Pamela Pizarro has what I think is a telling anecdote about how we teach our youth about rape. It’s based on her experiences in Canada, but I think it’s applicable to the U.S. as well:
I remember the day that they showed us the video on rape. It was during a physical education class, and our teacher, simply put the video tape in the machine and pressed play. The movie that proceeded told the story of a young girl (in university) who went out on a date with a popular “jock”. After going to a party or a movie, her date felt that she “owed” him and proceed to sexually assault her. Now the point of the movie was to let us girls know that we shouldn’t be pressured into sex, that we had the right to say NO, and that if we ever were to find ourselves in this situation, we should not be afraid to tell someone about it. After the movie was done, there was no further discussion, the class bell rang, and we went on with our day.
The reason that this memory sticks out in my mind is because I as a woman have been told over and over again and in many different ways, that I need to protect myself from situations of violence, and that if I should ever find myself in such a situation, I should have enough confidence and strength to tell someone about the incident so that something can be done.
However, it so happens that my husband went to the same high school as I did, so when this memory came back to me, I asked him if he received the same sort of education, or instruction that sexually assaulting a women was “not okay” or if their was any talk about the possibility that he may find himself as a victim of sexual assault, his answer was no. So why is it that I have had many years of learning how to protect myself, but my husband (who is exactly the same age as me) has had no education whatsoever on the exact same subject?
I don’t think that her husband received no education — but I also don’t think the education took. That’s not his fault; I don’t think we spend nearly enough time educating young men about sexual assault.
I meant to get to a post on Michael Totten’s disturbingly narcissistic article about his travels to Iraq, but Mark Gisleson has beaten me to it — twice.
Totten’s article is a target-rich environment, but when you shoot fish in a barrel you still end up with dead fish:
I waited for my helicopter flight with two other civilians – Willie from Texas and Larry from Florida.
Willie and Larry work construction for private companies in harsh places like Iraq and Afghanistan. They are both well-rounded individuals with Red State tastes and political views and a worldliness and cosmopolitanism that surpasses that of most people who live in the Blue States.
Totten, an effete Republican elite, clearly doesn’t know squat about the construction industry, which exists in virtually all states, red and blue. Like many of the mental cripples on the right, he assumes that all manly jobs are done by Republicans in red states. And like many of the twisted fucks on the right he thrills in finding construction types who’ve seen Cats.
I’d like to introduce him to Deb, my buddy Jon’s daughter. She supervises road construction crews and would cheerfully kick Totten’s lily-white ass up around his ears. Come to think of it, my red state, farm-raised, factory-hardened right foot wouldn’t mind taking a shot at Totten’s sorry ass either.
If the gasbag right truly believed in this occupation they call a war, not only would they enlist, but they’d reach out to the left to build support here at home. Instead they resort to petty insults and cheap shots, trying to rub our noses in their superiority.
KLo brings us the fervent wishes of Corner readers for tomorrow’s Cheney administration:
Commute the sentences of those border agents.
Fire Mike Chertoff.
Tell Harry Reid to … well, you know…
I will give them firing Chertoff.
Oh, and on that “Bomb Iran” thing?
Three hours wouldn’t be long enough to actually bomb Iran, given the necessary flight time. But ICBM’s can be there in about a half-hour.
Ha! It’s funny because it would kill millions of innocent civilians!
Okay, let me say up front that our media sucks:
There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.
Undeniable! Hillary Clinton has breasts! Alert the media! Oh, wait, ’twas the media that alerted us.
I’ve written and rewritten the lead-in to this, and I just don’t know how to do this without just coming out and saying that this is one of the more disturbing sites I’ve seen in a long, long time:
WELCOME TO CHRISTIAN DOMESTIC DISCIPLINE
Loving Wife Spanking in a Christian Marriage
You know you want to read more about this.
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
–A Man For All Seasons
Let us fast-forward six years into the future.
No, it’s not the dystopian future Democrats fear. The world of 2013 is pretty much one would expect, really. President Hillary Clinton is in the first year of her second term, after beating Tim Pawlenty in 2012; the Cubs are gunning for their third world championship in five years; and the third rounds of talks in Ankara aimed at ending the Iraqi civil war have stalled yet again over Sunni demands for reparations. Meanwhile, the hit movie “That’s Not Bologna,” starring Adam Sandler and Paris Hilton, is in its third week at #1 despite tepid reviews. All in all, the world is where one might expect it to be.
But in Washington, a scandal is brewing.
Via Josh…frankly, I can’t even post coherently. Just read:
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.
For a variety of reasons I’ve been loath to champion impeachment. Oh, the bastards deserve it, but the realistic chances of success are not good. But at this point, impeachment proceedings may be the only way to get any modicum of justice.
Much more to come tomorrow, I expect.