Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Surreal moment from debate

There were many surreal moments from the first presidential debate. Here's one:
CLINTON: . . . But this is a man . . . who has said...women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.

TRUMP: I didn't say that.
Okay: now, what am I missing here?

Is Clinton suggesting that it's wrong for Trump to say a woman should not be paid what a man is paid unless she does as good a job?

And Trump denied saying it, as if it's wrong?

The implications are staggering.

Criticizing Clinton's smugness is not "sexism"

This was Hillary Clinton much of the night whenever Donald Trump spoke--smug condescension oozed from every pore of her face. She donned this visage pretty much every time Trump talked about our broken system or lodged a criticism of her positions.

It was a look intended to derisively mock, belittle, and trivialize Trump. At one point, while laughing smugly, she actually said this to Trump, "You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things."

Some pundits are claiming that any criticism of Clinton's smug demeanor is rank sexism--see, e.g., here and here. Of course, some of these pundits could find sexism in a ham sandwich.

If we can't criticize a candidate for her actions without being accused of being sexist, then America isn't ready for a woman president.

The problem with Clinton's smug attitude isn't that it mocked Trump--Trump is often an overbearing buffoon who deserves to be mocked in other settings. The problem is--like it or not--that Clinton's smugness in this setting implicitly disrespected and mocked Trump's many supporters and a lot of other people who are on the fence but who are sympathetic to his core message.

Trump gives voice to the frustrations of millions about a broken system--and the establishment that runs it--that has utterly failed them. Yet for too much of this campaign, Clinton and her ilk have disrespected these people and their concerns--and have dismissed Trump's movement as nothing more than a "basket of deplorables."

Clinton and her supporters, in and out of the media, dismiss--and mock--the millions who feel disenfranchised, and who look to Trump as their voice, at their peril.

And Clinton's media pom-pom girls do her no favors by dismissing criticisms of her smugness as "sexism." They need to urge her to ditch it next time around--or else maybe America really isn't ready for a woman president.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Who "won" the debate?

Who cares who "won" the debate? At least, who cares who "won" in any traditional sense--you know, "on points." The  political "experts" don't know what the hell they're talking about. A lot of them thought Jimmy Carter tied or beat Reagan in their October 28, 1980 debate.

Trump's pitch was Hillary et al. have made a mess of things for a long time, so why does anyone think it will improve by electing her? Hillary's pitch was, I'm not Trump.

Hillary was plastic, uninspiring, smug and condescending. Trump was angry, obnoxious, inarticulate and overbearing. But the only thing that matters is how it played to undecided voters who have paid little to no attention to the election until last night--almost everyone else has made up his or her mind. What they saw was a steamroller who manhandled the moderator and his opponent unlike anything in memory--it was absurd, shocking, and historic. It was typical of Trump's performance in debates throughout this election season.

As for Trump--he's not a conservative, of course. It would have been interesting to see a true conservative, like Cruz or Rand Paul, debate Clinton. Trump's primary issue in this campaign is and has been trade. When it comes to trade, his positions are a threat to free markets and global commerce--very anti-conservative. So are Hillary's, though a lot of people suspect her positions are designed to buy votes and that she wouldn't carry through on them. President Obama is much better on trade than either Trump or Hillary. Trump doesn't care much about any other issue--the "law and order" thing is a recent campaign strategy. And sometimes at his rallies, he almost forgets to mention "the wall." He's not articulate--a great friend of mine, who happens to be an expert on rhetoric, said this about the debate last night: "You’d think that someone who talks so much, who spews such an incredible, non-stop volume of verbiage, would eventually, even accidentally, answer a fucking question." Trump eschews serious study of the issues. The GOP got what it deserved when it nominated him. Any of the other GOP candidates would have been more articulate, more civil, and more knowledgeable about the issues than Trump--just as Mitt Romney was. Then again, Romney lost. And for the first time in a long time, a Republican wasn't pushed around by the moderator or his Democrat opponent. If Trump lost, he beat himself.

As for Clinton: aside from disdaining college men (any college man who would vote for her ought to have his head examined), she is perhaps the most unaccomplished major political figure of my lifetime. Her devotees typically don't really know where she stands on the issues. In the debate last night, she rushed to judgment and tied the Charlotte and Tulsa shootings to race, then she accused all of us as being "implicitly biased" when it comes to blacks, and in the same breath unwittingly contradicted herself by saying "too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other." She wants to deny anyone who's on a terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun (Trump agreed--but, to his credit, added that if someone shouldn't be on the list, we should help them get off).

There are a lot of issues that are manufactured by the candidates and the news media. Does anyone care about Trump's tax returns, except Hillary supporters? Does anyone seriously think the nutty birther issue was related to race?

But even the issues that matter don't really matter. And that's the point. Politics has become a religion--facts don't matter, feelings do. We rationalize to deal with inconvenient truths. If you liked Clinton, you thought she "won" last night. If you liked Trump, you thought he "won" last night. If you are someone who paid no attention to this election until last night and think the system is broken and want someone to shake it up, you might have thought Trump "won." That doesn't mean those people are too stupid to understand what Trump really is.

I'll vote for one or the other--full disclosure, I've become one of those "undecideds." I am watching one particular issue that would impact me personally--depending on this issue, I might vote for Hillary.

As for last night, I, personally, don't know who "won." I can think of a nation that has lost.

Hillary Clinton's hostility to the community of the wrongly accused

The current administration has manifested an unprecedented hostility to due process for college men accused of sexual assault. We've written literally hundreds of posts about it since April 2011 when the the Department of Education issued its infamous "Dear Colleague" letter. For a long time, it was difficult to fathom that any administration could be worse on these issues, but we have every reason to believe that a Hillary Clinton administration would be worse.

Hillary Clinton has unequivocally expressed her hostility to college men accused of sexual assault: "I think that when someone makes the claim, they come forward, they should be believed . . . ."  She also said this: ". . . in our country and on every college campus . . . any woman who reports an assault should be heard and believed . . . ."  In a major address on the issue, she told survivors of sexual assault the following: "You have the right to be heard, You have the right to be believed. And we're with you as you go forward." Clinton made it clear she believes that men accused of sexual assault should be presumed guilty until they are proven innocent: ". . . everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Clinton made that statement with a huge grin on her face, and the line drew applause.

Clinton has stated that the issue of college sexual assault is "deeply important" to her. She buys into the one-in-five canard. She has called campus sexual assault an epidemic, has pledged to "build on the progress" the Obama administration has made, and has made clear she wants a national conversation about it--as if the issue has been ignored until now. She plans to take the Obama administration's work to the next level: "The Obama administration has begun to shine a spotlight. I just want to make it a very broad and bright spotlight . . . ." She wants to "end" campus rape by broadening the war on sexual assault. She proudly admits that when she says this, she is "playing the gender card"  and "that's exactly where I want to be."

Clinton hired Zerlina Maxwell  to work for her. Maxwell has written this: “Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” Maxwell said that false accusations "can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly."

As Secretary of State, Clinton made one of the most heinous false rape claims imaginable. In 2011, Clinton was trying to justify regime change in Libya–a goal not authorized by either the U.S. Congress or the UN. "Clinton told the press that Gaddafi was passing out Viagra to his troops so they could go out and rape dissidents en masse, and that the troops were indeed engaging in mass rapes." The problem? Amnesty International later reported "that there was absolutely no factual support for these accusations. As Amnesty International reported, 'Not only have we not met any victims, but we have not even met any persons who have met victims.'”

It is ironic that Hillary Clinton has not always exhibited fidelity to the decidedly unAmerican principles she now espouses. Much has been written about Mrs. Clinton's two-facedness on this issue--she did not automatically believe her husband’s sexual assault accusers, and, in fact, she actively worked to destroy their credibility. We won't repeat those arguments as they could fill a book.

Mrs. Clinton is, sadly, a product of the modern Democratic Party, which foments division by playing a nasty game of group identity politics that trumps fidelity to due process.

Monday, September 26, 2016

'Will the Left Survive the Millennials?'

By LIONEL SHRIVER
NEW YORK TIMES
SEPT. 23, 2016
Midway through my opening address for the Brisbane Writers Festival earlier this month, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a Sudanese-born Australian engineer and 25-year-old memoirist, walked out. Her indignant comments about the event might have sunk into obscurity, along with my speech, had they not been republished by The Guardian. Twenty minutes in, this audience member apparently turned to her mother: “ ‘Mama, I can’t sit here,’ I said, the corners of my mouth dragging downwards. ‘I cannot legitimize this.’ ” She continued: “The faces around me blurred. As my heels thudded against the grey plastic of the flooring, harmonizing with the beat of the adrenaline pumping through my veins, my mind was blank save for one question. ‘How is this happening?’ ”

I’m asking the same thing.

Briefly, my address maintained that fiction writers should be allowed to write fiction — thus should not let concerns about “cultural appropriation” constrain our creation of characters from different backgrounds than our own. I defended fiction as a vital vehicle for empathy. If we have permission to write only about our own personal experience, there is no fiction, but only memoir. Honestly, my thesis seemed so self-evident that I’d worried the speech would be bland.

Nope — not in the topsy-turvy universe of identity politics. The festival immediately disavowed the address, though the organizers had approved the thrust of the talk in advance. A “Right of Reply” session was hastily organized. When, days later, The Guardian ran the speech, social media went ballistic. Mainstream articles followed suit. I plan on printing out The New Republic’s “Lionel Shriver Shouldn’t Write About Minorities” and taping it above my desk as a chiding reminder.

Viewing the world and the self through the prism of advantaged and disadvantaged groups, the identity-politics movement — in which behavior like huffing out of speeches and stirring up online mobs is par for the course — is an assertion of generational power. Among millennials and those coming of age behind them, the race is on to see who can be more righteous and aggrieved — who can replace the boring old civil rights generation with a spikier brand.

When I was growing up in the ’60s and early ’70s, conservatives were the enforcers of conformity. It was the right that was suspicious, sniffing out Communists and scrutinizing public figures for signs of sedition.

Now the role of oppressor has passed to the left. In Australia, where I spoke, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do or say anything likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate,” providing alarming latitude in the restriction of free speech. It is Australia’s conservatives arguing for the amendment of this law.

As a lifelong Democratic voter, I’m dismayed by the radical left’s ever-growing list of dos and don’ts — by its impulse to control, to instill self-censorship as well as to promote real censorship, and to deploy sensitivity as an excuse to be brutally insensitive to any perceived enemy. There are many people who see these frenzies about cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions and safe spaces as overtly crazy. The shrill tyranny of the left helps to push them toward Donald Trump.

Ironically, only fellow liberals will be cowed by terror of being branded a racist (a pejorative lobbed at me in recent days — one that, however groundless, tends to stick). But there’s still such a thing as a real bigot, and a real misogynist. In obsessing over micro-aggressions like the sin of uttering the commonplace Americanism “you guys” to mean “you all,” activists persecute fellow travelers who already care about equal rights.

Moreover, people who would hamper free speech always assume that they’re designing a world in which only their enemies will have to shut up. But free speech is fragile. Left-wing activists are just as dependent on permission to speak their minds as their detractors.

In an era of weaponized sensitivity, participation in public discourse is growing so perilous, so fraught with the danger of being caught out for using the wrong word or failing to uphold the latest orthodoxy in relation to disability, sexual orientation, economic class, race or ethnicity, that many are apt to bow out. Perhaps intimidating their elders into silence is the intention of the identity-politics cabal — and maybe my generation should retreat to our living rooms and let the young people tear one another apart over who seemed to imply that Asians are good at math.

But do we really want every intellectual conversation to be scrupulously cleansed of any whiff of controversy? Will people, so worried about inadvertently giving offense, avoid those with different backgrounds altogether? Is that the kind of fiction we want — in which the novels of white writers all depict John Cheever’s homogeneous Connecticut suburbs of the 1950s, while the real world outside their covers becomes ever more diverse?

Ms. Abdel-Magied got the question right: How is this happening? How did the left in the West come to embrace restriction, censorship and the imposition of an orthodoxy at least as tyrannical as the anti-Communist, pro-Christian conformism I grew up with? Liberals have ominously relabeled themselves “progressives,” forsaking a noun that had its roots in “liber,” meaning free. To progress is merely to go forward, and you can go forward into a pit.

Protecting freedom of speech involves protecting the voices of people with whom you may violently disagree. In my youth, liberals would defend the right of neo-Nazis to march down Main Street. I cannot imagine anyone on the left making that case today.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Man banished from college due to woman's claim of incapacitated sex--even though the school said there was no evidence of incapacity

A male student at the University of Michigan was accused of sexual assault by a female student who claimed that when they had sex, she was too intoxicated to consent.

A university investigator interviewed 23 witnesses and concluded that "there is no evidence of the complainant's outward signs of incapacitation that the respondent would have observed prior to initiating the sexual activity."

End of case--based on that finding of fact, there is no evidence to find the male student responsible for sexual assault. She reasonably appeared to him to have capacity, so her claim must be rejected. The accused cannot be expected to read his sex partner's inner thoughts--if she agrees to have sex and her outward manifestations reasonably suggest she has capacity, he's not guilty of sexual assault. Period.

The woman appealed. And somehow, the administrative appeal board overturned the investigator's findings and found the man had violated the sexual conduct code. In late June, he signed a resolution agreement agreeing to leave U-M.

He's changed his mind, and he's suing now. So is she. He's alleging that his due process rights have been violated. The same old-same old.

This case is not difficult. It doesn't present unique issues, nor does it raise matters worthy of any debate whatsoever. What the University of Michigan did here was grossly unjust to the male student, and its unconscionable decision appears to have been motivated by the accused's gender. All persons of goodwill should outraged--and alumni at U-M ought to demand justice for the young man.

End of story.

Colleges are nuthouses

More evidence: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439999/vanderbilt-share-and-ask-pronouns-when-making-introductions-even-familiar-colleagues

Thursday, September 22, 2016

We are not allowed to offer support for our friends who've been accused of sexual assault

When it comes to sexual assault accusations, our moral superiors in the sexual grievance cartel tell us we must assume guilt based on an accusation, but that it is okay to automatically take the side of an accuser, even if we know absolutely nothing about the case or the parties involved.

We are not allowed to automatically support people accused of sexual assault, even if we know them and can vouch for their characters. Here's an example of the latter: http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/09/21/baylor-qb-seth-russell-clarifies-previous-comments-regarding-ex-teammate-awaiting-trial 

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Feminists want to get rid of statutes of limitations for rape

Gloria Allred supports the sexual grievance industry's efforts to end the statute of limitations in California for rape. Her rationale underscores the injustice in this effort. Allred writes:
Those who represent defendants often oppose eliminating the statutes of limitations. The theory goes that the fairness of a trial is compromised by the passage of time, so prosecutors shouldn’t sit on evidence of a crime and wait to charge a person once memories have faded, documents have been thrown out and alibis get hard to prove. This is why other criminal charges — with rare exception — have time limits, they argue, and rape and sexual assault should not be treated differently.

Rape and sexual assault are different, however. Other crimes are much more likely to be reported quickly, but we know that victims of sexual violence often take years to come forward because they may feel ashamed, mistakenly blame themselves for what happened or fear they will not be believed. Police and prosecutors aren’t holding onto evidence; they haven’t been informed that there was a crime.

For constitutional reasons, the Justice for Victims Act would not be retroactive; it can’t re-open the door to criminal courts that statutes of limitations already have slammed shut. But it will help victims of rape and sexual assault in the future.

If Gov. Brown signs this bill into law, statutes of limitations no longer will be a sexual predator’s best friend and a victim’s worst enemy.
Statutes of limitations aren't designed to protect the guilty--though sometimes they do--they are designed to protect the innocent, the wrongly accused. Allred doesn't even bother to say how the wrongly accused should be protected against old claims they can't possibly defend against. By refusing to acknowledge that the wrongly accused are deserving of any such protections whatsoever, Allred underscores the injustice of the position she advocates.

If someone is accused today of committing rape 20, 30, or 40 years ago, there is no realistic way he will be able to defend against it. I can think of few things more frightening. It is almost certain he will not be able to establish an alibi. All witnesses, all documents showing, for example, he was somewhere else when the alleged crime occurred, will have been lost to the mists of time.

None of that is a concern to Allred or her ilk. All that matters is that it will be easier for women to get convictions many years after the rape.

“The statute of limitations is there for a reason,” said Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy and Policy “When a case is prosecuted literally decades after the event, it becomes much more ... difficult to prove that you are wrongfully accused." See here.

The longer an accuser waits to bring a charge from the date it allegedly occurred, the more difficult it is to fairly defend against it. The horror stories of the repressed memories witch hunts are examples of what can occur. In rape cases, there is a national trend to lengthen or eliminate statutes of limitations entirely. This is a concern to the criminal defense bar, the ACLU, and many others. We write about it from time to time -- see e.g.: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/12/assholez-who-despise-falsely-accused.html;  http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/07/alarming-trend-states-extend-statutes.html; http://www.cotwa.info/2011/12/feminist-legal-scholar-explains-need.html.

It is painful to see that so many in the progressive camp have become so terribly hostile to due process and basic notions of fairness. They've hitched their wagons to group identity politics and don't think that defendants accused of crimes involving a penis are entitled to any protections. I can't think of any other issue where self-professing liberals are happy to see due process rolled back for a particular group. For what other crime have liberals applauded eliminating statutes of limitations? A friend of mine recently said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Thank goodness for the ACLU and the defense bar, but the rest of the party seems to have forgotten how they once revered fundamental notions of justice.

Geraldo Rivera says sexual assault and harassment accusers deserve the 'presumption of credibility'

Geraldo Rivera--best known for a disastrous publicity stunt that involved opening gangster Al Capone's vault that was supposed to contain untold riches but that only contained a few empty bottles--has declared he was wrong for supporting ex-Fox News head Roger Ailes, recently accused of sexual harassment by ex-Fox News female personalities.

Rivera now says: "Like victims of sexual assault, those alleging harassment deserve the presumption of credibility.”

Rivera is suggesting that men accused of sexual assault or harassment and who deny the allegations lodged against them should be presumed to have lied.  After all, both parties can't have the presumption of credibility, can they?

The idiocy speaks for itself.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

'Do we really think our universities are full of sexual attackers?'

Great article--original found here: http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/sibley-do-we-really-think-our-universities-are-full-of-sexual-attackers
Students attending Carleton University this fall, women and men, will likely find themselves subject to propaganda aimed at convincing them the campus is rife with sexual predators.

Over the last few months a cadre of academics, outreach workers, student and union association members, and sexual assault survivors has been insisting that the university administration admit the campus is pervaded by a “rape culture.” They want that label included in policies the university is preparing as it tries to conform to the Ontario Liberal government’s diktats on sexual violence.

The province requires that, by the end of the year, Ontario universities and colleges establish policies to comply with Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Workplace Harassment Action Plan. The intent, supposedly, is to end sexual violence and harassment in educational institutions.

The concept, which has it roots in 1970s feminist ideology, was deployed by the government in a report on sexual violence entitled “It’s Never OK” that called for an end to “rape culture on campuses.” Rape culture was defined as one in which “dominant ideas, social practices, media images and societal institutions implicitly or explicitly condone sexual assault by normalizing or trivializing male sexual violence and by blaming survivors for their own abuse.”

Nobody can deny the widespread sexual exploitation of women in our society. Think of all the magazine ads, Internet sites and TV shows that display women as objects for male pleasure. Nor is there a lack of examples where the justice system has failed women by effectively tolerating or excusing male sexual violence.


But is it reasonable – and responsible – to claim the “culture” at Carleton University is dominated by ideas, practices, imagery and institutional arrangements that condone sexual assault, trivialize sexual violence or blame the victim?

I have no special purchase on how women on campus perceive their circumstances. Some may well feel themselves under constant threat. But individual feelings, or even individual experience, don’t necessarily reflect collective reality.

Carleton’s safety department received 58 sexual assault reports in the nine years between 2007 and 2015. With three exceptions, they all fit the Criminal Code definition of level one sexual assaults; that is, assaults where the “sexual integrity” of the victim is violated whether through bodily contact or unwanted words or gestures of a sexual nature.

There were only two reports – one in 2010 and one in 2012 – of level two sexual assaults, in which the threat of bodily harm was involved.

The single reported level three sexual assault – aggravated sexual assault – involved a 23-year-old woman who suffered a broken jaw and a dislocated shoulder when she was beaten unconscious and raped in a science lab in 2007.

Of course, many sexual assaults go unreported – as many as two-thirds, by some estimates. In 2015, there were nine “reported” sexual assaults. But if all the unreported incidents had also been counted, that means there may have been as many as 27 sexual assaults on a campus with 30,000 students, more than half of whom are women.

Obviously, even a single sexual assault is one too many. Nor can there be any excuse – alcohol, drugs, cultural attitudes, misinterpreted signals – for sexual violence. But in light of the numbers, reported and estimated, it is an exercise in ideological extremism to suggest Carleton University condones rape culture, tacitly or otherwise.

Nevertheless, the ideologues denounce administrators for being in denial about the “problem with campus rape,” as one pundit recently put it. The charge is intellectually fraudulent and tantamount to moral blackmail. If the administration denies the “rape culture” label, it will be accused of putting the university’s reputation ahead of student safety. If it includes the label in its sexual violence policy, well, what parent would send a child to a school that effectively admits students aren’t safe?

The “rape culture” canard insults not only every man – students, teachers and staff – with its implicit message that they are to be regarded as potential sexual predators, but also every woman who has a father, husband, brother or son on campus.

Robert Sibley, a veteran Ottawa journalist, holds a PhD in political science from Carleton University, where he occasionally lectures on political philosophy.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Film director acquitted of rape buys into "rape culture"

Film director Nate Parker, who is black, was a 19-year-old wrestler at Penn State in August 1999 he was accused of raping a white woman. Parker admitted to having sex with the woman but claimed it was consensual. The accuser was inebriated prior to the the alleged assault but a witness said she was coherent. The accuser tried to tried to trap Mr. Parker into confessing that he raped an unconscious woman in a recorded telephone confession (Mr. Parker didn't know it was being recorded). Here's what Mr. Parker said: “You were all for it, you know what I mean,” he said. “It’d, it’d be different if you were just laying there, but you weren’t. You were active, you know what I mean?” And: ". . . if . . . you’re giving me the vibe that you’re cool with it… I’m going to assume you’re fine. You know? I’m going to assume that nothing’s wrong. And that’s what I did.” After the accusation, Mr. Parker said a detective working on the case threatened him, “You wrestlers for the past 10 years have raped and battered this whole town. I’m going to get you.” Prosecutors brought charges.

In an October 2001 trial. Mr. Parker was acquitted on all charges by a jury in central Pennsylvania that was all white one except for one black juror.

Now that Mr. Parker is a prominent film director, he's found himself in the cross hairs of the sexual grievance cartel. Because he was accused of rape, they think it's a foregone conclusion that he's a rapist, acquittal be damned.

Cathy Young, for one, has stood up for Parker and decried the PC lynch mob that makes him a scapegoat.

So how does Parker himself react? Does he talk about the fact that it's unjust to assume guilt based on an accusation? Does he talk about the necessity for judging every case on its own facts? Does he talk about the critical importance of due process?

He does not. He reacts by admitting his male "privilege" and the destructive effect" that "male culture" has on our culture. He wants to "grow" from the rape criticisms being lodged against him. His interview is replete with the extremist language of "rape culture," which is both ironic and troubling because "rape culture" is the very attitude that says it's not just acceptable but, indeed, proper to assume he's a rapist based on the accusation made against him. "Rape culture" promotes the belief that to concede even the possibility that there might be another side to a "he said-she said" rape claim is misogyny and rape apology.

It doesn't matter to Mr. Parker that RAINN, itself, thinks "rape culture" is an unjust concept. "Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime," according to RAINN. The "unfortunate" tendency to blame "rape culture" for sexual assault, RAINN wrote, "has led to an inclination to focus on . . . traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., 'masculinity'), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape."

Nate Parker has decided that he'd rather keep his PC credentials intact than speak out against the injustice of rushing to judgment and assuming guilt in rape cases, and that means kowtowing to the gender extremists who dominate the public discourse on all things related to sexual assault.

Because Nate Parker was a black man who was accused by a white woman, his attitude is particularly repulsive.

Nate Parker might have been wrongly accused, but he is no friend to the wrongly accused.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

A U.S. Senator thinks it's your son's responsibility to keep his daughters from being raped

And, no, the headline of this post is not an exaggeration. "U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., told a group of students, faculty and staff at the University of Pittsburgh today that male college students have an obligation to stop sexual assaults by others before they happen."

Excuse me? You mean innocent male students, who would never dream of sexually assaulting a woman, somehow have a duty to stop sexual assault because . . . they happen to be male?

But wait until you read his rationale. “'Let’s be honest, a lot of guys know when something might happen, that they have an awareness that someone in their group is predisposed to do something,' Sen. Casey told the audience of about 60. 'You need to be a man. You need to examine your conscience and ask yourself what your obligation is...what you can do to prevent this from happening.'"

Yes, let’s be honest, Senator. You're full of shit.

The premise is ludicrous. If it is true that "a lot of guys know when something might happen," the same is true for "a lot of women."

How is it that when it comes to sexual assault, college men suddenly become The Amazing Kreskin--able to read the minds of predators, but college women--so capable is every other sphere of their existence--are completely clueless and thoroughly helpless?

The reason Casey puts the onus on innocent young men is because it is verboten to ask innocent young women to take any precautions to safeguard their own well-beings when it comes to sexual assault--it is verboten to suggest that they should alter their behavior even a whit to avoid being raped. They can drink to unconsciousness in the bedrooms of men they don't know, even if this increases the statistical likelihood that they will be raped, because to counsel that they exercise even a modicum of common sense is "victim blaming."

Since we can't tell innocent young women to "be careful" without being accused of being "rape apologists," we must put the onus to keep women safe on innocent young men--who have far less ability to prevent young women from being raped than the young women who might be raped.

Get it? Neither do I.

Let's get it straight. We empower our college-aged daughters by insisting they are powerless. We make women "strong" by telling them they are Disney damsels who deserve to rescued by campus Prince Charmings who must "man up" to protect Senator Casey's daughters.

Down, down, down the rabbit hole we tumble.

Sen. Casey called sexual assault a “betrayal that plays out not solely because of the perpetrator because the rest of us don’t do something about it.”

But Senator, by "the rest of us," who do you mean, specifically? If innocent people have a responsibility to prevent rape, does that include even the potential victims?

Of course it does, but he'll never say it, folks. It would be the end of his political career.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Is America ready for a woman president? Apparently not.

I have been "ready" for a female president for as long as I can recall, but obviously the feminists aren't.

Gloria Steinem and Katie Couric dismissed the criticisms of Hillary Clinton as amounting to men being threatened by a powerful woman. You know, the usual. See here. Then Steinem pooh-poohed the Clinton email scandal (even though Clinton's previously hidden emails reveal that donors to the Clinton Foundation bought government access through their donations). Not surprisingly, Couric doesn't bother to challenge Steinem's assertions.

The comments come amidst a campaign where the male Republican nominee has been bombarded by unprecedented media hostility, not all of it self-inflicted.

Yet, any criticism of Mrs. Clinton is dismissed as sexism. Which means America isn't ready for a female president.

We can't be electing a president who is immune from criticism solely because of her genitalia. Legitimate criticism is legitimate criticism, not sexism, even though it's directed at a woman. A ten year old child knows that, but the people who dominate the political public discourse struggle with it.

Earlier in this campaign, Gloria Steinem said that young women were abandoning Hillary in favor of Bernie Sanders because--wait for it--young women want to follow the boys, and the boys were for Bernie. (I mean, with misogynists like that, who needs misogynists?)

We've previously shown that it's wholly unacceptable to talk about female candidates in gender terms but that female candidates do it all the time when it comes to their male opponents. The double-standard ought to be unacceptable, but of course it isn't.

When Senator Bernie Sanders called Hillary Clinton “unqualified” a few months ago, we were told he was speaking in "hidden codes" and launching a "gendered attack" on her by using a word that is a "subtle, pernicious form[ ] of sexism." It not only was unfair to Clinton's "impeccable resume," it served to do nothing less than "suppress women's political ambition." Women politicians, you see, are "more qualified" than male candidates based on their terms of political service, yet they face a constant struggle to prove their qualifications to others and themselves.

The charge is utter nonsense, of course. Numerous male Republican candidates have been attacked in this election cycle as unqualified and that's among the lesser charges. A lot of the attacks on male candidates have had gender undertones, but no one bothers to point that out. One (Ben Carson) was compared to a child molester--I don't see that happening to a female candidate; another (former Governor Jeb Bush) was continually branded as "low energy"; another (Marco Rubio) was ridiculed for sweating during a debate. One (Trump) was called a "draft dodger" for obtaining student deferrals during the Vietnam War. Is Hillary Clinton criticized for legally avoiding military service?

And while we're on the subject of her qualifications, is Clinton "qualified" to be president? Put aside the whole email scandal, the Benghazi lie, and the other-worldly fabrication about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, Clinton's "qualifications" for being president are based on the fact that she was married to a once-popular president, then served an undistinguished stint in the Senate, and then was arguably a failure as Secretary of State (can you say "Russian reset"? "Arab Spring"?). One of her most fervent supporters, Sen. Diane Feinstein, couldn't name a signature accomplishment of Clinton's while she was in the U.S. Senate. The State Department's own spokeswoman couldn't name one tangible achievement of Clinton's as Secretary of State. Clinton herself had difficulty mounting a coherent response to a question about her accomplishments.

Yet if we bring that up, we're misogynists.

Which means we aren't ready for a female president unless we stop heeding the gender zealots.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Trump accused of being sexist for telling a woman to 'be quiet'--and a rumination on why Trump is the GOP nominee

Donald Trump told a female reporter who interrupted him more than once to "be quiet," so he's sexist.

When Trump called out ABC News reporter Tom Llamas and told him "you're a sleaze" at a press conference two months ago, was there a gender component to that?

Of course not. And there's no gender component to telling a woman who interrupts him to "be quiet." Give us a break.

I can promise you one thing: if the sexism angle of this story gets played up, Trump will publicly take on the people crying "sexism" in a very direct, in-your-face, way. He routinely fights back when he is challenged on things like this.

For a long time, I had tried to figure out the reason Donald Trump's popularity, and I think that's it--he's a billionaire street fighter. He's also ridiculous, exasperating, and very entertaining. But he won't allow the progressive news media to bully him. A typical example of that can be seen here,

When the name "Donald Trump" comes up in the conversation, a lot of people feel obliged to display some measure of visceral disgust--they roll their eyes and utter a disparaging remark or two. Young people actually believe what they're expressing, though they are almost universally ill-informed about the facts. Older people may or may not believe it, but they know they can't be a member of "the club" if they fail to react in this manner--they're afraid of what people might think of them if they fail to show disgust for Donald Trump. Sophisticated people don't support Trump, do they?

I find Donald Trump utterly fascinating--his speech patterns, his over-the-top confidence. Unlike a lot of people who have very strong, negative opinions about Trump, I don't get my information from the mainstream news media. I actually watch what he says. Very carefully. We are witnessing something so different, it is historic, and it will be talked about forever.

What's most fascinating about Trump is that virtually every one of his rallies are Nixon's so-called "last press conference" -- except much more in-your-face and much funnier. And therein lies the reason I think a lot of people supported Trump--the GOP nominee is traditionally attacked by the mainstream media. He is put on the defensive, painted as standing in the way of "progress," and hurting the downtrodden. The GOP nominee traditionally has been feckless at fighting back. Think Joe Biden smirking at Paul Ryan throughout the 2012 VP debate. Mr. Ryan was too well-mannered, perhaps too callow, to call him on it. Think Obama rolling his eyes at gentleman Mitt Romney, and CNN's Candy Crowley taking Obama's side on a fact issue during a debate. Does anyone seriously think Trump would lay down for that sort of thing? Think about snarky Lloyd Bentsen telling hapless Dan Quayle, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle was humiliated. On and on it goes--not since Reagan in 1980 has a GOP candidate scored a knockout in a Presidential debate. (The exception: Romney bested Obama in the first debate in 2012, only to roll over and "play it safe" after that--Trump doesn't know how to "play it safe.")

Trump's supporters feel they have a candidate who will not be bullied, and they are right. Now, that says nothing about substance. Personally, I have serious misgivings about a lot of what Trump stands for, and a lot of people are legitimately concerned about him (e.g., The National Review devoted an entire issue to stopping him)--but not for the reasons most of the eye-rollers are. Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, yet he doesn't espouse conservative principles. He is not concerned about reducing the size or influence of the Federal government. Due process isn't on his radar. His stance on the issue that is by far the most important to him--trade--is arguably closer to Bernie Sanders' position than that of conservatives and if taken to its logical, Bernie-extreme, could lead to '70s-era inflation (President Obama has warned about that).

If you are a conservative, you are stuck voting for Trump because he has told us who he will appoint to the Supreme Court, and they are conservative jurists: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees/ That's not a promise Trump is likely to go back on, at least in his first term. For that same reason, regardless of what you think about Hillary Clinton, if you are not a conservative, you will vote for her.