Tag Archives: victims

High-profile Portugal child sex abuse ‘proved’

defendants in a child sex trial in Portugal have been found guilty of abusing children in the care of a state-run home. From BBC News The six men and one woman include Carlos Cruz, a former TV presenter, and Jorge Ritto, a former ambassador. Between them they faced hundreds of charges relating to the rape and abuse of 32 boys in the 1990s. The boys, now aged between 16 and 22, were all residents at the Casa Pia children's home in Lisbon. The judges in the case are still reading the full verdict in each of the hundreds of accusations, but the court has ruled that the vast majority of sexual abuse has been proven. The main suspect was a former driver from Casa Pia, whom the court found had abused boys on hundreds of occasions. He then began offering them to men, including Cruz, for cash. Horrific injuries Pedro Namora, a former Casa Pia resident now in his forties, hailed the result, saying: “I hope this day will allow us to show the country that the boys have told the truth from the start.” The seven convicted of abuse include Portuguese TV presenter Carlos Cruz However, Cruz has dismissed the verdict as a “mistake” and the result of “a vendetta”. “This is one of the most monstrous judicial mistakes in Portuguese history,” he said. The three judges in the case are expected to take turns reading out a summary of the verdict, which is reported to run to several thousand pages. The case is one of the longest-running in Portuguese history, lasting more than five years, with testimony from hundreds of people. During the trial, the 32 victims gave gruesome testimony about being raped by adults in dark cellars, cars and secluded houses. One of the victims, now in his early 20s, was so seriously abused that he is now incontinent. Almost all of them identified their abusers by pointing them out in the courtroom. However, the BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Lisbon says it is thought that there may be many other victims who are still too frightened to speak out. The alleged abuse at Casa Pia is said to have started in the mid-1970s, but was not discovered until 2002, when the mother of a boy placed at a state-run home in Lisbon said he had been abused by staff there. Casa Pia is a 230-year old institution which cares for about 4,500 needy children through a network of 10 homes. added by: BRAVATRAVELS

If We Can Attribute Natural Disasters to Climate Change, Who Could Victims Sue for Damages?

photo: Samenwerkende Hulpoganisaties via flickr Though it’s de rigueur to say that any single weather event can’t be directly linked to climate change, and it’s true, what if we could determine how much of say massive flooding or a 1000-year heat wave were caused by human-caused warming? Could the victims hold anyone responsible and sue for damages? That’s the question asked in a recent

View post:
If We Can Attribute Natural Disasters to Climate Change, Who Could Victims Sue for Damages?

Sandra Bullock To Give First TV Interview Since Divorce

Actress will sit down with Matt Lauer in New Orleans for Tuesday’s ‘Today’ show. By Jocelyn Vena Sandra Bullock Photo: Ethan Miller/ WireImage Sandra Bullock has had an up-and-down year, between winning an Oscar , getting divorced from Jesse James amid cheating allegations and adopting a baby boy. Aside from an interview with People magazine and a few high-profile appearances — including her Generation Award win at the MTV Movie Awards — Bullock has remained pretty tight-lipped about her personal life. But on Tuesday, Bullock will have her first TV interview since the divorce, sitting down with the “Today” show’s Matt Lauer in New Orleans, Us Weekly reports. The news comes just days after it was revealed that Bullock is in talks to star in the big-screen adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer’s second novel, “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” alongside fellow Oscar winner Tom Hanks. As for her relationship with James , Bullock has said it is “a different one. A bittersweet one. One of new understanding. One of support for his recovery. One that changed my life.” She added: “I really don’t know how our paths will intersect in the future.” She has been open about the joys of being a mother to her young son, Louis Bardo. “It’s like he’s always been a part of our lives,” she had said about her nearly 8-month-old son. At the MTV Movie Awards back in June, Bullock made light of her personal life and famously kissed Scarlett Johansson. “No matter what you might have seen or heard or read lately, I love what I do,” she added with an emphatic finger wag. “And I’m not going anywhere.” Bullock has also been helping the victims of the Nashville floods, making a surprise appearance at Nashville Rising: A Benefit Concert for Flood Recovery . Are you interested to hear what Bullock has to say about her past year? Let us know in the comments. Related Photos The Evolution Of: Sandra Bullock

Read more from the original source:
Sandra Bullock To Give First TV Interview Since Divorce

Blaming the victim of rape is wrong. Don’t do it. Make sure others don’t do it.

I wanted to post this because I saw a lot of rape apologists on a recent thread on here. Maybe this will raise some awareness. And it's written by a guy, so maybe other dudes will have an easier time grasping it. -AL http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/8/882464/-Blaming-the-victim-of-rape-is-wro… ___ I meant to write this diary a long time ago—in fact, I meant it as a followup diary to my On Rape and Men (Brace Yourself), which I still receive mail for (mostly positive). I have received a few stories that have prompted me to finally write a follow-up diary. So here it is. I will be addressing this issue largely as a women's issue—uh, because it is—but I will also cover male victims of rape because they are a feminist issue as well. To put the thesis of this diary simply, the victim of rape is never at fault. I. Why We Blame and Why It's Wrong Before we get into why it's wrong to blame the victim of rape, I think it's important to examine why many people feel inclined to blame the victim. Ellen Friedrichs shares a compelling theory: Another study done by researchers in Israel found that people blame rape victims in order to maintain a sense of control over their own lives. As they write, In general, the results show that subjects attribute blame to the rape victim. Attribution of blame helps to reinforce the casual observer’s belief that the world is a safe, protected place, and that occurrences such as rape can be controlled…Blame reflects the way in which people organize data regarding events and behaviors that have actual or potential adverse consequences. It is possible that, given the perception that women are vulnerable, exposed, and more aware of their vulnerability, they are expected to act with extra caution to avoid rape, and are therefore judged more harshly when actually victimized. These results can explain victim blaming more as a self-defense mechanism than a callous act of judgment or misogyny. When you believe that victims are to blame for their assaults, you can ensure you won't make the same mistakes. I understand the thought process here—we want to believe the bad things that happen to others are their fault because we want to believe we have a disproportionate level of control over what happens to our persons—but it's still wrong. The fact that women are regarded as more vulnerable and exposed should be a cause for us to blame the people who assert their power over them unjustly, NOT the women themselves. This debate is one that boils down to a debate of agency: how much control do men have over their own actions? As a male feminist, I believe that men have a good degree of control over their actions, especially when it comes to their decision to rape somebody or not. Blaming the victim of rape implicitly suggests that men are incapable of exerting control over this particular decision, which is ridiculous. Victim-blamers point to different things in order to justify their mentality and one of the most popular is “She was drunk. She shouldn't have been drinking in such a place. She knew what could have happened!” Here's one of the worst examples of victim-blaming I've seen, which to my chagrin was written by a female Princeton student: Did she have the right to accuse the boy of rape? Before you say yes, think about this for a minute: Should the fact that she willingly got herself into an advanced state of inebriation prevent her from complaining about anything that happened to her while she was in that state? She knew what would happen if she started drinking. We all know that the more people drink, the less likely they are to make wise decisions. It is common sense. Therefore, the girl willingly got herself into a state in which she could not act rationally. This, in my opinion, is equivalent to agreeing to anything that might happen to her while in this state. In the case of our girl, this happened to be sex with a stranger. Sorry, but if you agree with this reasoning, there's something really wrong with you: inebriation in an environment with men implies consent to anything? That's disgusting. This view is probably more common than I would like, though the reasoning for it is usually not explicitly stated like it is here. But when it comes to rape involving the woman consuming alcohol, you see a lot of people focus on that factor, even though it was the man who perpetrated the rape. It reflects a mentality that views women as these delicate creatures who must take steps to avoid the autonomic impulses of men. On the contrary, the societal onus should be on men to not fucking rape, namely because the decision to rape or not is voluntary. Another factor that people point to is what the woman was wearing at the time of the rape. Obviously what the woman was wearing does not make her rape any more or less justifiable: it's unjustified regardless of what she was wearing. But this particular factor obfuscates the debate because it implies that rape is about lusting after a female body. Feminists know that rape is about power and can present evidence that it's not about lust or provocative behaviour: Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing * Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing. * Victims range in age from days old to those in their nineties, hardly provocative dressers. * A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only 4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple as a glance). This, and flirtatious behavior preceding the rape, are usually the excuses for remarks like “she had it coming”. But as with dressing provocatively, flirtatious behavior is not explicit consent to sex, nor is it justifiable grounds for blaming the victim of rape. Blaming the victim on a personal level also leads to unnecessary feelings of revictimization and contributes to a stigma that makes it hard for other victims to come forward. II. Addressing Attacks on the Last Diary My previous diary set off a firestorm of straw men and male apprehension at the notion that their gender is largely responsible for the problem. A few commenters pointed to male victims of rape in order to “distribute blame” and put an irrational focus on the false accusations of rape. On the subject of male victims of rape, either by male or female assailants, it is a horrible trauma regardless of who it happens to. But invoking male victims of rape to try and trivialize a systemic problem that overwhelmingly affects women is something I consider to be unconscionable and in effect also trivializes what male victims experienced. And yes, of the reported rape cases, women overwhelmingly make up the cases: 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). 17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape. 9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003. Stating that fact though doesn't mean we have to treat male victims of rape in a trivialized fashion, but again, one shouldn't invoke male victims to make it look like it happens to both genders equally in an attempt “distribute blame.” …full article at link added by: animalia_libero

It’s as if a nuclear apocalypse has gone off in the Gulf

There are a few new, developing BP-related stories that should greatly disturb any American who values openness and transparency in their democracy. First, a chemist named Bob Naman claims samples he received from Orange Beach Alabama waters tested positive for the dangerous neurotoxin pesticide 2-butoxyethanol, the main ingredient of Corexit 9527A. The government has been claiming they discontinued the use of that version of Corexit in the Gulf. Now, Naman says he’s worried because BP called him and “threatened him.” Next, Dr. Nyman of Louisiana State University, who began comparative tests early May to determine the impact of oil and the impact of Corexit laced oil on maritime life, says, while marine life may recover quickly from oil exposure, the same cannot be said about exposure to Corexit. Large mammals were the least affected by the presence of oil, while the small bottom creatures, worms that are the food source for bottom feeders, were affected the most. The conclusion was that an oil spill is disruptive to maritime life but does not negatively impact the seafood population on a permanent basis. The impact is temporary and can reverse and restore itself over a period of time. The same cannot be said when natural waters contain a Corexit-oil mixture. Dr. Nyman’s studies show that the recovery period is twice or three times as long when maritime life is exposed to the toxic mixture of Corexit and oil. While the large mammals ultimately recover, the smaller fish population is reduced dramatically by 25% or more, depending on the concentration. The bottom of the natural food chain however, does not recover and is killed in its entirety which affects all the bottom feeders in the Gulf of Mexico, including shrimp, crawfish, crabs and lobster. Over at Counterpunch, Anne McClintock has a very good summary of the three vanishing acts playing out in the Gulf: the “disappearing” of oil courtesy of Corexit, the disappearing story in the media, and the disappearing of private contractors who are making a pretty penny helping BP and the Coast Guard keep a lid on the cover-up. Previously, I have written about the absolutely absurd claim that the oil has magically disappeared thanks to the Corexit fairy. Corexit simply hid the problem by sinking the oil, and there is no good way to clean up oil that is sitting deep in the ocean. Marine scientists have reported finding enormous oil plumes that could still exist in the Gulf due to the cold temperatures of the water. I recommend reading McClintock’s article in full, but I wanted to highlight this interaction with her source, a veteran named Steve who was hired to help in the clean-up effort. “It’s as if a nuclear apocalypse has gone off in the Gulf,” he said. “The media is not telling the truth. No one is telling the truth. Let me tell you something. Yesterday on the beach where we work, my crew cleaned up seven hundred bags of oil. Today we went back and the beach was completely covered in oil, as if we had never been there. Today we carried away another seven hundred and fifty bags. Every day we clean up, then the tide brings it in again. The oil is everywhere, deep under the sand. Today I wanted to measure the oil, so I stuck my shovel into the sand and the oil was down there eight inches deep.” Steve leaned in close, “Do you want to know how long my contract is to work down here?” he asked. “Three years.” His jaw muscles tightened as if he wanted to suck his words back into his mouth, but could not. “They are telling everyone it is not so bad, but clean-up will take many years. I am going to be here a long time.” Steve wiped a hand heavily over his eyes as if they were burning. “Let me tell you something. Today we saw three sharks washed up dead on the beach. The insides of their noses were black with oil. The membranes of their mouths were black with oil. Their eyes were black with oil.” As I have repeatedly stressed, the full ramifications of this disaster won’t be understood for years. That’s why it’s so essential the media doesn’t buy the narrative that the crisis is over. Ever since they refused to allow workers to wear respirators during the clean-up, BP has been doing everything in its power to skirt liability for not only the oil volcano, but also the consequences of dumping two million gallons of experimental toxins into the ocean. They have bullied, intimidated, and used private contractors to suppress free and open media coverage of the unfolding events. BP is now desperately trying to get the victims of the Gulf disaster to quickly sign away their legal rights in order to secure swift payment as opposed to dragging things out in a lengthy, expensive court war like the one Exxon victims had to (and continue to) endure. All the right rich people want the Gulf squared in their rearview mirrors. The oil companies want to drill, and many politicians want the oil companies to stay happy so they can secure their donations come election time. The media is fatigued by the story, and eager to believe BP and state officials when they brushed off their hands and delivered the clarion call, “The End!” Focusing on the unknown consequences of Corexit is bad PR. It’s bad for deep-sea oil drilling. It’s bad for the politicians that need oil corporation donations. In all honesty, it’s bad for the local fishing industry, too. And I feel for those poor men and women, who will suffer years of financial devastation because of the irresponsible actions by BP (another reason not to let BP off the legal hook.) Of course, it’s also necessary to ask these questions. No one really understands the long-term consequences of Corexit. In fact, every day it becomes clearer and clearer that no one has any idea what this stuff is going to do to the food chain. ~ Visit the original article for embedded links ~ Related: The recent news that a new oil-eating microbe is eating BP's oil plumes comes from UC Berkeley, which received the largest BP grant ever ($500 million) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hnA8IqTr8c&feature=player_embedded added by: samantha420

Muslims pray less than 80 feet from Pentagon’s 9/11 crash site

While Americans are bitterly debating the proposed building of a mosque near New York's ground zero, Muslims have been praying for years less than 80 feet from where another hijacked jetliner struck. The Pentagon chapel is part of a memorial to the 184 people killed in 2001 when hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 flew into the west side of the Pentagon and plowed through three of the building's five office rings. As part of its massive renovation, the Pentagon opened the nondenominational chapel in November 2002. The chapel hosts a daily prayer group and weekly worship service for Muslims and provides similar services for Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics and Episcopalians. Pentagon officials say that no one in the military or the families of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has ever protested. They describe the 80-seat chapel as a peaceful place where some 300 to 400 Pentagon employees come to pray each week. The goal of the Pentagon chaplain office, which runs the chapel, is to “provide assistance and support for the religious, spiritual and morale needs of all service members and employees,” said Army spokesman George Wright. A proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near ground zero in New York has prompted angry protests by victims of the 2001 attacks, which were done in the name of Islam. A majority of New Yorkers say they are opposed to the plan. More @ link added by: Future_America

N.Y. Times Recirculates Supermarket Tabloid Story in Sympathetic Story on Obama ‘Misperceptions’

The New York Times prizes itself as the newspaper of record, as the very definition of prestige media. So it’s a little shocking to see them spreading the latest headlines from the Globe supermarket tabloid. Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s mournful story about Obama’s “otherness” and how “Misperceptions Stick” about the president began: Americans need only stand in line at the grocery checkout counter to glimpse the conspiracy theories percolating about President Obama. “Birthplace Cover-Up,” screams the current issue of the racy tabloid Globe. “Obama’s Secret Life Exposed!” The article claims, without proof, that Mr. Obama uses a phony Social Security number as “part of an elaborate scheme to conceal that he is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.” Despite evidence to the contrary from Obama aides — they posted his birth certificate, from Hawaii, on the Internet during his presidential campaign — polls show that as many as one quarter of Americans still believe Mr. Obama was born outside the United States. This must be more publicity for a Globe tabloid concoction than you’d see out of Fox News or the Rush Limbaugh program. But it’s used to illustrate how the president is bedeviled by lies. Stolberg didn’t seem to consider that the Globe and other supermarket tabloids also published stories about Laura Bush divorcing President Bush, of Bush is “back on the bottle,” and so on. But that didn’t seem to outrage the New York Times. Stolberg’s melodramatic woe-is-Barry intro was meant to set up the latest Pew Research Center poll, in which “18 percent now believe he is Muslim,” and even “Among Democrats, for example, just 46 percent said Obama was Christian, down from 55 percent in March 2009.” She also went back to the birthers: As to the issue of his birthplace, a CNN poll released this month when the president turned 49 found that 27 percent of Americans doubted he was born in the United States. A New York Times/ CBS News poll in April put the figure at 20 percent.” The Times illustrated the story with a birther sign from “members of the Tea Party movement in San Francisco” in May. The humorous segment of the story came soon after: “Dan Pfeiffer,the White House communications director, said aides did work hard to push back against misinformation in a news media environment in which ‘the tweets of discredited rabble-rousers have as much credence to many as the pronouncements of the paper of record.'” Pfeiffer did not acknowledge the “paper of record,” the Times has employed a few “discredited rabble-rousers” all its own. Then, Stolberg’s stenography from the White House really began, starting with a professor most appropriately named Gushee: “This is a president who gave really compelling speeches about faith and values, memorable stuff,” said the Rev. Dr. David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University who has advised Mr. Obama on religious matters . “And you’re not hearing that voice right now.” The White House says the public — and the press — are not listening. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has given six speeches either from a church pulpit or addressing religion in public life — including an Easter prayer breakfast where he “offered a very personal and candid reflection of what the Resurrection means to him,” said Joshua DuBois, who runs the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. But the Easter address attracted scant attention in the news media. That would also be true of a prayer breakfast address to pastors by President Bush. Here’s the one sentence the New York Times provided on April 7, 2010, in a story on the West Virginia coal mine collapse: “In Washington on Tuesday during an Easter prayer breakfast, President Obama offered his condolences to the families of the victims and said the federal government was ready to help in whatever way needed.” Then Stolberg really sidestepped hard facts and misled the reader: “And the fact that the Obama family has not joined a church in Washington — the president has said his presence would be too disruptive — has not helped, because the public rarely sees images of them attending services.” She doesn’t mention that the president’s attendance at religious services can be counted on one hand, and he skipped the pews at Christmas. She doesn’t even hint at the fact that President Obama is much more likely to go golfing on a Sunday than go to church. At least Stolberg didn’t repeat the line that Obama effectively replaces church services with ten-second glances at inspirational verses on his BlackBerry, another spin that Joshua DuBois and the White House have employed. Stolberg then provided another White House-orchestrated source, in addition to Gushee and DuBois: The White House says Mr. Obama prays daily, sometimes in person or over the telephone with a small circle of Christian pastors. One of them, the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who was also a spiritual adviser to former President George W. Bush, telephoned a reporter on Wednesday, at the White House’s behest . He said he was surprised that the number of Americans who say Mr. Obama is Muslim is growing. “I must say,” Mr. Caldwell said, “ never in the history of modern-day presidential politics has a president confessed his faith in the Lord, and folks basically call him a liar .” That’s a rather astonishing ending for the Times. It’s one thing to suggest the American people are suffering from misperceptions. It’s another to suggest a large fraction of the American people are ignobly calling Obama a liar. On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh responded on the air by suggesting the press seems to be catering to the White House and its journalistic colleagues, and the ignorant, unsophisticated (supermarket-tabloid-gobbling) public has become the enemy. “The New York Times didn’t write this to inform you,” he said in singling out the Stolberg article.

Continued here:
N.Y. Times Recirculates Supermarket Tabloid Story in Sympathetic Story on Obama ‘Misperceptions’

Feminist Bloggers/Journalists Offended When Dallas Police Chief Suggests Preventative Measures Against Date Rape

A startling statistic was presented at the August 2 Dallas Public Safety Committee meeting: Rape there is up 25.3% over last year. Police Chief David Brown (pictured right) was pressed on this, and here was how blogger Andrea Grimes of the Dallas Observer interpreted his remarks: But Ms. Jasso read my mind, asking the Chief to explain the… increase…. is it that victims are reporting rapes more frequently, or that more rapes are happening? The answer, unfortunately: More rapes, says Chief Brown, specifically date rapes. And we all know what the solution to date rape is: getting women to stop drinking, because that is what causes date rape. Not dudes raping women, but women drinking. Blogger Shelby Knox piled on : Thank you law enforcement official charged with preventing or at least condemning crimes like, oh say, RAPE for suggesting that if I get raped it’s my fault…. Guess I should leave the short skirt at home too, right Chief? Men of Dallas: Your Chief of Police doesn’t seem to think you possess enough self-control or self-respect to resist violating a woman who’s been drinking. Be offended by this and be part of the solution. You watch your friends and remind them that if a woman is too drunk to say ‘yes,’ she’s too drunk for sex. Women of Dallas: Rape is rape is rape. If you were raped while drunk it doesn’t make it your fault or any less of a crime. And Bethany Anderson at D magazine added : So date rape solved? Don’t drink if you have two x chromosomes. Forget the fact that the drunk cannot consent to sex, and nonconsensual sex = rape. I’m sure glad we cleared that up. But wait a minute. Would a high profile modern man be so stupid as to place the fault of rape on women? Scott Goldstein at the Dallas Morning News was the 1st to challenge the stereotypical and stereotypist feminist mob: Some writers at a couple of local Dallas publications are accusing… Brown of essentially blaming rape victims in comments he made during a City Hall committee meeting yesterday…. No need for me to judge whether the folks at D magazine and the Dallas Observer are being unfairly provocative. You be the judge. Watch the video clip and tell us what you think. Yes… Liberal feminists are often caricatured as over reactive, and here was just another example of the Birkenstock fitting. Fortunately, and surprisingly given this touchy subject, there was immediate blowback. Goldstein wrote in follow-up: Brown… was unaware of the way some bloggers are portraying [his] comments…. I filled him in and asked him to respond. “I absolutely did not state that the victims are to blame for sexual assault,” Brown said. He said that he was explaining yesterday that a DPD analysis of the increase shows that many of the cases involve alcohol and date rape. “I do want to continue to emphasize that women be aware of their surroundings and, when possible, travel in pairs or in a group to enhance security around sexual assault,” Brown said. Speaking specifically about the way some have characterized his comments, Brown said: “I just think it’s irresponsible for bloggers to put inaccurate information in reports to excite or to create this uproar that is not consistent with my statement,” Brown said. “They’re being irresponsible. This is a very sensitive issue and we really do want to make victims aware of how to protect themselves from these predators.” Commenters proceeded to take Anderson to task … “I know it’s cool to suddenly be playing gender-centric neo-1970s games regarding what people actually say vs. how others claim they spoke… or even to interpret what they meant. But to me, hanging people out to dry, with an agitator’s agenda being the motivation to twist and shout, that’s every bit as shocking as the Chief’s ‘summarized’ comment in question here….” Guess i’ll be the contrarian here, i don’t see anything about drinking causing rape in his quote. What i see is a suggestion for friends to keep an eye on each other when they’re out partying, something guys do all the time. If you’re friend isn’t acting herself, maybe it’s because something was slipped in her drink, a friend would probably be able to notice something like that if they were keeping an eye on one another when out partying.” … to such an extent Anderson had to perform a mea culpa, “of sorts” … After listening to the video of Chief Brown, and reviewing his statement about how his comments were taken, I’ve done some thinking. Yes, you get more of an idea of what he was getting at, and it confirmed my gut reaction: He meant well…. If I had been at the meeting, or watching it, I admit, my response would’ve been more measured… I do think that the resulting discussion was, by the whole, a good leaping off point for exactly the sort of thing Chief Brown said we needed – more preventive measures…. Really? What Brown was saying in the first place? I know it’s verboten to say women, particularly young women in bars, ask for it when they get raped. But as we saw in this instance, it’s to the point where liberal feminists aren’t even allowing women to be educated on common sense preventative measures. Why is there a 25% increase in rape this past year in Dallas? Is it that there are more perpetrators on the street or more naive victims? I think it’s a combination of both, the former thanks in large part to another verboten topic, increasing access to porn, and the latter because liberal feminists have created an environment that makes it nearly impossible to discuss preemptive measures women can take to stop it. I look back to many instances when I did stupid things that opened the door to crime, such as picking up male hitchhikers. As recently as last week I walked through a large, dark parking lot at O’Hare Airport alone to my car at 11:30p at night. I should have asked Security for a ride. Liberal feminists don’t like it, but the simple fact is the bar scene, particularly late at night, isn’t necessarily safe. There aren’t a lot of date rapes in church. [Photo via CBS News ]

See the original post here:
Feminist Bloggers/Journalists Offended When Dallas Police Chief Suggests Preventative Measures Against Date Rape

Time’s Joe Klein Unhinged on Mosque: Gingrich a ‘Demented, Anger-Infused Doofus’ – and a ‘Jerk’ Too

Opposition to building a mosque near Ground Zero really sent Time’s Joe Klein into a tirade. In a Monday night post on the magazine’s “ Swampland” blog , Klein began: “Shame on all those Republicans salivating over President Obama’s support for the Cordoba Islamic Center…” Then he got personal, condemning “slimeball politics” has he slimed Newt Gingrich: “This is slimeball politics, pure and simple, except for when it descends into outright religious bigotry – which seems to be what happens every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth.” Klein disparaged Gingrich as a “demented, anger-infused doofus” – all before proving, as if that weren’t already established, he didn’t care about offering any reason as he simply trashed Gingrich as “a jerk.” And liberals say talk radio and the Fox News Channel are lowering the level of political discourse. The first paragraph of “ The Soft Bigotry of Soft Bigotry ,” Klein’s August 16 post: Shame on all those Republicans salivating over President Obama’s support for the Cordoba Islamic Center, which is to be built several blocks away from Ground Zero in New York. Despite all the high-minded words about “sensitivity” for the families of the victims, this is slimeball politics, pure and simple, except for when it descends into outright religious bigotry–which seems to be what happens every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth. Does that demented, anger-infused doofus actually believe that putting the mosque near Ground Zero is the equivalent of putting a swastika next to the Holocaust Museum? Does he really want to slander the tens of thousands of hard-working, freedom-loving, fiercely entrepreneurial Muslims living in this country? I mean, what a jerk.

Originally posted here:
Time’s Joe Klein Unhinged on Mosque: Gingrich a ‘Demented, Anger-Infused Doofus’ – and a ‘Jerk’ Too

Juan Williams: Media Always Make Blacks the Victims and Whites the Perpetrators

Juan Williams on Saturday said when it comes to news stories about race, America’s media always make black people the victims and white people the perpetrators.  As the discussion on “Fox News Watch” turned to last week’s murders at a Hartford, Connecticut, beer distributor, host Jon Scott read clippings from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press all claiming the killer had been responding to years of racist treatment. When done, he said incredulously, “Juan, the guy was caught on camera stealing beer and the media turned it into a racial story.” Williams responded in a fashion that likely shocked many viewers (video follows with transcript and commentary):  JON SCOTT, HOST: Those murders in Connecticut last week at a beer distributor near Hartford. This week the business reopened eight days after a guy named Omar Thornton killed eight and wounded two moments after he lost his job for stealing beer. Omar was black, his victims were white, and this is how the coverage went. August 3rd, the New York Times headline read “Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing.” And in the second paragraph the Times reported, “He might also have had cause to be angry. He had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work.” Here is the Associated Press report from August 7th, four days after the murders. It was reprinted in the Washington Post and other places. “To those closest to him, Omar Thornton was caring, quiet and soft spoken. But underneath, Thornton seized with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage.” On August 7th, 2010, the Washington Post headline read “Beer Warehouse Shooter Long Complained of Racism.” Juan, the guy was caught on camera stealing beer and the media turned it into a racial story. JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: They don’t have to turn it. I mean, this is the way the media treats all race stories in this country, Jon. It’s always that black people are the victims, white people are the perpetrators. You know, it’s white guilt, black victimhood and it’s constant, it’s in every area, not just this, but in terms of our political discussions about race that to me are always one-side and twisted and prevent us from having the honest kind of dialog that is so important. In this story, I don’t have any objection to people saying, “What was the cause of this man committing the act?” But the way that they then back peddle and say. You know what, the unions don’t have any record of this. The employer has no record of this is to me evidence that in fact, this was a racial attack on whites. Subsequently we’ve seen other attacks on blacks in this country. But let’s have an honest discussion. Indeed, Juan. Let’s have an honest discussion. Unfortunately, that has seemed far less likely since the inauguration of Barack Obama despite America being sold on the notion that all of our race problems would go away with the election of our first black President. Quite the contrary, things have seemed to go backwards, especially for media members that have become even less colorblind than they were before. Why might that be? 

Originally posted here:
Juan Williams: Media Always Make Blacks the Victims and Whites the Perpetrators