[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

That is a startling line from a less famous classic from Pearl Jam: Crazy Mary.

This was from the album “Sweet Relief: A Tribute to Victoria Williams.”  Yes, a tribute album to an artist that most of you probably never heard of, but despite the many very different styles on the album, it was still pretty good.  Of course, that also means that the song wasn’t written by Pearl Jam, but by Ms. Williams, who also sings backup on this version.

Anyway, I just remembered the song and felt like sharing. Treat this as an open thread, to discuss whatever.  You know, because we are so disciplined in our regular threads.  /sarc

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

…we get this horrible story—disabled war vet jeered at Columbia.  First, this kind of thing brings up, for me,  the teeth-grinding hypocrisy of the entire Kerry Presidential campaign.  He belonged to the party that spat on our soldiers (and worse), and much of the reason why our soldiers had been spat on in the Vietnam era was because of Kerry and his Senatorial testimony.  And suddenly they were pretending that you had to be a war hero to be president and they loved our soldiers?  The entire thing was a lie, from start to finish.

Second, the Dana who got an Instalink notes that the school’s non-discrimination policy applies to veterans like Mr.  Maschek, including a prohibition on harassment.  The behavior described in the article would appear to run afoul of that policy and thus the school would have cause for disciplining those students, or so Dana argues.  But in fact he might be only half right.  I have seen court cases where policies against discrimination have been interpreted as creating a contact, meaning that even if no state or federal law protected Mr. Maschek, his detrimental reliance on their promise to prevent harassment based on military service creates an obligation on their part to discipline those students.  In other words, if they don’t discipline those students, he might have a cause of action against the school for breach of contract.

Now, I have long felt that “hostile environment” type harassment should have been read out of our civil rights laws –at least when the harassment is merely words and not conduct such as threats, or the solicitation of prostitution (which is often what sexual harassment really is).  And I say this as a man who has directly benefited from our civil rights laws.   But merely calling a person a name?  To read the law as forbidding that is to allow Congress to do what the constitution forbids under the First Amendment.  But in this case we are not talking about a congressional law, but the interpretation of contracts, and so  the First amendment is not implicated.  And, as they say, sauce for the gander…

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Angella Johnson tells us of her harrowing, albeit more mild, experience.

Gee, it’s almost as if CBS should have reported it when it happened.  And to the Daily Mail, you should have reported this, too.  Your job is to report the news, not decide what we have a right to know.  How many more women were attacked that night, but thought they were the only ones and therefore didn’t report it?

And these last paragraphs are depressing:

Some British and U.S. male commentators have suggested that in some way she was responsible for the attack because she’s petite and attractive.

Others have suggested she has ‘form’ for dressing provocatively.

I find such comment offensive. No one ever says a male journalist asked for it if he gets beaten up.  And I could not have covered up more – apart from wearing a burka.

This is precisely how women are terrorized into wearing outfits such as the burka.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]