The Blood is on No One's Hand but the Guilty, and He's Dead

I suck.

I have a post on Ferguson that's been sitting in my draft section.  I have yet to post my thoughts about the shootings on those two NYPD police officers and the following marches/voices of support for the police.  Well, no time like the present.
-------------------------------------------------------

In case you missed it, back around late December,

An armed man walked up to two New York Police Department officers sitting inside a patrol car and opened fire Saturday afternoon, striking them both before running into a nearby subway station and committing suicide, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said.
The shooting took place in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. Both officers were shot in the head and rushed to a hospital, where they later died.

At a news conference Saturday night, Bratton identified the officers as Wenjian Liu, a seven-year veteran of the NYPD, and Raphael Ramos, who joined the force two years ago.

"They were, quite simply, assassinated -- targeted for their uniform," Bratton said. "They were ambushed and murdered."......

The gunman, identified as 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Brinsley, shot himself inside the subway station, Bratton said. A semi-automatic handgun was recovered at the scene.....

Bratton said Brinsley had shot and seriously wounded his ex-girlfriend Saturday morning in Baltimore and made posts from her Instagram account that were "very anti-police."

Authorities didn't get into the specifics of the contents of the posts, but a police source told CBS News that Brinsley posted a photo of a handgun on Instagram a few hours before the shooting. CBS News could not independently verify that the message came from the suspect.

"I'm Putting Wings On Pigs Today," the post said. "They Take 1 Of Ours. Let's Take 2 Of Theirs. #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGardner (sic) #RIPMikeBrown This May Be My Final Post. I'm Putting Pigs In A Blanket"

While I have no problem with the public showing support for the police force, what PISSED ME OFF about that whole incident was the belief that the protests about recent police brutality and shootings somehow fueled the idea of violence toward the police, leading to the deaths of the officers. That if you protested the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc., that you're against the police.  Take this guy....

Some of his own words:  "Those that incited violence on the streets under the guise of protest that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day. We tried to warn it must not go on, it cannot be tolerated," Lynch said. "That blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the office of the mayor."


Let me make something clear.

You can support the police and still be against police brutality.  You can support the police, know that there are many good police officers, and still protest against the unfair deaths of black men at the hands of some police officers.  The police are NOT above scrutiny.

Now with that being said, this happened:

This was taken around December 13th of last year in New York City in the wake of the police related death of Eric Garner.  The shooting of the officers was around December 20th.  Were the protestors in the video wrong, OF COURSE!

But out of ALL the protests that happened across the country, people took this one group - this one instance, and decided that ALL protests against police brutality (at least the ones in New York) caused the deaths of the two officers.  Ridiculous!   

Now were there instances of police officers being assaulted, yes.  People, especially black people are angry and tired of police brutality happening towards blacks.  But that still doesn't make assaulting police officers OK, and I'm sure most of those protesting against treatment by the police agree.  But the minority cases always take the forefront.

Funny.....police complain that the good cops are grouped with the bad; about how they are portrayed, and they always point out that most cops are good cops.  However, when it comes the protests against police shootings and abuse of power, the few incidents of violence during those protests are constantly used to represent the entirety of the protestors.  The good and bad are grouped together.  Look at how many times people brought up the rioters from Ferguson as an example of the protests over there.  The protestors and rioters were grouped together.   

About the shooter.
To blame the protests for his actions is like blaming violent video games/movies for the actions of school shooters.  Or that a movie/music video/show/video game having a character that think it's OK to kill people means that it tells someone that it's OK to believe that in real life and to act on it.  The shooter was already not right in the head.  He even attacked his ex-girlfriend earlier on, but no one seems to ever mention that..... 

In conclusion, as Jon Stewart said:

You can truly grieve for every officer who's been lost in the line of duty in this country, and still be troubled by cases of police overreach.  Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.  You can have great regard for law enforcement and still want them to be held to high standards.

 Here are some more great comments from people online about the whole thing:

- This phony and logically baffling indignation is similar to that expressed by the St. Louis County Police Association when it demanded an apology from the NFL when several Rams players entered the field with their hands held high in the iconic Michael Brown gesture of surrender. Or when LeBron James and W.R. Allen wore his “I Can’t Breathe” shirts echoing Eric Garner’s final plea before dying. Such outrage by police unions and politicians implies that there is no problem, which is the erroneous perception that the protestors are trying to change.

- It's like people don't understand that the action of a single person does not represent an entire group. Then again, these are probably the same people who think the 9/11 attacks of an extremist group represents an entire culture and religion. Ignorance feeds ignorance.

- In a Dec. 21, 2014 article about the shooting, the Los Angeles Times referred to the New York City protests as “anti-police marches,” which is grossly inaccurate and illustrates the problem of perception the protestors are battling. The marches are meant to raise awareness of double standards, lack of adequate police candidate screening, and insufficient training that have resulted in unnecessary killings. Police are not under attack, institutionalized racism is. Trying to remove sexually abusive priests is not an attack on Catholicism, nor is removing ineffective teachers an attack on education. Bad apples, bad training, and bad officials who blindly protect them, are the enemy. And any institution worth saving should want to eliminate them, too.

And lastly:

The idiots who killed these people are responsible for their deaths!  Can we say that all white people are responsible for over 200 years of slavery, followed by generations of jim crow laws, and now institutional racism?  absolutely not.  some white people are hateful racists, and some are not.  some people are idiots and take the law into their own hands , and others, such as myself,  respect and obey the law.  place the blame where it belongs-on the heads of the idiot criminals who killed these officers!

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (six-time NBA champion and league Most Valuable Player; also an author, filmmaker and education ambassador) also had thoughts to share of his own.  From his article, The Police Aren’t Under Attack. Institutionalized Racism Is:

The recent brutal murder of two Brooklyn police officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, is a national tragedy that should inspire nationwide mourning. Both my grandfather and father were police officers, so I appreciate what a difficult and dangerous profession law enforcement is. We need to value and celebrate the many officers dedicated to protecting the public and nourishing our justice system. It’s a job most of us don’t have the courage to do.

At the same time, however, we need to understand that their deaths are in no way related to the massive protests against systemic abuses of the justice system as symbolized by the recent deaths—also national tragedies—of Eric Garner, Akai Gurley, and Michael Brown. Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the suicidal killer, wasn’t an impassioned activist expressing political frustration, he was a troubled man who had shot his girlfriend earlier that same day.

How Darren Wilson Demonized Michael Brown - from the Root

Some excepts I wanted to share.....Read the whole thing at the source.  It's pretty good.

Stereotypes are dangerous. And for Michael Brown, they proved to be deadly.

Of all that we heard Monday night about the St. Louis County grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Brown, what kept me awake for hours after the announcement was made was Wilson’s testimony.

Testimony in which Wilson said that Brown “had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked.”

It was rife with imagery that dates back hundreds of years as it relates to how white men often perceive black men. His use of vivid language, describing Brown like “Hulk Hogan” while describing himself, in comparison, like a small child holding on for dear life, is troubling. This is the power and danger of racial “stereotypes.”

When we believe that another human being is in fact, not human, we remove ourselves from how we treat, and entreat, them. We justify prejudices. We justify disrespect. We justify dehumanization in ways that can, and often does, lead to tragedy.

.................................

The anger and violence that erupted last night in Ferguson is so much bigger than Brown’s tragic death though. It’s not really about whether Wilson was “justified” in taking a life. Or whether Brown robbed a grocery store for cigars, “charged” Wilson or caused the officer to fear for his life. It’s about a community that feels disenfranchised—and assaulted by the very officers sworn to protect them.

This American tragedy is about a longstanding history of “fear” between white law-enforcement officers and young black men (unarmed, in uniform, in suits or driving while black). And until we address that issue, we will continue to see more teens like Trayvon Martin stalked and gunned down by unarmed vigilantes like George Zimmerman. And we will continue to see the use of deadly force to “subdue” black male suspects who have not been given their fundamental rights of due process.

Ferguson Post Part 1

Well, by now, we all know that Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted for killing unarmed teenager, Michael Brown.  The jury believed that the officer acted within the rules of police conduct and that he was right to feel threatened by Brown.  According to prosecutor Bob McCulloch, the jury reached their decision based on the evidence and testimony from Wilson and black witnesses. 

I don’t know about you, but there’s something fishy going on here.  But I'll save that for the next post.  

Let me take a moment to say this. 

I’m sick of those who are on the side of Wilson, painting those who think he was wrong to shoot Brown as only going by emotion; constantly sprouting that blacks who are against Wilson believe that because Michael was black, he's innocent, and that white cops are always in the wrong!  Or those who believe that racism is only about whether someone is gunned down BECAUSE their black.  Or constantly complaining about Jesse Jackson this, Obama that, the mainstream/liberal media also!  These people miss the point entirely.

Could it be that people are against Wilson because what he did was wrong, and that the evidence and witness testimonies leave much to be desired, even straight up questionable (I'll get to that later).  Many white people say that the right decision was made and it was based on evidence, yet it was mostly white people who cried fowl when O. J. Simpson was set free.  The jury found him innocent based on evidence too....   

Racism isn't only about something being done to someone BECAUSE they're black.  It involves the views, feelings, and fear someone has, and stereotypes people hold, of another person that fuels their actions towards them.  Darren didn't kill Brown solely because he was black, but Brown being black influenced Darren to take actions he wouldn't necessarily have taken had Michael been white or even a hefty white woman.  The point is, many cops out right FEAR black people, especially black men, and that fear causes them to be skittish and jumpy.  And you can't be a cop and feel skittish. 

I heard this on the Steve Harvey Morning Show.  Blacks are used to being "the only one" in groups, whether it be in a class or work environment.  But whites, truth be told, aren't used to that.  Add being sent to areas where there are issues with crime and you got some scared white cops.

Another thing, the protesters in Ferguson being seen as ALL violent really upsets me.  I'm not excusing the rioters, but there were rioters and there were protesters.  Apparently, there was indeed peaceful protests in front of the police station, but of course no one mentions that.  And I got to tell you...while watching the live feed on MSNBC, at times it seems as if the cops were overzealous in controlling the citizens.  For example, threatening to arrest people if they didn't get out of the street and onto the sidewalk....really?  Not to mention at one point sending in TRUCKS that shot out teargas/smoke bombs/whichever it was.  The location where that took place, if I recall correctly, I didn't see any outright rioting.  To make it worse, people claim that tear gas was being flown into people's yards.

Again, I'm not excusing the rioters.  I know that bricks were thrown, a couple of cars set on fire, businesses vandalized, etc.  I'm just saying to not combine the rioters and protesters into one group.  And with the rioters being mostly black, people (especially whites) like to base the entire group on the actions of some.   

Up next, my thoughts on the shooting itself.

Thoughts on Ferguson

I know the whole Ferguson incident has been out of the media for awhile, but I wanted to get this off my chest.

In discussions and arguments I've read online about the Michael Brown shooting and Ferguson protests, common responses from mostly white people are along the lines of "what about black on black crime" or how no one makes a big deal about black on white crime.

For one thing, the blacks HAVE expressed concerns over issues like violence that goes on within the community.  There have been marches, meetings, etc., they just weren't nationally televised. 

Second point - when it comes to black on black crime, more often than not there's no question of guilt and the guilty party is rightfully put away.  On top of that:

On average, blacks receive almost 10% longer sentences than comparable whites arrested for the same crimes

And while we're at it:

From the Huffington Post

• Drugs. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of current illicit drug use was 11.1 % among whites, and 9.3% among African Americans. [5] In a previous year, the same survey found that white youth aged 12 to17 are more than a third more likely to have sold drugs than African American youth. [6] The Monitoring the Future Survey of high school seniors shows that white students annually use cocaine at 4.6 times the rate of African Americans students, use crack cocaine at 1.5 times the rate of African Americans students, and use heroin at the same rate of African Americans students, and that white youth report annual use of marijuana at a rate 46% higher than African American youth. [7] However African American youth are arrested for drug offenses at about twice the rate (African American 314 per 100,000, white 175 per 100,000) times that of whites, [8] and African American youth represent nearly half (48%) of all the youth incarcerated for a drug offense in the juvenile justice system. [9]
• Weapons. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, in 2001 whites and African Americans reported similar rates of carrying a weapon (whites 17.9%, African Americans 15.2%), and similar rates of carrying a gun (whites 5.5%, and African Americans, 6.5%). [10] African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests, and were arrested for weapons offenses at a rate twice that of whites (69 per 100,000, versus 30 per 100,000). [11]
• Assault. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, African Americans report being in a physical fight at a similar rate (36.5%, versus 32.5% for whites), but were arrested for aggravated assault at a rate nearly three times that of whites (137 per 100,000, versus 48 per 100,000)

And I'll leave this here for the heck of it.

More about black on black crime.  From the Daily Beast:  The Trayvon Martin Killing and the Myth of Black-on-Black Crime.

 ....in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag “#justicefordarryl,” Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green’s murder. But this wasn’t a call for help and assistance for Green’s family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday’s decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him “not guilty” of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have ”injected” race into the discussion, as if there’s nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman’s race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the “black-on-black” crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, “49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don’t care. Obama doesn’t care. #JusticeForDarryl.”

......But there’s a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There’s no such thing as “black-on-black” crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you’ll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it’s driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it’s because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.

.....“Black-on-black crime” has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it’s no more real than “white-on-white crime.” Unlike the latter, however, the idea of “black-on-black crime” taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg’s campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.

Now about black on white crime.

It turns out that "most death sentences are handed out for killing white people, even though African-Americans make up 50% of murder victims (they are only 12% of the population)".

In other words,

....if an African-American male had fired ten shots into the SUV of some white suburban kids playing their music too loud, killing one of them, I think we all know there would have been a murder conviction and almost certainly a death penalty imposed.
In case of conviction for murder, African-Americans are 38% more likely to be handed the death penalty than members of other racial groupings.

So basically, when it comes to black on white crime, the conviction of blacks is pretty much guaranteed.  Again, there's not really a questions of guilt.

Then there's this article.

Lastly, one thing that bothered me was the news and media take on the protests.  They basically combined the rioters and the protesters into one group and gave the impression that the protesters were the ones violent.  That was not true; there was no differentiation between the rioters and the protesters.  To make matters worse, the police treated the protesters as if they were the violent ones.  In a continuation post, I plan on posting tweets and pictures recounting the protests and violence from the ones there.

Using Birth Control = SLUT????

Rush Limbaugh has once again stirred up controversy with his comments about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, who - in her Congressional testimony - argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.  From NY Daily News:

Conservative radio host declared Georgetown Law School's Sandra Fluke "a slut" for arguing that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.
The shock jock mocked Sandra Fluke for arguing that her fellow students shell out $1,000 a year in out of pocket expenses. Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, does not cover  birth control as part of its health insurance plan.

Limbaugh dismissed Fluke’s assertion that women may be prescribed the pill for medical reasons and accused her of merely promoting promiscuity.

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” he said. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.”
Limbaugh went on to insult Fluke’s family for raising a daughter with loose attitudes.

“Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?” he said. “Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.”

In order to accentuate his point, he played the 1970s soul song “Troglodyte (Cave Man)” by the Jimmy Castor Bunch. He shouted “get pregnant!” over the lyrics about clubbing and grabbing women.

Even the top-ranked Georgetown Law School, a Catholic institution, did not escape Limbaugh’s sexist wrath.

“Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley,” he said. “Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown.”

.......................

The Case of the 41yr old Teacher and the 18yr old Student

You would have to be living under a rock (or not watch the news) to not know the latest teacher scandal.  From the Modesto Bee:

A 41-year-old Enochs High School teacher in Modesto has resigned and moved in with an 18-year-old student. The reaction has been largely shock, disapproval and betrayal.

The teen's mother has waged a very public campaign on Facebook since last week, when her daughter moved out of the family's home and into a Modesto apartment with the man. He has left his wife and children, one of whom is a junior at Enochs. 

Modesto police are investigating whether there was inappropriate contact before the girl turned 18 in the fall.  And school district and teachers union officials worry that an ethical and moral line has been crossed, even if the student is legally an adult.

James Hooker was placed on paid administrative leave Feb. 3 by Modesto City Schools and resigned Feb. 22, he said Tuesday. Hooker taught business and computer classes, and he was an adviser to three active campus clubs.

"In making our choice, we've hurt a lot of people," Hooker acknowledged. "We keep asking ourselves, 'Do we make everyone else happy or do we follow our hearts?' " Hooker and Enochs senior Jordan Powers said Tuesday in an interview at The Bee that they are making a life for themselves "day by day."

Powers was in Hooker's virtual business class and an associated club until his suspension. They said they met when she was a freshman.

Tammie Powers, Jordan's mother, said she believes Hooker pursued her daughter. She said her daughter's grades fell this year, and Jordan had panic attacks.  "I believe it was the stress of the lie," Tammie Powers said. She said her daughter was "always compliant," kept her room tidy at their Waterford home and minded her curfew. No R-rated movies until she was of age. No lone trips to the mall or the movies.

"I was really, really careful. I wanted her to be safe," she said.  "In hindsight, in retrospect, I should have looked at things differently," Powers said.......

Looking back over phone records, she said she found an estimated 8,000 text messages between the teacher and student going back through the summer. In the fall, about 32 texts a day, starting at 6 a.m. were recorded, she said......

On Facebook, Powers has called Hooker "an arrogant pervert," among other things, and urged readers to "help get the word out" about his involvement with a student.
The hundreds of responses are, for the most part, supportive of her. Many express disbelief.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/02/28/2090490/enochs-high-teacher-resigns-after.html#storylink=cpy

David Wainwright posted that he sees teacher and student as complicit in the relationship, then added: "I just wouldn't of expected this from my fav teacher. What is the world coming to?"
Modesto City Schools Superintendent Pam Able confirmed Hooker's resignation Tuesday morning.

"Allegations of Mr. Hooker having a relationship with a student is the source of great concern for staff, students and parents. I consider student-teacher dating relationships to be not only unprofessional, but immoral," Able said via e-mail.

Modesto City Schools Board President Rubén Villalobos said Tuesday: "Schools need to be a safe place. Anything less than that is a failure." He said he could not comment on the case, but said in general teacher-student romances are wrong "because of that unequal balance of power."

Hooker knows his decisions may have cost him his teaching career. He taught business courses for 15 years and advised three campus clubs — Future Business Leaders of America, Mock Trial Club and Virtual Business Club.  Extra jobs such as the clubs earned Hooker $28,000 in added pay in 2009, the latest figures immediately available. District records show Hooker made $110,537 that year.

Hooker and Jordan Powers said their relationship was strictly teacher-student until mid-December, when they started talking more frequently and then dated. "I just kind of knew that she's the one," he said.

Powers turned 18 on Sept. 5, and Modesto police say that makes her a consenting adult. However, Lt. Rick Armendariz said there is an ongoing investigation involving a high school teacher and student.

Hooker confirmed Tuesday that he remains the object of a police probe. He said he is confident he will be cleared of accusations that any physical relationship started while Powers was a minor.  "There's no evidence of that. There's no proof of that. It didn't exist," Hooker said.He said the criticism is part of a campaign of lies he and Powers face online and in person. "I've been portrayed as a monster through all of this," Hooker said. "I'm not a monster. I'm not any different than I've always been."....

Hooker said he hopes to get a job in the private sector. "We're just taking it day by day," he said.

And We're Supposed to Be in a "Post-Racial" Time....

For those who say that racism or racist tendencies is no longer a big issue, or that we're "post-racial", check this out and get back at me afterwards....

From the The Huffington Post:

The unexpected emergence of Jeremy Lin from the depths of the New York Knicks' bench has been a dream for headline writers and just about everyone who loves puns. The "Linsanity" has spawned some Lincredible wordplay as well as some really unLinteresting phrases.
And, now, we may have found our most offensive headline from a mainstream media outlet.
Several hours after the Knicks' Lin-spired winning streak was snapped by the New Orleans Hornets, ESPN ran the headline "Chink In The Armor" to accompany the game story on mobile devices. ESPN's choice of words was extremely insensitive and offensive considering Lin's Asian-American heritage. According to Brian Floyd at SB Nation, the headline appeared on the Scorecenter app. The offensive headline was quickly noticed, screen grabs, Twit pics and Instagrams were shared and it began circulating widely on Twitter.

The use of the word "chink" is especially galling as Lin has revealed that this racial slur was used to taunt him during his college playing career at Harvard. After a brief run, the headline was changed to "All Good Things.."

...........................

Thoughts to Ponder.....

• HPV vaccine regarding girls and boys. 

Back when there was controversy surrounding possible mandatory vaccinations of girls, I found myself thinking, "Ok this is a good idea, early prevention and all that...". So when I read some of the reactions of parents and officials, was rather confused and annoyed.  It's one thing to have concerns about the safety of vaccinations (that's understandable), but to not agree with mandatory HPV vaccinations because you're not comfortable with the thought of your daughter loosing her virginity and having sex is ridiculous.  Looking back I remember reading comments from parents and people in position saying something like how they'll be teaching their daughters abstinence and how they were too young getting vaccinated against something related to sexual activity.

I wanted to tell these parents to GET A GRIP!

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a Christian and all for abstinence.  But I'm also realistic. 

A parent can teach their child how they should save themselves until marriage until they're blue in the face, and that child may still decide to have premarital sex.  Not to mention that a woman can wait to have sex until marriage and STILL catch HPV because her husband had engaged in casual sex before or adultery during marriage.  A girl receiving the HPV vaccine will not in and of itself encourage her to have casual sex.

Interesting thing though.  I remember reading a long time ago about the HPV vaccine possibly being made for boys.  Recently CNN has had articles saying that HPV vaccine was effective in males and that vaccination of boys is encouraged and even urged*.  It seemed that the main concern in this case was potential health risks for the boys.  NO mention of possible repercussions toward their sexual activity.  Hmmm......But that was when it was first being considered, a few years ago.  Maybe today people are as concerned with their supposed potential sexual activity as well.  Seriously though, what's wrong with taking precautions if the vaccine's proven to be safe???

Speaking of sexual activity.....

• Plan B

As you all know (if you've been watching the news), Plan B was pretty close to being available over-the-counter for females of all ages.   However, it didn't happen:

For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. The decision avoided what could have been a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season..... 

I have to say, I was kind of disappointed with the decision.  Again, I am a Christian but I am also realistic.  If there was a chance that a young girl can avoid an unplanned pregnancy with this pill being widely available then that's a good thing.  I mean, you have condoms being available for boys of all ages.  Why not have the pill be widely accessible for girls of all ages if it proves to be safe to use?

Of course there is the question of when life actually starts.  I don't know, but personally I don't really believe it starts right at conception.  Maybe it's the biology major-side of me....Anyway, while I think abstinence is the best way to go, there are young people that will choose to have sex.  And I would rather a girl use Plan B than have an abortion.

I might make a post of this by itself so I can expand on this more.

• Trigger warnings

From the website Objectify This - What is a Trigger Warning:     

Anyone who reads feminist blogs has come across “trigger warnings” before graphic images or descriptions of rape or violence to women.  The intent of a trigger warning is to advertise the potentially emotionally triggering content of a piece, which might revive memories of rape or sexual assault for survivors.  Survivors of sexual assault are especially sensitive to such images because they are traumatized, and like other traumatized people, this may affect their whole world-view. Some survivors experience post-traumatic stress disorder.............The trigger warning also implicitly validates survivors of sexual assault, by recognizing their existence and their potential needs and offering them control over some of what they process.

I understand the need for trigger warnings.  The consideration for victims is noble.  However, why are trigger warnings exclusive to mainly rape and sexual assault victims?  Not to mention where does one draw the line?  If there are trigger warnings for rape and sexual assault, what about overall abuse (I have indeed seen warnings for domestic abuse), murder, physical assault....violence in general?  Like I said, it's noble to be considerate of victims of sexual assault and rape, but I do wonder if it's leaning closer to coddling.  I know, that sounds mean, and I'm really trying to explain my point in such a way that I don't come across as a b*tch.

What I'm saying is, this world is violent and will pretty much remain violent until Judgement Day.  I guess what rubs me the wrong way is this idea that victims of rape and sexual assault - most of which are women - need to be sheltered and protected as if they're these weak, helpless beings, something that for thousands of years have been associated with women. 

I don't know...I still don't think I really expressed what I was thinking on this point that well :-/

Sandusky vs. Polanski

Sometime during November of last year, I was over at good ole' Oh No They Didn't where I was reading a post entitled Polanski, Paterno, and the Press.  This was during the time which the whole Penn State debacle started.  The article originated from a site called American Thinker. 

If any one lesson was learned these past weeks from the Penn State scandal, it is that our progressive friends have not quite figured out what is right and what is wrong.
On November 5 of this year, for instance, the Huffington Post broke the news to its readers of former coach Jerry Sandusky's arrest for sexually assaulting minors.  Appropriately, there was no irony in the article, no mirth.
"This is a case about a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys," Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly was quoted as saying.
A month earlier, however, the Huffington Post ran a piece by Regina Weinreich on the American premiere of the new Roman Polanski movie Carnage.  Wrote Weinreich approvingly, "At Alice Tully Hall Friday night, where the movie opened the New York Film Festival, audiences cheered Polanski's credit, knowing that this master Academy Award-winning filmmaker would not attend."
At the Zurich Film Festival a few weeks earlier, which Polanski did attend, he received a ten-minute standing ovation and the lifetime achievement award.  Although every sentient person in the film world knows why Polanski missed the New York event, pre-Penn State, they were clearly untroubled.

Here the article talks about the case and the testimony from the victim:

According to the grand jury testimony of Samantha Geimer, Polanski had approached her and her mom about taking photos of Samantha for a fashion magazine.  Impressed and reassured by his celebrity, the mom agreed.  After a couple of outdoor shoots, Polanski and the girl ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house. 

Wrote Polanski in his memoir, Roman, "I could sense a certain erotic tension between the two of us."  At the time, Polanski was a worldly 43.  Geimer was a thirteen-year-old seventh-grader.

At Nicholson's otherwise empty house, Polanski plied Geimer with champagne and had her take her blouse off for a shot in the jacuzzi.  He then gave her a Quaalude.  "Why did you take it?" asked the prosecutor.  "I think I must have been pretty drunk, or else I wouldn't have," Geimer answered. 

Now "kind of dizzy," Geimer still managed to resist Polanski's increasing demands.  "I want to go home," she told him repeatedly.  He would have none of it.  Finally, he cornered her on a couch, put his head in her lap, and started performing "cuddliness" on her -- her word.

"I was going, 'No come on, stop it,' but I was afraid," Geimer continued.  Lacking protection, Polanski sodomized the girl and climaxed therein.  The testimony rings entirely true.  Polanski pled guilty before fleeing and tells much the same story in Roman, though he remains shocked that "I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love."

Given this attitude, the film world's Polanski fans have no reason to believe that he has stopped preying on young girls.  Indeed, two years before the Geimer incident, he had an affair, such as it was, with 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.

............................

Goldstein used the word "misdeed" more than once to describe the child rape that had caused Polanski to flee the country.  In the same article, actor Warren Beatty called the crime a "mistake."

Goldstein concluded that "we" always "forgive [artists] their transgressions" because, in the end, good art trumps bad behavior.  Weinrich came to much the same conclusion in 2011.  "At what point do we say, enough is enough?" she protested of Polanski's seeming persecution.

Weinrich was hardly alone in her indifference to Polanski's crimes.....A month later, the Times editorialized in regard to Penn State, "No one connected to the university should feel anything but shame that the institutional leaders did so little to protect the children involved."

On October 3 of this year, the Wall Street Journal ran a celebratory article about the Carnage premiere.  "Mr. Polanski, of course, isn't allowed in the States," wrote the Journal before citing a joke by Polanski's fellow director Paul Feig, "though maybe he's somewhere here disguised as an old woman." 

A month later, the joking was over.  Editorialized the Journal about Joe Paterno, " ... the coach fulfilled his legal obligation, but not his moral duty, to look after the well-being of that child and others who may have been victimized later."

So what's going on here?  How is one more acceptable than the other?

Is it because in some circles, it is seem as natural for an adult male to be attracted to a mid to late pubescent girls due to evolution and biology?  For example, an ephebophiliac is an adult who has a sexual preference "for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19".  The definition goes further in saying: "In sexual ethics, it may be defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old".  Due to most in this age group having physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to these young people is known to be common among adults.  But even then, Polanski (43 at the time) gave a 13 year old girl alcohol to the point of her feeling "dizzy" and then forced himself onto her.  That in itself is rape.  She said "no" repeatedly; she even said that she wanted to go home!  Even if she freely accepted the alcohol, he had no business giving her any of it!  Really it shouldn't even have gotten to the point where they ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house.  

Did people think that because it happened years ago, and the girl - now an adult - as seemingly moved on, that it should no longer be acknowledged?

In this case, why is Sandusky treated differently?  Is it because the victims were boys?  Yes, homosexual behavior between men and boys were acceptable at some point in the past (for example in ancient Greece), but for most of human history, it was not acceptable.  Or is it because most of the boys seemed to have been pre-pubescent (before puberty).  Not to mention that it wasn't just one victim, but at least 8.

In the end, I agree with the article.  Regardless of difference between the two situations, both men were wrong.  People shouldn't just "forget" or not acknowledge what Polanski did.  Yes, I believe that a person who made mistakes and committed crimes can overcome their past and move on.  I believe in redemption.  However the only way to do so is to realize and acknowledge that some of the things you did in the past was wrong and be sorry for the things you've done.  In Polanski's case, not only does it appear that he isn't sorry for his actions, but he doesn't understand why people had a problem with what he did.  He even fled the country to escape imprisonment (though the claim is that he was possibly bamboozled by the courts in some way even though there was plea deal - going off memory here so correct me if I'm wrong).

I'll leave you with a final quote from the article:

The phrase "double standard" does not do justice to a media that can write approvingly of a slimy predator like Polanski and harshly of an otherwise decent man like Paterno who failed to react to a predator in his midst. 
"Double standard," after all, implies that the media have any standards to begin with.