Archives

January 21, 2003

Mike Peterson, a columnist for the Post-Star in Glens Falls, New York, wrote a column about the recent Supreme Court decision that defined rape as "continued penetration by a man after a consenting women demands that the intercourse stop." Reaction to the news was swift and fierce. "The media were horrified," Peterson wrote. "This nice young 17-year-old kid was going to have to carry a rape charge through life, despite the fact that the sex was consensual until this ditzy chick changed her mind, and, even then, the silly girl wasn't clear about her new attitude."

The media jumped on it. The so-called "law" in the Land of Fruit and Nuts had proven that all a woman had to do was cry "he raped me!" in order to ruin a man's life. Those men who howled that women frequently used the courts as a weapon of revenge and malice finally had the vindication they were looking for. This "ditzy chick" destroyed an innocent guy with what they thought was one of the most effect weapons in the Lying Bitch arsenal - the Rape Defense.

The problem is, it didn't happen that way.

Peterson ran a Google search to get to the facts behind the case. I did the same. The truth, as it turns out, was a far cry from the spinning done by the media.

Originally, there were two co-defendents, not one. John Z. appealed the original conviction. The second defendant, Juan G., "admitted amended charges of sexual battery ... and unlawful sexual intercourse." Both are misdemeanors.

On March 23, 2000, Juan G. called Laura T., the rape victim, while she worked at a nearby Safeway. They met two weeks earlier. Juan G. asked Laura T. to drive him to a party at John Z.'s home and to come pick him up at about 8:30 p.m. She agreed to drop him off but told him to find another ride home because she was unable to pick him up. She had planned to attend a church group meeting that evening.

She later drove him to John Z.'s home. John and another guy were there. Laura left to pick up a guy who was going to buy beer for the party. They returned to John's home with the beer. Laura agreed to stay until about 8:30 pm. John and Juan drank the beer. Laura did not.

Later, Laura and Juan went to John's parent's bedroom. Juan said he wanted to have sex, but Laura declined, saying she "was not ready for that kind of activity." Juan became "upset," and went into the bathroom. Laura left the bedroom. John and the other guy asked her why she "wouldn't do stuff." She said she wasn't ready.

As Laura prepared to leave for her church group meeting, John asked her to come up to the bedroom to talk. He said that Juan didn't really care for her and that he, John, suggested he become her boyfriend. He left the room to take a phone call.

What transpired upon his return lays to rest the media outrage that Laura merely changed her mind in midstream. It also shows that the young men were not innocent victims of a young woman's bullshit false cries of rape when she's not happy over what she supposedly had freely chosen to do. "The minor" refers to John Z.

When the minor returned to the bedroom he and Juan asked Laura if it was her fantasy to have two guys, and Laura said it was not. Juan and the minor began kissing Laura and removing her clothes, although she kept telling them not to. At some point, the boys removed Laura's pants and underwear and began "fingering" her, "playing with [her] boobs" and continued to kiss her. Laura enjoyed this activity in the beginning, but objected when Juan removed his pants and told the minor to keep fingering her while he put on a condom. Once the condom was in place, the minor left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis in her vagina. The rape terminated when, due to Laura's struggling, the condom fell off. Laura told Juan that "maybe it's a sign we shouldn't be doing this," and he said "fine" and left the room.

Laura rolled over on the bed and began trying to find her clothes; however, because the room was dark she was unable to do so. The minor, who had removed his clothing, then entered the bedroom and walked to where Laura was sitting on the bed and "he like rolled over [her] so [she] was pushed back down to the bed." Laura did not say anything and the minor began kissing her and telling her that she had "a really beautiful body." The minor got on top of Laura, put his penis in her vagina "and rolled [her] over so [she] was sitting on top of him." Laura testified she "kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, `will you be my girlfriend.'" Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn't be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don't want to do this." After about 10 minutes, the minor got off of Laura, helped her dress and find her keys. She then drove home.

On cross-examination, Laura testified that when the minor entered the room unclothed, he lay on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down. He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home but he would not stop. He said, "[J]ust give me a minute," and she said, "[N]o, I need to get home." He replied, "[G]ive me some time" and she repeated, "[N]o, I have to go home." The minor did not stop, "[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me." After about a "minute, minute and [a] half," the minor got off of Laura.

The old, biased view of rape is that it isn't "real" if she doesn't fight back, is unclear, or is not sufficiently "outraged." Even when one considers Laura unclear statements and actions that could have lead John to believe she consented to sex, the court ruled that "there is substantial evidence that she withdrew her consent and clearly communicated that fact to the minor." She tried repeatedly to push him off. He rolled back onto her, and kept thrusting. He said "[J]ust give me a minute. She replied "[N]o, I need to go home." He kept "forcing it" on her for another minute, minute and a half.

I was fortunate to not have been invited to these kinds of parties when I was in high school. That doesn't mean I wasn't aware of them. I live in a small town that makes Mayberry look like Cabrini Green. Even here, where no liquor is served or sold (dry town) and the sidewalks roll up at dusk, teenagers are under a great deal of pressure. They're terrified of war. Some of them abuse alcohol and drugs. Sometimes their grades may suffer. My son and my stepson are right in the thick of it now. Both are in high school. My stepson is one year younger than John Z. I know more than I'd like to know about these parties. They're held at some kid's home when the parents are gone. Or they're held in another location unsupervised by responsible adults. Some kids drink to get plastered. It's not all that hard to find an adult who is willing to buy beer and even hard liquor for teenagers. There is always mom and dad's liquor cabinet. The idea is to get totally shitfaced because it means you are "cool." Getting shitfaced to the point that you land in the hospital or in a jail cell is not "cool," no matter what some eleventh-grade punk may tell you.

Teens are under a great deal of peer pressure. The unpopular kids play lapdog for the popular ones because they want approval and friendship. Sadly, some of them believe that if they do some popular kids' homework, or fetch beer for them, or have sex with them, or don't have sex with them, then they too will be accepted and loved. It doesn't work. "I'll be your boyfriend if you have sex with me." That line is older than I am. Laura knew this. She told John that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn't be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don't want to do this." Mike Peterson knew a lot of girls like Laura. He knew a lot of guys like John and Juan. So did I. So do I. They cruise the high school hallways, doing whatever they can to make sense of the world we live in.

Reducing this case to "the bitch changed her mind and cried rape" ignores what really happened. It ignores the pain Laura had felt. In blaming her for her own rape, the media and the public rape her over and over and over again. She doesn't deserve that. Blaming her also exonerates her rapists. She doesn't deserve that, either.

posted at 7:39 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

January 20, 2003

Atrios reported that a judge appointed a lawyer for a uterus. That isn't quite what happened. The judge appointed a lawyer for the fetus in the hope of giving it personhood, which would make it much easier to criminalize abortion.

This isn't the first time judges have tried to declare a fetus a person.

On Friday the 13th, 2002 (interesting date...), a Kentucky court overruled a guilty plea in the death of a fetus in a car crash, "effectively upholding Kentucky case law that even a viable fetus is not a person until it is born alive."

A judge permitted Tanya Meyers to get an abortion after her ex-boyfriend successfully convinced another judge to force her to carry the pregnancy to term. A woman's right to have an abortion "is not subject to being vetoed by a woman's husband or partner," said [Common Pleas Judge Michael] Conahan, who is based in eastern Pennsylvania's Luzerne County. "Neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy." Meyers later miscarried and reunited with the boyfriend.

The Department of Health and Human Services went that far when it expanded the definition of a "child" eligible for coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program to include conception. It gave personhood to fetuses. It also gave fetuses medical coverage that the low-income women who carried them could otherwise not get. The Center for Reproductive Rights states that "low-income pregnant women deserve actual, not merely incidental, health insurance coverage that covers all of their pregnancy-related needs."

posted at 10:30 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

January 19, 2003

"In the middle of a January night, for the last 53 years, a man cloaked in black has crept into a deserted graveyard in a gritty section of downtown Baltimore and raised a birthday toast to Edgar Allan Poe."

Two nights ago, he did it again.

posted at 10:56 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Two recent polls show that George W. Bush's approval ratings are tanking.

Newsweek's poll, released yesterday, noted that while Bush has "broad support for his position in the affirmative action debate," Americans disapprove of the way he is handling foreign and domestic issues:

"Bush, meanwhile, is losing support in his handling of other issues both at home and abroad. Despite the unveiling last week of a $674 billion economic stimulus package proposal, 46 percent now say they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy; 45 percent say they approve. Support for Bush's handling of the war on terrorism abroad has also dropped sharply over the past few months, from a 70-percent approval rating in late September to 55 percent this week. Thirty-eight percent of those polled say they do not approve of the way the president is handling the terror war overseas."

Newsweek noted that Americans do not necessarily believe that war with Iraq is the answer: "Four out of five polled agree that Americans would be safer and more secure if Saddam were no longer in power in Iraq. However, most prefer to try non-military solutions first in order to achieve that goal."

Support for war in Iraq "declines dramatically" when specific scenarios are given:

"Eighty-one percent of Americans support U.S. military action against Iraq if the U.S. joins together with its major allies and has the full backing of the U.N. Security Council. But support drops to just 39 percent if the United States was joined by one or two major allies in the attack, but did not have the support of the United Nations. That differs from even a week ago, when more Americans supported such action than didn't (47 to 45 percent, according to a PSRA survey for Knight-Ridder newspapers)."

The CNN-TIME poll found that Bush's job approval rating is the lowest it has been since September 11. As of January 10-12, 2003, CNN-TIME cited Bush's Job Approval as follows: National Defense - 63% approval; Taxes - 49%, Economy - 48%, Federal Budget - 43%. It found that "in what could be a key finding for the administration, more respondents identified the economy as a decisive issue at the polls compared to terrorism, 53 percent to 32 percent. And 56 percent of those polled say they believe that Bush generally favors the rich."

posted at 9:46 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

According to William Rivers Pitt, the payload defines the warhead. Inspectors found empty warheads, so by definition they are not chemical warheads. I think he is nitpicking, but he does make important points: inspections work. No lives were lost. Those warheads will be destroyed.

UN inspectors also found evidence of Iraq's attempt to make an atomic bomb. Of course inspectors were bound to find evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Those 8,000 pages missing from the Iraq weapons dossier included lists of American companies that provided the necessary ingredients to make them. It's no surprise that Iraq hid its intent to build a nuclear bomb. Saddam is a liar. No doubt about it. Could this discovery be the "smoking gun" the Bush administration has been looking for in order to obtain the order to attack Iraq? Maybe. Maybe not. It could signal a need for more inspections. US chief weapons inspector Hans Blix needs more time to assess the level of Saddam's nuclear capability. Although Americans agree that Saddam should be removed from power, most prefer to achieve that end without using military force. More on that in my next entry.

If proof that such weapons exist or are being created was enough for the Bush administration to demand approval to invade, we would be at war with North Korea right now.

posted at 9:14 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

January 18, 2003

Here is more information about the threat war poses to ancient sites.

The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954)

CHAPTER I: GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING PROTECTION
Article 1. Definition of cultural property

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a)
movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
(b)
buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
(c)
centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments".

In November, 2002, Alexandra's blog, Out of Lascaux included mention of the possible collateral damage due to war. I agree with her observations. The "War on Terror" poses risks in addition to the loss of lives and the disingenuous pretense that the Bush administration is fighting for "freedom" and not for oil. We're talking about the Cradle of Civilization - an area of the world where some of the earliest societies had emerged. The city of Ur, in Iraq, is thought to be the oldest in the world. It sustained damage during the Gulf War. These same societies greatly influenced future regimes such as Rome and Greece that our children learn about in secondary school history classes. We risk damaging or destroying an important cultural heritage.


David D'Arcy's article Iraq's History Is Our History, Too named cultural sites of importance to the region, including those damaged during the Gulf War. Here are some highlights:

Kirkuk. Supposedly site of the fiery furnace in the Book of Daniel. Important Ottoman castle. Nearby command centre, army base, air base, large oil refinery bombed 1991.

Samarra. 70 miles north of Baghdad. Northern capital of Caliph Al-Mutasim, built 836. Ancient town extends along Tigris for 20 miles. Great Mosque, Ma'shouq Palace, Caliph's residence, Abu Duluf mosque, Askari Tomb. Nearby main Iraqi chemical research complex and production plant (mustard, Sarin and Tabun gasses); major bridge, and main north/south artery road bombed 1991.

Haditha Near Anah with Babylonian inscriptions and Assyrian minaret. Nearby missile site, air base, chemical weapons complex and major new dam bombed 1991.

Baghdad. World famous National Museum of Antiquities, Abbasid Palace, Mustansiriyah college (possibly oldest university in world), Martyr's Mosque, Archaeological sites of Jemdat Nasr and Abu Salabikh. bombed 1991 because of operation, command and communication centre, presidential palace, major airbases and laboratory specialising in biological warfare.

Ur. Iraq's most famous site, perhaps earliest city in the world. Sumerian city at height 3500-4000 BC. Major airbase of Tallil and radar centre, bombed 1991.

Basra Al Qurna said to be site of Garden of Eden with Adam's tree. Shrines dating back to early days of Islam suffered extensive damage during war with Iran. Nearby naval and air bases, oil refinery, chemical weapons research complex and plant bombed 1991.

As the Threat of War Grows, Archaeologists Make Plea to Spare Iraq's Treasures
Originally published on Thursday, November 7, 2002 by the Independent (UK).
Written by Louise Jury

Excerpt:

"Based on the last Desert Storm, if a battle plan involved an invasion from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, there would certainly be a likelihood of emplacement or trenching in sites," John Malcolm Russell, an American archaeologist told The Art newspaper.

"In southern Iraq, the highest ground is often on top of archaeological sites. If you have bulldozers creating earthworks on these sites, that's going to destroy things."

The threat is very real. Many treasures lie close to air bases or oil refineries or laboratories that were targeted in the Gulf War.

The Kerbala Shia shrine to Imam al-Hussein, the most renowned of Iraq's sacred Islamic attractions, lies near a chemical weapons plant and missile range that were bombed in 1991. Ur, Iraq's most famous site and perhaps the earliest city in the world, is near a major air base that was also attacked. At Basra al-Qurna, a gnarled old tree, known as Adam's tree, stands on the reputed site of the Garden of Eden. A chemical weapons plant stands nearby.

Helen McDonald, of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, based at Cambridge University, said that last time the Iraqis had tried to move a great deal of their most important objects out into stores in the countryside. They have already begun to do so again.

"But some things are immovable - such as huge stones. If a bomb hits a museum or something, that would be it," she said.

Modern Warfare Blights Iraq's Ancient Past

Renewed conflict could boost looting of Mesopotamia, archeologists fear

Damage from weapons is not the only risk posed by war. Looting, sometimes by armed crews, has gutted sites. Following war, financial resources will be needed to provide security to valuable archeological sites to prevent pillaging and looting. Saddam Hussein has built many local and regional museums. Security will be necessary to protect them. An excerpt:

After the last war, the seventh-century BC neo-Assyrian palace of King Sennacherib, in Nineveh, northern Iraq, was stripped of significant wall sculptures -- part of a steady flow of illegal exports that has surfaced on the international market since, according to John Russell, a professor of art history and archeology at the Massachusetts College of Art. Likewise, he said, in nearby Nimrud, a storehouse containing sculptures from another Assyrian palace was robbed.

posted at 8:51 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

The New York Times Magazine included an interesting story about the effect of the endless warfare on archeological sites in the Holy Land. Mesopotamia was located in and around present day Iraq. The earliest written language - cunieform - came from Mesopotamia around 3500 BC. Both astrology and astronomy originated there. The arch and the vault were used in Egypt and Mesopotamia over 1,000 years before they were used by the Romans. Mesopotamia is the source of our 24-hour day and 60-minute hour.

The Times Magazine pointed out the danger war poses to these treasures. During the Gulf War, the walls of the Assyrian Royal Palace in Nimrud had cracked. Nearby tombs of Assyrian Queens and Princesses, said to be the most significant tombs since the discovery of Tutankamen, may be at risk of damage from continued warfare. Samarra is home to a "stunning ninth-century mosque and minaret that were hit by allied bombers in 1991." The site is very close to an Iraqi chemical research complex and production plant. Samarra itself is only 70 miles north of Baghdad.

I went to visit the Semitic Museum at Harvard University two days ago. It currently houses the following exhibits: The Sphinx and the Pyramids, Ancient Cyprus, and Nuzi and the Hurrians. I hope by next summer to join the Harvard dig to Tel Rehov, which is about two hours north of Jerusalem in the Beth Shean Valley. It's about a half hour south of the Sea of Galilee. Tel Rehov was one of the largest Canaanite and Israelite cities in the Holy Land. Another site that interests me is Ashkelon, which is within spitting distance of the Gaza Strip. Digs continue in Ugarit, in northern Syria. Ugarit is a major Canaanite settlement and home of the Ras Shamra texts. My significant other and my friends think I'm a few fries short of a Happy Meal for wanting to go there. Maybe they're right. It's not a particularly safe area. I thought about that, and realized that it hasn't been particularly safe in that region for several thousand years. Next summer is just as good a time as any, assuming I can get the funds together to go.

When I read of the dangers these sites are in, I thought of the giant Buddhas in Bamiyan, Afghanistan that were destroyed by the Taliban. Although this was a serious loss, there is good news: Archeologists believe that there may be a third Buddha. If it exists, it is suspected to be buried in the sand somewhere between the two destroyed Buddhas. Rumor has it that it depicts a "sleeping" Buddha, and that it is much larger than the two that had been destroyed. Imagine the symbolic meaning for that region should it ever be discovered. The day that happens, I would love to be part of the dig that helps uncover it.

posted at 6:25 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Apparently, a North Carolina judge thinks that a father who masturbates in his children's room while they are sleeping is "common and low-life," but not common and low-life enough to qualify for three hots and a cot.

The judge chose to drop the indecent liberties charge because, [u]nder state law, a person is guilty of indecent liberties with a minor if the person engages in a lewd or lascivious act with a child for the purpose of some sexual gratification. Defense lawyer Jeff Cutler successfully argued that the law requires prosecutors to prove Griffith's sexual gratification was related to the children."

This isn't the first time Daddee got himself into a load of trouble (pun intended). He has "previous convictions for a crime against nature, assault on a female and various traffic offenses." He also pleaded guilty to violating a domestic violence order by sending his daughter a birthday card while in jail. He was sentenced to 75 days in jail, which he says he plans to serve That's a far cry from the five years he would have served if the judge had believed that a man who greases his pipe in front of his children had committed a felony.

The only good reason I can think of for why his wife would choose to stay with him is that, if they were to divorce, visitation would permit him to be alone with the children for extended periods of time. At least while married she can keep an eye on them.

posted at 2:59 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Anti-War Protests Scheduled For This Weekend

The national anti-war protest being held at this very moment in Washington, D. C. is accompanied by protests in California, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, and Florida.

Details about the Washington, D. C. protest and other anti-war events is available at the United For Peace web site.

ActNow, The Nation's anti-war blog, provides regular updates regarding new editorials, columns, essays, reviews and activist ideas.

posted at 1:56 PM by Trish Wilson | Link