At first glance, when you hear of Stephen Tidwell insisting that he should be called a ?sexually oriented offender? instead of a ?sexual predator,? you wonder why a rapist is splitting hairs. Is this a new form of political correctness for sex offenders?

No, it turns out. We?ve created a byzantine system where mind-numbingly small distinctions between assailants actually make a huge difference. It started because of laws requiring local authorities to register and track certain kinds of sex offenders. Because the authorities don?t have the resources to do this, they?ve figured out ways to apply it only to certain types of offenders. But the task of assigning classifications to these felons is, in itself, daunting and enormous.

Hence ?human error? like Tidwell?s incorrect label. Also, according to the Boston Globe, the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board is so backed up with trying to classify the state?s sex perps that it may take years just to figure out which ones are dangerous enough to warrant a warning to local parents. Partly this is due to legal challenges. In Massachusetts, the least dangerous offenders aren?t publicized, the slightly more dangerous ones are publicized only if someone requests the information and the identities of the most dangerous are broadcast far and wide.

To make the classification process easier, legislatures are automating it as much as possible. A paper in the Buffalo Criminal Law Review criticized the prevailing form of actuarial justice, where courts try to come up with formulae and rules of thumb for determining which offenders are most likely to repeat their crimes. The problem with these risk tables is that they assume that certain types of offenders are doomed to slide back into bad behavior. They also ensure that people accused of those types of crimes won?t plead guilty, for fear of a lifetime of having their names in the paper.

In other words, all of this nitpicking over labels happens because we have no way of knowing which rapists and abusers will come back to the well. Instead of acting like insurance companies trying to predict a flood or fire, the authorities need to use a combination of treatment and assessment to identify the likely recidivists. But instead, to make our ?blunderbuss? approach (as the Review paper calls it) possible, we have to resort to a bizarre taxonomy.

Hooray for Bubba, the sex-change fish! Bubba, a member a rare and endangered species of grouper, was found in a bucket 16 years ago and brought to Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. Back then Bubba was a girl, and the aquarium kept him because of his rarity. Due to a process known as ?protogynous hermaphroditic,? Bubba became a boy ? and one of the stars of the aquarium. Unfortunately, his keepers discovered a tumor on Bubba?s head in 2001. Now, thanks to a ground-breaking operation involving a tumor removal and a pigskin graft, the doctors have been able to treat Bubba. Who?s doing fine, by all accounts.

A federal judge ruled that high school authorities violated Bretton Barber?s First Amendment free speech rights when they told the 17-year-old to take off his T-shirt and go home. Barber was wearing Kersplebedeb?s famous T-shirt that depicts George Bush with the words ?International Terrorist.? Now the Dearborn, MI high school must allow Barber to wear his shirt to school, thanks to a suit by the ACLU.

And yes, this is the same T-shirt that caused PayPal to shut down Kersplebedeb?s PayPal account back in April based on a highly selective application of PayPal?s policies. (PayPal restored the account after a week?s worth of angry emails from activists.)

DNA evidence from the crime scene indicates that the man who strangled Toronto transgender sex worker Cassandra Do also raped another sex worker (a genetic female) in 1997. The 1997 rape victim was able to provide a detailed description of her attacker. That?s great, because now the police have a lot to go on in tracking down the murderer. But you have to wonder if Cassandra Do would be alive today if the police had bothered to go after this guy in 1997. Of course, he might have served his prison term and been back on the streets by now if they?d caught him back then.

Do the Democrats actually have any popular positions? You have to wonder, given how unwilling the ten presidential candidates have been to propose any new ideas, and their ferocity in attacking Bush?s policies without proposing any alternatives. Now that Bush is weakened in the polls, it seems as though the major Dems believe, not that the American people are ready for new ideas, but that they can defeat Bush merely by pointing to his mistakes.

Much has been written about the Democratic malaise in the past few years. Commentators cite the fact that unlike Republicans, who can feed red meat to their more extremist elements (the Christian right, corporate bigshots and Tom DeLay-style nutjobs) while presenting a moderate face to mainstream America. Meanwhile, the Democrats have to bend over backwards to avoid even the slightest appearance of ?pandering? to interest groups like unions, environmentalists, queers, minorities, etc. The result is a world where Republican extremists like DeLay are taken seriously when they spout off, while all but the most jejune progressives are dismissed out of hand.

What to do? I?ve thought for a couple of years that the Democrats need their own version of the ?Contract With America,? which Newt Gingrich used to take over Congress in 1994. A list of positive steps the Democrats would take if they were in charge. If the Democrats can?t come up with a list of a dozen intiatives that would please their hardcore supporters and appeal to mainstream Americans, then maybe the party really is dead and it?s time for everyone to go Green.

People can quibble about what a Democratic ?Contract? would contain. But does a pretty good job of laying out some basics. Fiscal responsibility, real environmental protections, reduced dependence on foreign oil, etc. Some of the proposals are a bit vague and there?s not enough stuff about women?s rights, queer rights, workers, etc. But it?s a start.

If enough hardcore Democrats came up with a list of initiatives and demanded that all national Democratic candidates sign on ? much the same way that all Republican presidential candidates in 2000 had to sign a pledge not to raise taxes ? then the party might actually begin to generate some enthusiasm. Of course, you?d risk blunting the policy differences between the candidates. But it?s not as if those differences are particularly noticeable now, is it?

An Australian appeals denied an exemption to equal opportunity laws to LesFest, a lesbian gathering that happens in Daylesford, Victoria. The organizers of one of the country?s biggest Lesbian gatherings asked for the right to restrict the festival to female-born lesbians. LesFest spokesperson Anna Holland-Moore insists there?s a difference between lesbians who were born female and those who were brought up male. She says the gathering ought to be able to restrict its attendance to allow attendees to ?consolidate our culture?.

The organizers also wanted to ban boys over eight and non-lesbian girls over 15.

In Holland-Moore?s view, the objection of transgender lesbians to the ?woman-born lesbian? requirement is a ?technicality.? In her comments, she sounds a bit clueless, asserting that ?transgendered lesbians? and ?transsexual lesbians? are ?a different kettle of fish? from each other. She also announces that the ?homosexual community has quite a strong queer coalition.?

?Now you?re not gay and lesbian; it?s queer politics now - and the queer mob seem to want everyone to be the same and to be all inclusive,? she complains. Allegedly the LesFest request is the first time anyone has asked for an exemption to Australia?s non-discrimination laws based on ?gender identity.?

The festival will either reapply for an exemption or limit attendance to invitation-only, according to Al Jazeera. You have to wonder what Al Jazeera?s readers think of this imbroglio.