For those of you having problems reading this text, please place your cursor over the text and hold down the control key on your keyboard, (CTRL), and with the wheel of your mouse, roll the wheel towards yourself. This will increase the text size.

History is simply FILLED with the irresponsibility of the male gender. It seems that getting off, whether the partner is willing or not, whether the behavior is appropriate or not, doesn't have a thing to do with a males sense of gratification. Look at the Catholic Church and all the Priests who abused their holy offices with raping children, and it didn't seem to matter if that child was male OR female. And still, there is no sense of responsibility, no sense of shame by the male gender as a whole. And the male gender as a whole doesn't hold those accountable who do rape.

How do you make it right for a victim of rape? How do you heal that part of a person that isn't physical? Words like violation, invasion, rape, torn, etc. don't begin to give you the SENSE of what the rape victim goes through mentally or physically. Some even find those words titillating. Should all men be held accountable for the few? No. But they should hold those few accountable, should take them to task, should turn on them, revile them, and make examples of them so that the next generation coming would SEE, KNOW, this behavior is NOT ACCEPTABLE!

The victim of rape gets a life sentence from a rapist. There will never be a day that goes by that the victim of rape doesn't remember, doesn't feel it, and doesn't feel the shame that goes along with it. It matters not what happens to the rapist. The victim is forever scarred, forever un-whole, forever marked in they eyes of self and the public at large.

After being victimized once, we then make it their fault it happened in the first place. What an insane world we live in. The devaluation of a single human being for the base desire of a male devalues our entire race. I found the Supreme Court's decision on this heartbreaking yet so typical in a male dominated world. Not that I want to see the death penalty, but that a male dominated crime would not be deemed harsh enough to merit death even though the victim had to have surgery to recover and will suffer for life.

At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old daughter in her bed, an assault so severe she required surgery.

The face of Patrick Kennedy, rapist of his 8 year old daughter.

The very premise of our judicial system, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, points an unfair finger at the accuser, s/he asked for it, s/he provoked the attack, etc. How ludicrous is that when faced with an 8 year old child? Another example, albeit fictional, is the movie Devil's Advocate.

The Lou Dobbs show also covered the Supreme Court decisions yesterday. Here is the transcript of that show for you.

DOBBS: The Supreme Court today issued key rulings in two cases. Our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was in the courtroom when the high court handed down those rulings this morning.

Jeffrey, good to have you with us. Jeffrey is in Washington. The idea that it's cruel and unusual punishment to execute a man who rapes an 8-year-old, that's not going to sit too well with many Americans. What's your reaction?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It didn't sit too well with Barack Obama, who announced his opposition to this decision today. It was a very hard case. The Supreme Court said no rapist has been executed in the United States since 1964. It's never going to happen again.

DOBBS: Never going to happen again? Is that really the job of the Supreme Court? Shouldn't there be a legislative -- a community standard at work, not a high court? And if it was a 5-4 decision, for crying out loud?

TOOBIN: It sure was. But the Supreme Court has been pretty aggressive in limiting capital punishment in recent years. No more execution of juveniles, no more execution of mentally retarded, this is added to the list.

DOBBS: How about Exxon Valdez? What happened there?

TOOBIN: They knocked down the punitive damage award in that case from $2.5 billion, they said that was excessive, to $500 billion so it was a good day to be an Exxon shareholder today.

DOBBS: Well that's great. Now let me ask you this. How long did it take for this case to unwind, make its way through the court system, and be decided by the high court?

TOOBIN: Only 19 years, but it's still going. They sent it back to the lower courts to be resolved, so we're going to hit the two- decade mark in the Exxon Vandez case.

DOBBS: What if we eliminated 10,000 attorneys from the legal profession every year in every case that goes on like this? Isn't this an embarrassment to the bar association, the judicial system? Is it an embarrassment to anyone but the American people?

TOOBIN: It's an embarrassment. Justice delayed is justice denied. It's an old saying. It couldn't be truer to the people who lost their livelihood and haven't been paid back.

DOBBS: Well I guess all I can say is good work, lawyers. It's just beautiful.

Thank you very much, Jeffrey Toobin.

While each story is much the same, the journey one takes is ever so personal. Here is one story:

Living in fear.

A rape victim's Story.

I faced the most frightening experience of my life and relive it occasionally with flash backs of the event. I am referring to being raped, a brutal attack which has scarred me mentally for the rest of my life. It's amazing how one event can cause so much damage, with so many triggers to set of such horrific memories. Sometimes it makes me feel like ending it all, ridding myself of the moments that cause me pain and mental anguish.

~snip~

Once I had discussed it with my GP I was able to let go of my pent up feelings, express my anger and cried for a long time. Explained about the triggers and related my suicidal ideas but knew that this was just a way of releasing my pain.

I still get flash backs today, when I see films or smell aftershaves or here organ music. Sometimes I see people who look like them and try to avoid them. The rape will remain with me forever but I can now deal with it thank god.

If you want the details of the rape itself you will have to go to the site to read it. I only put here what is relevant, that the victim is a victim for life. And, although this one made it, some aren't as strong and wind up as suicides, never telling others what happened to cause them to end it all. And here is another, this one high profile:

Rape victim tells her story: "He's always right there"

By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter

BETTY UDESEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Convicted rapist Kevin Coe, in a 1994 photo.

PHOTOS BY BETTY UDESEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Julie Harmia is prepared to testify against Kevin Coe again. "I'm just hoping that my talking will help bring some peace to the 40-some-odd victims whose indictments did not hold," she says.

Julie Harmia, in photos from 1977 and 1978. They are the only photos she has of herself from the years around her 1980 rape.

Julie Harmia talks about her attack and its influence

YAKIMA — Last month, Julie Harmia pulled the battered, dog-eared book off her bookshelf and handed it to her adult son.

It was a true-crime account of the infamous South Hill rapist of Spokane. It was autographed by the author, Jack Olsen: "for Julie, a lovely lady, with many thanks."

Harmia's rape was on Page 200. Her 19-year-old son was dumbstruck. "Mom, you never told us ... " he said.

For most of her adult life, Harmia kept a wall around the evening of Oct. 23, 1980. She did not tell her son, daughter or even a therapist until recently. She has no photos from that time of her life

Julie Harmia describes being raped by Kevin Coe nearly 26 years ago: "I had to put a little wall around it," she says.

YAKIMA — Last month, Julie Harmia pulled the battered, dog-eared book off her bookshelf and handed it to her adult son.

It was a true-crime account of the infamous South Hill rapist of Spokane. It was autographed by the author, Jack Olsen: "for Julie, a lovely lady, with many thanks."

Harmia's rape was on Page 200. Her 19-year-old son was dumbstruck. "Mom, you never told us ... " he said.

For most of her adult life, Harmia kept a wall around the evening of Oct. 23, 1980. She did not tell her son, daughter or even a therapist until recently. She has no photos from that time of her life.

But she still hears the precise diction in rapist Kevin Coe's voice. She feels the dry grass and thorns of the vacant lot where she was thrown down. She sees the stitching on the tan leather glove Coe shoved deep into her mouth to silence her.

~snip~

Coe is still with her. In a recurring vision, he is perched on a tree branch outside her old bedroom window in Spokane.

"I always picture him in that tree, watching me, ready to kill me," Harmia said. "That's something that's always been in my peripheral vision for 26 years. He's always right there."

These are typical of the stories of rape. Tell no one, live in silence and relive it day in and day out for all the rest of your days. An endless record playing over and over again, and one you wish you could change. Damaged goods some will say. S/he deserved it others will say. But who ever deserves to be violated in such a way? And what child ever deserved it??? Why is it that the victim gets a life sentence but the perpetrator doesn't? The only time Justice seems to work is when you can afford it!

Again, I'm not advocating for the death penalty for those who rape. I do believe that is too harsh, however, I also believe that those who are convicted, through DNA testing, should be removed from society for the rest of their natural lives. There are many islands available where they can be sent so that taxpayers need not be burdened with the expense of incarcerating them. But they definitely need to be removed permanently from civilized society. Patrol the waters around that island to assure the public that these criminals remain where they are, for the rest of their natural lives, making rape a crime not worth committing.

And for the victim? Make it illegal for attorneys to violate these people again during trial. They have already gone through enough. It makes no sense to victimize a victim a second time. Our "Justice system" leaves much to be desired...

And what of the medical needs of the victim? How often do the courts take into consideration the needs of the victim to heal mentally as well as physically? My guess is almost never. Mostly victims are forgotten while the criminal is put through courses where they try to rehabilitate them.

According to this study:

Undetected Recidivism among Rapists and Child Molesters

A. Nicholas Groth

Robert E. Longo

J. Bradley McFadin

Although recidivism among dangerous sexual offenders is generally reported to be low, clinical experience suggests otherwise. In order to assess the actual recidivism rate of offenders who commit sexual as saults, we administered to a sample of eighty-three convicted rapists and fifty-four convicted child molesters an anonymous questionnaire in which they were asked a series of questions pertaining to their history of sexual offenses. The results indicate that the majority of the offenders had been convicted more than once for a sexual assault. Furthermore, on average, they admitted to having committed two to five times as many sex crimes for which they were not apprehended. This study suggests that dangerous sex offenders usually commit their first sexual assault during adolescence, and that they persist in this criminal behavior, but that the offense has low visibility. For this reason recidivism, as judged by rearrests, is not a dependable measure of rehabilitation of the sexual offender.

In case you don't know, recidivism means repeat offense, or repetition of the crime previously having been sentenced for.

recidivism Noun

habitual relapse into crime [Latin recidivus falling back]

recidivist nadj

As you can see by this study most rapist and child molesters, (child rapists), go undetected for a long time. They themselves start young and continue on until either caught or they choose to quit. There is no effort ever made at self control over one's actions, no remorse, and no sense of guilt. Often they even brag about their skills and the terror they inflict on their victims.

It is time that society as a whole, and men in general, take rape more seriously. This is not an ok crime, not a crime of passion, not something to laugh and snicker about in the back room. It is a crime of hatred, of one person taking a portion of another persons' self. The justice meted out must be equal to the crime committed, Life!

The Control Group

Movies with Liberal Messages/Themes

The correlation coefficient for the control group was 0.6938172023, while it was a paltry 0.2309258957 for the movies with liberal messages or themes. The coefficient represents the degree to which one data set correlates with another - basically, critics and audiences are more in agreement if the number is higher. There's a pretty significant difference here, suggesting that film critics as a whole tend to endorse liberal flicks more than the general populace does.

Also fun: using CelebPolitics.com's lists of the most liberal/conservative films determined by the cast's ideology.

Here? Liberal cast coefficient: 0.7397525597. Conservative cast coefficient: 0.5970928143. Much closer to the control group than the variable group, even strengthening the argument that critics are more likely to recommend a liberal film than a person is to see it.

So yeah, film critics are probably more liberal than the moviegoing audience, but who can blame them when conservative actors make such horrible movies? I mean, really, Son of the Mask? Delta Force 2? Wow.
Acenate

The fourth passage in this series begins with verse 33. It is an interesting passage that not only teaches, but is a demonstration of the teaching itself. The language of oaths and vows may not resonate with us now the way it did for Jesus’ original listeners; nevertheless, the focus of the passage may be even more poignant for us now. 

 We start with the question: Why does one take an oath? What makes an oath necessary? The answer, of course, is that one’s word is somehow lacking integrity, that there is some doubt as to whether you will do what you say you will do. So to give it more oomph - to emphasize one’s integrity and trustworthiness to another who is doubtful - we “swear” on a variety of things—our mother’s grave, “the Holy Bible”, to God, etc. But the greater issue here is the assumption that a person’s word is no longer good enough, and that integrity is in short supply. Today, it is an accepted fact that we live in a culture of lies, misrepresentations, deception and dishonesty—in everything from politics to marketing to our personal relationships. We have become a culture that lacks integrity and, because of that – when something is really important – we have to rely on various oaths, vows and other expressions to impress on others that yes, we really mean what we say . . .at least this time. 

 Jesus discerns this lack of integrity in his own time.  In a culture of duplicity, Jesus proposes simplicity: “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No’” (verse 37). No oath or vow can substitute for our consistent, faithful practice of integrity. Jesus’ own directness of speech in this passage demonstrates just such integrity: there is no hedging, no obscuring, no duplicity. The message on integrity takes on the characteristics of integrity—Jesus is simple, straightforward and direct. 

 The next passage is one that many of us at the scripture study last Tuesday confessed to having wrestled with regularly. Many have come away from this passage (5:38-42) believing that Jesus seems to be encouraging his followers to be doormats, to suffer evil without any resistance. But scripture scholars with good social and historical analysis of the Palestine of Jesus’ time have done incredible work with this passage over the past twenty years. The passage starts out by quoting what was a common understanding of justice in Jesus’ time and, indeed, still holds sway with the vast majority of humanity today: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (v. 38). We understand such a mentality today as being primarily about punishment, about seeking “justice” for the perpetrator. For some of us, it even offends our more “developed” sensibilities about a justice that has vengeance at its core. But for the early Israelites, such a law (lex talionis) was actually instituted for its limiting effect. An eye for an eye was instituted to limit revenge, to keep violence from escalating, and to actually break the cycle of vengeance that such actions often invited. Such cycles and escalations rooted primarily in revenge could quickly get out of hand and cease to be about any sort of justice at all. An eye for an eye functioned to limit that tendency. 

What Jesus proposes instead of an eye for an eye unsettles some of us though. Is Jesus promoting passivity to evil when he tells us to turn the other cheek? Is Jesus telling us to unquestioningly accept suffering with no thought for our safety or dignity? A quick lesson in the honor-shame culture of Jesus’ time is helpful in understanding what it is that Jesus actually counsels.

 The culture of Jesus’ time, not unlike Middle Eastern cultures today, was built on the axis of honor-shame. One’s honor was considered of the utmost importance - and not incurring shame was essential. Note then the language of the last part of v. 39: “When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to them as well.” To strike someone on the right cheek implies that you would strike them with the back of you right hand. Such an act was familiar to Jesus’ audience. Those subservient to you—slaves to masters, wives to husbands, children to fathers, peasants to soldiers, and so on—could be put in their place with a well-placed backhand to the cheek. Additionally, to strike one in this way did not go against Jewish law. So what happens when we “turn the other cheek?” The act, far from being a sign of willingness to accept evil treatment, is actually an assertion of dignity by the oppressed party that put the oppressor in a difficult and shameful position. For the oppressor to strike his inferior on the left cheek, the oppressor is forced to strike with his open hand. To strike with one’s open hand, as opposed to backhand someone, is to acknowledge that the one you are striking is equal to you. Furthermore, to strike with an open hand is prohibited in Jewish law, so turning the other cheek and inviting your opponent to strike you with their open hand is to put the opponent in the unenviable position of acknowledging your equality to them, and then having to either back down in front of others and incur the shame associated with that OR break the law and incur the penalties and shame in that action. So what we have here is not Jesus inviting us to a beat-down by our opponents. Rather what we have is Jesus inviting us to a strategy for confronting and resisting an opponent who is in a position of power over us. It is actually a strategy for winning.

 The same application follows in the next two examples. In v. 40, the issue of giving one’s cloak to one to whom you are indebted who has taken your tunic is directly related again to Jewish law. Jewish law states that the one item that a good Jew could not deny to another Jew, regardless of how in debt the other was to him, was his cloak. A cloak functioned in a variety of capacities for the poorest of the poor: clothing, shelter from the elements, and economic opportunity (beggars used to spread out their cloaks in front of them at the gates to the city, asking for alms to be placed in them). A cloak must therefore be returned before sunset to one’s rightful owner. To offer someone your cloak when they are taking your tunic again puts them in an awkward and untenable position regarding Jewish law and the potential for incurring shame in front of one’s peers and others.  

In v. 41, Jesus is referencing the common practice of Roman soldiers to press into service civilian help in carrying their various military items. Any Roman soldier could require of any peasant the performance of this task—but the law stated that it could be for only one mile. So to offer to go two miles again turns the table on the opponent, forcing them into a position of breaking the law should they accept. 

 Great activists like Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi understood Jesus’ words here as a strategy for winning in a situation when the vast amount of power was on the side of one’s opponent. To fight with weapons would be a strategy sure to fail since the opponent has all the power – and better weapons. But in the face of such overwhelming odds, Jesus invites us to think creatively and nonviolently. What he offers us is a strategy for winning—both in terms of asserting our dignity but also in appealing to the best sensibilities of our opponent and especially to the many who may not have chosen sides but are watching closely the interaction between us and our opponents. Calling attention to the deep injustice of our situation through creative resistance, as Jesus suggests, is to win the battle for the hearts and minds of all those watching from the sidelines. What we have here is Jesus inviting us to moral jujitsu—using our opponent’s energy against him to make our point and win the encounter.

-John