Sunday, June 24, 2012

Men can get raped, too

Hi Friends;

  Below is a very disturbing article.  I would caution callousness towards those portrayed, believing any who live in such an environment worthy of all the depredations inherent.  What I would hope, and with those who read this blog I think I'm safe doing so, is that we remember that not only are these someone's family, but that rarely are these men going to be forever in this environment.  We need to understand that we are responsible for how we treat people in every environment.  The purpose of prison is not only to protect society from crime, but to give the person a chance to pay for his crimes, redeem himself, and reenter society as a good person. 

Christopher Glazer takes to N+1 magazine to argue that we should Raise the Crime Rate.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims/


Statistics are notoriously slippery, but the figures that suggest that violence has been disappearing in the United States contain a blind spot so large that to cite them uncritically, as the major papers do, is to collude in an epic con. Uncounted in the official tallies are the hundreds of thousands of crimes that take place in the country’s prison system, a vast and growing residential network whose forsaken tenants increasingly bear the brunt of America’s propensity for anger and violence.
Crime has not fallen in the United States—it’s been shifted. Just as Wall Street connived with regulators to transfer financial risk from spendthrift banks to careless home buyers, so have federal, state, and local legislatures succeeded in rerouting criminal risk away from urban centers and concentrating it in a proliferating web of hyperhells. The statistics touting the country’s crime-reduction miracle, when juxtaposed with those documenting the quantity of rape and assault that takes place each year within the correctional system, are exposed as not merely a lie, or even a damn lie—but as the single most shameful lie in American life.

From 1980 to 2007, the number of prisoners held in the United States quadrupled to 2.3 million, with an additional 5 million on probation or parole.

Victims in juvenile facilities, or facilities for women, have an even tougher time: usually it’s the guards, rather than the inmates, who coerce them into sex. The guards tell their victims that no one will believe them, and that complaining will only make things worse. This is sound advice: even on the rare occasions when juvenile complaints are taken seriously and allegations are substantiated, only half of confirmed abusers are referred for prosecution, only a quarter are arrested, and only 3 percent end up getting charged with a crime.

In January, prodded in part by outrage over a series of articles in the New York Review of Books, the Justice Department finally released an estimate of the prevalence of sexual abuse in penitentiaries. The reliance on filed complaints appeared to understate the problem. For 2008, for example, the government had previously tallied 935 confirmed instances of sexual abuse. After asking around, and performing some calculations, the Justice Department came up with a new number: 216,000. That’s 216,000 victims, not instances. These victims are often assaulted multiple times over the course of the year. The Justice Department now seems to be saying that prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes committed in the US in 2008, likely making the United States the first country in the history of the world to count more rapes for men than for women.

America’s prison system is a moral catastrophe. The eerie sense of security that prevails on the streets of lower Manhattan obscures, and depends upon, a system of state-sponsored suffering as vicious and widespread as any in human history. Dismantling the system of American gulags, and holding accountable those responsible for their operation, presents the most urgent humanitarian imperative of our time.

Progressives lament the growth of private prisons (prisons for profit). But it’s sadism, not avarice, that fuels the country’s prison crisis. Prisoners are not the victims of poor planning (as other progressive reformers have argued)—they are the victims of an ideological system that dehumanizes an entire class of human being and permits nearly infinite violence against it. As much as a physical space, prisons denote an ethical space, or, more precisely, a space where ordinary ethics are suspended. Bunk beds, in and of themselves, are not cruel and unusual. University dorms have bunk beds, too. What matters is what happens in those beds. In the dorm room, sex, typically consensual. In prisons, also sex, but often violent rape. The prisons are “overcrowded,” we are told (and, in fact, courts have ruled). “Overcrowding” is a euphemism for an authoritarian nightmare.

While the attempt to count the number of rapes in America’s prisons is new, the problem is not. Alas, it’s one quite unlikely to go away because the overwhelming majority of Americans are perfectly happy to shift the risk of violent crime off our streets and out of our neighborhoods and into walled communities where people regarded as little more than vicious animals are housed. That they face a good chance of being raped while there is variously seen as fodder for jokes, the wicked getting their just desserts, or collateral damage. It’s virtually inconceivable that political will to do something about the problem will coalesce any time soon.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

The Myth of the Gay Agenda

Hello Everyone;

  This link is for something so profoundly simply, but so very necessary.  I hope you will click on it and watch - I don't think you will be disappointed.
 Sometimes when I reblog a post from Milkboys I feel a bit silly.  They have such a huge readership I can only presume you all have read it.  So, maybe it's just that it interests me and I want to be sure I have a link somewhere so I can find it again.  Maybe there's that one person who missed it on Milkboys and my pointing to it prompts a second look.  Maybe I've just wasted five minutes and should just give you the link and shut up.  Yeah, maybe....  ok, here it is.  It's great, please watch.
http://milkboys.org/article/the-myth-of-the-gay-agenda/

The Right to Parent

Hello Friends;

  As many of you who have read this blog know, I have some trigger topics.  Gay rights.  Child rights.
Human rights.  Dogs.  Music.  ..... there's a few more, but those catch my attention.

  This morning I was looking through my email.  I saw an article on Yahoo's front page that caught my eye.  (HERE)  It was about a father losing custody of his children and them coming up to be adopted because of his weight. 

  Now, normally on Saturdays, I am off to a pet rescue adoption event - provided I'm in town.  Today I just don't have the time or the stamina - this new job is wearing me out!  But,  in thinking about this man's rights to have his children, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Scottie somewhat recently.  You see, to adopt a dog or cat from this rescue organization, there are certain requirements:  One must have a stable home capable of having the animal.  For instance:  placing a high energy large breed in an apartment is a poor combination.   Secondly, if you've had a pet in the past, what vet. was used?  We will check with the vet to be sure there were no abuse issues.  There are costs involved in adopting - mostly to help cover the neuter, shots and microchip - so to a small extent, financial ability to care for the pet is sort of considered.  Long end of the deal:  we want to be sure placing a pet in this person's home is a good "forever" match.
  So, let's consider the requirements for having a child:  Man.  Woman.  Sex.  9-months and a lot of sweat.  Bingo, it's a baby.  How to care for it?  How to afford it?  Well, rarely does that come up.  It's a slope that once started down becomes dicey at best.  For instance, can we tell someone they are not allowed to have a child because they are very overweight?  That's what happened to this man.
  What would be next?  You can't have a child because you don't make enough money?  What constitutes enough money?  Should one have to be married to have a child?  Hetero only?  What if the government decided that we would need a license to have a child - like we need to drive a car, a boat, have a dog?  Could we have racial profiling used to steer acceptance?  How big of a mess could this become?
  And in amongst this mess are all these small souls who had no real vote in the matter of coming into the world and want only to be cared for and loved.  Who can now love and care for them?  Can a gay couple - male or female pair - adopt them?  Love them?  Help them grow into great people?  Well, not really - the power mad declare that a child is best raised in a loving environment of hetero persuasion, don't you know.  Which is much like saying that everyone should drive a brand new four wheel drive who live in snowy environments.... great to say, but unlikely to occur.  And, failing to provide what they deem ideal, then the answer must be the limbo of foster care?
  I guess in the end, I have no answer to any of this.  Should that man lose his progeny because he is overweight?  What is good enough reason?  What really ought to be is that we as a people become responsible for our decisions, grow up, and do what is right.  Until then, I guess we are going to be at the mercy of a government agency convinced it knows what's best - no matter how asinine.
  What do you think?

Friday, June 22, 2012

A Touching 'Coming Out'

Hi Friends;

  This is a coming out I think I'd like to see more of...  enjoy.  (Click Me)

Monday, June 18, 2012

Double Standard

Hello Friends;

  I noticed this article in the Yahoo front page when checking my email.  It struck me, why is it that when a politician lies to us, it's excused.  But, should one of us lie to a politician, specifically congress, suddenly it's a problem.  And why should it be?  Don't they work for us?  Aren't they our employees? 
  Ok, when it gets right down to it, neither is acceptable.  But, you get my point.  A lie is a lie, and putting a "political spin" on it makes it no less the lie.  I am frankly so tired of outright fakery and lies from our "leaders" that I could spit.  I couldn't imagine lying to my boss.  So, tell me, if they are lying to us... who do they really work for?          ~r

After eight weeks, 46 witnesses, two dozing jurors and an estimated $2 million-$3 million spent in taxpayer money, the Roger Clemens trial has finally come to a close.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/roger-clemens-verdict-not-guilty-six-counts-204828190--mlb.html
The verdict: Not guilty on three counts of making false statements, not guilty on two counts of perjury and not guilty on one count of obstruction. The charges stemmed from testimony that Clemens made in February 2008, telling a Congressional committee that he had never taken steroids or HGH. Prosecutors also alleged that Clemens intentionally made false statements that misled investigators.
Clemens faced a maximum sentence of 30 years and a $1.5 million fine if he had been convicted on all six counts, but he instead made out better than Barry Bonds. The all-time career home runs leader was hit with one charge of obstruction — but sentenced to no jail time — in his own perjury case.
Both Clemens and Bonds will hit the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this winter and it's likely that neither will walk away happy with the results. Whether you agree with their stance or not, Cooperstown's voters carry a much lower burden of proof when it comes to the evidence that both used performance-enhancing drugs during their careers.
But like Bonds, Clemens benefited from the reasonable-doubt standard that's applied in a federal courtroom. Despite staging an exhaustive trial, federal prosecutors were unable to build a convincing case. Nor were they able to defeat the doubts that the defense raised about the motives and integrity of former Clemens trainer Brian McNamee.
So that's that. While we'll argue forever about the merits of the nation's lawmakers getting involved with baseball's steroid era, Clemens has escaped the legal process with no major damage except for a sizable lawyer bill. He'll face much more public scrutiny going forward, of course, but this trial was really never going to have any impact on the court of public opinion. Your view of Clemens before this verdict is probably the same as your view now.