Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Trivializing Sexual Assault

First the left went after George Will, and now they’ve chosen a really bad target: a smart law professor:

But really, all that vitriol because Dean is “not sure” that an imprecise reading of what I wrote is correct? Even if she had recounted what I wrote precisely correctly, all that vitriol because she’s “not sure” I’m right?

Nor, for that matter, does Dean ever address my point about a proposed California law providing for judging sexual assault complaints by an “affirmative consent” consent standard, but only for college students in college-run hearings; if this is a good idea, why only for this limited category of people in limited circumstances? Why not make it the legal standard for sexual assault in California? A particular scenario can’t logically change from sexual assault to non-sexual assault because it happens the day after graduation instead of the day before.

As for my broader point, that the extremely broad explicit consent standard incorrectly provided on DOJ’s website means that the vast majority of men and women in the U.S. are guilty of sexual assault, Dean doesn’t bother to disagree. Instead, the best she can muster is “I do not think we are looking at any real danger of people being marched off to death camps for kissing each other.”

That’s obviously not really the question. The question is whether you want to create a sexual assault standard that is so broad that a prosecutor (or other authority, if for example it’s a university matter) can basically punish anyone they want to, so long as someone is willing to file a complaint. And so broad, as well, that it trivializes sexual assault, in that it conflates sexual assault with things like reaching out to hold your date’s hand under the dinner table.

We need to push back against these little fascists, hard.

[Update a few minutes later[

More thoughts from Ann Althouse on “chilling” debate.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

Congressional Hobbling Of Spaceflight

1 Comment

Michael Lopez-Alegria weighs in at the Huffpo:

Flying our astronauts should be a national strategic priority, and NASA should be free to continue expanding its use of public-private partnerships and building on its successes. NASA will always lead our nation’s exploration of space, but it must empower all the members of the team that makes that happen, including commercial companies. If Congress can ensure that NASA is cutting bureaucracy and getting the most value for its money, our nation will have a bright future of space exploration ahead of it. If not, our human spaceflight program may be a disappointment for years to come.

Instead, “safety is the highest priority.”

I may have missed it, but I’ve seen no support in the media for the Shelby shenanigans.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The IRS

28 Comments

…didn’t follow the law after it “lost” Lerner’s emails.

Laws are for the serfs, not the enforcers:

Here’s the bottom line. The IRS has been accused of targeting the political opponents of the Obama administration. The response, in rough order of emission, has been:

  1. No they didn’t. It was all (quoth the president of the United States) a “phony scandal.”
  2. They targeted liberal groups too (except the IRS inspector general disagrees).
  3. It was all the fault of two “rogue agents” in Cincinnati (that was Jay Carney’s little piece of drollery)
  4. Then we had Barack Obama’s personal assurance that there was not even a “smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS. “Smidgeon, noun. Informal: a small amount of something.” There wasn’t even a small amount of corruption at the IRS—which is why, of course, a senior agency employee like Lois Lerner decided to take the Fith Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.

Mr. Koskinen’s testimony over the last several days has been greeted with what might politely be called skepticism, not to to say naked disbelief and contempt, by Congress. “You promised to produce documents,” Darrell Issa reminded Mr. Koskinen. “You did not. . . .

You worked to cover up the fact they were missing and only came forward to fess up on a Friday afternoon after you had been caught red-handed.”

Some might say that John Koskinen was guilty of obstruction of justice. Currently, the Wikipedia entry for “Obstruction of Justice” lists four “notable examples” of the crime. Leading the list is Richard Nixon’s efforts to silence people involved in the Watergate scandal. I wonder whether there will soon be a fifth notable example. If so, it is likely to include the names of John Koskinen, Lois Lerner, and who knows how many people at the White House.

Not if the media has anything to say about it.

[Update a few minutes later]

Speaking of the media, now Woodward and Bernstein are wondering where they are?

Apparently, being a Democrat operative with a byline trumps the chance for a Pulitzer.

[Mid-afternoon update]

Mark Levin goes ballistic after last night’s hearing:

Levin also pointed out that Democrats wouldn’t be obstructing so hard if it weren’t for White House involvement, which tells him that this IRS targeting scandal goes all the way to the top.

That would be the way to bet, yes.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!