Breaking News! ... Vatican dispatching Cardinal Bernard Law to Penn State

By J. Thomas Duffy


Sources tell 'The Garlic', that after an all-night session, Pope Benedict XVI  is dispatching  Archpriest of the Papal Basilica of Saint Mary Major Bernard Law  to Penn State, to offer The Vatican's assistance in the burgeoning sexual abuse scandal.


 


Last night , Pennsylvania State University President Graham Spanier, and the school's legendary football coach Joe Paterno were fired by the Board of Trustees, over their handling of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of, at least, eight young boys.


"Lights were burning all night ... Cars coming-and-going," offered one observer.


In a brief statement, Pope Benedict XVI said he "sympathized" with the Penn State officials, and is offering the Vatican's "complete playbook" on how to obfuscate and deny any knowledge or responsibility for sexual abuse.


"We know, and especially with this happening at a university, the Hippie Culture of the 1960's is to blame ."


The Pope added that "Bernie Law is just the guy they need at this time."


 


Unconfirmed reports say that Law is authorized to offer any, and all, Penn State officials caught up in the sexual abuse scandal, sanctuary at The Vatican, where they can benefit from the lack of Extradition, from any criminal charges that may come from this case.


More, as this story develops.





Bonus Riffs



Alyssa Rosenberg: The Shame Of Joe Paterno 


John Cole: Paterno Out 



Bob Ryan: Immediate removal was the correct step 


Eric Wilbur: State of idiocy 


My Boy Lollipop 


Beyond Repugnant 


Retro Garlic: "We Got An Eight-Page Layout With Viceroy ... The New Pope Is A Thinking Man ..."


Cross posted on The Garlic: All The Cloves Fit To Peel

Republicans ain't got balls

By Carl

This comes as no surprise to liberal men:

Republican men nationwide may have experienced a drop in testosterone levels the night Barack Obama was elected president, according to the results of a small study that found another link between testosterone and men's moods.

I've long known that Republican men have no balls.

But let's take a closer look at this phenomenon. After eight years of balls-to-the-wall international violence, aggression, and bullying, in one night of repudiation, we find that aggressive men have lost a few feet off their fastball (pun intended).

Which raises an interesting question: is man, as a gender, inherently and genetically predisposed to violence?

Perhaps. Testosterone is associated with fear and stress: there seems to be a correlation between aggression and testosterone (so the old wive's tale appears intact). Since testosterone is also closely linked to the genetic drive to reproduce, and since our cave ancestors often had to fight for the right to deposit their seed in a woman, there seems to be some anecdotal association that allows for the equation "violence=sex".

Certainly the crime of rape is about violence, possession, aggression and control, and yet it is undeniable that somewhere in there is an element of sexuality.

Too, it has been demonstrated that the observation of violence and aggression can trigger violence and aggression in men (and women). How else can one explain how a bar fight turns into a brawl?

Now, our friends on the right will come up with reams of anecdotal evidence to contradict... something... here, but the simple fact is, cause and effect: they lost, their testosterone dropped. If they had won, their testosterone levels would have remained the same.

This is, of course, good news for John McCain's campaign. All he has to do is just win the 2008 election, and his followers will get erections. He'll be like political Viagra if he can just beat Senator Obama!

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

"Insufficient evidence" for De Anza rape case to proceed

By LindaBeth

*trigger warning*

This incident took place in March 2007. 3 female soccer players found an unconscious woman girl (she was 17) being gang raped in a room by a group of 9 male basketball players. When they tried to enter the room, the door was repeatedly shut on them by a guy all three were able to later identify. Originally, the DA's office said they weren't bringing charges at all. That changed after public outcry, but this past Tuesday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the grand jury came back saying there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the case.

Some key problems with this case:

• The three females who witnessed the rape were never called to testify in front of the grand jury.
  
• The victim was said to have "no memory of the incident" but this was because she was unconscious!! Read the details from the softball players here.


• The article states that:

"were unable to provide consistent, useful identifications of the persons they observed engaging in sexual contact with Jane Doe," authorities said. [...] Grolle and Chief Elk, though, said all three former soccer players could identify a young man who held the door shut and repeatedly refused them entry into the room after they had spotted the alleged victim lying on a mattress surrounded by a group of men. One of the men was forcing the 17-year-old to orally copulate him, the two women said.

• Apparently the guy preventing the 3 women from rescuing the victim and stopping the rape isn't guilty of anything. And that's bullshit. As one attorney said:

"Anyone who holds the door closed while other men commit rape is equally liable for that rape," Hammer said. "There's always a weak link - perhaps the guy holding the door. With enough pressure, somebody can be forced to say what happened."

Even further, the women claim, "[He said] 'Mind your own business; she wants to be in here' and slams the door," says Grolle. Doesn't sound to me like he didn't know what was going on.

• And three of the guys were given immunity...but no testimony against the others?

It's hard enough getting evidence in a rape case. This one had 3 witnesses, who can positively identify one of the group, who took the victim to the hospital where evidence was collected (including testing that determined that the vomit in the victim's mouth was not her own). And there's not enough evidence to proceed?! And as Cara at The Curvature writes:

In short, rape apologism shifts. When it’s a “date rape” people will say “how do we know she didn’t consent? It’s not like she’s covered in bruises.” When she’s covered in bruises, the victim in question will simply “like it rough.” When the woman is unconscious and therefore can’t just “like it rough,” she will be accused of misidentifying her attacker, or people will argue “well, she didn’t say no.” When she does say no, it’s “why didn’t she fight? He didn’t have a weapon.” When she did fight back or he did have a weapon, it’s “well there’s no DNA evidence.” When there’s DNA evidence, it’s “well he probably did it, but it’s not like there were any witnesses...” When there are witnesses, three of them in fact, who are willing and eager to testify? When there are witnesses, they just won’t be allowed up on the fucking stand.

And as one of the women who found the victim said:

"It makes us think that no girl is ever going to want to come forward and say they were violated as this girl was, because they're going to think it doesn't even matter," says Chief Elk. "But it does."

Incredible.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me.)

Blog Against Sexual Violence Day: Rape in the military and war zones

By LindaBeth

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and today, April 3rd, is Blog Against Sexual Violence Day. At the end of the day I will be posting a roundup of some of the blog posts done by those who participated.

I want to bring attention to the issue of sexual violence and war/military. It is a pretty common understanding that the rape of civilian women and girls is used as a weapon of war, and is "even" used by "civilized" countries such as, I don't know, the U.S.

But I want to bring up two stories about rape and the military/war -- as in, rape in the military and in the context of war. Last week, via Think Progress:

In today's LA Times, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) sheds light on the staggering number of sexual assaults within the military, stating, "Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq," and calls on Congress and the military to do more to protect servicewomen:

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through "nonjudicial punishment," which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist. In nearly half of the cases investigated, the chain of command took no action; more than a third of the time, that was because of "insufficient evidence." […]

The absence of rigorous prosecution perpetuates a culture tolerant of sexual assault — an attitude that says "boys will be boys."

A Department of Defense report released this month found 2,688 reports of sexual assault in the military in FY2007. According to Harman, the number of reported military rapes jumped 73 percent from 2004 to 2006.

WOW. The percentage of reports actually pursued is pathetic and discouraging for women who may be unsure about if they want to go through the emotional trauma of coming forward. Add this to the Haliburton rape-cover-up and the unprosecuted rape of another Haliburton employee in Iraq from 2007, and sexual violence against women seems to more the rule in war-zones less than a deviation, and the common resolution is... nothing.

In August 2007, a female Air Force Airman 1st Class who had reported being raped, then decided not to testify at the court martial was then charged by the Air Force with committing indecent acts with the men she had said raped her.

In written statements to her attorneys, the three accused airmen call the sex consensual. One said Hernandez wore "skin tight" clothes, danced in a "promiscuous way" and later stripped naked.

Hernandez said that is not how it happened.

"What those guys did was wrong. There's nothing worse than being raped and people not believing you," she said.

A book author and researcher on rape issues who is helping Eason and Ashmawy, John Foubert, said that charging a rape victim with having consensual sex “when the evidence clearly points the other way is an insult to every American and every individual who has worn the uniform.”

What makes this even better is the slutting of the rape victim by her perpetrators. They pull the classic victim-blaming: "her clothing and behavior meant she was asking for it" line, a misconception about rape that continues to persist, and perpetuates the (wrong) assumption that rape is about sex, or it is just sex (so without any "actual" violence -- as if rape as forced sex isn't violence itself -- it's not "that bad"), or that it's sex "gone wrong." NO: rape is about power, control, dominance, and male privilege. Rape is not sex; in rape, sex is the weapon.

And as other bloggers have suggested, the default assumption regarding sex is "no." Radical, huh? Shouldn't be, but in a culture where we think a woman's clothing and "flirtations" trump actually, I don't know, asking if she wants to have sex, I suppose it is. But I guess this is how women look when it is assumed that their sexuality revolves around the desires of men--that sexual availability is assumed unless you are wearing a potato sack, and that women who dress or act sexual are doing so for the benefit of the men around her so that she doesn't have the right to say no. Men not being privy to a woman's blatant sexuality, and therefore taking it by force? That's an issue of power, not sex.

And when the military is the beacon of masculine power, it's no wonder the ladies are "put in their place," and the argument against women in the military is reiterated. Not that it's the military that needs to change, no, never...

**********

UPDATE: Today The Nation posted a web-only story on another rape by two defense contractors for KBR/Haliburton who was told by her supervisor to keep quiet about the rape:

Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents--and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

Most of these complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts that compels employees into binding arbitration instead of allowing their complaints to be tried in a public courtroom. Criminal prosecutions are practically nonexistent, as the US Justice Department has turned a blind eye to these cases.

**********

Another UPDATE: I wanted to pass along these disturbing stats posted from RAINN in a post from Shakesville:

But seriously -- why is it that whenever legislation comes up that might ameliorate the appallingly low rate of rape convictions, the first thing we hear is, "But what about false allegations?!?!?"

Get real. Get informed. Here are some handy (nauseating) facts about rape/sexual assaults in the US:

There were 272,350 sexual assaults (64,080 were completed rapes) reported in 2006, according to the DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey (these numbers do not include victims 12 years or younger).

60% of rapes/sexual assaults not reported to the police.

If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of conviction.
If there is a felony coviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.

So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to the police, there is a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail -- 15 of 16 walk free. ~ http://www.rainn.org/

This is pathetic. And depressing. And more reason I get sick over the rape apologists who say feminists have us in a tizzy over nothing, and that the fact that women can ruin a man's life over false rape allegations is improperly addressed by feminists ('cause I guess the fact that some people lie about stuff sometimes needs feminist theorizing), and that it is in some way feminists' fault for "creating" a rape epidemic over "sex."

Yeah, it gets me.