s... but "we have an epidemic" is a pretty common phrase on news stations when discussing school shootings too, isn't it?
Don't believe the mass media. Dateline once strapped TNT on the back of a truck to "demonstrate" how a faulty gastank could cause explosions in some SUV. They almsot destroyed the sales of that entire line of SUVs in the process. Real journalistic.
And to quote the "leader" of the Perverted Justice group who runs "To catch a predator" (yes, a direct quote)
My goal is not to protect minors...It's to go after pedophiles...it's because pedophiles are disgusting people...That's why we go after them.
There is the crux of the issue. People like feeling indgnant, because it makes them feel morally superior.
It's human nature.
Stew
Man i was in my kitchen cutting carrots thinking "how great is my new knife" when suddenly i realized....
My knife could be used to kill someone.
So I threw it out the window and proceeded to cut my lettuce with a spoon.
Then I realized my spoon could be......
OK right...
having sex with kids is illegal.
making a doodle on a piece of paper doesn't need to become illegal in order to accomplish the enforcement of the previous statement.
Stew
From what I've seen and read, paedophilia is triggered in the vast majority of cases by the abuser having been abused himself.
Careful with your wording. Imperical studies show that preferential molestors (aka pedophiles) are slightly more likely to have been abused, but it's not a large number.
"Situational molestors" (non-pedophiles who get off on the power, etc) are far more likely (into that "vast majority" category perhaps) to have been abused, but that abuse is usually primarily physical and emotional abuse.
The REAL fact is that there is no known "trigger" that is statistically and emperically consistent with real data and populations. People just like to assume (and say) there is to get their legislation passed or fund thier 501c non-profit.
Stew
More access to child porn will accomplish nothing to stop children from being abducted and abused.
This is not the question. I'm not sure that many people will disagree with you. There is no proof at all. but taht's the thing... there is no proof at all in EITHER direction... so the the question remains:
Does the prohibition on virtual porn have such a compelling public interest that we can tolerate a substantial weakening of the first ammendment to support it?
Now it's a harder question, isn't it?
Stew
You are confusing things.
MOST CHILD ABUSE is perpetrated by non-pedophiles. These are "situational molestors" to scientists who study this and they are triggered by power and violence. These people are highly unlikely to look at child porn. These people are highly likely to have mental illness.
The rest of child abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles. These are "preferential molestors" to researchers and they are highly likely to be interested in child porn, however, are very unlikely to be seeking the violence/power/domination relationship and often see themselves on the same level as the child, as a peer (of sorts). Within this group, there are actually very low rates of mental illness and according to studies, most in this group are regarded as "highly normal" by psychologists except that they are attacted to children.
Fred Berlin and Johns Hopkins University, probably the world's most prominent researcher on this topic, says that with these people, their attraction is most effectively studied in a similar contest to other, more normative "sexual orientations", and not studied as a mental illness, because it, clinically, has more in common that direction.
The trick is that differentiating these two groups is critical to understanding the issue.
Stew
No, it wouldn't.
:-)
They just arrest anyone they think they can pin the crime on and the results filter down based strictly on how much cash you have for a decent attorney.
Great way to put all the poor people in jail.
Solves a lot of social problems doing that you know.
And by jail I mean "penal colony"
and by "social problems" i mean "moral complications"
and by people I mean "automated robots".
Stewed
The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.
By this logic, 'gangsta' rap music should be illegal in the highest degree.
Take an underprivledged kid, put them on the street and bathhe them in masoginistic, violent, crime ridden lyrics and he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.
Now that I've said it that way, does it not reflect on how absurd the argument is?
Stewed
The supreme court has rejected the idea of thoughtcrime, thankfully.
In this case.
You know most child pornography laws state that any image of a child "intended to cause arousal" is child porn, whether clothed or not.
There are many court cases where the prosecution has been successful in prosecuting someone even when the case hinged on "what was this person thinking or feeling at the time they viewed this image and what might their intent have been in doing so?"
How is this not thoughtcrime.
The example i have is the man in New Jersey who was arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for a collection of underwear catalogues of young boys.
He was convicted based on the evidence that he at one time in the past had "real" child porn, and therefore it was conclusive that he "intended" these underwear catalogues to be arousing, therefore, he had thousands of child porn images...... that happened to also be Sears underwear catalogues.
hmpf.
Thoughtcrime indeed.
Stewed
There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not.
From the owner of www.perverted-justice.com and creator of "To catch a predator" on Dateline NBC.
(and this is a direct quote)
My goal is not to protect minors...It's to go after pedophiles...it's because pedophiles are disgusting people...That's why we go after them.
guys have been arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for having a stash of underwear catalogues in the US (Granted, these are previously convicted sex offenders, but still).
So... "all of the above"?
Stewed
There are cases of men being convicted of child porn posession for having cut-out images from a Sears underwear catalogue.
The lynchpin in that trial was that he was a sex offender.... therefore the images were intended to be arousing to him..... and thus were porn.
Wouldn't that line of reasoning make it illegal for a pedo to go in public.... period... i mean if you see something (anything) and are aroused, it's a crime, right? Why are printed images so special? heh
I won't even go into the guy in California who got 45 years for licking a kid's foot (bleh, but 45 years?)
Stew
Wow, the only thing missing is
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
Your post is a series of "yes, but" and "what if".
What if child porn incites pedophiles? Is there any evidence at all of this? No, there isn't. People claim it's "common sense" and site statistics that show 70% of molestors have viewed child porn.
Know what? I'd bet 90% of married men have viewed straight porn. Can I conclude that porn incites marraige?
There is no provable connection, nor is there even anicdotal evidence that shows a causal link.
I, personally, believe that porn is a great outlet for people who would otherwise do freaky things... like that guy in college who had the bestiality porn.... (not joking).
Stew
THe law against soliciting a minor is clearly defined. Why must we even TRY to put together piles of "special" laws applying to the Internet, except as a route for kudos-seeking politicians to pander to sensationalist media?
I seriously can't see any other reason why assaulting a girl on the street is different from sending her an email and THEN assaulting her on the street, except the media will talk about it like "EMAIL CAUSED THIS - SAVE THE CHILDREN!!"
Stewed
But don't you see the absurdity of the law in the first place?
"soliciting a minor using spoken language"
hmmm
hopefully that sounds absurd to you.
it's merely an example.... what makes "email" extra-specially illegal so that it demands a nearly 3x longer sentence.... except the fact that it is a sensationalist media-hot button for campaigning politicians to win a pissing contest about who is "tougher" on "cyber crime"?
Stewing
It is illegal to solicit a minor for sex.
But Florida seems to think that it is uniquely EXTRA illegal to do it via "e-mail".
That distinction was put in place by some legislator trying to get re-elected.... since soliciting a minor is illegal already... they're just seeking brownie points for being "hard on cyber crime"... which is a euphamism for "pandering to sensationalist media"...
Of course, anyone who stood up and rightfully says "this law is bunk" gets voted out of office immediately, as they have attack ads run against them that say "Mr Senator HATES CHILDREN!!!"
all of it is crap.
*Barf*
Stew
interpretation is good, "categories" are not.
given... jumping a 13 year old girl is illegal.
given... Interpretation is good.
assume.... judges should be able to interpret each case and assign punishment on its own merits rather than based on which particular RFC they are using when chatting with said 13 year old girl.
coorilary... a law that specifies "email" as a somehow "unique" method of meeting and then jumping said 13 year old girl is contrary to "interpretation" as specified.
conclusion... this law is bad.
Has nothing to do with the email vs IM debate... just an observation.
Stew
From a TOTALLY ignorant standpoint, this makes sense..... from a totally ignorant standpoint.
A cellphone is constantly "sending messages" to the tower.
So uhm... if you're carrying a cellphone, you are now "transmitting email" by nature of answers.com and their overly generalistic definitions.
Yes, sensible.
My company has to maintain "email records" for 2 years, by law, for auditing purposes.
I think, by definition, you just proved that we now have to archive ALL TRAFFIC to/from our network for 2 years. Wow, that's practical.
Or... wait... do I hear....
do you want to exclude certain laws from your specification of email? OOooooo lemme guess, YOU get to choose which laws you like to be included and which you don't.
Sweet. I'm glad you're on my side.
Stew
Seriously?
It was a military secret. Akin to nuke production today.
But let's suppose that the making of steel was patented by someone, and somehow they were able to enforce this throughout the ancient world. Would this have been good for society?
Lets suppose the construction of Viking longboats was patented. Then all of the people who saw longboats in battle were subsequently prohibited by their government from making their boats substantially similar, because of an obscure patent on file with the uhhh "viking government". Now if it were only on a specific unique way of bonding the keep, and was only in place for 5-10 years, then it is practical as it protects the guy who designed it.... But if it were nearly indefinite and supported by massive cartels of corporations, it would have absolutely stifled shipbuilding innovation for years throughout the region. Right?
While we're on ancient technology, it only stands to show that patents, while perhaps useful for extremely innovative things, for very limited periods.... but in those days, a 10 year moratorium on using a technology was a trivial matter because of the speed of change. A ship design would be in service for 200-300 years sometimes. Today, technologies are out of date in 2-3 years... and if patents last longer than that, they serve more to stifle innovation than to encourage it.
Stew
1) how likely are you to find porn if you start at a well-known non-porn site and randomly click on links?
;-)
Very unlikely, but depends on the site.
2) how likely are you to find porn on the first page of results on a search engine, if you are NOT searching for porn?
Somewhat likely, but not frequent.
3) for the parents of 14 year old boys: a) how hard is it for my child to find porn if he IS looking for it, b) how effective are i) machine-, ii) router-, and iii) ISP-level blocking tools, and c) how easy can my son or his friends evade them without getting caught?
Trivially easy. Most teens I have heard talking about it, do so openly openly and say it's very simple to get porn on a computer that isn't totally locked down to the point of being virtually unusable... and even then in some cases.
I heard of one using TOR to circumvent ISP blocking. I spoke to another who uses his cell phone to "tether" an internet connection using EDGE wireless, avoiding ISP-level blocking. I know of one who installed VMWare and runs whatever he wants under the virtual machine, without the censor-ware having any idea what's going on.
Several online games I know of also have integrated browsers. In addition, there are lightweight java browsers that can display most pages and can run under limited permissions. There are web-based proxies and ran across a posting online of a 12 year old who claimed to have set up apache with a squid proxy on his father's web-hosting vserver that he helped administer.
The first two will keep truly-innocent kids and adults from stumbling on porn. #3 demands both a technical and a proper-parenting solution.
Without raising your kids in a bubble or under constant camera surveilance, I don't see this as very practical. When I was 10, porn was a novelty and kids would sneak around with a cutout picture from an older brother's Playboy... But by the time I was 14, it was pretty damn ho-hum ordinary for kids to have regular access to porn.
Frankly, surveys indicate that 90% of parents of young teens think their kids are "ignorant" to issues such as pornography, where the ACTUAL case is that something like 70% say they have had unrestricted access to hardcore porn, even if they don't use it... (and the other 30% are catholic, I guess)
Stew
So porn leads to child predators?
Riiiiiiiiight.
And your evidence is...... uhm.... I saw a group claim that "more than half" of rapists view porn before they rape.... They claimed it as evidence that porn was bad and should be made illegal.
What they neglected to mention is that in random population samples of ALL SINGLE MEN, the numbers are exactly the same.
the conclusion? Porn viewers are equally as likely as non-porn viewers to be rapists.
Shocked?
Didn't think so. You're shaking your head saying "it can't be true because I don't like what that means".
Whoop, see, you've already dismissed what I said without investigating it. hah!
Stew
This is an excellent analysis and really made me understand what the contention is...
People who think sex is "sacred" or somesuch, seem to think that ANY amount of money is unacceptable in trade for it.
This explains the whole "christians + sex - money =bad" equation.
Very insightful.
Stew
I'm sorry? A "woman's innocence"? As if women... are somehow in a special category that is somehow more extra specially "innocent"?
that sounds like a parrot talking, not an intelligent discussion.
Stew
I'm sorry, this is a crappy list.
There is very little "science" here. Some interesting engineering projects, to be sure.
But where does Al Gore have anything to do with science OR engineering?
Last I heard he was making documentaries about global warming that are being made fun of on South Park.
MANBEARPIG IS REAL!! FOR SERIAL!!
Stew