Patterico's Pontifications


Real Rape And Pretend Rape Are Not The Same Thing

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:15 pm

[guest post by Dana]

This is a *real* rape:

A 22-year-old woman was raped by five men on a minibus in Dhaka, the Bangladeshi capital, authorities said, in a case with chilling echoes of the fatal attack on a woman in New Delhi in 2012.

Police say the woman was waiting at a bus stop for a ride home after work on Thursday night when a minibus stopped in front of her and two men forced her aboard. They and three other men inside the bus took turns raping her for an hour and a half while the bus slowly drove around the Jamuna Future Park area in northeast Dhaka.

Five men assaulted a young woman for 90 minutes while the bus driver leisurely drove around town to accommodate the evil taking place behind him.

To make matters worse, the victim’s sister said they had to visit three police stations before an official agreed to take the report.

This is not a *real* rape. It’s a damn television show. Stop acting like it’s the same thing when it’s not.


[I]t always makes me snicker right cruelly whenever someone on the left declares himself offended by a work of art. Art should shock you! they say. Art should challenge you! they say. But by you they mean you, not them; they have no need or desire to be shocked or challenged out of their pristinely moral positions.


Ireland Legalizes Gay Marriage

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:52 am

[guest post by JVW]

Story here.

Imagine the novelty of legalizing gay marriage through the will of the people expressed by popular referendum and not by judicial fiat. Why, that would never fly over here.


Intolerant Lesbian Couple Demand Money Back From Tolerant Shop Owner

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:18 am

[guest post by Dana]

A Lesbian couple in Canada who patronized a local jeweler for their engagement rings are now demanding their money back – in spite of having nothing but good things to say about the business:

“They were great to work with. They seemed to have no issues. They knew the two of us were a same-sex couple,” White said.

“I referred some of my friends to them, just because I did get some good customer service and they had good prices.”

However, when a friend went to visit the shop, he saw a sign that read: “The sanctity of marriage is under attack. Let’s keep marriage between a man and a woman.”

Upon hearing about this, Nicole White and Pam Renouf went to demand their money back:

A worker at Today’s Jewellers in Mount Pearl told the couple that the sign is part of their beliefs, and that they can post whatever they want in their store.

“It was really upsetting. Really sad, because we already had money down on [the rings], and they’re displaying how much they are against gays, and how they think marriage should be between a man and a woman.”


“They just said that that’s their beliefs, and they think they can put up whatever they want. I just said it was very disrespectful, it’s very unprofessional and I wanted a refund,” White said.

“I have no issues with them believing in what they believe in. I think everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But I don’t think they should put their personal beliefs inside their business.”

White and Renouf hope to get a refund when the man who sold them the rings returns to town next month — but it’s not guaranteed.

White said the rings were meant to be a symbol of love, but now the bands seem tainted.

“I think every time I look at that ring, I’ll probably think of what we just went through,” White said.

Tainted bands!!!

Co-owner of the shop Esau Jardon claims he has been putting up signs representing his beliefs for 11 years without complaint. As an immigrant, one of the reasons the tolerant Jardon moved to the country was because of its “freedom of rights”, including freedom of religion and speech:

“I feel really bad that [White] feels that we would in any way try to hurt or discriminate against her, but we will not retract from what we believe. I cannot say, ‘Well because you feel bad, I will stop believing what I believe,'” he said.

“When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don’t have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada… and we accept the whole package… I don’t discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it’s in my own business.”

Jardon is refusing to apologize and refusing to bow to social pressure in spite of having to shut down his Facebook page:

When asked if he would offer a refund to the couple, Jardon said he won’t be bullied into apologizing for his beliefs or to work for free.

He said the finished rings are ready to be picked up; White and Renouf just have to pay the balance.


UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I believe he ended up giving them a refund. You vill express der correct opinions.


Hillary Clinton, The Media … And “Playing The Freak”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:40 pm

[guest post by Dana]

A little fun at Hillary’s expense:

NEW YORK—Having grossly miscalculated the resources required for an 18-month presidential bid, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton announced Tuesday she had ended her race for the White House after blowing through $2 billion of campaign funds in a single month. “Admittedly, my staff and I haven’t kept a close enough eye on our financials over the past few weeks, and certain of our expenditures, such as the 800,000-square-foot Hillary For America headquarters we broke ground on in Des Moines and those seven backup campaign buses, appear to have been poor decisions,” said Clinton, who faulted several crucial missteps, including the licensing of every song in the Fleetwood Mac catalogue for her campaign appearances and sending two pounds of direct-mail solicitations each day to every man, woman, and child in the nation. “While it seemed a winning strategy at first, buying up all the primetime commercial blocks on every network affiliate in all 50 states was probably ill-advised, as was hiring our 3,000-member campaign team in Puerto Rico, which does not have any electoral votes.” The former secretary of state went on to say she was confident the lessons she had learned from her mistakes this time around would only make her a stronger candidate in 2020.

This is not from The Onion, but surprisingly it’s from the New York Times:

“Mrs. Clinton and the news media have changed. She seems less a presidential candidate than a historical figure, returning to claim what is rightfully hers.And the press corps, both blessed and cursed with live streaming, tweeting and Snapchatting technologies, is armed with questions devised to win the moment. The result is a carnival atmosphere. It is not clear what Mrs. Clinton gains politically from playing the freak.”

Today I heard a political adviser state the obvious: that from the start, Clinton’s strategy with the media has been very simple: ignore them, thereby ignore the scandals. While it may be working at the moment, it’s not sustainable because sooner rather than later, she is going to need them. And in spite of a building resentment from media members, they will be there for her when she’s ready. Maybe then, the press and Clinton will begin to forge that brand new relationship she talked about, right?

“It’s maddening,” an anonymous print journalist complained to the Daily Mail. “We can’t do our job if the Clinton campaign freezes us out and tells us there aren’t any more events for the day—and then they race to Waterloo for an event. Don’t they understand that they need us as much as we need them?”

A cable television news correspondent, likewise anonymous, sarcastically told the London-based outlet: “Maybe by this point next year Hillary’s people will be clamoring for us to interview her as Elizabeth Warren and Martin O’Malley make mincemeat out of her”—a reference to former Maryland governor O’Malley (who is expected to enter the race soon) and Massachusetts Senator Warren (who insists she will not).

This TV journalist added: “But for now dodging the press just comes off as arrogant and imperial. Which is not the model she ought to be trying to emulate. I mean, really: If you hold a campaign party and there are 100 of us flying in to Iowa to cover you, the least you can do is tell us the event exists. We don’t expect you to feed us or mix us martinis. Just don’t make this presidential campaign marathon any harder or more idiotic than it needs to be.”


Nothing To Be Concerned About: 6 Year Old Child Lifted Up Over Schoolyard Fence By 60 Year Old Stranger To Retrieve His Ball

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:01 pm

[guest post by Dana]

The folks over at Reason are clucking about the police investigating a stranger who lifted a little boy over a schoolyard fence to retrieve a runaway ball. At no time did the stranger try to take the child, but appeared to simply be helping him. The Reason folks believe this might be a new low:

In a world gone crazy with mandemonium (pandemonium sparked by seeing a man near a child), this all points bulletin may be a new low.

What are they going to charge him with? Attempted kindness?

From the police report:

Police Investigate Incident at Lyles-Crouch Elementary School

For Immediate release: May 20, 2015

The Alexandria Police Department is investigating an incident that occurred earlier today involving a six-year-old student at Lyles-Crouch Elementary, 530 S. Saint Asaph Street.

At approximately 10:15 a.m., a male student went to the edge of a fenced playground to retrieve a ball on the other side. The student was approached by an unknown man who lifted him over the fence to retrieve the ball. A teacher saw the child being picked up and challenged the stranger, at which point the man escorted the student to a fence opening to re-enter the playground. The unknown man then left the area. At no time did the unknown man attempt to leave the area with the child.

The man is described as a black male in his 60’s, 6’0” tall, wearing a beige and green shirt and khakis.

The Criminal Investigations Section is continuing to investigate this incident. Anyone with any information is asked to call Detective Alma Zepeda…

I want to know why the man lifted the child over the fence rather than just picking up the ball and tossing it back to him?

Further, if there was a fence opening, why didn’t the man direct the child to it in the first place so he could retrieve the ball, or better yet, pick up the ball and toss it to the child through the opening?

And, as one responsible for her students’ welfare, was the teacher unreasonable in contacting the authorities?

Anyway, the Free Range Kids group is also up in arms about it. I guess the thinking is, if nothing happened other than a man helping a child, what’s the big deal? But if something had happened, then what? Would the original behavior they currently approve of (a strange man lifting a child up over a schoolyard fence), then become something unacceptable because something bad happened as a result?

What if were your child being lifted over the fence?


President Obama Re-Makes Police Forces

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:05 am

[guest post by Dana]

In a continuing effort to make law enforcement officers more “user-friendly” to certain communities and help ease tensions, President Obama has announced several impending changes as part of an executive order:

The Obama administration on Monday moved to prohibit federal agencies from providing local cops with certain kinds of military equipment such as grenade launchers, high-caliber weapons and bayonets, in the wake of controversy over a “militarized” police response to unrest last summer in Ferguson, Missouri.

“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them,” Obama said in Camden Monday. “It can alienate and intimidate local residents and send the wrong message.”

The list of prohibited equipment includes: tank-like armored vehicles that move on tracks, certain types of camouflage uniforms, bayonets, firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, grenade launchers, and weaponized aircraft.

However, there will be some leeway as local police will still be able to buy the equipment from private sellers.

Along with the ban on various equipment, the president also wants to “soften” the look of police officers on the street.

According to Fox News reporter Brian Kilmeade:

…Obama also thinks that police officers should have “softer looking” uniforms.

Kilmeade explained that Obama thinks that police officers are “making things worse” when they show up to inner city communities wearing military-style equipment and riot gear.

“They’re concerned about the helmet. They’re concerned about the shield. It’s sending the wrong message,” Kilmeade stated. “I used to think from the civilian point of view that that would be a reason not to riot, because the police were ready and ready to act.”

Better that citizens not be offended by the sight of police officers wearing gear specifically designed to protect them and potentially save their lives – from the very people who might be offended by it. Message received.



Asian-Americans File Complaint Against Harvard

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:23 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Speaking volumes. 2015 Grads Of Columbia University:

Speaking of Asians and universities, an Asian-American group is accusing Harvard of discrimination :

In a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education and the Justice Department on Friday, the coalition of more than 60 groups claims that the university unfairly holds Asian-American applicants to a higher standard. Asian-Americans have the lowest acceptance rates at Harvard University and other elite universities, the complaint alleges, despite having some of the highest test scores and overall academic achievement.

“People from all over the world came to America for equal opportunities. We are trying to bring those principles back to America,” said Yukong Zhao, a Chinese-American author who helped organize the coalition. “This isn’t just about discrimination and race. It is about justice for everyone, including (people of) all races, and social and economic statuses.”

Harvard denies the accusations, claiming to be “fully compliant with the law.”

In an effort to maintain a diverse student body, the university uses a “holistic” approach to admissions, which includes reviewing the race of the applicant.

It is this “holistic” approach that is at the heart of the complaint:

In this approach, Harvard says it reviews each applicant’s background and personal characteristics, including — when relevant — the applicant’s race or ethnicity, as one of the many factors in its admissions process.

Chunyan Li, an assistant professor of accounting at Pace University who helped recruit groups to join last the complaint, said the university’s emphasis on race in the application process is unfair.

“This approach is subjective,” Li said. “If it is all implemented objectively, than how come all Asians on average have such higher scores? What’s the fairness in this? If (Harvard) pushes for (a) holistic approach, then make it fair. If you kept emphasizing race, then there is no way out.”

As the complaint moves forward, Harvard is standing by its approach to admissions:

“We will vigorously defend the right of Harvard, and other universities, to continue to seek the educational benefits that come from a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions,”


Sidney Blumenthal’s Benghazi Emails

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:34 am

[guest post by Dana]

The New York Times provides a closer look at Hillary Clinton’s released emails. Unsurprisingly, just a few days after Clinton brushed off the possibility that Sidney Blumenthal was anything more than just an old friend to keep her from being caught in a bubble of public life, we find out he was far more than that. Without ever identifying the source, Clinton would forward his emails regarding Benghazi to her foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, who would then forward them to other senior State Officials for feedback.

Note: “Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said that Mr. Blumenthal had not been working for the government in any official capacity at the time and that his emails to Mrs. Clinton had not been solicited.”

On the Benghazi attacks:

The day after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on American outposts in Benghazi that killed Mr. Stevens and three other Americans, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a memo with his intelligence about what had occurred. The memo said the attacks were by “demonstrators” who “were inspired by what many devout Libyan viewed as a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Mohammed originating in America.”

The second day after the attacks:

In a second memo the next day, Blumenthal noted “sensitive sources” in Libya said Ansar al-Sharia, an Al Qaeda-backed terror group, had planned the attacks for a month and used the protest as a cover. That information contradicted the official White House narrative at the time about the attacks’ genesis.

“We should get this around asap” Mrs. Clinton said in an email to Mr. Sullivan.”


Blumenthal also flagged a Salon article for Clinton on Oct. 1, 2012, addressing the “Jimmy Carter Strategy,” that warned of the Republicans’ potential intent to exploit the Benghazi attacks to damage President Barack Obama a month before the election. Clinton then forwarded the message to Sullivan.

“Be sure Ben knows they need to be ready for this line of attack,” Clinton wrote, referencing deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

In another email, this one sent to chief of staff Cheryl Mills, Clinton noted an NPR report that refuted the earlier narrative that there had been a demonstration.

“I just heard an npr report about the CIA station chief in Tripoli sending a cable on 9/12 saying there was no demo etc. Do you know about this?” she wrote in an Oct. 19, 2012, message.

Mills responded: “Have not seen – will see if we can get.



Fox And CNN Establish GOP Debate Criteria

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:15 pm

[guest post by Dana]

With the Republican presidential debates on the horizon, Fox and CNN have established individual criteria that will determine which of the 19 contenders will have a place on the stage.

Fox will accept the top 10 contenders, based on their poll numbers, for the first debate in Cleveland Aug. 6. Entrants must have formally registered for a presidential campaign with the Federal Election Commission and have paid all necessary federal and state filing fees.

CNN announced a two-tier system for its Sept. 16 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. The top 10 candidates will debate in one group, and the remaining candidates will face off in another. Each candidate must poll at 1 percent or higher. CNN requires debate participants to have at least one paid campaign staffer in two of the early voting states and have visited two of those states at least once.

Based on Fox’s criteria and RealClearPolitics’ current numbers, Carly Fiorina and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal would be cut. This is unfortunate given that they are the diversity the party desperately needs to reach women and minority voters. (Fiorina has been tearing it up lately as she travels the country relentlessly attacking Hillary and Obama. Whether she’s running for president or vice-president, it would be a shame to not see her in action on the debate stage. Her fearlessness is something the other candidates should take serious notice of…)

And unbelievably, if outside survey numbers hold and Donald Trump throws his name in the ring, he would actually secure a spot. Over Jindal and Fiorina.

Fox, acknowledging the problem of excluding some candidates, threw a bone to the Republicans by “pledging to provide additional coverage and airtime on the day of the debate for candidates who do not place in the top 10″.

The Republican National Committee supports Fox’s plan to limit candidates.


President Obama On The Twitters

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:40 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Clearly the biggest news of the week is…President Obama is now on Twitter. He’s hip! He’s relevant! Or something like that.

I know this makes me sound old and cranky, but part of me feels that this is right up there with presidents making late night talk show appearances or being guests on Saturday Night Live – it diminishes the dignity of the office. I will now resume yelling at kids to get off my lawn…

Be warned though, if you tweet the president, they’re taking names:

Not only does the Secret Service already monitor Twitter for threats, but the White House is archiving each and every thing @POTUS tweeters say.

Judging from some of the unbelievable tweets made to him, a lot of people are either really stupid or simply don’t care about possible repercussions their names being taken.

Clearly, respecting the dignity of the office and the person that is the President of the United States is also not really high on some people’s list.


ADDED: There’s just something about the First Amendment that national news reporters and commentators are, sadly, unable to grasp.

Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post reacts to the racism on Obama’s twitter feed:

There are moments when I come thisclose to quitting Twitter. The amount of hatred squeezed into 140 characters or less by lunatics usually cloaked in anonymity is enough to make you question your support for the First Amendment and your faith in the decency of other people.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1670 secs.