News that makes you angry
 

A high school cheerleader is sexually assaulted by a basketball player and some of his friends. He gets off with probation. She gets kicked off the cheer leading squad for refusing to cheer her attacker.

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/...for_her_rapist
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=23416

Basketball is serious business.

"Johnny, Johnny, he's our man,
If he can't rape you,
Nobody can."


Yeah, I'm on her side.

That is totally messed up.

I guess more sad than angry, but still qualifies...

For those of you old enough to remember the live broadcasts of these Hearings, this is a good review.
CBS gives several links to interviews and broadcasts.

CBS News.com
Oct. 20, 2010

Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas: The Backstory
Virginia Thomas' Message to Justice's Accuser Rekindles Scandal that Erupted during 1991 Confirmation Hearing


My wife and I feel that Anita Hill could have responded by suggesting to Mrs Thomas that she instead ask for an apology from her husband.

These pictures capture what I suspect is a reflection of the situation.
Anita Hill as a happy, successful academic
Clarence Thomas as a very angry man whose reputation will not surpass even GWB's

Clarence Thomas is a joke.

Unfortunately, the joke is on us.

Yeah but his dick is as big in diameter as a can of coke.

I just came across this article this morning, and it changes my sadness to madness.

Granted there is criticism all round for this woman putting her career
before the good of the Judicial Hearings process, and for now trying
to cash in with her "tell-all" book.

But, if true and had it been known at the time, Thomas probably could have never been confirmed.
This article seems to provide independent confirmation of what she alleges... too late.

Washington Post article

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2010

Wow - Not sure if I believe this one or not. The interesting thing is that it happened right around the time of the phone call. I wonder if the wife was really stupid enough to leave a voicemail if thats the case. Curious to say the least.

They are playing Mrs. Thomas' voice mail message on some of the conservative talk show radio broadcasts.

As a judge, I believe Thomas is surprisingly good. Does that mean that he's not got his failings, as a human? That he never groped or tried to make time inappropriately, with Anita?

No. Our judges, like our Presidents and all the rest of us, are only humans, and we do have our failings. Anita has her failings, as well. By waiting to make her case, just at the moment that Thomas was set to be confirmed, she appears as a stupid tool of the liberals who wanted to shit-can Thomas' confirmation.

If she had an issue with Thomas, she should have raised it, when it happened, not years later, and not to satisfy a political agenda of the left.

We've seen this act by the left before and since. Today it's Meg Whitman's housekeeper, who was hired through an agency, showed proper paper work, and now claims "but they knew...".

Right: Meg Whitmas --- Immigration detective! < ROFL >

Before that it was the left charging Arnold Schwarzenegger with groping a woman 15 years ago, in a gym.

Right: Arnold --- Sexual deviate! < ROFL >

Do you see zee leeetle pattern here?

When it comes to these "oh so timely" skeletons being raised during the run up to an election or a nomination -- sorry. If you don't have 100% foolproof evidence of something MAJOR, you're a put up job, and a whore for being a stupid tool of some political party (doesn't matter which one).

Good post. I wouldn't say that it's just "the left" that does this, though.

What about the other woman that came out against him as well?
If there is corroboration for Hill, that would mean he lied under oath - an inditable(sp) offense.

I'm not too up on Thomas' confirmation. The point to me is this:

1) he's not being appointed a woman's harassment counselor, or something.
Lots of men have harassed a woman at some point in their life. I might venture to say "most men" have.

2) that's a ridiculously easy charge to make against any heterosexual male. You just TRY to prove you're innocent, once you're charged.

3) If any woman had a complaint against Thomas, they should have brought it up, AT THAT TIME. Not years later, just when (oh coincidentally!), he's up for confirmation before the Senate.

The timing of the whole thing, stinks to high heaven, as bad "old school" politics, carried too far.

I don't expect our leaders and judges to be angels of light, straight from the throne of the most pure One. They're men. They like to make time with women. Anita is a good looking woman. Married or not, any man is lying if he says he's not attracted to a beautiful woman. (rare exceptions).

Let's face it, Thomas is a good judge, but he's no Brad Pitt with killer good looks.

I sort of agree, but I think the difference being that a judge should be noted for his or her judgement and awareness of laws -- the spirit and the letter.

It seems he was well known for inappropriate behavior but the women who were in a position to nark on him were also smart enough to realize it would be at the expense of their careers.

This kind of behavior on his part is really in opposition to his role as a judge and objective interpreter of the law. It shows poor judgement and a dismissal of laws about workplace comportment. A person's motivations for bringing something to light don't make the offender's actions any less offensive, but self serving motivations for whistle blowing may also reflect poorly on the whistle blower.

But don't the judges consider the intent of the law? The workplace sexual harassment law, was not to prevent women from being hit on, or witnessing crude behavior, it was to prevent women from being groped or forced to put out, as a condition of employment.

Being asked out repeatedly after rejection and suffering repeated crude behavior and comments (asking about breast size fall into this category) are both viable reasons for claiming sexual harassment when they interfere with the workplace environment and even more so when its done by a superior. I don't know if Anitas case fits that, but the stories going 'round say Thomas did both often. Perhaps knowing the law, he was able to keep his behavior on just this side of reportable, but it still was offensive.

I don't think he kept it, "on just this side of reportable", from what I heard of the testimony. But at the time, blacks were not completely comfortable in their government jobs, and wary of making waves, especially women.
I'm convinced he's an arrogant pig, but I don't think he used unemployment as threat to get laid.

The threat of unemployment isn't the only thing needed to claim harassment.

I know that, but not sure I agree with it. The law is way to all encompassing, in that anyone can say they are annoyed by anything, rational or not.

If it is a severe offense it only has to happen once, but otherwise, stuff like crude jokes, sexual innuendos, and constantly being asked out is something that has been repeated often enough to disrupt the work environment to be considered viable harassment. At least that's what I am reading. A woman should not have to endure that kind of behavior in the workplace, ever really.

Yeah but it depends on who decides between sexual innuendo and a compliment. You know as well as I do there are some people that are wound differently than most, and interpret everything around them as a threat, be it words or the weather. Most cases end up being he said/she said, and at least in large companies, the lawyers recommend siding with she said, to cover their corporate asses. In that case the law becomes a weapon for all kinds of extortion.

You mean "No one" - right?

Of course, Classic. But it is mostly women who suffer that kind of abuse in the workplace.

I think it is about a "hostile work environment" and not put out or get fired.

I was curious about how many cases were filed that were successful even though the situation was a he says/she says. You cant find those kind of numbers. But what I did find was interesting. Of the cases that got filed with the EEOC in 2009 :

47.5% were No Reasonable Cause
EEOC's determination of no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation

23.7% were Administrative Closure
Charge closed for administrative reasons, which include:failure to locate charging party, charging party failed to respond to EEOC communications, charging party refused to accept full relief, closed due to the outcome of related litigation which establishes a precedent that makes further processing of the charge futile, charging party requests withdrawal of a charge without receiving benefits or having resolved the issue, no statutory jurisdiction

11.6% were Settlements
Charges settled with benefits to the charging party as warranted by evidence of record. In such cases, EEOC and/or a FEPA is a party to the settlement agreement between the charging party and the respondent (an employer, union, or other entity covered by EEOC-enforced statutes).

10.8% were Withdrawals w/Benefits
Charge is withdrawn by charging party upon receipt of desired benefits. The withdrawal may take place after a settlement or after the respondent grants the appropriate benefit to the charging party.

6.3% were Reasonable Cause
EEOC's determination of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation. Reasonable cause determinations are generally followed by efforts to conciliate the discriminatory issues which gave rise to the initial charge. NOTE: Some reasonable cause findings are resolved through negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and other types of resolutions, which are not characterized as either successful or unsuccessful conciliations.

These numbers just don't show to me that frivolous sexual harassment charges are successful.

Perhaps, But it says that virtually 1/2 were dismissed for "No Reasonable Cause"
Is it reasonable to extrapolate that 1/2 the charges are bullshit?

No. Just that there isn't sufficient evidence. Evidence for this sort of charge is not easy to come by. That's not to say that there aren't bullshit charges, just not the amount men like to believe. I do believe, though, that there are scores of women who don't report at all. What's really sad is what happens to women who do...its never pretty. Most don't get the money your hear about from high profile cases.

For those men who have daughters, try to consider what it would be like to know she was dealing with something like this.

..or doesn't exist.

Sorry Classic, I added to my post before I saw your reply.

I got written up for sexual harassment once...

No problem Pico...

Some know EXACTLY what this is like. I have seen this with a coworker once. I've also seen the the other side where it was total BS and done out of malice.

HA! I find that surprisingly easy to believe. ;)

Because cock teasing doesn't count, right? Just because she spent three weeks pay on the outfit, salons, perfume, and accouterments to be as enticing as possible, he should have better self control.

Lol, Bruce, you really sound bitter.

...misogynistic, even.

I know there are some women who tart themselves up more than than is appropriate for work...and if they do so regularly then it would be difficult for them to prove that the attention they received wasn't wanted...but just looking pretty isn't enough to excuse boorishly crude behavior from the men they work with. At a bar, well yeah, you expect it, but professionalism should be expected at work.

So you wish to men into chicks with dicks.

:rolleyes:

When I was in high school I regularly sexually harassed. I did not wear dresses or make up but every day for 2 years several different boys harassed me. It wasn't funny, I did not make it up and other female teachers saw it happen and still did nothing. Of course some male teachers thought it was funny. Are there laws preventing this from happening? I think it still goes on. Its not only a male female thing some people just suck and should therefore visit link

One of the boys that did this to me was a scum bag and I wasn't surprised when they found him shot 8 times behind the school several years after I forgot all about him.

TV news this morning showe an Ohio mother sent to jail because she enrolled her child in the wrong school.
Of course, the Mom being Black and the school being better
than her assigned "neighborhood school" had nothing to do with it

A one-off event ? We are beyond racial bigotry ?

This is your Tea Party in action...
Washington Post
Republican school board in N.C. backed by tea party abolishes integration policy
By Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 12, 2011; 12:38 PM


A small bit of history about this school district ...

Why the NAACP continues as a viable organization:

It's a little late to ask but I'm curious. What did you do???

I am certain you have specific evidence that the Tea Party had anything to do with this event. Please post so we can all review. Thanks.






The NAACP is nothing more than another special interest group. They have long out lived their purpose, well other than for a nice club.

On the NAACP, just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and the Gov of Maine and I seem to agree. :D

Sure that is the headline but nothing in the article even remotely suggests or provides evidence that the Republican groups that took over the School Board was aligned with the Tea Party. They did however refer to a Libertarian activist and an organization called Americans For Prosperity, neither of which claims to be associated with the Tea Party. But they are backed by Koch who has been known to assist in the funding for various Tea Party organizations but that does not make them one in the same.

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/about

Google is your friend:

Should we dispute as fact that he spoke at a Tea Party Rally

Since they have different names, you are technically correct in saying "that does not make them one in the same"
But if the Koch brothers are funding both organizations, and AFP is funding TP events, how are they not associated.
They are, even if they do not openly publicize those relationships.

They are only associated because they have a common donor. So what? Are you bothered by that association? George Soros is much more ingrained in the manipulation of our electoral system, and frankly the economic systems of other countries as well, while he gets uber rich off his exploitive "donations". Yet not a peep from you about him. Why?

It is, but none of that was evident in the article you posted. So what is your point about the article? The average person who read the article would never be able to determine that the Tea Party actually had anything to do with the school board, and frankly I am still not convinced. My point stands. The article did not support your assertions.

Here is a link to that event of the Ohio Mom being convicted of a felony
after sending her daughters to a better school that was not her assigned neighborhood school.

She has been sentenced to community service, but will not
be allowed to perform a service to the community in the future.

This qualifies for a "cut off your nose..." judgment.

Time
Ohio Mom Jailed for Sending Her Kids to a Better*School
By: Madison Gray

Williams-Bolar, 40, and her two children live in housing projects in Akron, Ohio.
For two years, she sent them to school in the Copley-Fairlawn district,
where her father lived, because it was a safer environment --
the high crime rate in her area drove her decision.

The suburban school district hired a private investigator to find their residential records
and it turned out she listed the children as living in that district, although they actually stayed with her.

Technically, that qualifies as a felony since she falsified records,
and Judge Patricia Cosgrove sentenced her to two concurrent five-year prison sentences.
She suspended the sentence, though, in favor of a 10-day jail sentence,
80 hours of community service and three years probation.

She had been working as a teaching assistant for special needs children
and earning a teaching degree, but since she is now a convicted felon,
under Ohio law she cannot earn that degree.

Both girls, now aged 16 and 12, attended schools in Copley-Fairlawn
from August 2006 to June 2008, but now attend school elsewhere,
according to the Akron Beacon-Journal.

This is right in my backyard. Not many people around here on her side. In effect, she stole tens of thousands of dollars in education from another school district. Ohio public school system funding is f'ed up and everyone knows it. This lady trying to cheat the system to get ahead while others play fair gains her little support amongst other area parents. Race had nothing to do with it. The other school system is better funded because it's a richer area (higher property taxes, main source of Ohio edu funding), and so she tried to cheat her way in and got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. Simple as that. If she's willing to falsify records, I don't want her as a teacher in my school district to begin with. Good riddance.

Her father lived in the district and so was paying whatever taxes.

By that logic she also saved her "neighborhood" many thousands of $ by not having her kids that district.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

another opinion on the subject.

Source ???

Everyone is going to see this case differently, including the judge.
Here are some bits from another article:


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/wor...718/story.htmlt (Canada)
Mother jailed for sending children to better school

The woman told CNN the family considered her father's house one of their homes.
"My primary residence was both places. I stayed at both places," she said in an interview at the Summit County Jail.

Her father, Edward Williams, said the children did live with him so he believed the family was within the law.
Then officials asked her to pay US$30,000, the estimated cost of the four years of schooling received by her children without her paying taxes.

Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove said the prosecutor's office refused
to consider reducing the charges to misdemeanours during numerous closed-door talks
to resolve the case outside court, the Akron Beacon reported.

It was just an opinion from someone at the end of a different article.

There are a ton of article on it now, many spliced from each other it seems.
IF what that one person said was true, then it may be a lil different situation than the liberal posts conclude.
On the face, I don't like it, but I have a feeling that there is more to this than I've seen so far.

Not exactly. The districts budget based on reported number of school aged children. Her district was expecting those kids, so it levied taxes based on those children being there. They already had the money, paid for by all the other residents of the district. In effect wasting their hard earned money on higher than necessary taxes. This puts the hurt on the residents who pay for "ghost students".

The opposite occurred in the fraudulent district. They were not expecting those students, therefore did not take them into account for the school tax levy. Which creates an extra burden on them, hence the charge for $30k. No such thing as a free lunch.

My manager was trying to get the bag out of a soap dispenser, but just couldn't get the button just right...
When another associate asked what he was doing, I responded "Molesting the soap dispenser."
Manager was not amused. (I still think its a pretty good joke)

I know very little of the details in this particular case. But I do know at least two economically poorer families that are using the grandparents' house in this neighborhood as their "primary address" in order to get their kids into our high-quality school. As a parent, I can't possibly fault them for doing what's best for their kids.

That logic only works for the first year they're in the "wrong" school. After that, the new school is expecting them, since they had them the year before, and the old school is no longer accounting for them. As far as everyone is concerned, on paper they do actually live at the grandparents' house.

IMHO, this is the bit that you should be getting angry about; giving the children of the poor a second rate education.

I'd look down on you (USA) for this, except we have a very similar outcome (by different method) here. :(

Except this type of thing can go on for years before it is caught, leaving the school districts a lot to catch up on.


Believe me many people are very unhappy with the current funding. The Ohio lottery is a great example of shitty politicians not working in favor of the education system. It was created to allow extra funding to schools, especially the disadvantaged ones in low income areas. Instead the state said hey we got this extra income for education now, let's strip a bunch away for other programs. Which in effect left the amount of funding for schools unchanged. Everyone knows the current system of funding is broken and unconstitutional, and every election there are promises to fix it. But nothing changes. So with the anger over the current funding inequality issues already brewing, there is little room for compassion for someone who cheats the system and causes further problems.

Funding of schools is a very important issue,
but that was not what originally made me angry,
or what subsequent news has increased my aggravation.

There's enough ambiguity in the legal situation to call for someone
in authority to exercise at lease a small bit of discretion.

* The district could have simply refused to admit the kids in the next semester.
Period. And it becomes Mom's problem to resolve

* The district could have deemed the two girls live in the father's home.
Period. End. Done.

* The "receiving district" could receive reimbursement from the "sending" district.
Period. End. Done.

* The D.A. could have reduced the charges to misdemeanors with a fine to be set by the judge.
Period. End. Done.

* The justice authorities could have released the Mom,
on bail or her own recognisance, not 10 days in jail
The bad PR starts and grows from this.

I think the trial judge tried to deal to act with modicum of wisdom.
Whatever misdeed the Mom may have committed, it does not meet my sniff test
for a $30,000 fee, for jail time, or for a permanent felony blot on her record.
I hope the she appeals and can get the conviction overturned or expunged from her record.

This case continues to look like covert racial and/or class bigotry.
If not, it demonstrates incompetence along the entire chain of authorities, except the judge.
And I don't believe Ohio's bad PR will be overcome until someone fixes the situation.

As someone who lives a couple counties over from Wake County (I don't have a dog in that race), but as someone who pays NC taxes, I think that the argument about the tea-party is moot. I don't really care if the school board is Republican, Democrat, or Socialist. It simply doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is that Tedesco and the board want to bring back neighborhood (community) school zones. So your kids go to school with their friends in the neighborhood. Which I think is a great idea.

Historically, the desegregation laws were a good thing, and coming from a good place, namely a desire to integrate kids. I'm down with that. But it's been 60 years, and while I'm not naive enough to believe that racism is dead, I'm also of the firm belief that we should NOT be busing kids 90 minutes each way to a different middle school BASED ON RACE.

So a couple of years ago, they changed the standard from Ethnicity to "socio-economic" factors. They stated a target of no more than 40% of student on free/reduced lunch (FRL) per school. So, see now they could say that it's not RACIAL, it's ECONOMICS. Although everyone knew that the majority of the FRL kids just happened to be black.Gotta love political correctness. But that still left the problem of bussing POOR kids 90 minutes each way to school.

So Tedesco is coming at it like this: neighborhood zoning would provide a savings (currently, WFSD pays quite a few million in transportation (fuel, maintenance, driver salaries for all those 90 minute each way trips, etc).) So lets stop bussing kids and put that savings into the underperforming schools AND build the 12 new schools that we have budgeted into areas that..wait for it...need more schools.

I think it's a perfectly sound, logical way to do it.

My catholic, conservative co-worker, however, feels that "community" zoning is going BACK to the bad old days of segregation. Everyone knows that people who live in a certain area tend to be a certain ethnicity, whether that be a socio-economic reason, a cultural reason, or a racist reason. He thinks that if a 5 block square area for example, is 98% black in makeup, then they SHOULD bus kids out and "bring in" white kids, hispanic kids and asian kids to make up a more racially diverse school.

I think that's bullshit. There is a really good middle school out in my county, and I specifically moved out to that "zone" because I wanted my kid to go to that school. And he did. But if my coworker had his way, my kid would have been bussed to the shit school up county simply based on the fact that he's white. That's racism to me, pure and simple.

Let's spend our energy, focus, and money on making ALL the school in the district equally awesome, instead of spending that money on transporting a white kid 90 minutes to a "shitty school" so a black kid can spend the same 90 minutes on a bus going to a "great school". Make them all great schools.