Another word for rape victims...

And those who love them.

I had a very moving experience years ago. I was helping try a really bad home invading serial rapist, and I was in a room with ten of his victims waiting for the trial to start. Some of them had been attacked 2 years earlier, this slug had a long run. All were strangers to each other.

Anyway, as we waited, one of them said, "Maybe after this is over I won't have these dreams any more".

Another one's eyes got wide. "You are having them too?"

Another one, "I dream about it all the time, I thought I was crazy".

Another, "I keep thinking he is in my house when I come home".

I just sat back and listened to them. Each one of them was having normal post traumatic reactions, yet each one thought she was the only one and was losing her mind. Now I tell that story to every rape victim, tell her she isn't crazy and how to get help if she thinks she needs it. Amazing the number who say "How did you know?"

So, if it's happened to you, here are four things to remember:

1. You aren't crazy. Dreams, sleeplessness, fears you know aren't justified, are all perfectly normal. You'd have similar reactions if you were hit by a car.

2. You will blame yourself. DON'T. Sure, you might have done something that made you more of a target, but HE DID IT. It's ABOUT HIM, you aren't any more to blame than the slightly slower gazelle is for being eaten by the lion. If it wasn't you, it would have been someone else. Learn what there is to learn, if you made mistakes don't repeat them, but HE DID IT.

3. If you feel like your reactions are a problem, talk to an expert. Not because you ARE crazy, but because talking to an expert who tells you that you aren't crazy will be a relief. The expert can also provide you with tools and strategies to help you cope. It will not cost you a dime, if you need help finding somebody, email me at staghounds@bellsouth.net and I'll get you started. Doesn't matter where you live or whether you have health insurance.

4. REPORT IT. That is something you can do, and there are two big reasons to. First, rape is all about degrading you, taking away your freedom. When you report it, you stand up and refuse to accept that. Rapists hug themselves at night thinking about all the victims who never said anything, how they have the added guilt of having just taken it. Those memories are like precious jewels to the perverts- take them away.

In the words of a victim whose case I tried, whose rapist was acquitted, "I don't care. I told everybody in that room what he did, and he had to take it, just like I did that night. He stuck his dick in my ass, but he didn't get my pride."

And you know that he will do it again and again. Don't put yourself in the position of rebuking yourself for having let him get away with it. Without exception, every rape victim I've ever dealt with- no matter what the result in court- has said the same thing- if he does it again it's not my fault.

Think about it. If he had stolen your car you would report it, right? Isn't this more important than a car?

There never would have been affirmative action if...

I wonder what would have happened if back in 1960 or so, Lester Maddox and George Wallace had started policies along the lines of,

"The Supreme Court has ordered that our schools may no longer separate negro from white. Since we all know that negroes are inferior, we will now implement programs to insure that negroes are accepted to selective institutions. These programs will create lower standards for admission for negroes, since they are not able to meet the standards white applicants can. We will call the programs 'affirmative action'."

Oh would that they had.

He dodged the draft...

http://www.nationalreview.com/memorial/memorialhelprin.html

Pantry Proof that Marxism can never work...

I have been thinking about Kelo and the one hundred percent error rate of government planning for "developement". Any sensible person knows that professionals in all sorts of businesses are often wrong in their predictions of the future. Why would mayors and aldermen, merely expert ballot whores, do better?

And if there was REALLY a chance that the scheme would turn a profit, you could be sure that the businessmen would want it all to themselves.

Then I thought of an example, a parable in a way, that refutes the very idea of Marxism's, Keynsianism's, and Socialism's basic foundation, economic planning. The next time some goof is going on about things like "it will bring in revenue", or other Soviet planning nonsense, have this conversation.

You- "Let me ask you something. You live within minutes of stores constantly stocked with every sort of household commodity, right?"

Statist- "Yes, I do".

"Have you ever had the experience of going to the pantry or the storage room for something- sugar, toilet paper, anything like that- and finding there was none, that you had forgotten to replenish that item?"

"Yes, everybody has."

"That, my friend, proves that planning can never work. You can't even plan the needs of YOUR OWN HOUSE. You can't keep abreast of the 50 or so things you PERSONALLY use ALL THE TIME. Don't feel stupid, it's universal. If NO ONE can plan HIS OWN needs, how can you expect anyone to ever do even a mildly competent job planning for anyone else?"

And if he does not fall to the ground like Saul on the road to Damascus, make some money. Have him list 10 household items. Then have him plan his year's requirement thereof. Give him a week to do it. Then have him give you the sole copy of the plan, and have him keep a record of what he uses of each item. At the end of a year, compare the actual results against the plan. For each item that he is within an agreed range of the plan, (e. g., within 5 rolls of toilet paper, to avoid gross overbuying), pay him a sum. For those where he was 5+ out, he pays you the same sum.

I'm going to call this the "Pantry Proof".

Famous Soldier Test...

Orright, try this on your friends, Americans.

Who are the U. S. A. 's most famous soldiers? I don't mean Generals, and not your great uncle Jim, but famous working soldiers? And why?

War by war, you'll get-

First world war? Sergeant York, maybe Rickenbacker. Killed lots of enemy.

World war II? Audie Murphy. Killed lots of enemy.

Korea? Nobody.

Vietnam? John Kerry. Killed one enemy, threw away medals.

John McCain. Captured, imprisoned a long time.

Iraq?

(No, "that football guy" Tillman was Afghanistan. ) IRAQ.

That's right-

Lynndie England. Naked prisoner on leash.

Jessica Lynch. Captured, tortured after being knocked out in a truck wreck.

And now "that protestor woman's son", Casey Sheehan. His mother is angry.

Should we see a pattern here?

An outrage indeed...

Via some internet character,

"The only time local stations or newspapers cover a local Marine or Soldier is if they die in combat. That is an outrage."

"I did it because I knew no one else would. A lot of others could, but no one else would."

"They have a bachelor's degree in Mass Media or Journalism, possibly the worst education possible outside of a teaching degree."

"I worked in television for four years producing newscasts every day, these reporters are some of the least equipped individuals to be covering important topics that affect people's lives. "

"Twenty years ago, or even ten, it took a huge infrastructure to allow one guy in a safari jacket to report from places like Baghdad and pretend he knew what was going on there. Now it can be a do-it-yourself project. This is probably bad news for terrorism, which is an information warfare operation disguised as a military one, and one that is based on taking advantage of the kind of reporting (hysterical and shallow, for the most part) that traditional mass media tend to do. I suspect that the growth of guerrilla media -- ranging from operations like Faces From the Front, to reporting by freelancers like Michael Yon, to reports from Iraqi bloggers and even emails from soldiers -- has made the terrorists' task tougher, as the reporting is by people who are much closer to what's really going on, and much more closely connected to their audiences."

This is another real journalist, in the Yon and Ernie Pyle mold. Amazing how weak just a couple of good reporters make the whole sorry media establishment look.

http://www.facesfromthefront.com/

A letter for Maureen Dowd...

Maureen Dowd, now that Mrs. Sheehan became a vocal opponent of the war, asserts that

"the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

Intrigued by this discovery, I wrote for clarification-


So let me understand, if Harald Quandt had been shot down Magda Goebbels would have then assumed absolute moral authority? Oh wait, only the parents of children killed in Iraq. That's a relief.

Is assumed the right term? Absolute moral authority status must require awareness of the child's death, since only burying the child confers it. (It would be silly to think that a parent could be an absolute moral authority in the interval between the death of the child and notification of the death.) But at what point does the parent become morally absolute? The day of the funeral? A week later? A month?

Or just when she finally gets around to agreeing publicly with Maureen Dowd?

And since parents who bury children killed in Iraq have absolute moral authority, shouldn't we now refer moral questions to them? Can they tell me, for example, if it is stealing for me to take home a blank cd from work to replace one I paid for but used for work purposes, without going through the company reimbursement process for a lousy dime?

And are the parents who bury Iraqi children killed in Iraq also absolute moral authorities, or is this another lefty whites only policy? For example, the parents of jihadis who believe that Ms. Dowd should put on a burqa, stay home, and do as her husband commands?

Just wondering.

Sometimes I start to think I'm doing something worthwhile...

Prosecuting my burgalrs and murderers.

But then I read this

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/08/jungle-law_10.html

or this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8941525/site/newsweek/page/2/

Although I will pat myself on the back, I bought the camera for Michael Yon to take those pictures.

Aaaaaanyway, I'll start regular commentary tomorrow.

No need to go overboard on ethics...

So the chairwoman of the new Tennessee legislature's ethics committee left that position when it came out that she had accepted a $200 "birthday present" to gamble with in nickel slot machines. Dream big! Didn't resign her office, just left the ethics committee.

Her replacement says...

"I don't see a need for it even though I'm on it."

"Some of the lobbyists are my friends. You see them in the evening, and you have dinner with them because your family's not there."

NO, Rep. Favors, lobbyists dine with you because they WANT SOMETHING FROM YOU.

You have dinner with lobbyists because you WANT SOMETHING FROM THEM.

Rather surprising, Rep. Favors is pretty new but I suppose she knows already how to get along.