Rape: Apparently, Not Always Rape and Not Always Bad
Recalling the Senate Judicary's (led by Democrats and Sen. Joe Biden) obsession with the lurid fantasy shared by Ms. Anita Hill, at least the Country's awareness about bona fide sexual harassment was raised. Or, so we thought.
When President Clinton started receiving oral sex from a 20 year-old intern, the definition and the liberal media's definition of workplace sexual harassment suddenly changed. Yet, of course, Attorney General Janet Reno couldn't get enough information on the sexual escapdes of her boss, so she kept expanding the role of the Special Prosecutor/Counsel to look deeper and deeper into the President's behavior. Anyway, the liberal media convinced us that there are actually some situations where a female subordinate can sexually please her male boss and it is not workplace sexual harasssment. As I write so many times, the liberal media must be so proud.
Though, the relaxed standards were not enough to save Republicans, however. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair), Rep. Bob Livingston (affair) and Sen Bob Packwood (sloppy kisses) were all hounded out of office for their actions (again, actions that did not involve receiving oral sex from a 20 year-old female subordinate).
Fast forward to 2006, the Democrats cannot milk enough benefit from the alarming and disgusting emails and text messages that Rep. Mark Foley (R, FL) sent to a disturbing number of U.S House pages. No sex, but the emails are enough to cost Rep. Foley his job, put the Speaker and his leadership team at risk and put Republican control of the House in danger. Yes, the Democrats and their accomplices in the liberal media are offended by the actions of Mr. Foley and the non-action by the House leadership.
Flashback to 1983 when Rep. Gerry Studds (D, MA), who passed away last Saturday, actually DID HAVE SEX with a 17 year-old page. No concern at all by the Democratic caucus. Why? Well, as we learned this week from Rep. Studds' former press secretary, the sexual relationship with the page was "consensual". Okay, go it. In 2006, Republican emails to 18 year-old page: bad. In 2006, Democrat sex with 17 year-old page: okay. I would be remiss in not sharing that in 1993, the House censured Rep. Studds for his conduct. He did not lose his job, however. His Democratic caucus even found it necessary to give him three standing ovations on his first return to the House chamber after his censure.
As we learned above, sometimes male on female workplace sexual harassment is okay. Though I disagree, that's the way the liberals have argued and as they control the media, that's the message we get. Now, we learn that not all rape is real rape. It now appears some rape is just "sexual offending".
Let me explain. In 1993, a man living in southern California, raped his wife. He was convicted of rape and served a very short sentence and was on probation for 5 years. He subsequently moved to Massachusetts where the law requires convicted rapists (as well as other animals) to register with a state Sex Offender Registry. Well, this particular rapist did not register. In 2006, the brother-in-law of this convicted rapist is running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The gubernatorial candidate is a Democrat named Deval Patrick; his sister is . . . well, just kinda, sorta, a rape victim. His Republican opponent, Ms. Kerry Healey, is trying to make Mr. Patrick's nonchalance about rape a campaign issue (Blogger's Note: As well as having a relative that ignores the law, Mr. Patrick also came to the defense of a violent convicted rapist, Mr. Benjamin LaGuer, a man Mr. Patrick never met but only corresponded with, and then using his influence as former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, encourged the governing Parole Board to release Mr. LaGuer early. I covered this in several posts below for those that missed it.). Ms. Healey, as a human being, thinking rape is a pretty serious crime thought this "discussion" was relevant to the voters of Massachusetts. But, lo and behold, the Boston Globe and the liberal media think it is Ms. Healey that is out of bounds with her television ads addressing Mr. Patrick's empathy for rapists.
Two more letters to the Boston Globe; neither needs any more set-up than what you've just read above.
Editor,
I want to congratulate the Boston Globe for the very apparent and huge wall that exists between its news organization and its editorial organization. I also need to acknowledge the completely opposite view each organization held in commenting on the fact that Mr. Deval Patrick's brother-in-law is a convicted rapist. That is, the news organization refused to publish the story and the editorial pages are filled with letters to the editor disclosing the fact and there's even a column from Ms. Joan Vennochi today (Politics trumps law, October 19, A11) that shares the fact.
And, now, thank you to the editorial pages for sharing this story, but more importantly, for unwittingly illustrating just how unqualified Mr. Patrick is to be governor of the Commonwealth. Clearly, Mr. Patrick is more governor kindling than timber.
For, of course, all of the letters to the editor, so far, have supported whiny and sensitive Mr. Patrick. And, of course, Ms. Vennochi's column condemns Ms. Kerry Healey, who is not a convicted rapist (Blogger's Note: Boston.com, then Today's Paper then Opinion to get to Ms. Vennochi's column). Actually, Ms. Vennochi was only prepared to go as far as calling Mr. Patrick's brother-in-law a "sex offender". Sex offender? She can't be serious. (End of first letter.)
Editor,
And again I shake my head in amusement at the stupidity of those coming to the defense of Mr. Deval Patrick and attacking Ms. Kerry Healey.
In "New Healey ad again links Patick, LaGuer (October 19, B6)", Ms. Mary Lauby, executive director of the Jane Doe Fund, the state's leading advocacy on sexual and domestic violence, attacks a recent Healey ad that depicts a woman walking in a dark parking garage, "I feel outrage at this depiction of perpetrators when any victim advocate knows that 90 percent of rapists and those who carry out sexual assaults are known to the victims."
As a husband is known to his wife, perhaps? (End of second letter.)
There is an excellent "teaching moment" in the "husband on wife" rape subject. You would think Ms. Lauby would use a high-profile case to illustrate the perils wives go through to accuse the animal to whom she's married with with rape. Nope, not this Executive Director; instead, she turns the story on its head and argues against the woman trying to raise the State's collective awareness about rape. Maybe Ms. Lauby should look for a new job.
Recalling the Senate Judicary's (led by Democrats and Sen. Joe Biden) obsession with the lurid fantasy shared by Ms. Anita Hill, at least the Country's awareness about bona fide sexual harassment was raised. Or, so we thought.
When President Clinton started receiving oral sex from a 20 year-old intern, the definition and the liberal media's definition of workplace sexual harassment suddenly changed. Yet, of course, Attorney General Janet Reno couldn't get enough information on the sexual escapdes of her boss, so she kept expanding the role of the Special Prosecutor/Counsel to look deeper and deeper into the President's behavior. Anyway, the liberal media convinced us that there are actually some situations where a female subordinate can sexually please her male boss and it is not workplace sexual harasssment. As I write so many times, the liberal media must be so proud.
Though, the relaxed standards were not enough to save Republicans, however. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair), Rep. Bob Livingston (affair) and Sen Bob Packwood (sloppy kisses) were all hounded out of office for their actions (again, actions that did not involve receiving oral sex from a 20 year-old female subordinate).
Fast forward to 2006, the Democrats cannot milk enough benefit from the alarming and disgusting emails and text messages that Rep. Mark Foley (R, FL) sent to a disturbing number of U.S House pages. No sex, but the emails are enough to cost Rep. Foley his job, put the Speaker and his leadership team at risk and put Republican control of the House in danger. Yes, the Democrats and their accomplices in the liberal media are offended by the actions of Mr. Foley and the non-action by the House leadership.
Flashback to 1983 when Rep. Gerry Studds (D, MA), who passed away last Saturday, actually DID HAVE SEX with a 17 year-old page. No concern at all by the Democratic caucus. Why? Well, as we learned this week from Rep. Studds' former press secretary, the sexual relationship with the page was "consensual". Okay, go it. In 2006, Republican emails to 18 year-old page: bad. In 2006, Democrat sex with 17 year-old page: okay. I would be remiss in not sharing that in 1993, the House censured Rep. Studds for his conduct. He did not lose his job, however. His Democratic caucus even found it necessary to give him three standing ovations on his first return to the House chamber after his censure.
As we learned above, sometimes male on female workplace sexual harassment is okay. Though I disagree, that's the way the liberals have argued and as they control the media, that's the message we get. Now, we learn that not all rape is real rape. It now appears some rape is just "sexual offending".
Let me explain. In 1993, a man living in southern California, raped his wife. He was convicted of rape and served a very short sentence and was on probation for 5 years. He subsequently moved to Massachusetts where the law requires convicted rapists (as well as other animals) to register with a state Sex Offender Registry. Well, this particular rapist did not register. In 2006, the brother-in-law of this convicted rapist is running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The gubernatorial candidate is a Democrat named Deval Patrick; his sister is . . . well, just kinda, sorta, a rape victim. His Republican opponent, Ms. Kerry Healey, is trying to make Mr. Patrick's nonchalance about rape a campaign issue (Blogger's Note: As well as having a relative that ignores the law, Mr. Patrick also came to the defense of a violent convicted rapist, Mr. Benjamin LaGuer, a man Mr. Patrick never met but only corresponded with, and then using his influence as former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, encourged the governing Parole Board to release Mr. LaGuer early. I covered this in several posts below for those that missed it.). Ms. Healey, as a human being, thinking rape is a pretty serious crime thought this "discussion" was relevant to the voters of Massachusetts. But, lo and behold, the Boston Globe and the liberal media think it is Ms. Healey that is out of bounds with her television ads addressing Mr. Patrick's empathy for rapists.
Two more letters to the Boston Globe; neither needs any more set-up than what you've just read above.
Editor,
I want to congratulate the Boston Globe for the very apparent and huge wall that exists between its news organization and its editorial organization. I also need to acknowledge the completely opposite view each organization held in commenting on the fact that Mr. Deval Patrick's brother-in-law is a convicted rapist. That is, the news organization refused to publish the story and the editorial pages are filled with letters to the editor disclosing the fact and there's even a column from Ms. Joan Vennochi today (Politics trumps law, October 19, A11) that shares the fact.
And, now, thank you to the editorial pages for sharing this story, but more importantly, for unwittingly illustrating just how unqualified Mr. Patrick is to be governor of the Commonwealth. Clearly, Mr. Patrick is more governor kindling than timber.
For, of course, all of the letters to the editor, so far, have supported whiny and sensitive Mr. Patrick. And, of course, Ms. Vennochi's column condemns Ms. Kerry Healey, who is not a convicted rapist (Blogger's Note: Boston.com, then Today's Paper then Opinion to get to Ms. Vennochi's column). Actually, Ms. Vennochi was only prepared to go as far as calling Mr. Patrick's brother-in-law a "sex offender". Sex offender? She can't be serious. (End of first letter.)
Editor,
And again I shake my head in amusement at the stupidity of those coming to the defense of Mr. Deval Patrick and attacking Ms. Kerry Healey.
In "New Healey ad again links Patick, LaGuer (October 19, B6)", Ms. Mary Lauby, executive director of the Jane Doe Fund, the state's leading advocacy on sexual and domestic violence, attacks a recent Healey ad that depicts a woman walking in a dark parking garage, "I feel outrage at this depiction of perpetrators when any victim advocate knows that 90 percent of rapists and those who carry out sexual assaults are known to the victims."
As a husband is known to his wife, perhaps? (End of second letter.)
There is an excellent "teaching moment" in the "husband on wife" rape subject. You would think Ms. Lauby would use a high-profile case to illustrate the perils wives go through to accuse the animal to whom she's married with with rape. Nope, not this Executive Director; instead, she turns the story on its head and argues against the woman trying to raise the State's collective awareness about rape. Maybe Ms. Lauby should look for a new job.
posted by Zack at 4:53 PM
2 Comments:
As one of my old poly-sci professors used to say, "Where one stands depends upon where one sits..." That simple quote sums up the hypocrisy running amok in politics today.
Anonymous,
Except that Republicans have resigned. Sen. Packwood resigned. Rep. Bob Livingston resigned. Rep. Mark Foley resigned. I'm sure there are more. These guys certainly don't "sit" in seats of power anymore.
Oh, Rep. Ney is gone, but Rep. Jefferson still sits in a seat of power.
If you intended to write that the national Democrats are hypocrites, well, obviously, I agree. If you intended to write that all national politicians are hypocrites, I disagree.
Post a Comment
<< Home