Dead Marine -- killed by a fellow Marine
Yesterday when I read that a pregnant Marine was missing from Camp Lejeune, and was supposed to testify in a case against a fellow Marine, I had a sick feeling. I worried that she was testifying in a sexual harassment/assault case.
A few years ago, when looking into military sexual harassment for TAP, I was told that the Marines had a serious sexual harassment/assault problem and were the only branch of the service that had not yet dealt with it properly. My source was outraged that they were ignoring a confidential report, which was leaked to me, outlining this as a serious problem. I tried to find a woman or sexual assault counselor who would go on the record with me. But the counselors had to keep confidentiality. And the female Marines were afraid to go public.
Will this be the scandal that forces the Corps to look at how it treats women?
Probably not. Although it is very sad that Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach has been killed, unfortunately I doubt the Marines will do much about policy after the "missing blue eyed blonde young white girl / woman" case leaves the media circuit.
Cases of assault by higher ranking officers seem much more mediagenic, the typical big guy hurting the little girl. However, Cpl. Cesar Armando Lauren, the current suspect, is only one grade higher. So, it's spinnable.
Also, the step-mother has reported that Maria Lauterbach was a compulsive liar, and the military investigators have said there were irregularities with Lauterbach's assault claims. That's spinnable, as well.
In addition, Lauterbach continued to live with, and maintain a relationship with, the person who supposedly had assaulted her. And yet another spinnable bit.
It's a tragic tale, and one that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I just don't see this as being a catalyst for any real changes in how the Corps treats women.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
January 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
So this is what they mean by Semper Fi?
January 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course at times , not sure if it's still the case, Semper Fi was a serious term of abuse within the Corps.I think there's a J.D. Salinger story that makes that point.
January 12, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: I worried that she was testifying in a sexual harassment/assault case.
Do you know if she was testifying in a sexual harrassment/assault case? Because if she wasn't, I don't think her sad and terrible death can be generalized to say anything about the Marine Corps' attitude toward women.
What WAS she testifying about? Whoever the murderer was, I seriously doubt that the Marines encouraged him to do this.
Jan
January 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, the Marines didn't encourage him to kill her. Yes, she was to testify in a sexual harassment/assault case; if I understand correctly, it was against the man who is suspected of killing her.
I don't know the specifics of this story, Jan. It just made me feel sick the minute I heard about it, because awhile back I was hearing that the Marines at Camp Lejeune give the cold shoulder to sexual harassment/ assault charges. I cannot document that. No one went on the record with me. That is simply what I was told, what the counselors were telling me (off the record also), and it was consistent with the DACOWITS report that was leaked to me.
Or this may be a more standard domestic violence story, which itself is quite horrible. I am hearing from domestic violence activists that, according to a 1992 report from the AMA, "Batterers are likely to become more physically abusive when a woman is pregnant." But if she had him up on charges for assault/harassment, there should have been extra protection for her: in a d.v. situation, bringing charges raises the homicide risk. EJ
January 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to take too much of an issue with Jan who I think was right to ask for clarification about the nature of the trial, I don't think the bar here is: "Did the Marine Corps. encourage the murder?" Perhaps the more relevant question is: "Did the Marine Corps. contribute to an environment that made the murder more likely?"
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And do you see any evidence they did? If so, by all means... But let's stick to the facts.
Asking unsubstantiated leading questions is intellectually sloppy stuff, and kind of paranoid.
January 11, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or at least "less apt to be prosecuted" ?
Which of course leads back ,albeit in a couple of logical steps, to your phrasing of the question. But is less open to the demand you stick to the facts.
January 12, 2008 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the fact is the case was being prosecuted. I don't see any mistakes in this case in regards to procedures. The government can only protect people so much before trampling civil rights.
Beyond that point it's easy to start railroading poor and disadvantaged people, which is already happening in large numbers.
January 12, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, there may come a time when the only way the government can safeguard a particular woman is to trample on what might under other circumstances have seemed to be a normal right of the man who wishes to hurt her.
But there are an infinite number of actions by which a potential assult can be deterred. For example a protection order.
These may seems like prematurely interfering with the assultor's right to have contact with the woman he intends to assault. But that assaultor's right is trumped by that woman's superior right to be free from assult.
Rich and influential men , and poor and disadvantaged ones equally lack any absolute right to assault a terrified woman.
January 12, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this particular case, they were maintaining a sexual relationship through the preparations for trial, after a rape allegation.
So a restraining order wouldn't have helped. Or they may even have been defying one as they're often automatically issued in such cases, without request or even consent of either party.
That's just silly. Obviously nobody is saying differently.
But rich and poor, men and women, also deserve to be treated equally under the law and given a fair hearing, and currently they are not treated equally. They all have civil rights which must be judiciously balanced.
But, in the present reality, the poor will be railroaded through from arrest to plea bargain and disenfranchisement, guilty or innocent, without even going to trial in most cases.
Again, the end result is that literally tens of thousands of poor minorities, especially black and Latino men, are being imprisoned unjustly. And disenfranchised, often for life. At great expense to the taxpayer I might add, while community outreach and preventative programs are being slashed. These policies are NOT actually helping women.
This is not accidental, any more than the war on drugs and crack cocaine guidelines and such were accidentally supported by the rt wing. Drug abuse is a real problem too, but that doesn't make the unjust laws passed by wingers any more helpful or less racist.
January 12, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just arguing for its own sake but because the stakes are so high I feel obliged to say I've recently observed a case where the restraint order worked.
I fully accept your position on unequal legal treatment for the poor. But maybe in this case
that's the lesser evil.
January 13, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say restraint orders are necessarily bad or good. What I'm saying is they should be applied sensibly and with discretion.
They should not be automatically issued as a politcal CYA measure for the DA, at any expense to the citizen's rights, as they presently are. By doing so they often do more harm than good, but it's invisible to much of the public. And if another poor guy gets railroaded and disenfranchised, especially a black man, a lot of white feminists say "so what?" and it's just another statistic.
That's disgustingly blaze about the rights of others.
Even more so because by definition there is no need for unwarranted and unrequested restraining orders. So it's an entirely false dilemma.
These "tough on crime" policies are always sold as anti-crime and even protecting people from themselves. Which was also the justification given for the institutionalization of the poor and women in asylums and prisons in the 19th and 20th century.
In reality these programs are actually pro-crime. They devastate communities and stress couples/families and cause economic hardship, especially for those already at risk. They actually increases the risk of all crime, violence, suicides, and economic damage.
We all know the prisons are Crime Universities, specializing in drug abuse, violence, sexual predation, anti-social rage, tattooing, gang association, etc. A sure way to devastate a community is sending innocents to prison in large numbers and then dumping them back in communities.
You don't prevent crime with crime.
January 14, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly sometimes they work , I've seen that.
Clearly sometimes they may do harm. I accept you've got a bssis for saying that.
Having seen one work,once , and discussed them with the local social agency and the local police I'm biassed towards requesting an order too soon rather than too late.
I'm prepared to change my view when convinced by you or anyone else with experience to the contrary. But that gets too far away from the thread .
So absent that diversionary discussion it feels wrong to me to leave your statements unchallenged . Whatever the larger social
context ,I'm concerned about someone who may have a problem right now.
Despite the risks you discuss my advice is : talk to someone who's experienced and understands your particular case. Society has to grapple with the issues Kozmik describes,you've got to protect yourself.
January 14, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course they work sometimes. That's why they should be an option in cases, applied with discretion. But they can also do great harm when applied indiscriminately, as is the the current policy in most of the country. Used indiscriminately they become another piece in the strategy to railroad poor and especially black men.
And part of the problem is this issue is invisable in that people are being railroaded without the public being aware. While uninformed PC types have no idea of real world outcomes and are easy suckers for "tough on crime" policies which sound vaguely aligned with their ideological interests. Same as the rt wing is manipulated for various policies they actually know little about.
All you have to do is inform yourself as to the policies. What I've said about automatic arrest, automatic RO, "zero tolerance" polcies, and the general policies of railroading are all facts.
Look at the Duke case for an excellent example of what's wrong with a system which is designed to railroad people, and where the DA Nifong was making a career of it. If those guys had been black and poor, forget it. They'd all be innocents rotting in prison. And that happens every day across the country.
In the duke case the families of the players were "lucky" enough to be able to take second mortgages on their hoes to fight a corrupt system. It's sick. While poor blacks are the intended targets and disproportionate victims of these polices, they put everyone at risk.
January 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you saying here? That the woman was raped and out of fear for her own life she submitted to an ongoing sexual relationship? That she was so terrified for her personal well being she could see no other way out. It certainly sounds plausbile and not uncommon. How horrendous for her.
I know that woman had to have lived in unspeakable fear for the last 8 months of her life. The marines are taught to kill in boot camp, they are nothing but trained killers and they are taught how to bury folks to cover their tracks.
It seems to me that the only way these kinds of cases will ever be resolved is when that female Marine gets the courage to kill the accused first. After all, she went through the same training why should she lie in wait as a victim?
January 13, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have no idea what happened.
lol. Ahh, better take your meds. And really, trolling is so pathetic.
January 14, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
UM, don't look now, but you are the only one flooding this forum like a troll with innumerable posts.
Obviously you need your meds as the way you post is like youhave an OCD.
January 14, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see adamsj and tlees are WRBuddy's new rating buddies.
Speaking of OCD... adamsj logs in twice a year to post on EJ Graff threads about DV, and then rating stalks the threads.
Speaking of nuts and trolls WRB endorses women to kill the men first!
Speaking of vapid PC politics, what substance has tlees posted on the issues? Just a lot of PC cheerleading, but no facts or even awareness of policies and outcomes.
Crazies, and vapid PC types unite! Another great example of EJGraff's fan base.
January 15, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That pretty much sums up EJGraff's intellectual depth and ability to research facts and offer informed commentary.
1) Hears something.
2) Has emotional response.
3) Seeks affirmation from echo chamber.
4) Joins the choir.
Another example of why humanitarians have abandoned the shallow and paranoid Dworkinites.
January 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lighten up will you - the woman is dead for God's sake & EJ is concerned about that.
January 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think EJGraff is concerned about the woman at all. Real concern would demand serious discussion of the issues with some intellectual integrity.
I don't draw much distinction between demagogues and self promoting fear mongers, based on whether they're right or left.
Whether it's Coulter and Limbaugh using soldiers' deaths to whip up lapel pen patriotism, or Sharpton or EJGraff using the deaths of women and blacks to whip up these kind of identity politics.
It's the same shit to sell books, distract people, and pander to morons.
January 11, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your reaction to EJ and Hillary brings the word misogyny to mind.
January 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any substance beyond name calling?
Can anyone refute what I've said about the means by which police and court procedures have been tilted to railroad and disenfranchise the poor?
Do people deny "zero tolerance" and "mandatory sentencing" policies which remove prosecutor and judicial discretion, and which send a clear message to the DA where career fast-track is, and produced monsters like Nifong.
Do people deny police procedures for mandatory arrest regardless of merits, which removes police discretion.
Do people deny that court proceedings have been biased as a result of lobbying by the Cristian Right and feminists in a strange alliance. For example referring to the plaintiff as "the victim" in court, which has been successfully appealed in high profile cases, but continues as a regular practice in trials of poor people with only the PD, who will not appeal it.
Do people deny there has been a constant drum beat of fear mongering by the left and right on this issue, and little to no serious debate or consideration encouraged by the MSM or activists.
All you have is name calling and rating abuse. Fine, it reflects on you and the others in this thread.
But here's the thing: real people are being railroaded for being poor, especially minorities, and there's nothing liberal or progressive about it.
Do you even give a shit?
January 11, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have raised important issues in your two responses. They are isues I care about. However, what you have said is not relevant to the issue of how you react to women. I detect a pattern of emotion in your responses to Hillary and EJ that does not seem rational to me. This is why the word misogyny came to my mind.
January 12, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're noticing two people I dislike happen to be women, and disregarding any other considerations, and concluding I must be sexist. Not exactly substantive. It's just more name calling.
In fact, I have the exact same response to a wide range of identity politic demagogues. I respect and was raised by people who are humanitarians first: i.e. they help ALL people, NOT some at the expense of others. One has to build a better system, not just stick somebody poorer and less powerful with the shit end of the stick.
As I've said before, I'd love to see more, and serious, feminists and humanitarians at TPMC. But, for the reasons I've stated before, EJGraff isn't one, any more than Al Sharpton's a civil rights leader, or Dershowitz's an advocate of human rights or justice. Or for that matter Ralph Reed a Christian, or Behe a scientist of "intelligent design."
***
btw, an open offer:
Anyone who thinks I'm sexist is free to actually discuss this issue, and we'll see who has the better ethical argument factoring in a wide range of civil rights issues, and who is the shallow demagogue playing at PC identity politics.
If EJGraff wants to come back and debate the issue of "CaW" in depth, on the law and civil rights, crime statistics, politics, including the history of various movements, in context of larger and correlated movements, funding and member demographics, by all means, I'll be happy to. I can. Can EJGraff?
What Graff usually does is drop a post high in emotional content, low in facts or perspective, pandering to a narrow demographic directly, and relying on fuzzy PC readers not to look closely or critically, and then disappear.
***
I've studied these issues over several years after becoming aware of what was happening with voter disenfranchisement, and how important that is to the Rt Wing election strategy. Keep in mind that wiping voter rolls of blacks tilted 2000 and 2004 for Bush. and I've always followed "tough on crime" issues and civil rights.
I found there are some strange bedfellows between the Christian rt wing "tough on crime" types, and the more militant and legalistic feminist groups. I was shocked to discover how much police and court policies have been tilted towards a presumption of guilt, which is railroading all men but especially poor blacks, many of whom are innocent, and disenfranchising them by the tens of thousands.
A sensational example of this was the Duke Lacross case, where a bunch of white kids almost got railroaded by a sensational media and zealous prosecutor: Nifong a real monster. But, that actually happens every day many times over, especially to poor blacks, and Nifong isn't exceptional, but a product of the system. It's also worth mentioning that many militant feminists continue to deny their innocence despite the facts, to an OJ Simpson degree of cognitive dissonance.
Not so surprising was the finding that neither militant feminists nor the Christian Rt Wing enroll a lot of poor black men or have a particularly high regard for them. In fact, there's mutual antagonism. But, there is a clear power disparity, and poor black men are being arbitrarily and disproportionately on the receiving end of their legislative efforts and lobbying, whether it be from ethical negligence, or just outright deliberate disenfranchisement.
And what truly sickens and angers me is the way the sincere good intentions of the public have been manipulated and twisted to this outcome. It's the most Machiavellian divide and conquer to pit one civil rights group against each other while the status quo sits back and laughs at the gladiatorial sport. It's the same way poor whites, blacks and other ethnicities have been pitted against each other for generations. Now they're getting gays and feminists into it. As as usual, the soldiers march in without a thought as to who is pulling thier strings or why. It's unbelievably tragic.
January 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
Do you care about the murdered woman, Corporal Lauterbach? Do you care about sexual harrassment? Do you care about the treatment of women in the military? Why don't you spend any time talking about her and those issues if you do?
January 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they're not opposing goals. We don't have to railroad people to help women and prevent crime.
I'm all for expanding services, protections, and especially preventative programs. But railroading innocents to protect innocents, fighting crime with crime, is crazy.
Railroading innocent men to jail, out of the community, and off the voting rolls, is absolutely not helping. It actually reinforces a cycle of violence. I don't see how anyone can claim to be a liberal or progressive and dismiss that side of the equation as though it's a tradeoff.
Poor black and Latino women don't want men railroaded, and they see the devastation to their communities of these "tough on crime" policies. The activists are almost all white and disproportionately lesbian, and none poor, which accounts for bias of their view.
What solutions does Graff have? Posting scary stories like the evening news, prepping people for the next "tough on crime" proposal by those activist friends.
January 13, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Mother Jones: Mother Jones magazine did an exhaustive analysis of the incarceration rates in the USA, and their statistics, taken from various federal and international sources, show a frightening picture of this nation as a locked down nation for a large segment of their population.
The US is number one, as we love to say, in incarceration of its citizens; we are only seconded by Russia. This means that the US has two million of its citizens in federal and state prisons and jails. And the gross unfairness of this system is that the vast majority of those in prisons are nonwhite citizens. That, of course, is no surprise; we all know how criminal nonwhites are in America.
Some interesting aspects of this study of prison statistics are these: California, which has the sixth largest economy in the world, (including its Silicon Valley), and a population that is 52% nonwhite, and is supposedly on the cutting edge of racial and social tolerance, has a prison population that is 69% nonwhite. And, of course, with a Black population that is only 7%, it has a prison population that is 32% Black. And this large population of Black inmates has helped this enlightened state to be the sixth state in incarceration rates.
***
January 11, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you missed the
part?
You really don't need to resort to cheap shots, questioning her "intellectual depth." Have some class.
Please.
January 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? Where's the relevance to this case?
The fact is he was being tried and she was going to testify. As terrible as this sort of rare tragedy is, the system did appear to be working, and we don't automatically imprison people upon accusation for good reason.
The DV activists EJGraff is talking to are lobbying government and have been successful in establishing police and court procedures for a de facto presumption of guilt and automatic imprisonment of the man in DV cases. Which disproportionately effects the poor and especially black males, who can't afford bail or legal representation and are being railroaded into plea bargains.
Which I should mention also disenfranchises many blacks of voting rights!
Which is exactly what Rove is doing to purge the rolls, as we saw in Florida and nationwide for over a decade now.
Which is also why the Dworkinite "feminist" legal activists, have as their main ally in lobbying government and pushing these issues, the Christian Right.
So before people start tripping over themselves to PC, if they have any real "concern" for the issues, crime, civil rights, justice, and democracy, they should bother to get a bit more informed on these issues, and take these Dworkinite "feminists" with a huge grain of salt, or the whole shaker.
January 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to refute any of that adamsj and sphealy? Or is rating abuse all you got?
Like I keep telling you, rating abuse just reflects on your character and lack of supporting argument, and paints a rather sad image of EJGraff supporters.
btw, the user adamsj sounded familiar, and with a quick check into adamsj's posting history, i found that (surprise!) the last time adamsj posted was in EJGraff's post "What's with the sexualized threats against women?" In fact, adamsj hasn't even been logged in for 37 weeks. Fan club or alt?
http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/adamsj/track
Where adamsj made some rather rabid and legally incoherent comments about culpability of employers in cases of sexual harassment, even when they neither knew nor encouraged it to happen, but according to some vague standard of adamsj "should have."
Oh, and sphealy was rating abusing that time too.
And Artappraiser loves any excuse for one-sided rating abuse showing his character.
January 11, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
You have absolutely made my day, talking about ratings abuse.
You -- a premier ratings abuser. Compensation, perhaps?
I say this because anytime I provided unflattering quotes by people you admire you would zero me. On quotes!!
You made my day. If life is a masquerade you fit right in.
Give me a zero to show you care.
Artappraiser, sphealy -- go for it.
January 11, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Art and Sph must be happy with the support of such well regarded geniuses as Don Bacon, resident wingnut and troll. Imagine my embarrassment at being disliked by them, and Don Bacon too. Woe iz me! lol. Perhaps davai also has an alt to complain of zeros?
January 12, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
For EJGraff to generalize this as some sort of large scale failure is just obnoxious axe-grinding, and another example of how people like her lack credibility and do a disservice to themselves and feminism.
In this case, the fact remains the accused was being investigated and tried, and the accuser was going to testify against him. So the system, at least in this case, did appear to be working as well as possible without sacrificing civil rights or presuming guilt.
Additionally, as Eric Stepp points out, she was apparently continuing a relationship with him. So barring a court order to limit their freedom against both their wishes, and treat them as wards of the court, I don't see what "protection" EJGraff imagines could have been provided.
Though, its a fact that's exactly what feminist groups with the Christian Right have been lobbying for for over a decade, somewhat successfully.
Now, we could incarcerate people upon accusation with a de facto presumption if guilt. But, we have a system called presumption of innocence, and it's generally considered to be a good thing. Despite the urging from militant feminists and fear mongers.
The last time we had a system which presumed guilt, it produced witch trials, inquisitions, kangaroo courts, coerced confessions, and the law being used as a bludgeon by various groups against others, based on gender, color, creed, other other tribal identities. Where anyone could simply accuse another of a crime, and guilt was established based on power dynamics not evidence.
Which is now happening again with the railroading of the poor, especially blacks, who can't afford bail or legal representation and are urged by PDs to plea bargain for leniency in courts rigged against them, which is just legalized coerced confession again.
Which of course renders them Felons, which disenfranchises their right to vote.
January 12, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would just like to say that if my post, in which I posed a legitimate question about the situation. has given you any semblance of ammunition for all the drivel you have said above and below, I offer my humble apologies to all.
You have carried this thread in every direction and tried to justify your negative view in a way that is simply not positive or helpful. You showed your true colors in your off-the-wall comments on John Edwards and his wife (on another thread), and everything you say since then brings that back to my mind.
As I said, if I helped this pathetic diatribe along, I offer a heartfelt, "I am sorry."
Jan
January 12, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deal with the issues and the facts. Not that PC ad hom bullshit.
The fact is the Rt Wing and feminists have been acting in concert and pushing for "tough on crime" (ToC) legislation. It's composed of various "zero tolerance" policies which serve to raise conviction and incarceration rates. That's indisputable.
Some would argue it's justified becasue it's in the defense of women, which I'd point out is always the excuse made by "moral authorities" for "ToC" legislation. Also, that it's not actually helping women, any more than the "War on Drugs" has helped the drug problem. In both cases there is little to no emphasis on prevention and there are innocents being railroaded in large numbers as collateral damage "for the cause." Those combine to actually increase the structural social ills which then in turn create more crime in the long term.
Which I should point out is always a danger when "moral authorities" become crusaders and lack perspective and principles, becoming slavish to a one-sided identity politic to cement their own authority and place it above reproach. We're accustomed to seeing this in the Rt Wing and fundies, but it's becoming increasingly common in PC activists as well.
I would also point out it's invariably the people on the bottom who wind up the victims of these crusades. The poor and especially blacks are disproportionately effected by such ToC laws.
I'm far from alone in that criticism. In fact, a wide range of black feminists make exactly that criticism: that there is a segment of the feminist movement which is dominated by white women, disproportionately lesbian, and they have a great deal of mutual antagonism with black men. But, as ugly as that mutual cultural battle is, the power differential between white feminists and black men is completely favoring the former and it's only getting uglier.
So before people assume they're doing good by supporting a PC issue which sounds good superficially, they should have the intellectual honesty to look more deeply into these issues. ToC initiatives should especially raise alarms, and require the same scrutiny as we'd like the public to bring to any "moral authority" rush to action.
We already have an intellectually sloppy "moral authority" in the Rt Wing. We don't need to fall victim to the same human weakness on the left.
January 15, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some history on the issue of "Crimes Agaist Women" (CAW) that everybody should know.
Anyone who cares about democracy and civil rights, not to mention the judiciary and crime, should know about this issue, and how the courts are systematically being used to disenfranchise voters under the guise of protecting women.
* It's long been a strategy of the right wing, personified by Karl Rove, to disenfranchise the votes of the poor and especially urban minorities. It's been accomplished by passing legislation or using dirty tricks which disproportionately make the poor and especially blacks into Felons, who of course lose the vote.
* As this article in the Nation explains in detail, seven thousand innocent minority voters were wrongly disenfranchised of thier vote in Florida, being "mistaken" for Felons. And of course, minorities vote Democratic by as much as 9/1, and that alone would have been enough for Gore to have won.
* As has also been reported, Rove is continuing this strategy for 2008, and is purging literally hundreds of thousands of voters, nation wide.
* Other examples of the strategy include the sentencing guidelines for rock cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine. Or Reagan's various "tough on crime" initiatives. Historically they're backed rhetorically and monetarily by suburban, white, rt wing "Christian" groups.
* One of the most successful "tough on crime" initatives has been around the issue of DV, rape, and other "crimes against women" (CAW) as it has become a buzz phrase. It has immediate appeal and the sound of moral authority. Who isn't against "crimes against women."
* But, one thing many people don't realize: one of the biggest backers of the movement is the legal arm and funding machine of the Republican, Christian Rt Wing. Strange bedfellows.
* So, how does "protecting women" actually result in disenfranchising the poor and especially blacks. Simple. What "CAW" activists support is for there to be police and court procedural rule changes to establish a greater presumption of guilt and imprisonment of those accused of CAW. That has the effect of disproportionately effecting the poor, and especially blacks, who can't afford bail, legal representation, and are already psychologically "whipped" and unlikely to fight for their innocence with the court appointed defense.
* Some specific examples: many municipalities have as a result of lobbying and fear mongering, rules on the books which result in mandatory incarceration by police, regardless of evidence, and completely removing discretion from officers. Bail amounts have been greatly inflated. Many regions also have what are called "zero tolerance" policies, which mean that every case is tried, again regardless of merits, and removing discretion from prosecutors. The Public Defenders have enormous case loads, especially in urban areas, and often simply encourage plea bargaining.
* Court proceedings have also been warped in various ways, such as referring to plaintiffs as "the victim" throughout proceedings, as well as assigning them far more court services and legal aid than defendants. Prominent cases have somewhat brought the problems to light, such as the Kobe and Princeton cases, including Nifong's criminal behavior. Which is actually common as he and other prosecutors have built careers on railroading. After all, being "tough on crime" and for an ostensibly "liberal" issue is a political win/win and sure way to fast track a career.
* It's common for Dworkinite "feminists" to claim for example that "98%" of accused in CAW cases are guilty and almost all men. Therefore, any region with less than a 98% conviction rate is unbalanced. Of course those stats are totally cooked and independent studies have shown the rate of innocence is probably upwards of 30% and there are often cases of mutual criminal violence. They also like to fear monger rare but sensational cases of violent killings of women by men, grossly distorting public perceptions of actual crime statistics.
* All that fear mongering appeals to the reptilian brain, encourages emotional, knee jerk responses, irrationality, and the sacrifice of principles and civil rights for "safety and protection."
* The net result is a sick alliance between Dworkinite "feminists" and the Christian Right, railroading the innocent poor and especially blacks, who have no chance of officer discretion, bail, court discretion, or adequate defense. Which of course disenfranchises them of voting rights.
* Any time people hear someone fear mongering and talking "tough on crime" in any context, no matter how PC it may sound, don't be so FOOLISH as to think it's so simple. These issues are always complex, with trade offs and important principles at stake. And historically, more often than not, it's an attempt to railroad and disenfranchise the poor and minority voters. So be very careful with these issues.
And for ratings abusers: I'll take that as evidence of the PC knee jerk "not-uh" type responses and the lack of factual or intelligent argument such people have.
January 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, it could just be that certain long-time members are using the ratings system in the manner in which it was meant to be used, along the lines of the theory of not feeding trolls with responses. Perhaps these people didn't used to downrate you, because they had a tendency to like your content, and are skeptical of things like old-school-PC themselves. But then you started making many more comments in ever increasingly combative, increasingly obnoxious tones, and used ever more ad hominens and started flooding threads with them in a really overbearing way. And they started to get sick of it and see it as detrimental to to the site. Could just be evidence of that, too, you never know. It's just an alternative narrative, as I only the facts on that from one person, haven't interviewed the others.
January 11, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, if you had any response to the points above, you'd have made them already.
You can find the time and effort to post on your ratings and call names. But not to post substantively on the topic. Why is that?
And "2" ??? Such petty bitterness and judicious Babbittry. hilarious.
btw, my karma at TPMC is high and your petty rating abuse just reflects on you.
January 12, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me the rule should be "every tub on its own bottom".
January 12, 2008 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik,
While I agree with much if not all of what you say about how crappy minorities get treated, your attempt to tie that in with crimes against women (CAW) is tenuous.
Now, what do you think of E J Graff's column on the dead Marine?
January 12, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tenuous? Care to dispute the points made above? Or are we back to trash talk again?
You seem to basically be responding in disbelief that a good cause could do something so wrong. Well, sorry, but that's naive.
***
On CAW, it could be prevented without railroading people, but it would take real political courage and reform.
In fact, women aren't currently being protected and these crimes aren't being prevented by these policies. But they're an easy sell, tie into MSM sensationalism and "drive through" feminism and civil rights.
It's politically convenient to cut a deal with the powerful rt wingers to be "tough on crime" and allows activists to make a living.
***
If it bleeds it ledes.
You tell me, aside from some gut feelings of her fears, and another gory tale, what has she said? What are her activist friends advocating be done? Railroad people.
January 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it astounding that rational, intelligent adults in here suffer such attacks of apoplexy over a poor ratings number on their post.
January 12, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I'm astounded you don't find them as funny as I do. The cowardice + hypocrisy + pretentiousness of such people is really something. And the way they whine when called on rating abuse is just the icing on the cake.
January 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That too :-)
January 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink