Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Agillious
Published Letters: 74 Editor's Choice: 7
I have a whole torrent of thoughts on this, and I am assuming that a good number of them might be ill-informed.
There's this neat little summary question at the top of this input page that I am staring at. I have an answer for that question. But then there's the text of the article that also sparks two divergent answers.
Let me start with the summary question of "does it matter?" I expect someone to fing fault with my thinking, but my experiences necessitate that I air this.
Does it matter? Yes. I believe it does matter.
Here's why I say that: I honestly and earnestly believe that the condition of the victim is absolutely necessary in cases of flase accusations. I believe that if the victim was drugged, that's a clear sign of nefarious motive on the part of whomever drugged the victim. Being drunk is a different animal. Here's where personal experience comes into play:
I was accused of raping a girl in college. I say accused because a week later she recanted and told the police she told them it was rape because her boyfriend had heard that she kissed a boy that night. I was that unfortunate boy that almost had my life yanked out from underneath me because I was nice enough to walk a stranger home from an off-campus party, to keep her safe. Maybe I'm naive for saying so, but to me drugging one's self to accuse someone of rape is more far-fetched than having regret the next day from sleeping with someone by accident.
Look, I'm sorry, false accusations happen. They aren't as traumatic as rape. More irony, until that year I was a rape counselor at my college. Because of the false accusation I wasn't allowed to continue as a counselor. I didn't press the issue. That aside, false accusations can be pretty damn hurtful for the guy as well.
On the text of the article, if the quesiton is "Do these sorts of studies indicate that the police are blaming the vicitm?" I'd like to hope not. I'd like to hope that these sorts of studies help sort out real rapes from false accusations in the interest of assuring a rape victim that they get all the assistance available to them.
I do believe that it is unfair that these MPs came out claiming that a woman must take responsibility for drinking. Men AND women need to take responsibility for drinking. Comatose drunk men may not get raped, but they will get beaten, stabbed, mugged, and abused just as easily as any comatose drunk woman. Drinking to excess is the issue.
Yeah, I expect to get keelhauled for these views, but I still feel they are valid.
How did this Imus discussion move beyond what he said, and the women he described? That's what I want to know. Why are people so quick to search for a source, something else, some other behavior to excuse Imus's words?
Has Imus said that he heard it from rap radio? Did I miss that confession of his? Barring Imus himself attempting to excuse his comments by attributing Rap culture as his source, everyone discussing this incident is genuinely doing a disservice to Imus and the Rutgers Women's basketball team.
In my opinion the only discussion warranted in this issue is what the **** gave Imus the right to label these women based on what he saw? Their appearance warranted that sort of slander on his part? Why is that entertainment? Why should that be supported? That's what I want to know.
I couldn't give a rat's hindquarters about where Imus got the term, the fact is he used it to describe women that did nothing to him except play in the national title basketball game. The inequality of a Imus, a radio personality, describing these college women with a derogatory term should be the focus of discussion. This whole "origin of Ho" discussion shouldn't even need to be discussed. Bleh.
Maybe I am dense, but I am unconvinced by the Watch's arguments. I fail to see why telling someone that technology is untested should deter them from exploring that technology?
Additionally, the arumentation that the author of the response letter uses leads me to believe that the author holds some ties to the water district, or another biased party. Maybe I am just cynical, but... touting pledges made by the district as reasoning not to adopt a new technology screams of D.C. style lobbying.
Yes.
In a few words. Why wouldn't a description of the world you see as you ride move people to emotion or action? What better way to illustrate what is going on than to verbalize what you see on the ride, what you experience in the communities you ride through, and what you learn from the crazy pack of riders that are out there too?
My cousin rides Mountain Bikes, and his tales of the hills around San Francisco (he lived in Milbrae and Redwood City) always made me wish I could ride with him.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
