home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

There seems to be a lot of news today, and even though we posted a lot, we didn't cover everything.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Rod Blagojevich May Not Testify After All | Vilsack Reconsidering Shirley Sherrod Firing; Sherrod May Not Accept Reinstatement >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    PromDate-Gate Settled (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:34:54 PM EST
    (CNN) -- A school district in Mississippi has agreed to pay a recent high school graduate $35,000 in damages and adopt a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to a statement released Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.

    The settlement comes after the ACLU sued the school district in Fulton, Mississippi, on behalf of Constance McMillen, a lesbian teen who was told by Itawamba Agricultural High School officials she and her girlfriend would be ejected if they attended the school-sponsored prom....

    In March, a federal judge ruled that McMillen's First Amendment rights were violated when her school district refused to let her attend her prom in a tux with a girl.
    That was good news, said her attorney, Christine Sun, senior counsel with the ACLU's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender project. It set a precedent and helped broadcast an important statement, which was made stronger by virtue of where it came from, she said.

    cnn

    Squeaky, a jarring part of this story, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:36:25 AM EST
     is the "cruel joke"  (cruel, yes, joke, not so much). After the Federal Judge ruled in March that Constance McMillen's rights were violated, the April 2 prom was cancelled and students, parents and school officials organized a decoy prom for her while the rest of her classmates were at a another prom 30 miles a way.

    Parent
    That and the (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    fact that the entire town obviously thought this course of action was 100% ok and legal is just astonishing to me.  Whatever your personal views are, and there are people all over this country with those personal views - I really feel like you must be living in such a bubble if you don't realize this isn't legal.

    Hopefully this story will help burst whatever bubbles are left in this country.

    Parent

    Oh man... (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    I hadn't heard that.  That is indeed cruel.

    Parent
    Sticking Point? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are, in fact, shopping around the idea of a reality show about their relationship -- but the sticking point appears to be the level of commitment on the network side.

    "They want a commitment for an entire series, but right now, there's only been interest in testing this out as a pilot," a source close to the couple tells PEOPLE, adding that negotiations are ongoing. "There aren't a lot of options for them out there, and this is their best chance at making a decent amount of money."

    link

    Wonder if they threaten to break off the engagement the teevee networks will give them a whole season...

    Bet that the idea is engagement, wedding, honeymoon, morningsickness, preparing Tripp for a sister,  and the finale will be a live teevee birth.  Wonder what the second season will be like.

    The second season (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:07:38 AM EST
    will have the two of them and their two children Tripp and Truman getting in a sail boat to brave a storm trying escape small town Wasilla only to crash into the backdrop sky of the fake Wasilla set. They will exit stage left saying, Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

    Parent
    but first (none / 0) (#16)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:32:16 AM EST
    they will say they can see Russia from their sailboat

    Parent
    Or Obama vacationing on (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 05:44:27 AM EST
    the boat next door.

    Parent
    Local news touts clinical trials (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    of Botox cream.

    We have found the WMD--and it's in aunt Betty's medicine cabinet.

    the end of busing? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    in one NC county causes protests and 19 people were arrested.

    The question here is whether students should still be bussed or if they should switch back to community based schools (save money on transportation costs).  The issue at stake is of course resegregation when you go back to community based schools - since neighborhoods are still largely segregated.

    This is also a question in Boston - where there has been a lot of talk about ending busing.  Here the stakes might be different though.  Basically once busing was introduced most of the white students just left the public school system altogether and went to Catholic or other private schools.  So the public schools are no longer segregated - they are just all predominantly minority students (with the exception of a few magnet schools).  Busing is no longer needed for desegregation because it's not accomplishing anything.  In fact, this article, opposing busing in Boston today, was written by one of people who was a target during the race riots in the 70s.

    I will say the comments on the original article (about NC) are discouraging.  Lots of "if you don't like the school - just move" comments.  Which is obsurd since a) it probably has everything to do with cost, b) this is a terrible time to try selling a house, and c) it has EVERYTHING to do with cost - you can't move if you can't afford to.  People don't usually choose $hitty school districts just for the hell of it.

    Ga primary was (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:16:37 PM EST
    today. I guess results will be in soon.

    Barnes or Baker? (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    Looks (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:30:06 PM EST
    like it's going to a runoff so far. Barnes is leading.

    Parent
    I meant to ask (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:47:10 PM EST
    what your pick was. It looks like Barnes is going to easily win without a runoff.

    Parent
    I voted (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 06:14:24 AM EST
    for Barnes. Yeah, he did win easily. When I checked earlier they were talking runoff for him. The GOP is going into a runoff with Deal and Handel.

    Parent
    DADT survey (none / 0) (#4)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    I like that Aravosis took the DADT survey.  One might think it odd someone not in the military was able to take the secure survey, but for some reason I don't.... not even that he was able to get multiple pin numbers and take it 3 times. :)

    PIN = personal identification number :) (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    Sorry, I hate being that guy. My dad used to literally smack me when I would say PIN number so every time I hear or read it I instinctively fear for my safety.

    Parent
    Capiche (none / 0) (#9)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    The La Brea Tar Pits = The The Tar Tar Pits

    Parent
    the hoi polloi (none / 0) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:30:20 AM EST
    the the masses

    Parent
    Cop affixing GPS to car IS a search (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:18:06 PM EST
    according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court (pdf)

    The Early Daze, pt. 13 (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:35:13 AM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:06:22 AM EST
    A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew.

    Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.

    When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.....

    Gideon Levy, a liberal Israeli commentator, was quoted as saying: "I would like to raise only one question with the judge. What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman?

    "Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not."

    link

    this is a case of (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:48:03 AM EST
    "don't sleep with someone you barely know and expect everything they tell you to be true"

    that doesn't make it rape.

    And NYshooter I think the question was more of "if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman" in Israel - would he have been convicted?  Probably not.

    If they were in Palestine, who knows, but my guess is the woman would have gotten in trouble (possibly even killed - "honor killings" are fairly prevalent) for premarital sex.

    Parent

    yeah, probably right (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:58:02 PM EST
    but at least in Israel you have a wide variety of judges, odds would be better.

    Orthodox, Muslim countries...eeeek, don't even want to think about it.

    Parent

    Didn't see (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:14:08 AM EST
    where any legal authority said "of course not."

    Sounds like Levy baby, still perspiring from covering that wet dream, kinda got a little carried away.

    Parent

    It ain't righteous... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:47:15 AM EST
    to lie somebody into the sack, but it sure as hell ain't rape or assault either...that's crazy.

    Parent
    Well, they (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    take their superstions a little more seriousley over there than you or I might do here. If it was the guy's fairy land it took place in they'd probably invoke the death penalty.

    Parent
    I immediately thought... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:33:59 AM EST
    of George Costanza, when he'd claim to be an architecht to impress the ladies.  Now Costanza was a lot of things, but rapist wasn't one of 'em:)

    Which guy's fairy land btw...the palestinian who claimed to be jewish, the prosecutor's, the judge's?  

    Parent

    Oh, sorry (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    for the confusion.

    I was questioning what would happen if a Jewish guy, let's say in Iran, masqueraded as a Muslim.

    My quess: one, or both would be killed, and if one was spared, they'd probably have some limbs missing.

    I'm with you on cages, but if you have to be caught, let it be in Israel.

    Parent

    They guy shoulda claimed he converted... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:18:57 PM EST
    the religous loons love new recruits, especially when they steal one from the other team.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    In Israel, it is.

    From Reuters:

    The court said that while the woman agreed to the sexual liaison two years ago, the man misrepresented himself, and it had a duty to protect the public against "sophisticated, smooth-talking criminals who can lead innocent victims astray."

    A legal precedent in Israel classifying sex by deception as rape was set by the Supreme Court in a 2008 conviction of a man who posed as a government official and persuaded women to have sex with him by promising them state benefits.



    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    Was also married.

    Parent
    They can pass a law saying... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:53:29 AM EST
    all sex out of wedlock is rape...doesn't make it so, all that means is that Israel has some really whacked out criminal law, like most of the world.

    I'm not talking about the legalese definition of rape in Isreal, we know how legalese can get it all twisted...I'm talking about the real world definition...aka the use of force, against ones will.  This lady was willing...by real world definition it can't be rape, it's simple deception.  Not at all cool, but certainly not criminal...no matter what the stupid law says.

    Parent

    You have to separate rape as defined (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    by law and as defined by you, the U.S., whichever.

    In Israel, it is rape.

    If we want to change its laws, we have to move there and convert and give up U.S. citizenship and. . . .

    Nah, best we stay here and work on the many, many problems in our laws.

    Parent

    If you think written law... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    in any old banana republic is the final arbiter...then yeah, this is rape and stoning is a legal just punishment for women who commit adultery.  

    I look to my conscience as final arbiter...some law written and signed by shady pols is certainly one of the last places to look for truth....the proof is this case.  If this is rape, I'm an astronaut...and if I can convince a small group of knuckleheads in DC the same, I'd be a "legal" astronaut....but I still wouldn't be any closer to a space walk sister:)

    Parent

    Sure, and I agree, but (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:38:49 PM EST
    a bit of nuance about the law as a human construct, a societal construct as constructed differently in other societies, especially on a law blog, seems useful.

    Or, sure, we can all sign on to say we're against rape -- as we define it.  

    So let's get into American exceptionalism.  Why do you think we ought to impose our laws, our morals, on another country?  And one that is based on its religion, which defines this as rape?  

    Parent

    Cuz a human being is being caged.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:59:14 PM EST
    basic human rights being infringed is good enough reason for me to impose my opinion and my scorn.  I'm not trying to tell 'em how to live, just saying you shouldn't put people in cages for not being truthful about which sect of superstition they belong to...if that isn't obvious.

    I certainly wouldn't go so far as to invade Israel over it...maybe we could threaten to withold the next weapons check until they clean up their law books...though we should clean up ours before we demand it of others:)

    Always useful banging heads with you Teach:)  I just took exception to jb saying it is rape because the Israeli code says so..."because I said so" might work on kids but we're grown ups here, we (or I) need sound reasoning, not "because the legislature and prime minister said so."  It's a bullsh*t answer to the question "how can this be called rape?".

    Parent

    Hey! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:21:02 PM EST
    I'm not saying I agree with it, but Cream is right- if Israel decides this act was rape, then it was.  It's a subject we have a problem with here in this country (did she say yes, did she mean no, did he think she meant yes, was she drunk, did he know she was drunk, was she of age to consent, did he know that?).  It really doesn't matter what you or I think.  30 years ago, a man could force his wife to have sex, but it wasn't rape (legally).  Times and definitions change - maybe this one will too so this guy can get out.

    But also, assuming this guy knew the law, then it's hard to muster up sympathy for someone who knowingly does do
    ething wrong and then comains when they get caught.  If he didn't know the law, I guess the authorities need to do a better job of educating the public.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    You never saw a law that you couldn't stand behind in some contorted way if necessary.

    Under Jim Crow any and all sexual interactions between Black men and White women was illegal, illicit, socially repugnant, and within the Jim Crow definition of rape. Although only 19.2 percent of the lynching victims between 1882 to 1951 were even accused of rape, Lynch law was often supported on the popular belief that lynchings were necessary to protect White women from Black rapists.

    By your logic the US was correct.

    What about this:

    Under BushCo waterboarding was not conisdered torture, and indefinate detention without the protections of GC international law was legal.

    Again the US is correct?

    And what about this, which is now law:

    Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, yesterday asked the High Court of Justice to expand the panel that will hear its petition against a new law that denies citizenship or residency rights to Palestinians who marry Israelis.

    and this in response to the Israeli law:

    A court in Cairo has upheld a ruling urging the government to consider stripping Egyptian men who are married to Israeli women of their citizenship.

    The ruling requires officials to send all such cases to the cabinet, to be decided on an individual basis.

    And I am sure that your line was: if South Africa decides it was rape, during the Apartheid laws, it was rape.

    Disgusting.

    Parent

    Hey! (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    I'm not saying I agree with it, but Cream is right- if Israel decides this act was rape, then it was.  It's a subject we have a problem with here in this country (did she say yes, did she mean no, did he think she meant yes, was she drunk, did he know she was drunk, was she of age to consent, did he know that?).  It really doesn't matter what you or I think.  30 years ago, a man could force his wife to have sex, but it wasn't rape (legally).  Times and definitions change - maybe this one will too so this guy can get out.

    But also, assuming this guy knew the law, then it's hard to muster up sympathy for someone who knowingly does do
    ething wrong and then comains when they get caught.  If he didn't know the law, I guess the authorities need to do a better job of educating the public.

    Parent

    Still disagree... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    this ain't rape, it is a kidnapping, and the convicted is the victim.

    Parent
    Sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    It's an interesting case "sex by fraud" because I wonder if they will prosecute married men who tell women (like this guy did) that they are single?  Isn't that the next logical step?

    (Although there are many state statutes here in the US where it is illegal to get sex through force or deception too).

    Parent

    the law (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    has never been applied in this manner before - so there is no reason to think he would know he was breaking the law.  It was an unprecedented act and is being appealled because it sets a very bad precedent in the courts.

    Also - squeaky has a very interesting point - would they prosecute a non-virgin for rape for lying about virginity?

    All that ignores the fact that he never even said he was Jewish - she just assumed it based on the name he gave.

    And setting all legal issues aside for a minute - this is clearly a very racist reaction by the woman - who saw no problem with sleeping with a man she had just met (to me that kind of rules out the whole "thought it was for marriage" argument) - until it turned out he was an Arab.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    He introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor.  Is there some report out there that states he never told her he was Jewish?  I haven't seen that.

    And even though squeaky is unsuccessfully trying to once again divine things that aren't there, I said I didn't agree with this conviction.  Apparently he thinks we are talking about apartheid and goodness knows what else.

    However, originally, kdog made a definitive statement that "this isn't rape". Rape, for these purposes is whatever the state says it is.  It's an interesting case, and I hope his conviction gets overturned, but we all know this is about the politics of the region.

    Parent

    In the article (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    The first paragraph states:

    "A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with an israeli woman who believed he was Jewish because he introduced himself as "Daniel""

    Later:

    "The court heard accusations that Mr Kashur misled the woman, whose identity has not been disclosed, by introducing himself with the traditionally Jewish name"

    nowhere does it say he actually said he was Jewish.

    Parent

    and actually (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    according to the defendant (link) he wasn't lying about his name either:

    "according to Kashur, he did not pretend to be Jewish.

    He told reporters that he is known by friends and family by the nickname Dudu, which is more commonly used by Jews called David."

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    according to the article (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    he didn't even really say he was Jewish - he just introduced himself as "Daniel" and she assumed as much.

    Interesting - what if he had legally changed his name but was still Muslim?

    Also from the article:

     "A conviction for rape by deception on the grounds of racial misrepresentation is believed to be internationally unprecedented"

    "while forced sex by deception is an offence under Israeli law, legal experts say it is a charge used sparingly in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage"

    in other words - this is not simply business as usual - not even in Israel.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    This case distorts the SC case that called the serial f*cker's actions rape, because he preyed on women in an extortion type racket. It used to be called fraud, but the Israeli SC took it a step further and called it rape, that is bad enough.

    But to call willful deception rape could mean that if you told someone you loved and then had sex, you could be charged with rape.

    And that is absurd, enough, but to put someone under house arrest for 2 years, on only her say so, and then slam him with an 18 month jail sentence, when he denies having lied to her, but claims that it was her who assumed he was Jewish, is really over the top racism, imo.

    This case will go to the SC, because it sets an extremely bad precedent.  What if a woman told a guy she was a virgin and they had consensual sex, and it turned out she was not a virgin, would she have raped him?

    Parent

    When I logged on to my laptop (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    yesterday morning (not to RR), I got a message from Road Runner saying I (or my e mail account) was named in a complaint for downloading movies and/or TV shows.  Pretty weird since I haven't.  Broad brush approach, I gather.  

    "Pretty weird since I haven't..." (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    Likely story, you criminal mastermind you...save it for the judge! :)

    Parent
    My first thought: prove it! (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    I'd think about throwing... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    that hard drive into the Pacific just in case you've been framed...have you seen the penalties for illegal downloading?  No freakin' joke.

    Parent
    I am about to do that anyway. Had Geek (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    Squad get my wireless network up and running again.  Now the laptop is beyond slooooooow.  

    Parent