In context, I think I was more bothered by the "beat the pants off her" comment than the Stalin comment.

And I know this is a minor point, but the way he phrased it minimized it a lot: "This is NOT Russia. She is NOT Stalin" (emphasis mine). It would have been worse if he had said "We've had enough of her Joseph Stalin imitation, the way she acts like Florida is Russia."

All in all, I think it's much less of a deal than the original post made it out to be...

Why is it so many people, even politicians, continue to make flip comments like that when the situation isn't even close the the truth...

No one will *have* to make beds in vegas or pick tomatoes if the number of immigrants in this country, illegal or not, were drastically reduced. What would happen is this (simple law of supply and demand people):

-Fewer people willing to [insert menial job here].

-Employers forced to compete with each other to get workers.

-Employers raise the salaries of people who do [insert menial job here].

-Rove's son is happy to do [insert menial job here] because, I'll be damned, it pays a living wage for once. And plus, wIth Democrats having swept the administration in 2008, that's about the only job the son of the most notorious GOP schemer in history can get (ok, this last part is wishful thinking).

Perhaps what Rove was really saying was "I don't want my 17 year old son to have to pay more for his hotel room in vegas so that the people who make the beds can receive a living wage."

Hey Elephantman, there's a difference here...

WIth the Duke case, there were and are lot of unknowns. There was a crime allegation at issue, one in which, historically, women have been tarred when they report it. There was an issue of fact as to whether that team did something wrong (and in the case of hiring strippers, some moralists would say they did). They were not clearly innocent, and, except for in a court of law, no one had to treat them as such.

Here, we know exactly what the Rutgers women did (succeed athletically) and what Imus did (trash them on the air, there's a recording and everything). There is no question as to whether or not they behaved legally or honorably or whether they might have actually done something very wrong. They didn't. All the facts are before us. Conclusions based on them are justified. The two cases are not analagous. Come back when the Rutgers basketball team is accused of appearing on Girls Gone Wild or something and then we'll talk.

Duke-sided folks, if you want to understand why people jumped on the woman's side so quickly (rather than just throwing up a "ha ha, told you so"), think about a couple of factors:

1. The number of rapes that actually occur, compared with

2. The number of rapes that go unreported and the number of false accusations.

3. The double-standard for women who have sex. ie, How acceptable is it for women in this country to be "sexual beings" and in charge of their on sexual destiny? How often is it thrown around that women who have sex are "whores"? (for example, is it necessary that a woman who falsely accuses someon of rape to be a lying *whore*? Perhaps she's just a liar?)

4. The history of the treatment of rape victims in this country. Combined with 3 above...at one time, a woman who had sex at all, especially outside of marriage, was presumed to have wanted it because she was a slut. This was given greater weight than the possibility that someone forced themselves on her.

Women really can't win here...if they have sex and want it, they're sluts. If they have sex and didn't want it, no one believes them, they must have asked for it somehow, they must be lying.

Studying the history of rape law (which I did last semester...and domestic violence, but that's another topic) IN THIS COUNTRY IS HARROWING. The responses to the injustices created are not perfect, but something had to and must be done. Educational outreach (no means no, violence against women is a crime, it's ok for women to have sex, etc) are crucial.

Do feminists overcompensate for this history by jumping on the bandwagon? Probably. But they are trying to avoid slipping back into the society that punished women for having sex, and then punished them when they said no. Do brightstar and their ilk do the same when they scream bloody murder when someone is falsely accused, but sit by in silent disbelief when someone is convicted? Yes.

Rather than throwing blame around, it would be much more constructive to acknowledge that this is a HARD topic, because sex is such a hard thing for people to talk about. Mysognists and hard-core feminists end up looking like Israel and Palestine. You're both wrong. Do you want to create a workable solution to this problem, or just sit around calling each other rapists and whores?