Author Jim C. Hines recently tackled the issue of rape on his livejournal (again). As usual, his insight on the issue is exceptional. His ability to relate complicated ideas in an easy to understand way is just wonderful. No wonder his LJ is a magnet for great discussion.

However, he recently invoked The Rape of Mr. Smith to show how wrong-headed some prosecutors can be in interrogating rape victims. The story itself is great reading, and it’s short, so go ahead and give it a gander now. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

The questions at the end of the article are hideously biased. For instance, one of them reads, “How else are women blamed for their own oppression?” Really? How about something a little more neutral, like “List other circumstances where a sex is blamed for its own oppression”. The second question just sounds less “men are monsters”-ish.

However, my real issue with the analogy is that it can easily make the opposite point:

If Mr. Smith went into a biker bar in a fancy suit, reeking of booze and slapped a stack of hundreds on the table, you would expect something to happen. In fact, many prosecutors would probably claim he was enticing a robbery. He should have known better than to be in the biker bar in the first place, and that his behaviour was outrageous, and likely to lead to a robbery. A prosecutor would in all likelihood never prosecute that. However, say a stripper went to the bar (maybe she was hired for a stag or something) and was raped, there would definitely be prosecutions.

The problem here is that analogies like The Rape of Mr. Smith make us think of gray areas, when in fact, with rape, there ARE NO GRAY AREAS. Rape is wrong. Period.

Dick Cheney has emerged as one of Obama’s most outspoken critics when it comes to the issue of using torture to extract information from terrorism suspects. He recently criticized Obama’s release of CIA memos outlining the use of torture, saying that it would compromise nation security. The terrorists, he said would know exactly what techniques CIA operatives could use to extract information, and therefore, their fear of capture would be lessened.

Sure.

First of all, time and again torture has proven to be a poor means of extracting information. Suspects will often make up information to escape another beating, and it’s hard to tell what’s true and what’s been concocted.

Secondly, torture is wrong. Period.

Third, I kinda doubt that a terrorist will keep silent, simply because they know they cannot be water-boarded. There are other techniques for extracting information that have been used by police forces across the nation for years which have proven to be extremely effective, even against cults and Mafia organizations that could like likened to jihadist cells.

To conclude, I just have to share this quote from Robert Gibbs, which, I feel, is a profoundly awesome burn. Said Mr. Gibbs:

“That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country. (The) president of the United States in this administration believes that you can. The vice president has come to, in our opinion, a different conclusion,” spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Turns out a group of female ski-jumpers are suing the Vancouver Olympic Committee regarding its decision to abide by the IOC’s directive not to hold a ski-jump competition for women in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

This is a stupid reason to have a court case. I am for complete equality, but not at the expense of common sense.

First, why the hell are they suing Vanoc? What can Vanoc do about it? Defy the IOC? Fine! No olympics for you!

Second, the IOC has said that the sport is not developed enough for the Olympics. What that probably means is that in Canada there are a bunch of female jumpers and perhaps there’s a small contingent of them in some Nordic countries, but internationally, there just isn’t a large enough pool of athletes to make it a worthwhile competition. What good is highlighting the best in the world when only four people are competing (hyperbole, I know). So you’re the best of four. So what? Kind of defeats the purpose of a global competition like the Olympics.

The women say that either they should be allowed their sport or the men’s sport should be canceled, which feels like fantastically poor sportsmanship to me.

Instead, why not roll the women into the men’s competition? Why is this not a solution? Perhaps there’s some physical reason why the women would beat the men or vice-versa, but in the article some of the women claim they beat some of the men, so the footing seems pretty equal to me. Why hasn’t anyone considered this solution?

Tags: Olympics

Sorry I’m so behind. I bought a house, and we just took possession of it yesterday (Don’t worry, I’ll post some pictures of it after the renos are done.)

In any case, I spotted this article about the recent legalization of same sex marriages in Iowa . Personally, I’m not really for or against “gay marriage”, but more for “personal freedom”. If gays want to marry, who the heck are we to tell them no? I sure as heck wouldn’t have wanted anyone to tell me that Alicia and I couldn’t tie the knot. I mean honestly, if Rob and Bob down the street decide to get married, how can it possibly affect you? What doesn’t affect me doesn’t concern me.

In any case, I think Iowa’s governor said it right. Most reasoned broaching of the subject that I’ve see in a long time.

I found this open letter printed in the Georgia Straight, a local left wing free paper here in Vancouver, a couple of weeks ago. Now, don’t get me wrong, even though politically, I’m pretty conservative, I love the Straight for the voice it gives to those who aren’t usually heard.

That said, sometimes there’s a reason those voices aren’t heard. From the article:

We would also recommend that you ask staff to consider if potential penalties involved with Vancouver withdrawing from hosting the 2010 Games outweigh the looming costs to the City for security and other Olympic costs.

This is marginal thinking at best. Pull out of the games? Are you nuts? Imagine the lawsuits from every business owner who decided to move to Vancouver, from every condo owner who bought here, from all the investors in the various Olympic venues, not to mention the costs of all the infrastructure projects begun here in the last four years.

Publishing an open letter by nut cases like this damages the reputation of the Georgia Straight and marginalizes voices that might have genuine, well-thought out issues about the Games (whatever they might be). Most frighteningly, there appears to be some people with medium-sized reputations who signed that letter. Come on, people, try reading what you signed!

Tags: Georgia Straight, Olympics