Child abuse is on everybody's mind. It's on Calvin Klein's mind. It's on the Federal government's mind. It's on the New Mexico state government's mind. It's on Arthur C. Clarke's mind--oh wait, he was a Man/Boy love supporter--but still a good writer, so who cares?

The New Mexico legislature recently passed Megan's law, which basically brands child abusers which a scarlet "A" so that every time they try to move into a neighborhood the residents can protest and threaten the criminal. This, by the way, will happen for the rest of their lives, in every state of the union. For child abuse, apparently, you can't serve your time and get on with life. New Mexico was the last state to pass the law, under heavy pressure from the Feds.

"Megan's Law" is named after a little girl who was raped and killed by an ex-con child molester. Whenever a law rises from the ashes of a horrible crime, it's bound to tear civil liberties to shreds.

What civil liberty, you ask? There's no civil liberty protecting the right to abuse children. But there is the notion that criminals pay a debt to society by going to prison and are supposed to go on with their lives afterwards. There is also a notion that past crimes don't brand people guilty of future crimes.

But, proponents argue, child abusers are incurable. Well, criminals are pretty much incurable in our country since we do nothing to rehabilitate them. Our criminal justice system is hell bent on punishment and light on therapy and reintegration programs. The condition is not incurable. More importantly, we shouldn't be passing near-fascist laws to cover up our inability to rehabilitate people.

Mostly, I'm worried about a "slippery slope." Won't we also want to know when burglars, armed robbers, speeders and non-turn signalers move into the neighborhood. I don't want my kids getting run over because some idiot didn't signal before pulling into his driveway.

In other pedophilia news, Calvin Klein created ads with children in their underwear and the conservatives are having a hissy fit about it. The photographer said he wanted to show the "maturity" of the models. Okay, that sounds like photo-artist-babble. The kids only look mature next to the childish whining of our right wing would-be moral oppressors.

Don't like it? Don't look! Those kids were well paid. Calvin Klein spends money on the lighting. No one was abused. Parents consented. Calvin Klein ads are commercial art. They need to be protected the way we protect art.

I don't even like Klein's dreary black-and-white pseudo-minimalist garbage. But this is hardly kiddie porn. Where's syndicated moron Suzanne Fields when we need somebody to protect all those little babies clad only in diapers on various commercials?

Everyone just go home and read Lolita, okay?

Michael Maiello is a connoisseur of fanaticism.