by Connie Chastain*
Earlier this week, like millions of people around the world, I watched the rescue of the 33 men who'd been trapped in a Chilean copper mine for 69 days.
Unfolding over an almost 24-hour period, the true-life drama was compelling. The rescue pod traversing a 26-inch hole drilled through solid rock, traveling the distance of more than two Empire State Buildings, tethered to the surface and light and life by a relatively small cable, a journey predicted to take an hour for each man. The myriad things that could go wrong. The order in which the men, ranging in age from 19 to 64, would be brought to the surface. It was all riveting.
As the rescue began, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith wondered whether the drama might become boring before all thirty-three miners were brought up from what easily could have been their tomb. Not a chance. To see each man's beaming face as he received the greetings and hugs of the rescuers and the President and First Lady of Chile...to see the ecstatic reunions with family members and loved ones...to hear the details of how the men survived by faith, optimism and discipline -- well, it was the polar opposite of boring.
It was also a wonderful break from the churlishness and pettiness exhibited by so much of America's political class in the run up to the November elections.
Of course, the story of the Chilean miners is all over the Internet, as it has been all over television around the world. I can't begin to add anything to that coverage. I can only wonder how differently the story appears to ordinary folks as opposed to those who battle misandry, who advocate on behalf of men, and who are far more accustomed to seeing men demonized, ostracized, legally robbed and falsely accused -- not infrequently by the aforementioned churlish political class doing the bidding of institutional feminism.
As of this writing, the pro-man corner of cyberspace is relatively quiet about the drama, the sites I visit regularly making little or no mention of the story. But the feminist blogosphere's "coverage" is about what you might expect.
At Salon's Broadsheet, the story isn't about the breathtaking courage of the miners and masterful male ingenuity of the rescue... It's about how quickly Hollywood is jumping to exploit the drama ... the wife vs. mistress sidebar ... and how our president has hailed Chile's president....
Jezebel is even worse (how "love triangles" are complicating things for the miners)... I don't recommend visiting Jezebel shortly after dining. Or any other time, for that matter.
The gals at NOW appear to be completely oblivious to the entire event.
Of course the women who are feminists or who have fallen under feminist influence, aren't likely to be eager to recognize, let alone honor, masculine courage, bravery and extraordinary accomplishment. How can one honor such male positives and maintain that rape culture exists simply because men are men, the repositories of flawed masculinity?
Feminists and their puppets, political and otherwise, can wallow in their pettiness all they wish. The rest of us recognize the positives of masculinity, and are more than willing to honor extraordinary displays of it such as the world has witnessed in Chile. God bless the miners, their families and all those involved in the remarkable rescue.
*Connie is a member of the FRS team whose column appears here every Friday. Her blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
The President came over really well.
Interviewer "How much did the rescue operation cost?"
President "Who cares?"
This is yet another example of men's ingenuity and courage. It is a great system, men do the hard work, and if they get into any trouble other men bail them out. This was a growing country that it happened in, many times men can't count on ANYONE to bail them out, that's what being a man is typically like.
These guys were very lucky, and being men, I'm sure they recognize this and are thanking their personal deities right now.Cheers to the survivors and the rescuers.
Our future presedets could learn a lesson from Chile's President.
Great article Connie. I look forward to more.
From The Smashed Frog blog:
I finally got a chance to take in The Social Network and was struck by an implied message that likely I--as the only Frog in the movie's audience--picked up on.
In at least three specific scenes, young college-aged men acted in their own best interest and inquired after the ages of young women in attendance at various parties.
And in one scene, the young lady had lied about her stated 21 years of age.
My hopes are a young man does not need to attend Harvard to get the point.
Posted by Sunny at 10:32 AM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
Labels: coeds, Harvard, statutory rape, The Social Network, underage girls 0 comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post
Create a Link
http://smashedfrog.blogspot.com/
(sorry)
"I'm sure LE looks for this type corroboration in all rape cases. What still weighs on my mind is "why has it been stated on this site that we need to bring back corroboration" (as if it existed in the past, but is no longer applied). What does that mean?"
Sorry if this is thread-jacking, but just to clarify this issue to our other readers. Corroboration was required in the past, but this has now changed, as a man can now be prosecuted for rape based on nothing but the accuser's word.
This does not mean that police have stopped looking for other evidence. They still do, but a case can now go forward without it.
What's corroboration? It's evidence that supports a statement. It could be evidence of the crime itself, or evidence of perpetration by the suspect, beyond the statement of the alleged victim or sole witness. It generally refers to a "story" that is corroborated, not physical evidence backed up by additional physical evidence. Although additional statements from other victims or witnesses can corroborate the first.
In regards to rape, evidence of sex is not, in and of itself, evidence of a crime.
New England Law professor denounces 'payoff' in Kobe Bryant rape case as corruption of court system
Boston law school professor, author, TV commentator and ex-prosecutor Wendy Murphy had some choice words over the Kobe Bryant rape case at the Belmont Library. Murphy was talking about her new book And Justice For Some at the library's Belmont Author Series when she tore into the Bryant case as an example of how the courts are the "machinery of capitalism" instead of a search for truth. Murphy twice cited the 'wealthy star athlete' as a bad example of corruption of the criminal justice system. Bryant, a trophy-laden player for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team, was charged in the summer of 2003 with the rape of 19 year-old Katelyn Faber at a resort hotel in Eagle, Colorado. The case was officially dismissed in September 2004 when Faber declined to testify against Bryant. Recounting the case to the quiet library audience Murphy worked herself up to a controlled frenzy of accusation and indignation at a system gone wrong. "He bent her over a chair and had his way with her. Her blood was on his undershirt."
Murphy explained that "justice should be better than capitalism" and that "truth matters" however the criminal justice system has run amok with no one in charge. "In criminal cases no one is even trying to produce the truth. The system is not designed to establish the truth, it is an adversarial system." "Truth is not in the courtroom and the news sources that tell us what comes out of the courts are not telling the public the truth either. What is told to the public often isn't even close to the truth." Warming to her topic Murphy returned again to the Bryant rape case. "The civil case doomed the criminal case. The civil case brought by the victim settled on the eve of the criminal trial. She got a boatload of money as a payoff to not testify." "I talked to the District Attorney and asked him 'How could you do that?' and he said he didn't want to put the victim through the trial. Well I'm sorry, it wasn't her choice. She got paid and that is okay but she still should have been compelled to testify. The criminal case was not about her, that was her civil trial. The criminal case was about justice but it didn't get done."
Murphy also cited the Bryant case for the slander against the victim's purported sexual history. "Journalism didn't do its job. A lie was told and everyone thinks it is true." Murphy told the audience that her book had a subtitle that the publisher left off. The opinionated author wanted the subtitle to be, "An Expose' of the Lawyers and Judges You Hate--and the Dirty Tricks They Don't Want YOU to Know About
Arod99k - "Wendy Murphy"
So, Murphy's still peddling her crap (readers will remember her as the shrill rape hysteric who was leading the media “charge” against the innocent Duke Lacrosse players).
Most alternative views of the Kobe Bryant case acknowledge that the criminal case was withering on the vine by the time Faber chose to go the civil route. The “bad facts” (to use a term commonly used by prosecutors to describe the exculpatory evidence which would likely doom their case) were already known, and a conviction was seeming more and more unlikely.
For those who don’t remember, DNA testing indicated that she had also had sex with other men around the same time, and numerous witnesses saw her soon after the alleged rape, at a party, boasting of her sexual encounter with Bryant (the exact opposite of what might be an expected “outcry” of a woman who’d actually been raped).
Additionally, Pamela Mackey, as very shrewd and practiced defense attorney, had effectively gotten Katelyn Faber’s name out to the public. Despite what some have claimed – that this was an attempt to have her targeted by Bryant’s fans (not unlike how an accused man who’s name is made public might be “targeted”) – but rather because Faber had a local reputation for her sluttiness, and Mackey understood that if she could connect the accuser with her reputation, she could “poison” the potential jury pool, and essentially get around the Rape Shield provisions which would have otherwise kept jurors from learning about the accusers “busy” past.
By carefully examining high profile cases, we can glean numerous examples of things should, and should not be handled in rape allegation cases. Duke, Hofstra, and Bryant provide a wealth of information.
But, what Bryant does NOT suggest is that justice was somehow perverted by the quest for a financial pay-off, as Murphy claims (remember, she’s never admitted her crusade against the Duke boys was wrong either). She’s a radical rape-hysteria crusader, who’s own version of “poisoning” the public perception of the supposed rape crisis is to constantly foster the notion that rapist are getting away with their crimes all the time. She’ll probably still try to tell anyone who doesn’t know any better that the Duke Lacrosse players all got away with rape because their rich families got the charges dropped. The idea that “connected” men are able to rape-at-will and buy their way out of justice is an important leg of the rape hysteria/sexual grievance industries belief system.
Anonymous - "
What's corroboration? It's evidence that supports a statement. It could be evidence of the crime itself, or evidence of perpetration by the suspect, beyond the statement of the alleged victim or sole witness. It generally refers to a "story" that is corroborated, not physical evidence backed up by additional physical evidence. Although additional statements from other victims or witnesses can corroborate the first."
You, again! Still trying to dissemble about "corroboration", I see.
Well, you are wrong about physical evidence not serving as corroboration. That it very well could should be as obvious as thee nose on your face. Physical evidence can clearly point to the occurrence of an alleged crime.
In my post above, I mentioned examining high-profile cases to see what they can teach us.
Here, I'd suggest that what I'm saying can be well demonstrated by reviewing the Hofstra case. In her allegation, Danmell Ndonye claimed to have been tied up. If a rope could have been found, that SURELY would have served to corroborate her story; as would injuries consistent with being tied up. The fact that either was found thus (should have) served to demonstrate her claim as un-corroborated. [see how that works?]
[due to continuing issues with Blogger, this will have to be a two-part post]
And, as to the corroboration of third-party witnesses, this can be misleading. There are just too many variations to what such a witness might offer to simply state that such provides corroboration. This is why (on the earlier thread where you brought this up first) I specifically pointed out "outcries" by the alleged victim. If a woman screams "help me, I've just been raped!", such an outcry carries weight as being consistent with what might be expected of a victim (although, even this could be easily enough fabricated).
Thus, Katelyn Faber's discussing her sex with Kobe Bryant at a party (in some graphic detail, as I understand it), provides an example of what an expected victim out-cry would NOT be.
In between these extreme examples, we could look at other examples, perhaps, that of a friend of the alleged victim stating that she was told by that “victim” that a rape had occurred. To me, this isn’t sufficient to provide corroboration. Such a witness could possibly be “in on it” WRT fabricating the claim.
Here, Ben Roethlisberger’s case might prove instructive. The accusers friends, the ones who would be her “corroborating” witness, seem to be as much behind “pushing” the accuser into her claim, as much as they were witnesses to anything. All they can state is that she was in a restroom with Ben, and claim they were prevented from entering themselves. This alone, however, does not prove that she was force into that restroom, that she wasn’t a willing participant, that she wasn’t free to leave when she felt like it, nor that sex occurred I(the lack of physical and medical evidence indicated that their asserting that it did happen shows that not only could they not know, but that they DIDN’T know).
Okay, I’ve taken the initiative to delve further into this “question” of your’s. Now, it’s high time that you answer my questions. Like the ones regarding your seeming opposition to anonymity for the accused.
Will you ever be “straight-up” and just answer the questions posed to you?
Wendy murphy is correct in stating the that American law enforcement has run amok, and the truth is no-where to be found in any of modern American law enforcements "manufactured statistics".
What she does not say is that the law enforcements run amok in "manufacturing faulty and inflammatory statistics" that serve to "Empower" Gender / Raunch feminists like her.
Thats why i say their needs to be a civil rights intervention into modern American law enforcement, for their "manufacturing statistics" is not only a perversion, it is un-constitutional.
Anonymous (aka S.) - "Wendy murphy is correct in stating the that American law enforcement has run amok, and the truth is no-where to be found in any of modern American law enforcements "manufactured statistics"."
Geez, S.,
Don't you ever read anything. Wendy Murphy is not making the point that LE has run amok. Her crusade is that men (rich, powerful, connected men) are getting away with rape, left-and-right.
And, really, LE doesn't manufacture statistics. They simply report on what crimes are reported to them (hint - they have no control over what citizen chose to report). Others then take their numbers to use in generating "stats" for public consumption.
You shouldn't use words you don't understand, nor try to discuss subjects which you don't know anything about.
slwerner,
fyi, I found 2 posts in the spam fileters, that showed by an anonymous poster, but were, it appeared your 2:21 posts. Since I have already seen them here, I removed them. Were you attempting to submit them anonymous,
"corroboration"
In these she said/he said sort of cases there is no way to corroborate anything unless the man actually confesses to the alleged rape. This is just one of those areas in life where the victim is going to have to look after herself and avoid situations where the crime may occur.Under the US system the burden of proof is on the accuser and DA and it must be beyond a reasonable doubt and be a unanimous jury decision;the defendant doesn't have to do anything.
An example of "corroboration" would be a person hearing a female screaming for help and running over to see what's happening and finding her trying to fight off a rapist. Even here I wouldn't consider it rape if the man and female had sex previously but put it down as battery.
Marital "rape" is also absurd and no rational person could believe that a wife who has had sex with her husband a 1000 times could call the 1001st time rape.
E Steven Berkimer - "Were you attempting to submit them anonymous"
I had no intention of making anonymous posts. I've been logged into Blogger (Google Account), which automatically post them with my ID. I've been getting some strange errors returned when making posts. It might be a problem with Firefox (3.6.10) as well.
Not only is Wendy Murphy a rape-hysteria fanatic and a law-and-order Nazi who displays a frightening contempt for due process and the presumption-of-innocence. She is also a pathological liar with a long history of making up pure fantasy and repeating it as fact.
See the link below for more:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/wendy-murphy-file.html
How the fuck Wendy Murphy can be cited as any kind of authority on a site like this I don't know. But thanks guys, for making me spill my breakfast everywhere.
Murphy is one of the most dangerous and deluded individuals to be given serious air time. She is pure scum. Please try to understand this.
Arod99k, I get it now. You are a Bolshie, class-hater who only cares about human rights and due process if it impacts on a group you identify with or consider 'oppressed'.
But if an anyone who is wealthy or successful gets railroaded they always get what they deserve and have it coming. Great.
I guess it can be hard to resist a woman peddling intellectual pornography about the evils of capitalism and so forth. But we need to maintain some standards, and take a firm stand against the smut and filth that the likes of Murphy are peddling. We have to think of those impressionable young boys who might be led astray by that sort of thing.
"These guys, like so many rapists -- and I'm going to say it because, at this point, she's entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim." Wendy Murphy, referring to the Duke lacrosse defendants on CNN's Nancy Grace show, hours after the April 10, 2006 release DNA evidence indicating the lacrosse players' innocence.
And see this one: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/07/alarming-trend-states-extend-statutes.html
Wendy Murphy is among the worst of the worst on this site. Please don't cite her as authority for anything.
"You, again! Still trying to dissemble about "corroboration", I see."
No, not me again. I've never dissembled about anything, and resent the accusation.
"Well, you are wrong about physical evidence not serving as corroboration."
Then show me where I said anything like that.
As much as I appreciate your many fine contributions here, slwerner, you do have a bad habit of jumping on people without reading what they wrote.
@Anonymous:
I quoted your statement about "corroboration":
...it generally refers to a "story" that is corroborated, not physical evidence backed up by additional physical evidence."
Thats were you said it. not only did I read what you wrote, I quoted it back to you.
"Thats were you said it. not only did I read what you wrote, I quoted it back to you."
Where I said what? Reading is comprehension. How do you go from that quote to "physical evidence not serving as corroboration"?!?
Then you went on to argue against a bunch of other things I never said, not only ignoring what I actually wrote, but assuming I was someone else.
Anonymous - "Then you went on to argue against a bunch of other things I never said, not only ignoring what I actually wrote, but assuming I was someone else."
I apologize for mixing you up with another anonymous poster. It gets to be a problem when several people, with similar writing styles don't other to add any sort of indication as to which poster they are.
The poster I mistook you for was posting on the Why I am not upset over an article… , and aftger hedgeing quite a bit was promising to given his/her explainantion of what “corroboration” might be – and was admonished by E. Steven Birkimer about having derailed the thread (which he then shut down).
Thus, when you started out apologizing for threadjacking, and giving your view on what “corroboration” might be, it just seemed that you were that same Anonymous, finally delivering on a promise to give an answer.
Again, I was clearly in error in assuming that you were that poster, and, again, I do apologize for my error and any insult to you.
As to why I got the impression that you were suggesting that physical evidence could serve to corroborate other evidence, I going to say that your use of the term notin that sentence sure threw me. I supposed you were using the word in it’s traditional sense, indicating that physical evidence as corroboration of other evidence was “disqualified” from being considered as being corroboration of said evidence. I’d have used a less absolute term, such as more than.
I could quickly imagine any number of scenarios were one item of physical evidence could easily corroborate that another piece of physical evidence, was, in fact the evidence it was believed to be. So, I you did me that there was no possible way that it could, I’d have to disagree.
However, if your intention was to convey the idea that corroboration would be more likely to apply to physical evidence applied to a claim (as opposed to other physical evidence), then I’d agree that it would be more likley the case in which it would work.
My bad on mixing you up with another Anonymous poster, but you could identify your posts with just a couple of additional characters added to the end of each. If I'd have known you were the poster trying to confuse the issue of "corroboration", I would not have bothered rambling on the way I did."
"I could quickly imagine any number of scenarios were one item of physical evidence could easily corroborate that another piece of physical evidence, was, in fact the evidence it was believed to be. So, I you did me that there was no possible way that it could, I’d have to disagree."
Yes, physical evidence can help validate or identify other physical evidence. And sometimes people do use the word "corroborate" that way, but technically, corroboration should only apply to statements.
For example, a car is discovered with a broken window and a jagged hole in the dashboard. Both are consistent and evidence of the same crime, but do not corroborate each other, as each is evidence on its own. There is no corroboration because no one has said anything. Then someone shows up and says "My radio has been stolen". At that point, the broken window and jagged hole in the dashboard could corroborate the alleged victim's story.
"Thus, when you started out apologizing for threadjacking, and giving your view on what “corroboration” might be, it just seemed that you were that same Anonymous, finally delivering on a promise to give an answer."
Thank you for your apology. My "view" was pretty much the textbook definition. Which I guess anyone could have looked up on their own. In regard to rape, others including the owners of this blog have stated that corroboration is not required for other crimes. Technically, that very well may be true. I'm not a lawyer. However, in practice, I'm hard pressed to think of an example where a case would go forward based on nothing but the uncorroborated statement of a single victim. What makes rape different from other crimes is that sex is something people commonly do voluntarily.
Feminists = slime.
Anon,
In regard to rape, others including the owners of this blog have stated that corroboration is not required for other crimes.
I know I've never said anything of the sort (I could be wrong, and if so, I'll gladly admit otherwise). What has been stated, is that rape is the only crime, where no corroboration is needed to support the crime. A person (usually a woman) cries rape, and she is automatically believed, and if she names someone, that person is likely arrested on that word alone, with no corroborating evidence.
If I claim that so and so was murdered, a body will be needed to corroborate what I have said. In today's climate, that hasn't been needed in rape claims. That is why the need for anonymity is so great. Accusation = guilt, in the minds of the vast majority of people. What we argue for, is anyonymity for all involved (accuser and accused), or no anonymity for anyone involved. As well as a thorough investigation, no matter where that investigation leads (proof of a crime, or proof of no crime).
As Pierce has stated here many times, the same act of love that has transpired through history, is the same act required for rape, just without consent (I won't even touch on sexual assault as that has so many ways of happening under the current laws, that it would be a post by itself). And in a he said/she said situation, if he admits sex occurred, but that it was consensual, and she says it wasn't, all that can be shown by DNA, Condom, etc., is that sex took place. At that point, it all boils down to the words of the people involved. And how absolute certainty can be proven in that case, is beyond me.
Oct 18, 2010 1:15:00 PM
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, except the part where no owner of this blog ever said corroboration is not required for other crimes. I believe it was Pierce Harlan who has said this a number of times. If memory serves me correctly, I remember saying something along the lines is that you can't have a homicide without a dead person, which he denied. Although perhaps there was some misunderstanding there. (And no, you don't physically need a dead body for a murder conviction, but you do need evidence that the victim is dead.) Unfortunately, I'm rushing to type this, and don't have time to look.
And you may be correct. However, in all of those other crimes, is there a much less likely chance of conviction, without the supporting proof (body in case of homicide). It is highly unlikely to result in an arrest, much less a conviction without it.
I think rape is, the one type of crime, that really doesn't need any supporting evidence (other than a complainants word), where we DO see convictions regularly. Now, we also see quite a lot of exonerations because of that too. The problem is, because of the lack of anonymity, the accused individual is tainted with the stigma of being a rapist, even if he (allowing that men are the VAST majority of the accused) is innocent.
I, for the life of me, have never heard of someone convicted of murder, based only on someone's word. Pierce may have stated that someone could be charged with homicide with no body, but the likelyhood of a conviction, was miniscule (again, glad to be proven wrong).
Post a Comment