Rape case

The case in Illinois, where the defense wanted to force the complaintant to watch, in painful detail, a tape of the assualt being prosecuted, has been resolved.

After the defense went over the tape, painting the girl as willing, basically because she wasn't fighting, the accused was acquitted.

This doesn't preclude (I think) further prosecution, as she was 16 at the time, and Ill. has 17 as the age of consent (unless the person is in a position where they are custodially supervised, in which case they are not able to give consent to any person who is more than 17, and in a supervisory position).

What is sad, and perhaps scary about this isn't just that the tape seems to make it clear the woman wasn't capable of giving consent, but that Illinois is thought to have one of the best rape laws in the nation, because it specifically states that a single statement of consent is not open ended.

(c) A person who initially consents to sexual
penetration or sexual conduct is not deemed to have consented
to any sexual penetration or sexual conduct that occurs after
he or she withdraws consent during the course of that sexual
penetration or sexual conduct.

Given that that anyone who (2) commits an act of sexual penetration and the accused knew that the victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent; is guilty of rape in Illinois, and she passed out, at which point she was past being able to consent; the verdict almost baffles me.

I say almost because the defense used the tape to portray her as a woman of loose morals, in essense to say she, by virtue of having been flirtatious, of having been seen to kiss someone, to stroke his head, forwent the option of not having sex; even if she was insensible, and that attitude (that she asked for it, that she, "led them on", that she ought to have, "expected it," and you name it) is still widespread.

There's still one of the accused who is at large; he's fled the country, to avoid prosecution (this is presumptive of a guilty mind). I don't know if the facts of his case are such that he can't really claim she was consenting before the tape started to roll (there is no explicit consent given on tape, the victim says she doesn't recall anything from at least a few minutes before the taping began... this was the basis of the defense wanting to grill the woman as the tape was played... she might recall having consented... even though the latter aspects of the statute imply that consent fades when someone becomes unable to give informed consent. That's a difficult thing, but I think only in the context of an established relationship. Sex with someone who's really drunk might not be my cup of tea, but I think it possible for standing consent to exist when the players know each other well. For kids at a party... not so much).

This is horrid. It goes with the Italian court saying it's not such a big deal to have sex with your underaged niece because she wasn't a virgin, so she is less deserving of protection.

It goes with this seegment from "The News Hour" where one of the legislators in S Dakota is explaining his opinions on abortion.

Newshour: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

[State Senator]BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Now, you ask me, his exception is inconsistent. If he thinks abortion is murder, it doesn't matter what the reason, only mortal peril for the mother matters (to take it to the logical extreme, a reductio ad absurdam such a case only merits abortion if 1: the death will occur before the fetus is viable 2: the mother is certain to die, and 3: (though this one is debatable) only if the mother won't be able to get pregnant again.

I'm not even going to go into the religious aspect of Napoli's argument... though it ties in with what he said later, about the community forcing unwed mothers to marry the fathers.

So there you have it, unless she was " brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it," she isn't entitled to an abortion.

Why? Because she had sex. Looking at court cases like this one (and the mistrial in Orange County, and the other case, I forget where, where a developmenally disabled girl in a wheelchair was asaulted, and the males acquitted) it also looks as though barring a rape as over the top as he says (where does the sodomizing come into play? It isn't as if any of the acts the law calls sodomy lead to children... that's part of why some people say they ought to be illegal, it's why others says doing them doesn't count as losing one's virginity), it wasn't really rape.

Housekeeping

For those who are new here (I am certain some people have stumbled in from Kevin Drums place.

There are a few rules, which can be found here.

For the time being I am going to suspend one, with a caveat.

I will open some anonymous posts. I am not going to be blanket about it, because I don't see the point in allowing flames. I get to see the nasty shit, regardless, so those who want to abuse me may continue, but I shan't inflict that crap on the rest of you.

A note of thanks

I write this Lj for me. Which means I get to indulge my hobbyhorses and put half-formed thoughts out here. Those who don't like it are free to not read it.

But I like interaction. I enjoy comments, and those of you who choose to comment have been pretty good about it.

More to the point, for whatever reason (perhaps I am small, perhaps I lack the ability to irritate) I don't get much in the way of trolls. I get some. The odd piece of hate mail, but nothing like the things I see when I go out into the wider blogosphere.

And for that I'm grateful. The hatemail's not such a big deal. I got my first piece of that sort of thing when I was in college, I've gotten as used to it as I can, and it's easier to deal with now, because digging up my actual location is harder. When people can drop off hate mail in person, one knows they can lie in wait.

What I don't get much of is the dittoehead sort of stuff.

I was reading the comments at The Washington Monthly and one of the local "gadflies" tried to take me to task.

After a couple of posts trying to point out his errors (some of them plain failures of comprehension, as I said I had done things, and he said that was impossible) I gave up. His repsonse to arguement...."You're a Liberal."

Which may be true (I tend to think of it as progressive, and somewhat centrist, but I'll entertain the idea that I'm wrong in how I label myself). But what I believe has nothing to do with the merits of the facts I present. It may (in fact it certainly does) color how I interpret those facts, but the facts don't change.

When my statement of why I think the facts mean a thing is, "refuted" with a response not different in value from, "And so's your old man," well I give up.

I don't get that here, for which I am grateful.

Thank you all.

Whisky, Tango, Foxrot, Over

I wish this weren't so believable.

A guy in Iraq has sent a couple of e-mails describing a pattern of what can only be called censorship on the network in Iraq.

This is the list of website he says are blocked, as well as some which aren't.

Unfortunately anonomizers don't work out here (never have). Anyway, I had a few minutes today and thought I'd look and see what else was banned on the Marine web here. I think the results speak for themselves:

* Wonkette – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion.”
* Bill O’Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) – OK
* Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
* Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) – OK
* ABC News “The Note” – OK
* Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
* G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) – OK
* Don & Mike Show (www.donandmikewebsite.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/) is categorized as: Profanity, Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies.”

When we used our "mommy-note from hell" on the 1st BCT of the 101st to get a NIPRNet drop (real internet service, as oppose to just SIPRNet, which is secure, and so doesn't talk to the outside web. I could get EarlyBird, but nothing else. Thankfully the CIA thinks a wide variety of opinion and news is valuable in making decisions, so I was able to get a fairly rounded picture of the war, as well as things stateside) I discovered that I couldn't access Blogger, or Lj, or Blogspot, or any such site. Moveable Type pages were Ok so I could read Making Light and it's (now cojoined) Electorlite, and I could get e-mail. The explanation was that blogs used too much bandwidth. I thought it a tad specious, but as a class they were banned, it wasn't really censorship because no one was being preferentially allowed in.

The system was borked... they didn't know what other things, which were blogs (or so bloglike as to be undistinguishable) really were, and so I could (whimsically), shame poor pnh into sending me a galley proof of Sethra Lavode by skzbrust which was a great comfort to me in hospital, as well as let people who were worried about me know I was doing all right.

But things changed, and before the year was out people were getting blogs. Some of the access was controlled by KBR (and some of that access had to be paid for) but the web was the web.

Look at that list.

Air America is forbidden because it is, "Internet Radio/TV Politics Opinion" but Rush Limbaugh (who those who say the left is worse than they right and Limbaigh is a fringe player, not a real representative of the Right) is allowed. So is Bill O'Reilly, and G. Gordon Liddy (who once said people needed good gun control {i.e. being able to hit the target} because federal agents wear body armor, so you have make headshots, under pressure).

What
The
Fuck?

Or, as a comedian used to say, "That's not riight!"

Because it isn't. Thats pandering, it's propagandizing the troops. And if they keep it up, it'll backfire (or should) Because the troops (according to a recent poll) think things are screwd up. A lot (most, according to some reads, but not seeing the internals I can't say) think we ought to pull out now. It's going to be tough (well, looking at how easily some of the "core conservative values, like small government, distrust of federal authority, balanced budgets, minimal entitlement programs, reduced spending, clear measures of victory; with a defined exit strategy, and absolute avoidance of nation building, personal responsibilty, ethics in government, slavish adoration of the rule of law, and the like, have been tossed out the window, it may not be so hard) to claim that the poor morale of the troops is because they are being stabbed in the back by a defeatist press.

Things to remember (food)

I decided to make a pork-pie (pot) tonight.

Maia decided, as I was saying we needed to buy some pie crust, that she wanted me to make it. Silly me, I forgot she decided homemade crust was far superior to either TJ's, or Pillsbury.

I got distracted for a second and mis-did the math when I doubled the pastry recipe. Because we have a large (11") pie pan, I can't just whip up a single batch. Oops. I was rolling it out, after it had chilled, when I realised this, and so am hoping to salvage it with more flour, and touch more water, in the food procecssor.

Dinner, already running late, because of the chilling required (had I been thinking I'd have made the pastry this afternoon and it would be really chilled, and much easier to work, ah! well).

To add to my misery, the roast head of garlic is sitting on the table, mocking me (It was supposed to come out of the oven just as the pie went in, so that it could cool, and be used a spread on bread) with the happy smell of its being done.

Pot pie

Enough meat (pork, chicken, turkey, beef) cut small and browned (if using fish, prep, as needed; a quick poaching with butter is probably best, or just count on the sauce to do the work) Spice as desired.

A medium onion, sauteéd,; with a bit of butter (one can finish with a dash of flour, to make a small, white, roux, mixed veggies (bagged, or fresh) about 2 cups, added to the onion, with stock and 1/2 cup cream or milk. Mushrooms are good in this, chopped fine, and cooked with the onions, if that pleases you, or cooked in the milk, and let to simmer in the pie (oyster and fresh shiitake are well that way). I added a dash of calvados with the milk.

Add the meat, place in the bottom crust, and cover (piercing the top crust to prevent it bursting). If it is to be presented, an egg-wash, about 10 minutes into cooking will give a golden brown crust. After about 25 minutes, at 450F, remove, allow to rest for 10 minutes and serve.

For the roast garlic, slice the top of an entire head, put honey atop the cut end, place in a 425 oven for 25-40 minutes (depending on the size of the cloves).

For a treat, spread it thickly on bread, and eat with Guinness. The combination is incredible, so I shan't try to describe it.

Thoughts on abortion, in light of South Dakota

I apologise, sort of, for all the posting.

I will be in Korea from the 11th of this month, until the first of next, so I'm feeling the urge to write.

So, lets assume, for the sake of argument, that the SD law passes, and the Missouri law, and a wave of laws like them which make abortion hard, if not impossible, for poor people to get (because the wealthy will come to California, or go to Canada, Sweden or some other place they can get rid of their problems (and they won't be only the rich pro-choicers, Avedon reminds me of The Only Moral Abortion is MY Abortion which I am grateful for the URL for, as I had lost it, about the attitdes of pro-lifers who find themselves with an unexpected guest).

So there will be a whole lot more babies being born, who weren't expected, much less planned for.

We can assume a lot of those babies will be born out of wedlock, the world being what it is today, there won't be as many shotgun weddings as there once were (we aren't Iceland, but we have a much higher tolerance for single parents these days, even if we tend to force it on the mother).

Back in the "good old days, when a woman had damn all for options (she could be a secretary, a nurse, a teacher or a housewife) she was expected to be a virgin when she wed, and not have much in the way of salable skills (I recall my mother, who was rearing two kids alone... the circumstances of that are not clear from here, but they don't really matter, not being able to get credit, because she didn't have a husband around to share a card with. Some years later she got divorced, but it was some years after that before she had credit. She, however, was a phlebotomist, until she married again, and moved to California, which wanted her to go to school for two yaers to learn what she already knew, but I digress, she at least had a salable, and {mostly} portable skill), the law was built in such a way that should her husband leave her (much less get caught cheating) she got some hefty support.

These days, well she gets less, but the theory is she has the ability to earn as much on her own as she loses by being single, and he supplements to meet the extra obligations of the kid.

DNA. Used to be all there was to go on was blood type. One could disprove paternity, but that was it (Maternity was certain, paternity; assumed). These days, daddy can be found.

Something to think about.