PROVOST/PROFESSORS/TEENAGERS/DOGMA: The Brothers Grimm arrive at The Farm!

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016

Part 2—The College of Hansel and Gretel:
In the set of events which landed in court, what happened on the Stanford campus—it's long been known as"The Farm"—on the evening of January 18, 2015?

For various reasons, we can't exactly tell you. This March, a jury found that Brock Turner, then 19 and a Stanford freshman, had committed three felonies that night: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.

Just so you'll know, the foreign object in question was Turner's finger or fingers.

The jury reached its verdict in March; Turner was sentenced this month. The perceived leniency of his sentence has produced a storm of protest.

It has also produced a wave of journalism in which our journalists put their modern culture of display.

This modern journalistic culture is built around ostentatious, selective moral outrage. The outrage is served by the three types of facts in which the modern journalist traffics—the invented fact; the disappeared fact; and the irrelevant fact which gets heavily stressed to create the tone the scribe prefers.

Tomorrow, we'll start to look at the way these types of "facts" have surfaced in our journalism in the weeks since Turner, now 20, was sentenced to six months in county jail.

For today, it might be wise to start with a peculiar tale which has emerged in the wake of the sentencing. To our ear, it's an acid-flavored Grimm Brothers tale which captures the immaturity, dumbness and dishonesty of our modern, deeply childish, pseudo-liberal culture.

For us, this modern Grimm Brothers dreamscape starts with the massive, apparently illegal drinking which is deeply entwined with this unfortunate event, which has been judged to be criminal.

At the time of these events, the legal drinking age in California was 21.

As of last fall, signatures were apparently being gathered for a ballot proposal which would lower the state's drinking age to 18. But on the evening when this assault occurred, the drinking age was 21. In our view, this basic fact plays a rather obvious role in this deeply unfortunate story.

That was the legal drinking age. How about the actual drinking in our Grimm Brothers tale?

As noted, the person convicted of those crimes was 19 years old that night. That would seem to have made his drinking illegal—but at any rate, it has been widely reported that his blood alcohol content was 0.17 at the time of the assault. That's more than two times the reading which would have made it legal to drive a car.

That said, Turner seem to have been the piker this night. The victim of the assault was 22 years old at the time; this made her a legal drinker. That said, her blood alcohol content has been reported at 0.25, three times the legal driving limit.

At what point can a visitor to a party at Stanford actually die from excessive drinking? Apparently, you have to get a fair amount higher than that.

That said, the victim, who was 22, can't remember what happened that night; she was unconscious for at least three hours that night because of her excessive drinking at that undergraduate party, and she can't remember events which occurred before that.

That said, she had gone to the fraternity party in question with her younger sister, who was apparently 20 years old at the time. How did the victim get separated from her sister this evening? Of course!

The younger sister had left the party to help a drunken friend get to her room. The age and blood alcohol content of the drunken friend has never been revealed. Who knows? She might have been even drunker than the older sister was!

At this point, we've barely reached the dreamscape phase of this tale, which came to a deeply unfortunate end. That said, we can't help noting the fact that this drunken, apparently illegal culture has been presided over, for years, by this famous university's highly august president and provost.

These figures are highly august, and they aren't teenagers. For that reason, our journalists will give them a pass for the appalling behavior which puts so many people, included teen-aged undergraduates, at so many types of risk.

The provost and president are highly august. Our journalists defer to men of such rank. That said, how crazy is the campus culture over which these august figures preside? Just consider the Grimm-flavored tale of "the scary path."

The encounter which got Brock Turner convicted of three felonies took place not fifteen feet from the scary path. Last fall, Arielle Rodriquez reported the ongoing fight to deal with this frightening trail, which wends its way through the woods, frightening all the children.

Rodriguez reported for the Stanford Daily. In truth, his report, which was perfectly competent, sounded a bit like a dreamscape report from the College of Hansel and Gretel:
RODRIGUEZ (10/14/15): Sexual assault is a hot topic among college campuses, and Stanford is no exception. One aspect of the sexual assault discussion here on campus is what students have nicknamed the “scary path.”

The 528-foot-long “scary path” is a dark dirt path that extends from the paved road between the Kappa Alpha Fraternity and the Enchanted Broccoli Forest
to the back of 680 Lomita. The shortcut has become notorious among students as a place where the threat of sexual assault looms more strongly than ever.

Efforts are currently being made to light and pave the path to make it safer for passersby. At the head of the project is Alexis Kallen ’18. A former executive fellow for the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU), Kallen said the “scary path” was first brought to her attention when the organization received “hundreds of emails about the path” from students who have felt unsafe using it. Kallen turned the issue of the “scary path” into her final project for her Sophomore College class, titled “One in Five: the Law, Policy, and Politics of Campus Sexual Assault.”

Although no reports of specific incidents of sexual assault on the path itself are currently available, former Stanford athlete Brock Turner was found sexually assaulting an unconscious woman last January in the surrounding woods, roughly 15 feet from the path, according to Kallen.
According to this report, "the scary path" originates near the fraternity where Turner and his victim and the drunken friend who needed help to get to her room all got drunk that night.

Apparently, this is near the Enchanted Broccoli Forest, a name we didn't invent.

The children are scared of the scary path, even though no one has to use the path and it has been the scene of no assaults. Before the news report is done, Professor Dauber is quoted telling us this:

“[The path] is not only scary for women, but dangerous for all that can trip and fall in the dark."

Someone could trip and fall on the scary path! Indeed, that's what happened to Scout, when she and Jem took the local scary path that Halloween evening in Maycomb!

Can you see the dreamscape starting to form? If you read the rest of that news report, you'll read about the endangered salamander which, in accord with the law of the dream, was always going to be part of this strange and childish story.

By inference, you'll also read about the slacker conduct of the august people who run this famous university. Could these highly respected figures organize the apocryphal two-care parade?

Apparently, they've been struggling as they try to find a way to light a 500-foot path through the woods. Why would anyone think that such slackers could address the larger cultural issues involved in this latest report?

Everybody got drunk on the night in question. The victim was extremely drunk. Given the ages of the people involved, much of the drinking would seem to have been illegal.

Even as they wring their hands about the dangers of assault, the provost and the president permit this crackpot culture to exist. But they are highly august figures, so the nation's journalists will naturally give them a pass, won't even notice the oddness of this ongoing culture.

Instead, they'll set upon the drunken freshman—and upon the local judge. When they do, they'll engage in their favorite games:

They'll disappear a significant fact. They'll stress a highly irrelevant fact which sets the mood for the story they want to tell.

When a Harvard kid dreams up a bogus fact, they print it in the Sunday Washington Post. In fairness to the editors, the young person they ill-served in this way comes from a highly-placed Washington home.

This is the culture with which we all live. Our modern liberal world is too dumb and too full of self-regard to see that this culture exists, or to see all the harm it has done.

We liberals love our outrage culture. We'll go to great lengths to obtain it.

Tomorrow: Journalists hang a judge

80 comments:

  1. "Instead, they'll set upon the drunken freshman..."

    Bob, you realize the drunken freshman was actually convicted of sexual assault, right? We're not talking about an allegation. Are you suggesting in any way that the jury got it wrong? If not, why shouldn't we focus on him? If you are suggesting we should also focus on how journalists reported the case, fine, but you don't seem to be making that case here. You seem to be making the case that we should focus on the journalism MORE THAN "the drunken freshman." And why describe him as "the drunken freshman?" I see where you are likely going with this. You think it's important to talk about the drinking culture that is allowed on college campuses, but whether or not a college president or provost should do more to curb this culture, it doesn't change the fact a young woman was sexually assaulted and we know who did it. The assailant's lack of sobriety doesn't mitigate his abhorrent actions at all. If you believe it does then please explain how sexual assault is bad but less so if the assailant is drunk.

    I get it. Mentioning the fact he was underage and drunk may serve your overall narrative but, good god, man, don't paint this criminal as some sort of victim of the journalistic morality crusade. He isn't the victim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How the very simple and important point of this post sails over your head I do not understand.

      Stanford's president and provost, among others, preside over a school of supposed higher education where underage binge drinking -- to near fatal levels -- runs rampant among students of both genders starting at age 18. Not one word was said about alcoholism and binge drinking "culture". The Stanford higher-ups, and liberal commentators at large, seem to be A-OK with that. In fact, they would prefer you not notice such a thing as they emphasize that the only problem here is the "rape culture" that drives Turner to commit unspeakable acts of finger-banging when the opportunity presents itself along a dark wooded path.

      Delete
    2. This kid is a victim of larger cultural forces which on one hand denounce rape culture yet allow blatantly illegal drinking on campus. Yet you never hear about wanting to crack down on illegal drinking and partying. Rather it is a call to teach men "not to rape".

      I dunno about you but when I'm at BAC .17 or .25 I don't make the wisest or most moral of decisions. Maybe a way to address this problem is to crack down on illegal drinking and partying which often leads to these kind of encounters. If there are calls to do so I haven't heard them but am open to any links that can be provided.

      My guess is that any crack down on illegal drinking would reduce the incentives to go such a University. Declining enrollment would be detrimental to the budget and future prospects. Perhaps that is too practical of an assessment. It could be as simple as not wanting to encroach on the rights of teenagers to PAR-TAY. I don't know. What do you think?

      Delete
    3. Stanford isn't worried about declining enrollments. Rape isn't "finger banging". The latter requires consent. The girl was unconscious -- there were witnesses to that.

      College kids engage in this kind of binge drinking because they are unsupervised and inexperienced and away from parental restraint. It also occurs among non-college kids.

      Alcohol doesn't cause bad behavior -- it is the excuse for it. It has never been accepted as a excuse for any crime, from shop-lifting to murder. Raping an unconscious woman is not something a man does when he gets a bit drunk. It is a crime.

      This drinking is a public health problem. Rape is a criminal justice problem. This kid knew he had done something wrong because he ran from the scene. Any 18 year old man who doesn't know it is wrong to rape an unconscious woman should be institutionalized as mentally incompetent.

      Delete
    4. If "the drunken freshman" had climbed behind the wheel of a car and killed an entire family, would Bob be so quick to excuse his drunkenness as he is for the crime of rape?

      Delete
    5. "would Bob be so quick to excuse his drunkenness"

      It never takes /too/ long before we jump the shark in baseless comments.

      Delete
  2. @Anon 12:57... are you fiddling while Rome burns or could it be YOU are under the influence?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anon 1413... HUGE mistake. You said, "What do you think?" You opened the door to THAT! Alcohol "doesn't cause bad behavior" LOL. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, some say. [Please let them examine your head when you pass away. THE CTE doctors can compare your brain with the ones who played football]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being drunk is not a legal defense against any crime. The impulse to behave badly arises with the person. Alcohol may disinhibit bad behavior but it doesn't create that impulse. If this idea is too subtle for you, please try another blog.

      Delete
    2. Are you saying we can educate bad behavior impulses out of people? This is a realistic option?

      Delete
    3. It is not only realistic, it is our only hope!

      If we can't educate bad behavior impulses out of people, then what chance does the human race really have?

      Delete
    4. A pretty damn good one. Are we going for a perfect score or something? Let's just evolve to be robots, then the global capitalists will be pleased, hehe.

      Delete
  4. Rodriguez says: "Although no reports of specific incidents of sexual assault on the path itself are currently available, "

    Later, Somerby says: "The children are scared of the scary path, even though no one has to use the path and it has been the scene of no assaults."

    Availability of reports is different than nonexistence of reports. Reports are distinct from incidents of sexual assault, which can and frequently does take place without any report being made.

    Somerby is very careless about accepting a report as if it were equivalent to the event it describes. No report, no assault. No AVAILABLE report, no report, no assault. When it comes to reporting rape, it is well known that many such assaults go unreported and that those reported are often ignored.

    It bothers me to see Somerby walking down that particular scary path.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob has a long history of minimizing, excusing, and discounting sexual crimes against women.

      Delete
    2. George Z Defense TeamJune 21, 2016 at 7:28 PM

      Maybe he can speed up this series on poor, misguided and drunken Brock Turner. Cameron Camp, Brandon Vandenburg and Lee Kaplan need his advocacy ASAP.

      Delete
    3. Baylor University needs a Men's Athletic Dorm Proctor/Mentor. Somerby has done so well with the young analysts in his dorm on the Sprawling Howler Campus known as Bob's Fog.

      There has been much crying and wailing but no reports of rape in his Dreamscape.

      Delete
    4. The @5:11 comment is quite reasonable and shows how some (very few) critical commenters here are able to address significant issues with Somerby, without descending into made up nonsense and trolling.

      Then as follow-up, of course, we have irishguy's invention "Bob has a long history of minimizing, excusing, and discounting sexual crimes against women." Yes, irishguy, you CAN type any bullshit thing you want on the internet. Yay you.

      And "George Z Defense Team" is also on the scene to pretend Somerby's writing here amounts to "advocacy" for Brock Turner.

      But, yes, thanks @5:11, good point. I too thought this was a very real judgement lapse on Somerby's part.

      Delete
  5. Thank you Anon 4:09 for getting the point that none of the other responders got.

    Anon 2:05: Nothing flew over my head but my comment seems to have totally flown over yours. I did not make the case that the alcohol culture on college campuses, and specifically, the role of Stanford's president and provost to allow this culture to flourish shouldn't be discussed. It should and we should shine a very bright light on the subject, but we should be able to do so without implying the convicted assailant is somehow a victim. He's not.

    Anon 2:13: The "kid" wasn't a kid under the letter of the law and he wasn't a victim of anything. The victim was the victim. Is alcohol culture a problem on college campuses? Of course it is and the press should be shedding a lot more light on this problem. Your conclusion that if colleges cracked down on underage drinking and the party culture we would see less criminal incidents such as the one at Stanford is correct. Again, this should be a subject that becomes part of the nation's discourse, so you are onto something, but your other conclusions are WAY off base and that pretty much derails any point you were trying to make. Men don't need to be taught not to rape. It's not in my make-up to rape, is it in yours? And what does BAC have to do with anything. People who are drunk tend to do things they later regret but that doesn't mean they tend to do things that are illegal. Being drunk doesn't excuse illegal acts. In fact, when people commit crimes while being drunk they've done two things wrong - they committed a crime, and they drank more than they could handle. Everyone is responsible for knowing how much is too much and for knowing what kind of behavior they are capable of while under the influence. Don't like how you are as a drunk? Don't drink. It's that simple and the courts see it that way too, as they should.

    Bottom line is, we should be able to have two conversations at the same time.

    1. We should be able talk about the alcohol and party culture on college campuses, and the responsibility of University leaders to curb this troublesome culture.

    2. We should also be able to talk about the specific sexual assault that may have been a product of this party culture WITHOUT downplaying the deplorable assault or excusing the vile individual who committed the assault. Underage drinker or not, he was still old enough to know what he was doing and he deserves all the derision coming his way.

    Bob should have known better to imply a "drunken freshman" didn't deserve to be "set upon" by the press. Brock Turner's drinking age was irrelevant to the act, his BAC was irrelevant to the act. The act he committed was heinous and, of course, criminal. He deserved to be set upon. If Bob wants to change the focus to the overall campus party culture, fine, but do so without implying the criminal is somehow a victim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's not in my make-up to rape, is it in yours?"

      You think highly of yourself

      Delete
    2. You must have a very low bar if you think that statement is an indication of someone thinking highly of himself.

      Delete
    3. Sadder still it took him an hour to avoid answering a fairly simple question about his basic character.

      Delete
    4. It is an inane question. We are all animals at our core and to think you are above immoral behavior even as extreme as rape or murder is nothing short of hubris. Supposing he is earnest in his belief that he is not a potential rapist we can see that how these fundamentally different world views clash.

      Perhaps to him Brock is, unlike himself, inclined to evil and that his boozing is an enabler of this evil. It isn't the alcohol, rather his inherent destructive personality being disinhibited and let loose by the alcohol. Fortunately we caught him young so he should be banished so as not to further disrupt the peace. It is an almost religious fervor with which he casts the sinner out.

      I look at it differently. Being that we are all animals we are all inclined to violence and an assortment of other immoral behavior. Fortunately because we have over time been conditioned to civilization we can live in relative peace. We have known for millennia the effect of alcohol and have over time come to discourage it's excessive use. But being that we are all prone to gluttony even today getting blotto happens on a regular occurrence, even at our most esteemed universities!

      We have systems and laws to discourage this behavior, restricting access by age and often on the campus itself. When these are ignored it provides a tacit approval of behavior that has been known since the dawn of civilization to result in unfortunate situations.

      Humans consuming excessive alcohol are barbaric, not evil. It is a return to the primitive instinct we all have. Not a disinhibitation of a foreign evil. Viewing the situation with some empathy leads to a more forgiving conclusion. He should certainly be punished as the law seems fit and he has. The treatment of him in the media is little more than a witch hunt which does nothing to reduce the chances of a similar situation happening again. Rather, as Bob likes to point out, it provides yet another opportunity to ridicule and humiliate the other and make themselves feel morally superior.



      Delete
    5. Anon 12:27 AM, there are some things you get right in your argument above, but there is much more that you get wrong. I'd like to focus on what you got wrong:

      "The treatment of him in the media is little more than a witch hunt WHICH DOES NOTHING TO REDUCE THE CHANCES OF A SIMILAR SITUATION HAPPENING AGAIN."

      There are certainly elements of a witch hunt. The media should at least put some focus on the college campus rape/party culture and the institutional leaders that allow that culture to flourish. All the attention shouldn't be on Brock Turner only. But he certainly merits some attention and that brings up the second half of your statement I just quoted which is the part you got wrong. Shedding light on campus rape certainly does reduce the chances of similar situations happening again. The more people are aware of who is capable of rape and under what circumstances the more likely they will be to do two things: 1) They will be able to identify ways to prevent such incidents in the future and, 2) they will be more likely to recognize that white, upper middle-class scholar athletes are just as likely to commit rape as dark-skinned, poor average citizens and that their crimes should be viewed the same way in court and their punishments should be handed out the same as well.

      "Being that we are all animals we are all inclined to violence and an assortment of other immoral behavior."

      This seems to be a major tenet of your argument but the premise itself is wrong. True, we are animals, but we have always been the only animals capable of reason and that has made a difference. We know a lot about primitive people. There are still primitive tribes who exist today and not all of them have been inclined to violence and/or immoral behavior. Your premise requires that all primitives are prone to violence and immoral behavior because you imply those are innate impulses, yet many primitives have been peaceful going back thousand of years and live by their own moral codes. All the major historical incidents of violence and immoral behavior seem to primarily stem from two byproducts of civilization - politics and religion. Bottom line is, our baser instincts aren't what you think they are.

      "Humans consuming excessive alcohol are barbaric, not evil."

      That statement is false on it's face. SOME humans consuming excessive alcohol might be barbaric, not evil, but some might also be evil. Regardless, the distinction shouldn't matter either way. Why? Because who the hell can reliably tell the difference between the two? You might vouch for Brock Turner to only be returning to his barbaric instincts as a result of consuming excessive alcohol, but evil people drink too. Are you always going to know who was motivated by what impulse? Does it even matter? I say it doesn't. And even if it mattered there is no reliable way to tell the difference between the two impulses so, in order for our legal system to function properly, we shouldn't care so much about why a criminal committed a crime. Our legal system should only care if the person on trial actually committed the crime. If the verdict is guilty the penalty should be the same for all offenders.

      Delete
    6. "but we have always been the only animals capable of reason"

      This is only true to the religious. If you have any part of you that is capable of seeing reality, you will know immediately that this is not true.

      Delete
    7. People are animals so lets hurt all the women we can with no apologies.

      Delete
    8. 8:25, I have animals that live in my house that can follow an argument better than you.

      Delete
    9. The only thing I follow for sure is that
      A@2:13/6:47 still has not answered the basic question posed to him by the post's very first commenter:

      "It's not in my make-up to rape, is it in yours?" By labeling it an "inane question" instead of answsering you have to assume the answer for him is, "Yes I suppose inherently I am a rapist."

      That takes me to something really inane
      said by this self professed inane rapist in his nonsensical response @ 2:13:

      "My guess is that any crack down on illegal drinking would reduce the incentives to go such a University. Declining enrollment would be detrimental to the budget and future prospects. Perhaps that is too practical of an assessment."

      Your guess is right up there with Bob Somerby's guess about Hillary Clinton's biggest problem.

      Delete
  6. Some comments here are *dutifully* upset that Bob is not giving enough lip service to or even outright dismissing their witch hunt. Go ahead and lynch this guy and give yourselves a pat on the back. Good job folks. Meanwhile the adult in the room is looking at how this situation came to be and seeing some root causes outright ignored.

    I think Somerby's broader point is something along the lines of this:

    If this happened in a work environment, say a Christmas Party, would the employer be held liable? Wouldn't questions about tacitly approving massive underage binge drinking at the Christmas Party be raised? Why isn't this happening here and at other Universities?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting how Bob's fans rush to help explain the "broader point" Bob so often fails to make clear.

      Delete
    2. Well stated.

      Delete
    3. Somerby is badly in need of a criminology course.

      Delete
    4. A journalism course might have helped along the way as well. And a bit of real political experience.

      But none of that would erase his so blatant larger deficits.

      Delete
    5. 11:15 - the mote and the beam.

      Delete
  7. If campus authorities condone illegal underage binge drinking then they bear some some responsibility for the rape culture that permeates the institutions they oversee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOT THE POINT!! YOU NEGLECT TO MENTION THAT A WOMAN WAS HEINOUSLY VIOLATED THAT NIGHT. NEVERMIND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT UNIVERSITIES ACROSS THE NATION WHICH ARE BLATANTLY ILLEGAL AND PERPETUATE RAPE CULTURE!!! BROCK NEEDS TO BE VILIFIED AND RUINED AS A WARNING TO ALL OTHER MEN WHO DARE HAVE SUCH BASE IMPULSES!!! DIRTY DIRTY FILTHY MEN YUCKY!!!

      Delete
    2. No one is trying to downplay the culpability some academic institutions bear in the rape and/or party culture that exists. Yes, they bear some responsibility and the press should expose that culpability, but when a crime is actually committed, the severity of the crime isn't diminished because a party culture exists. The culpability of the criminal isn't diminished because no one created an atmosphere that would have made hit harder to commit a crime. The crime is the same no matter what led to the crime. The criminal is responsible for committing his crime even if it was easier to commit his crime than it should have been.

      As an example, we should all be able to agree that locking our doors helps prevent burglaries. Leaving doors unlocked may make it easier for someone to steal from me, and, if someone does steal from me, we may conclude I was partly responsible for allowing a theft to occur, nevertheless, a crime was still committed and the criminal who committed it still deserves full punishment according to the law and the courts rightfully agree with that idea. Having a discussion afterwards about how we should all lock our doors to prevent future crime is fine and likely appropriate, but implying the low-life criminal who committed the crime is not as much of a low-life because of mitigating circumstances is not an appropriate response.

      Delete
    3. "likely appropriate" woah there don't start victim blaming

      Delete
    4. Seriously, we shouldn't *have to* lock our doors. We should instead expect that people NOT BREAK INTO OUR HOUSES! I fully expect that the person, inebriated or not, who blythely opened my front door, walked into my house, and raped my daughter be punished not only to the fullest extent of the law but also endlessly witch hunted extensively in the media. I'm just an average father who keeps his doors unlocked like any normal (trusting and humanitarian) person. Why should *I* adjust for someone else's immoral behavior? These punks are really taking advantage of the system, I tell you.

      Delete
  8. Students come and go yet our college campuses remain perennial bastions of rape and sexual assault. Why shouldn't the overseers of this rotten to the core culture be first and foremost our primary focus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your assessment indicates you are clearly missing the point. The "overseers" can be our primary focus. But when the topic is a specific crime that was committed we should be able to talk about that too without implying that the severity of the crime was less severe because the culture existed. You and others seem to be implying that, because college campuses are bastions of rape and sexual assault, we should ONLY be talking about the overseers of those institutions who allow that atmosphere to foster, and consequently we shouldn't bother to condemn the criminals who commit the crimes. Why can't we do both? Why shouldn't we do both?

      Delete
    2. But I'm not hearing both. When someone, Somerby in this case, offers the mere suggestion that authorities be held the least little bit accountable. he's lambasted.

      Delete
    3. That's not what's happening. He is implying that his greater argument is that authorities should be held accountable for the rape/party culture that exists, but he also said a "drunken freshman" was "set upon" by the press as if the assailant's age and level of inebriation excused his actions at least slightly and that the press shouldn't have focused any attention on him. They should have focused their attention on the university leaders who allow the culture to exist. That is what's wrong with his argument. He should be able to state his greater argument without excusing the criminal act or the criminal.

      Delete
    4. Somerby's sin seems to be that his language simply isn't harsh enough and his outrage not intense enough. Sorry to say but the gene pool desperately needs those like Somerby who aren't inclined to join the impassioned mob, contrarians with the ability to see the larger picture. I respect that.

      Delete
    5. Anon 11:20, who said they don't respect Bob? I certainly do, but in this case he happens to be wrong. All of us Bob fans should be able to accept that he doesn't always get everything right and should voice our opinion when we think he is wrong. In this case Bob may be right that there is a bigger picture that the press has been overlooking, but he was wrong to imply that Brock Turner's age and alcohol level is relevant to the crime he committed and that Brock didn't deserve the press to 'set upon" him. His crime was deplorable and the derision he received was warranted. Should the press also "set upon" the school leadership and the out of control party culture that they allow? Yes, but we don't need to paint poor Brock Turner as a victim to do so.

      Delete
    6. "wrong to imply that Brock Turner's age and alcohol level is relevant to the crime he committed"

      You must hate our justice system, because these types of "mitigating factors" are used every day in every court. Especially age.

      Delete
    7. Age could be a mitigating factor in statutory rape but hard to see how it applies in this situation. Alcohol is relevant to assessing whether the victim could have given consent, not whether the perpetrator consented to committing the crime. I think you are confused about how mitigating factors work. This kid ran from the scene, so he wasn't so drunk he didn't know the nature of his crime.

      Delete
    8. "This kid ran from the scene, so he wasn't so drunk he didn't know the *nature* of his crime."

      If a prosecutor saw you on a jury, her smile would be a mile wide.

      Delete
  9. Agreed. The crime was horrible, but probably does not happen if the victim does not get blotto drunk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or roofied, or wander down the wrong dark path with the wrong cute guy, or skipped her karate class, rape whistle, wore that cute new outfit with the low neckline, didn't tell her sis where she was going, couldn't say no fast enough to keep a creep off her, who didn't listen anyway and kept on finger banging (such a lovely term), or fell and hit her head on a rock giving the appearance of blotto, or maybe she should have stayed home locked in her room like the good girls do. Burkhas for all! No one wearing a burkha ever gets raped, although there is that danger of stoning, but she probably deserved that for getting blotto drunk, like very frat guy does without any worry of being finger banged by some whore. Those wimmins should all watch out!

      Delete
    2. Admit it, it's not a good idea for anyone to get so drunk they pass out. It's not about burkhas or being a "nice girl", it's about common self respect. Drinking to the point blacking out is very dangerous and should be discouraged.

      Delete
    3. Admit it. Fermenting alcoholic beverages has been one of man's more effective tools in excusing their rapacious violent behavior toward women. And posts like this follow a great tradition in which fairly pathetic men blame women as the source of most evil.

      Delete
    4. True as far as alcohol goes- terribly overrated. Falling down drunk in a ditch is not liberating to women or beneficial to anyone for that matter. That's what I teach my son, and daughter if I had one.

      Delete
    5. Also true that using alcohol to excuse molesting a passed-out woman is craven and perverted. I hope you teach your children that as well if you should be lucky enough to have them.

      Delete
    6. No one, least of all myself, is excusing what the kid did. From what I understand he had been drinking also. Just don't tell me getting stupid drunk is the opposite of being some sort of prude.

      Delete
    7. Sorry brother, you haven't morally preened enough. You're nothing but another rube deserving of snark

      Delete
  10. This issue of women being drunk is a red herring. Few women, sober, are as strong as most men. That means any man who wishes can rape any woman drunk or sober, whether she objects or not. A man who thinks it is OK to rape a drunk woman is a short step from being a man who thinks it is OK to rape a weak woman, just because he can. A woman is in danger because she is a woman, not because she is blotto.

    Rape is a crime of anger and violence, not sex. Men rape to exert power not to get off. A man who will rape a woman will rape a man or a child or torture an animal. When rape isn't enough, they kill. These crimes escalate. That's why they need to be stopped and incarcerated right at the beginning, with that seemingly innocuous finger banging (that lovely term). So blonds don't disappear in Aruba. That judge should have taken this crime very seriously. Future women's lives may depend on it. If he gets away with a slap on the wrist, he may decide he got away with something and do it again, and again, with escalating violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do women rape?

      Delete
    2. 11:09 PM - example of the Dunning - Kruger Effect.

      Delete
    3. This isn't an epidemic of drunken frat boys raping blotto coeds. One or two men commit multiple rapes under cover of college party life and continue until stopped, including after college. These aren't drunken pranks. They are crimes.

      Delete
  11. My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email: happylovespell2@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. "In the set of events which landed in court, what happened on the Stanford campus—it's long been known as"The Farm"—on the evening of January 18, 2015?

    For various reasons, we can't exactly tell you."

    In the set of events which created this blog, written by a guy who nicknames those he dislikes—what created the mindset of Bob Somerby, who seemingly disproportionately dislikes women?

    For various reasons, we can't exactly tell you.
    For us, this particular post resembles a modern Grimm Brothers dreamscape, which points to similarities in the life of Bob Somerby and that of the Brothers Grimm which may contain clues. Like the Grimms, the bloggers formative years were shaped by the loss of his father, whose serial marriages ended with a child produced at an age most men swear off bringing children into the world when they cannot live long enough to raise them.

    Somerby's entire blog has been an expression of his outrage. Why so much of that outrage is directed toward females may be the result of what enriched the patriarch of his show business funded Boston home.

    Somerby's dwindling liberal fanbase is too dumb and too full of blind adoration to see that this problem exists in his work, or to see all the harm this type of thing has done to women who have been and will be victimized by attitudes like this throughout male dominated culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watch him double down.

      Delete
    2. I did not know that he had just fingered her. New York Times and CNN etc. have been calling in a rape. It is interesting to see it pointed out that these major institutions get that wrong.

      Delete
    3. Rape is defined as penetration by penis or other object, including the hand. It is being called rape because it was rape, except it in CA, where penetration by anything besides a penis is called sexual assault.

      Delete
    4. "Just fingered her", as if that were OK.

      Delete
    5. "Who seemingly disproportionately dislikes women?"

      Why, that's easy: Whomever you decide, Jacob.

      You write it, you pretend it's self-evident, then you go on with your invention.

      Your many fans, Jacob, will I'm sure hang on every word.

      Delete
    6. 8:31 - pull your head out. It was in California - so it wasn't legally a rape there so he isn't a "rapist" by the legal term. It wasn't rape - don't be stupid. It's not ok to finger her but it's not rape. it would be nice if the papers were accurate.

      Delete
    7. 8:31 Twas sexual assault.

      Delete
    8. That's why CA is changing its laws to conform to FBI definitions of rape, as used in the majority of other states.

      It was "just" sexual assault, not real rape. Thinking like that is the problem in this case. Just finger banging (that lovely term).

      Delete
    9. The point is it's not rape but the media calls it that. It was just fingering not penis. Many people thought it was penis from the new reports. Thinking like that is not the problem with this case fool. Assaults like this happen all the time. People are destroyed all the time by rapes and assaults of this nature, this is no different the constant flow of rapes and assaults. (and kidnappings) This is just one that the media has taken up as a story du jour and they stir up emotions in fools like you but then they will, as you will, leave it behind when the next outrage du jour comes along. Get off your high horse will ya?

      Delete
    10. Typical Howler comment subthread.

      Someone satirically points out what happens when you combine the faulty logic of Bob Somerby with his unforgettably bad repetitive writing style.

      Seven of the nine responses debate something the original comment did not touch with a three to six inch usually soft and wrinkled object.

      Oh well, at least they were not lying on their rug pleasuring themselves like @ 9:03
      was when he wondered how the original commenter could come up with the idea Somerby "seems" disproportionately unfavorable to women.

      Delete
    11. It is typical and the responses to the original (hilarious btw!) satire were not touched with a penis.

      Delete
    12. To us, film dialogue is always an appropriate Howler comment response. That said, call it tallywhacker. P...p...p...penis is so p...p...personal.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. You say banana and I say ba-nah-na,
      Banana, ba-nah-na, ba-nah-na, banana,
      Let's call the thing assault.

      Delete
  13. All women should be now on notice: Men will often try to have sex with a woman if either he is drunk or she is drunk. Men never worry about being raped if they are drunk; women SHOULD worry, because it happens often. This is not one-in-a-million rare. Decent men will always try to come to the aid of a woman in peril, whether drunk or sober. But ladies - PLEASE - don't get drunk. That's it. Don't be stupid and get drunk like men do. Do you really want to be as pathetic as a drunken man? Of course not. Plus, you are vulnerable in that situation in ways you wouldn't be if you were sober. And you know it. Don't take chances just because you want to be "tipsy". Alcohol is not your friend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. Blame the victim. After all, she got drunk. What else could she expect?

      Delete
    2. Right. Blame the victim. After all, she got drunk. What else could she expect?

      Delete
  14. HOW TO SAVE YOUR RELATIONSHIP
    THANKS TO GREAT DR GOODLUCK FOR SOLVING MY PROBLEMS my name is Mandy Divanna from uK, i was married to my husband for 5 years we were living happily together for this years and not until he traveled to Italy for a business trip where he met this girl and since then he hate me and the kids and love her only. so when my husband came back from the trip he said he does not want to see me and my kids again so he drove us out of the house and he was now going to Italy to see that other woman. so i and my kids were now so frustrated and i was just staying with my mum and i was not be treating good because my mother got married to another man after my father death so the man she got married to was not treating her well, i and my kids where so confuse and i was searching for a way to get my husband back home because i love and cherish him so much so one day as i was browsing on my computer i saw a testimony about this spell caster DR GOODLUCK testimonies shared on the internet by a lady and it impress me so much i also think of give it a try. At first i was scared but when i think of what me and my kids are passing through so i contact him and he told me to stay calm for just 24 hours that my husband shall come back to me and to my best surprise i received a call from my husband on the second day asking after the kids and i called Dr GOODLUCK and he said your problems are solved my child. so this was how i get my family back after a long stress of brake up by an evil lady so with all this help from DR GOODLUK, i want you all on this forum to join me to say a huge thanks to DR GOODLUCK and i will also advice for any one in such or similar problems or any kind of problems should also contact him his email is goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com he is the solution to all your problems and predicaments in life. once again his email address is goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com

    http://goodluck05spellcaster.yolasite.com

    ReplyDelete