Florida Agenda

CLIFF DUNN

“It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the President or anyone else.” – Theodore Roosevelt

I used to love the national political conventions, but no longer. Over the next two weeks, politically active Americans will “drink the Kool Aid” and engage in saber-rattling diatribes and unleash the most unpleasant hyperbole concerning their fellow countrymen since Republicans questioned the bravery, honor, and military awards of John Kerry in 2004 (unless you count their 2008 vilification of Obama’s putative “Muslim religion” and their calling into question his citizenship). Democrats don’t get a pass here, with 30-year-old irrelevancies about Ronald Reagan’s senility, the 1988 “wimp” bombs they threw at George H.W. Bush, accusations in 2004 that his son, George W. Bush, was somehow complicit in the September 11 attacks, ad nauseum. More galling to me than that sort of nonstarter is the quasi-tribal, siege mindset that overtakes the most partisan among us, and the accompanying notion that members of the opposing party are the ENEMY (as if Osama bin Laden gave a rat’s toenail what the political party affiliations were of the World Trade Center’s honored dead).

Each year, the Democrats and Republicans host annual fundraising dinner events which bring local, state, and national brass to the trenches (in this case, ones filled with rubber chicken and contribution envelopes) in an effort to rally the—moneyed—troops and preach the Gospel of Talking Points to the chewing choir. The Democrats’ Jefferson- Jackson and the Republicans’ Lincoln- Reagan dinners are ideological red meat for “starved” political operatives and wannabes, and it never ceases to amuse me that most of the party stalwarts have no clue just who— or what—they are honoring.

Thomas Jefferson was a “small government” progressive who envisioned America as an agrarian society, where laws and regulations would be minimal, allowing the “good sense” of the people to reign as well as rule. In this, he was opposed by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists, who resemble Mitt Romney and the modern GOP in that they favored the moneyed classes and capital, but they also supported a centralized Federal government to facilitate the growth and stability of the new nation.X

Although many Republicans claim that in today’s political climate, Jefferson would be a member of the Grand Old Party, this doesn’t take into account the 18th Century realities: In the 1700s, America WAS an agricultural nation, and didn’t require the degree of government regulation that a modern, industrialized society demands.X

In fact, it was two bona fide Republican Presidents who set into motion the very “Era of Big Government” that a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, proclaimed to be “over” in the 1990s. Abraham Lincoln’s calls for a national military draft during the American Civil War was the first of its kind—and made northerners hate the Great Emancipator as much as did slaveholders in the then-solidly Democratic south.

Legal scholars of the 1860s were as divided as the nation was in their opinions over whether Lincoln had the constitutional power to prevent southern secession and dissolution of the Union. And his suspension of habeas corpus foreshadowed the modern debate over the Patriot Act’s encroachment into civil liberties (a law, incidentally, that was championed by a “small government” conservative President, Bush-43).

Possibly America’s “biggest government” President, Theodore Roosevelt gave nightmares to bosses of his day’s GOP for his support of progressive causes. (When he was chosen as running mate for the incumbent president, Republican William McKinley, an exasperated machine boss, Mark Hanna of New York, shouted, “Don’t any of you realize that there’s only one life between that madman and the Presidency? What…will he do as President if McKinley should die?” As if on cue, McKinley was assassinated 15 months later.)

The Republican Teddy spoke of a “Square Deal,” a progressive outline for equal opportunity for all Americans—with special emphasis on the importance of fair government regulations over corporate “special interests.” (Read about the Triangle Shirt Factory fire and tell me that employees need LESS workplace protections.) Does that mean that he—or Obama—stand for harm to small business? Uh—no.

Roosevelt made America’s natural resources a national issue. He favored using them wisely, and opposed wasteful consumption. He leaves a legacy of five national parks, 18 national monuments, and 150 National Forests, among other works. Does that make the Rough Rider— or Obama—a tree-hugging nature lover? Is this even actually a bad thing?

In his 1908 Annual Message to Congress, T.R. spoke of the need for the federal government to regulate interstate corporations (under the constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause), and cited big business’ battle against federal regulations, by appealing to the importance of states’ rights (which was as much a canard in 1912 as it is in 2012).

Child labor laws, workplace safety requirements, an eight-hour work day, and the Republic itself—we owe all these to liberal Republicans. Enjoy Tampa, members of the Grand Old Party.

By Cliff Dunn

TAMPA – Last week, a draft of the Republican Party platform was posted on the Republican National Committee Web site, then quickly taken down—but not before at least one copy was downloaded.

In its foreign policy section—titled “American Exceptionalism”—the draft includes language that reads, “The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the [Obama] Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda.”

It added, “We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.”

Although the section on international human rights addressed, “the work of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, established by Congressional Republicans to advance the rights of persecuted peoples everywhere,” and notes that a “Republican Administration will return the advocacy of religious liberty to a central place in our diplomacy,” no mention was given to the violence and murder against LGBT persons, or the activism against such brutality, which is reported in Europe, Asia, and Africa on an almost-weekly basis. It also fails to address Uganda’s 2009 legislation (still in Parliament) which calls for the death penalty for those found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality.” It was response to acts of violence abroad that moved Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December 2011 to tell UN delegates that “gay rights are human rights.” When President Obama ordered “all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons,” Texas Governor Rick Perry—who was then seeking the Republican presidential nomination— objected that “promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests, and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money.”

The 2012 Republican platform supports “traditional marriage,” which it defines as between a man and a woman. A draft last week calls for a constitutional amendment that recognizes that definition, which would ban gay men and women from marrying. It condemns judges—including Bush-43 appointees—who have ruled in favor of marriage equality, calling it “an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.”

It likewise calls President Obama’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court “a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath,” and “commend[s] the United States House of Representatives” for taking up the legal slack. Although at press time the platform draft does not call for reinstating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which was repealed by President Obama, it rejects “the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation.”

A cadre of platform committee members consists of former Ron Paul delegates, who reportedly joined with Log Cabin Republicans and other libertarian-leaning members to include the conciliatory statement, “We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” – Charles Mackay 

CLIFF DUNN – EDITOR

It’s probably a case of residual childhood naivety—and, admittedly, way too early in the silly season—for me to ask the politically active to “stop the insanity” when it comes to making blanket judgments, statements, and actions, about opposing candidates, ideologies—or sexual identities—but a boy can wish. I also seem to experience a form of quadrennial amnesia, in that after each presidential election cycle I forget just how acerbic and “nutty” the attacks can become. I experienced a touch of this over the past month, when this publication ran (and in this issue is running) opinion columns with a decidedly conservative (albeit LGBT) bent. (For a deeper discussion of this, see the Box, below.)

Like a lot of gay people, I take exception to businesses that contribute to causes which have a deleterious effect on LGBT rights and specifically—at this juncture in our history—marriage equality. When Chick-fil-A’s brand of conservative politics became public knowledge, I decided that I would no longer “fund” their perfectly legitimate right to oppose an issue that is central to my sense of fairness and what it means to be a free American (this same sentiment fuels my electoral discomfort with the GOP). In fairness to Chick-fil-A and the Cathy family, they didn’t lose much in the way of revenues, but I know many gay and lesbian consumers who couldn’t even spell “K-F-C” last week and now have suddenly developed worship-fantasies for the Colonel. (As is their right.)

What I can’t countenance is when people who are generally fair and wellmeaning in most areas of their private and public lives are targeted because they have acted against the politically correct dynamic of the moment. This happened this week to a friend of mine, an elected official who is straight but who is very progressive (he might say “libertarian”) in his views to gay rights. A traditionalist Republican, he is nonetheless a patriot and “good” citizen who doesn’t care what goes on in your bed or mine, and who supports (both capitalistically and financially) numerous Fortune 500 companies with progressive employment and public policies towards LGBT rights and employees.

So when my friend “liked” Chickfil- A on Facebook, he thought nothing of it (other than that he was supporting in a traditionalist—he might say “libertarian”—fashion a business’ right to give their money and support as they see fit, and as is their right), until a local political activist “un-friended” him and took him to task for his support of the chicken chain. My friend was shocked, because to his mind, his support for businesses that support gay rights should give him some cover (or at least buy him some goodwill).

Clearly, I’m not dismissing the value of “voting with your wallet,” and taking your business to places that value both it and you. But this seems to me to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It also strikes me as a loss of perspective on what it means for us to be countrymen, rather than the very partisan beasts that many of the nation’s Founders warned us against becoming. I’m not saying that issues of this magnitude don’t deserve a serious and sober accounting of how we as a community will respond to issues of mutual concern—but let’s not forget that our diverse community includes many political stripes, and there are more gay conservatives in this community than you may realize.

We can either marginalize them (with the anticipated results and coeval loss of opportunities to build bridges and support systems), or welcome them in the greater whole. Most of us agree on the big picture items (rolling back DOMA, destroying the remaining cultural vestiges of DADT, enacting ENDA, etc), and, seriously— there’s no uniquely Democratic or Republican way to fix a street light, or approve a school zone, issues we can all come to accord upon, too.

(Full Disclosure: I was a registered Republican from 1997 to 2001, but had a “centrist” recovery in the early 2000s and now usually vote left-of-center.) Some Democrats will support Al Lamberti for Sheriff, and some Republicans will—gasp!—secretly press the lever for Obama. But I guess we are all entitled to our naughtiness, eh, love?

Richardson Election Provides Framework for LGBT Legislative Caucus

By Cliff Dunn

MIAMI BEACH – Although Florida remains one of the largest states without significant statewide LGBT anti discrimination protections, it can no longer claim to be the largest without an openly gay lawmaker. The election last week of David Richardson to the Florida House of Representatives breaks what activists have called the Sunshine State’s “lavender ceiling.”

Acknowledging the import of his accomplishment to history, Richardson, 55, told reporters, “I am the first openly-gay legislator in the history of Florida. And forever will be.” Richardson defeated three other candidates to represent State House District 113, which serves Miami Beach.

A forensic accountant who grew up the son of a taxi driver father in Orlando, Richardson earned degrees in biology and accounting at the University of Central Florida, and a master’s in Business Administration at the University of Tampa. The former Big Six accounting firm auditor started his own CPA practice in 1993, and moved to Miami Beach in 2001.

In last week’s Democratic Primary, Richardson garnered a plurality of 33 percent of the 9,458 votes cast, defeating consumer advocate Waldo Faura Jr.; attorney Adam Kravitz; and Mark Weithorn, the husband of Miami Beach City Commissioner Deede Weithorn. No Republicans ran to challenge the seat.

According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, until this election season, Florida was one of 17 states “with zero ‘out’ state lawmakers.” The Victory Fund supported Richardson, as did Equality Florida, Florida Together, and SAVE Dade, which reportedly spent about $50,000 towards Richardson’s election. During the campaign, Richardson told supporters, “I don’t want people to vote for me or not vote for me because I’m gay. I just want people to look at my record.”

Other openly-gay lawmakers may join Richardson in Tallahassee, with gay candidates running for state office in Brevard County ( John Alvarez), Orange County ( Joe Saunders), Monroe County (Ian Whitney), and here in Broward County (Scott Herman); all but the last one are Democrats.

Richardson said that his legislative priorities will be the state’s schools and its budget. “I got an incredibly good public school education and went to UCF, which is a publicly-supported university in Florida,” he told reporters. “I’m concerned about the cuts made in the last five years. I intend to get my hands very dirty and get into details of a $70 billion state budget. I have to believe there is a lot of waste and abuse.”

He also plans to introduce legislation to provide state employment protections for LGBT Floridians.

Inclusion Forum Was Scene of Emotion, Conciliation

By Cliff Dunn

NORTH MIAMI – Nearly 100 people— gay, straight, bi, and curious about the issues— gathered last Wednesday night to discuss inclusion, tolerance, discrimination, and just what it means to be “anti-gay.” The Inclusion Forum held at Temple Beth Moshe in North Miami brought together disparate elements of a rich but lately-troubled community to air grievances and find the common ground.

An often-intense night of discourse and debate reached its zenith when one attendee, a gay man named Jamesly Louis, gave an emotional account of his earlier struggles with suicidal thoughts—brought upon by his insecurities over his sexual identity.

Moderated by Rabbi Jory Lang, the forum also included Pastor Jack Hakimian, who leads the congregation of Impact Miami Church, and who has been a lightning rod in the north Miami-Dade community, especially concerning his controversial comments regarding homosexuality and gays.

Hakimian’s Impact Miami sermons— which can be seen on YouTube—often concern homosexual themes. One he preached earlier this year was entitled, “Bible Says Gays and Sex Addicts Can Change and Should Change.”

Those sermons brought him into conflict with Miami-Dade Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, because Hakimian’s church rents its congregation space from North Miami Senior High School. Carvalho called the sermons and their messages “contrary to school board policy, as well as the basic principles of humanity,”

adding that he had “asked for immediate legal review to seek the termination of the contract that is involved … as a rejection of prejudice and intolerance.” An agreement has since been reached which allows for Impact Miami to remain as a tenant of the school.

The intolerance of which Carvalho spoke wasn’t on display August 8, when Hakimian sounded a conciliatory tone—including comforting the emotionally-devastated Louis. “Our message isn’t ‘go out and harm homosexuals, discriminate against them, treat them bad’—it’s from a theological perspective, this action is not sanctioned by God,” Hakimian told television station NBC 6 South Florida.

Hakimian sounded a similarly conciliatory tone after the forum. “Love doesn’t mean Christians can’t disagree,” he told the Christian Post on Thursday.

Openly-gay North Miami City Councilman Scott Galvin, who attended and helped organize the forum, expressed optimism in the event’s aftermath. “I was thrilled to have both sides of the debate around the same table,” Galvin told the Agenda. “The heartfelt story of Jamesly Louis had to have given everyone in the room, including Pastor Jack and his wife, pause for reflection.”

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopen

CLIFF DUNN – Editor

I have always been an admirer of the struggle for African- American civil rights. I remember watching “Roots” with my mom in 1977, cramped in front of our small TV set, in our apartment in Sunrise. The experience of Alex Haley’s ancestors—and all of those who suffered the harrowing trip of the Middle Passage from Africa to slavery in America—made me emotional then, and it does now.

I can only imagine the sense of injustice that many modern African-Americans (both those alive today, and those who preceded them in recent generations) experienced to be doubly-done-dirty: For the fate of their ancestors, brought here in shackles in large measure because of the color of their skin (there wasn’t a widescale slave trade for white Scandinavians in the mid-1600s, for example), and for the subsequent discrimination and relegation to second-class status they lived through after earning their national freedom.

The indignities of Jim Crow America (which was as alive and well in the liberal northeast of my birth as it was in the deep south of Old Dixie) were incalculable, and had many fathers.

I also can understand the discomfort for many African-Americans when a comparison is made between the centuries-long fight for civil rights and the modern struggle for LGBT rights. I don’t want to rehash the arguments— that you can’t choose the color of your skin (no smarmy remarks about Michael Jackson are necessary), while the nature/ nurture causes of sexual identity remain subject to interpretation—because that smacks of moral relativism: Human rights isn’t a zero-sum game, where one group’s comforts and security are enjoyed at the expense of another’s.

It is an American trait to feel outrage at injustice (often colored by one’s innerpolitical- voice, which regulates your sympathy level for the plight of say, Cuban refugees over Haitian ones, or your choice to support a boycott of South Africa, but not Cuba), and to help someone who is down. (This was the “John Wayne”- dynamic which shaped America’s post- WWII foreign policy, under which we would rebuild and help prosper those nations that had taken a righteous “lickin’” at our hands, once they had admitted their wrong actions, and recognized our official Bad Assedness, much like the “Duke” did after a bar fight in a western saloon.)

I think that Mitt Romney has trouble finding that sense of outrage toward injustice. Don’t misread me: I think he cares about right and wrong, and I think he was on the side of right last week when he reaffirmed a position he first stated in 1994: “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,”

Romney said during his failed U.S. Senate run against Ted Kennedy. At the time, he added that he supports “the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue” (which is also an Americanized spin on liberty). Gov. Romney can take pride in beating President Obama to the punch on this one. Gay kids need all the allies and support they can get.

But I think that his laudatory sympathy and sense of fair play for the plight of children and teenagers doesn’t translate into “big picture” empathy for those gay Americans who want ALL their civil rights NOW, thank you. After President Obama endorsed marriage equality in May, Romney reiterated “I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not.” Oh really?

My own sense of outrage—to say nothing of my gorge—begins to rise when I ask myself “Who the hell does Romney think he is, telling me what he thinks is good for the future of my—or your—loving relationships?” I get it, Mitt: The descendant of polygamists must toe a special line when it comes to the “M” word. But it seems like that should be his problem, not mine.

A little-recalled footnote in the history of African-American civil rights is the so-called “Atlanta Compromise,” an 1895 agreement struck between African- American leaders and Southern white politicians. It called for Southern blacks to work for substandard weekly wages, and to submit to white political rule. Although Southern whites would guarantee that blacks would receive basic education and due process under the law, blacks would not be allowed to “agitate” for equality, integration, or justice, they would not ask for the right to vote, they would tolerate segregation and discrimination, and they would not retaliate against racist behavior and violence.

The primary architect of the compromise (on behalf of African- Americans) was Booker T. Washington, President of the Tuskegee Institute and a national black leader. Later, other prominent African-Americans, including W. E. B. Du Bois and William Monroe Trotter, saw the compromise for what it was, and believed that American blacks must take their own futures in hand (the fruit of their vision was the NAACP). It wasn’t until after Booker T. Washington’s death in 1915, that black support for his accommodational second-class citizenship shifted to an allegiance for activism. But what might modern civil rights look like today if Washington’s compromise had prevailed? How will LGBT rights look four years from now if we accommodate Romney and his “vision?”

Cliff Dunn - Editor Florida Agenda

“The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.” – U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), 1981

CLIFF DUNN

I’m going to depart this week from my usual tones of conciliation and tolerance because, as my grandmother would say, My Irish is up. This sort of mood often accompanies casting caution to the wind, and speaking in broader generalities than with I am normally comfortable. So be it. My feeling as I write this is that anyone who decides to vote for a Republican U.S. House candidate come November must harbor some— realized or unknown—degree of homophobia, or at least a well-honed sense of Schadenfreude that is focused on one group, namely us.

(Note that I said “decides” to vote: I recognize that there are many factors that go into casting one’s vote, not the least of which are a predisposition to choose a political party based upon one’s parents’ voting habits, or one’s geographic region of birth, which also relates to the first. If you vote solely based on one of these criteria, I am hard-pressed to think of you as homophobic—more properly, you lack self-identity, or may just be lazy.)

In the reverse, any GOP House candidate who supports LGBT rights (to my present, captured-in-amberin- the-moment way-of-thinking) must be either a) insincere, or b) in the wrong party (but there’s redress for this). Sorry, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I believe that 5 million guncontrol advocates should get together and join the NRA (which claims a membership of 4.3 million), vote out the hard core gun nuts (the ones who think Junior should get a howitzer for Christmas), and the next day add the Brady Law to its membership platform. (But, see “laziness,” above.) and I am not saying that there aren’t good Republicans—gay and straight—who want the same things for themselves and their families that I want for mine.

I was a very right-of-center member of the Grand Old Party during the mid-90s—a reaction, I realize now, to the entitlement and corruption that marked the early Bill Clinton years. I have since made peace with Clinton, and both my beliefs and my political self-discovery have matured into selfknowledge that I am left-of-center, with some traditionalist values (like a gay Mike Logan on “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” but less boozy). On Tuesday, July 31, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant, in Hartford, Connecticut, issued a 104-page decision, in which she ruled that a provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. This is the fifth federal judge to rule that DOMA is repellant to the U.S. Constitution.

Bryant—who was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush—ruled that the provision, which denies federal recognition of tax, health, and other benefits to married same-sex couples, “obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits.” She added that “many courts have concluded that homosexuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination.”

The ink on Bryant’s ruling was barely dry when the House Republican leadership—which has made itself the guardian of DOMA’s sacred screed since Attorney General Eric Holder decided last year to no longer waste tax dollars defending the indefensible—announced that it would continue to represent the interests of bigots and the narrowminded, by hiring outside legal counsel to fly to the nation’s far reaches when danger exists that American citizens might exercise their rights as free men and women. That sends a powerfuly bad message that is impossible to ignore.

Although I have no allegiance to the party of Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, and Obama, I would challenge any gay American to name another issue as important to the future of civil rights as marriage equality. I don’t think that civil unions are a terrible idea, but I understand the outrage of those who believe that a right for one should be a right for all. This is plain fairness. For House Republicans to throw ideological red meat to bigots and demagogues is an endorsement of hate, and in this moment, those gay Republicans who give their political or monetary support to GOP House candidates are endorsing hatred, plain and simple.

I don’t know if North Miami pastor Jack Hakimian hates gays as much as his words would indicate, but through his sermons, he is creating another generation of bigots and small-thinkers, and for what? A regular paying job? The satisfaction of being shepherd to the anchorless and rudderless? Maybe 5 million LGBT Americans should descend upon Chick-fil-A and order “Santorum shakes” to make the point that we may not like bigotry, but we think so little of it that we will ignore your narrow-mindedness, and show you true power, to forgive as well as to buy. But I would rather take my money—and my vote—elsewhere.

By Cliff Dunn

On Friday, August 3, hundreds of LGBT rights activists and allies protested at South Florida locations of Chick-fil-A, drawing awareness to the company’s history of contributions to anti-gay causes. Registered Independents, Republicans, Democrats, parents, married couples, singles, and concerned citizens, gay and straight, gave voice with their presence to their support for marriage equality and human rights.

On this page: The faces of your fellow Americans.

By Cliff Dunn

The county Supervisor of Elections Office reports that as of July 31, there are 1,099,375 registered voters in Broward County, with a registration breakdown of 570,594 Democrats, 256,380 Republicans, and 272,401 “others.” The Florida Primary Election will be held on Tuesday, August 14, with voting times from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Early Voting is scheduled during the eight days from August 4 to August 11, with voting times from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Voters must cast their ballots at the polling location that matches their current residential address. Officials require citizens to present their photo ID, with signature if casting a ballot at an early-voting site or on Election Day. The Web site browardsoe.org has a complete list of acceptable identification types.

To cast your ballot by mail, email your inquiry request to elections@browardsoe.org.

LARGO – A Pinellas County man has been charged in a plot to cook and eat children. Ronald Brown, 57, appeared in shackles in federal court on July 24, at a bond hearing that was ultimately postponed. Department of Homeland Security investigators claim they uncovered disturbing evidence in Brown’s Largo residence, including child bondage porn, and at least one image of a child who appears to be dead.

Federal agents say transcripts depict highly graphic online conversations between Brown (who works as a professional children’s entertainer) and another man, in which they discuss—at length—the best way to kill, dismember, cook, and eat the remains of a 2-year-old.

The other man, Michael Arnett, 38, was arrested in May in his Kansas home, as part of an online child pornography sting. –

CLIFF DUNN