Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Monday, April 06, 2015

So, you gonna apologize?

I knew it was baloney from the get-go. Liberals had been pushing a panic about college rapes when the Rolling Stone happened to pluck a "gang rape victim" out of the sky, just like that. I remembered what that liar Crystal Magnum did to the Duke lacrosse team when she yelled gang rape. She went unpunished, which means 8 years later you can throw the same charge at a different group of male students with impunity.

Rolling Stone retracted and apologized. Will other publications do the same?
Let us begin with the Roanoke Times, which on November 21, 2014, began an editorial:
Governor McAuliffe, stop whatever you’re doing right now.
Pick up the phone and call the State Police.
Tell them to read the now-famous Rolling Stone article that describes in wretched detail how a University of Virginia student was gang-raped by at a fraternity party – apparently as part of an initiation rite — and then discouraged by classmates from reporting the assault because it would hurt their social standing on campus.
I am sorry but no one should take serious a newspaper that bases editorials on a music magazine's reporting. Goodness, its best reporter wrote on peyote, right?

Then there is this from Nicholas Kristof on November 26, 2014:
The revelation of an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity by Rolling Stone underscores how thin our veneer of civilization sometimes is. The article, whose account is unconfirmed, describes an 18-year-old freshman at the university who goes to her first frat party and is led upstairs by her date, pinned down, beaten and punched, and raped by seven men.
Administration policy makes matters even worse. A dean acknowledged in an interview with student-run media that even students at the university who admit to sexual assault invariably avoid expulsion, and that no student had been expelled for rape in years. The student’s report pointed out that the University of Virginia treats cheating more seriously than rape.
Really? You can get 20 years in prison for cheating on an exam? Because that is the penalty for rape in Virginia. Real rape. Not false lying reports like this one. Of course, real rapes are prosecuted in criminal courts.

The Chicago Tribune swallowed this storyline in whole, editorializing on November 28, 2014:
There's nothing ambiguous about the UVA narrative in Rolling Stone: "Jackie" did not consent to be gang-raped when she accepted her date's invitation to go "upstairs, where it's quieter." Yet the university didn't begin an investigation of Phi Kappa Psi until it learned a magazine piece was in the works — even though "Jackie" had reported the incident more than a year earlier.
That's why campus authorities, even if they are sworn police officers, have no business trying to adjudicate rape cases. The potential conflicts of interest are too great. In fairness to the accused and the accuser — and for the safety of the entire student population — those cases should be turned over to the local criminal justice system.
That doesn't mean there's no place on campus for "yes means yes." Colleges can and should foster an environment in which affirmative consent is stressed and expected. It's a concept that should be instilled and reinforced years before those young adults leave home.
It should be a staple of the often-awkward parental chats about sexual responsibility and part of the curriculum in the "reproductive health" classes required of giggling and blushing middle schoolers.
"Yes means yes" is a message that should be ingrained long before freshman orientation.


Anyone in there?

But no one has apologized for Hands Up! I Can't Breathe! One In Five! either.


  1. I'm waiting for the GoFundMe fundraiser to help out poor Rolling Stone and this reporter.

  2. Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, I just Hates me them Faux-News right-wing-conspiracy papers that print such LIES! what? Disregard.

    There's nothing better to wake up to, for a Leftie, than a 2-Minute Hate. Unless it's a 2-day, 2-week, 2-month, or Forever hate.

  3. Hands Up! I Can't Breathe! One in Five!

    One of those is not the same as the others. The NYPD's violent physical assault on Eric Garner, which led to his death, was reprehensible. IMO, at least two of the cops involved in that attack should be tried for manslaughter.

    1. He died of a heart attack in an ambulance, not a choke hold. He was 350 pounds and in terrible health. A grand jury reviewed the case. I shall take their opinion over that of the media.

    2. I did not say he died of a choke hold. I said the violent takedown LED to his death, and that's how the NY medical examiner ruled. Was the police behavior criminally negligent? Some say no, I say yes it was. The arrest was over Garner's alleged street selling of cigarettes, for heavens' sake. And while Garner was no angel, it wasn't that he was selling dope, at least not this time. This was about stupid tax stamps and city revenue. The guy died while the cops were after him for some lousy misdemeanor. Should he have resisted arrest? Definitely not. But when he was on the ground and begging for air, why did the cops have to have their knees pushing on his head? Why didn't they ease up a bit? Their behavior may not have been murder, but it sure looks negligent to me.

    3. It wasn't "assault", which does have a legal definition. It was 'responding to his actions' , which makes it a self-inflicted injury. And the incident began with an official complaint concerning illegal activity, therefore the police response was to take young Gardiner into custody; note also the freshness of his 'rap sheet'.

    4. @Minicapt: If anyone else, a private individual, had done what the police did, by legal definition it would have been assault AND battery and a crime. And if the police had been deemed negligent by the grand jury, it would have been assault and battery and a crime. If the police had been deemed negligent, having failed to show due care in the exercise of their authority, it wouldn't matter whether they were "responding to his actions." Police have a duty to apply a reasonable amount of force in view of the circumstances. What that amount is in this case is up for debate. The grand jury thought the officers behaved properly. I thought they were out of control and that this was a case of runaway police testosterone.

  4. Why should colleges have their own police forces? Why should those campus cops keep investigations and charges from being known by the local municipal authorities? Why aren't the campus cops just a precinct of the local law enforcement?

  5. There will be no justice until "Jackie" is revealed and prosecuted.

  6. Don't forget that Crystal Magnum went on to a bright future of murdering her boyfriend.

  7. The Honor Code requires expulsion for any student who cheats on an exam, or for not reporting another student for cheating.
    That's the basis of the cheating/raping punishment. The University expels for cheating, the rapist is sent to criminal prosecution. The cheater goes through an Honor Code trial, as will the rapist. A convicted rapist will be expelled after due process, as will a convicted cheater.
    We lost 2 in our second year of medical school at UVA. I am glad that we had an honor code.
    We had a president who was a rapist. Nicholas Christoff was ok with that.
    When will we have trials of rape apologists at the NYT?

  8. Why is her name being protected? She's certainly no innocent victim.

    If you get your news from RS, I pity you. We know the real problem is that the legacy media, which is supposedly guided by journalistic principles, wanted to believe this narrative and portrayed it as true before the facts were in.

    Wonder how Gen McChrystal and his aides feel right now?