blackturtleus
- blackturtleus
- +7 diggs
- -4 / +11
Romney seems more like the perfect person to play the part of Ward Cleaver in a remake of "Leave It To Beaver", than someone who is qualified to be the president of the USA. He has all the outward signs of respectability, but he doesn't seem to have actually spent time thinking deeply about anything. There's a shallowness about the things he says and his demeanor, that makes him seem fake and phony. He may just be the perfect epitome of an airhead - he can interact effectively in business and social interactions, but he has no substance.
- +5 diggs
- -3 / +8
I think that is by far the best description of him. He has lead a charmed life. Nothing close to the reality of life for the rest of us. He has never had to suffer the consequences of the decisions he has made.
He protested: for the draft, yet avoided it himself, by using his church.
He used other cash to make money, and daddy's contacts to get those funds. Even when a company BAIN took over went bankrupt, BAIN was paid for representing them in bankruptcy court.
He touts his "job creator" ability, but jobs were not even a target for BAIN, if jobs were ended or created it made no difference to BAIN at all.
Substance?
- +3 diggs
- -1 / +4
FAKE STATS ALERT: "...by the most frequently cited reference, an estimated one in six boys will be sexually assaulted before they turn 18."
While it is true that this is "the most frequently cited" statistic, it is also true that this is an example of what is known as advocacy numbers. Advocates typically exaggerate statistics like this in order to gain support and funding. Such dishonesty should not be condoned and media sources should do a better job at obtaining scientifically validated statistics. The actual stats for the number of children (both genders combined) sexually assaulted before they turn 18 are estimated to be somewhere between one in twenty and one in thirty-two.
- +2 diggs
- -0 / +2
Story in the paper yesterday in relation to the Penn State "scandal" was about how the rates of abuse has dropped from 38% to 55% [depending on the study]. Which is another thing you won't hear from the profit driven advocates, ratings driven media, or the reelection driven politicians... only that it's worse than ever, we need more money, we need harsher punishments, we need to do _more_, blah, blah, blah. Not that it isn't horrible when it happens of course, but some rational thought amongst all the paranoia would be refreshing for a change.
- +3 diggs
- -0 / +3
Found this comment pertaining to this article in a forum thread about moral panics:
"Hmmm... First we have the Penn State accusation and now this. Will there be a rash of sports-related molestation cases over the next few months? Apparently the media has grown tired of teacher-related cases and the Catholic Church thing played out a while ago and Micheal Jackson is dead and so this gives a new spin on an old favorite outrage type story. I'm betting that the accusers are in it for the money, but who knows. I'm in favor of helping people who are true victims, but I'm even more worried about rewarding millions of dollars to false accusers! Next we'll see attorney's ads like this: 'Out of a job and need money? You can make millions by falsely accusing someone of molesting you when you were young! No evidence necessary, just come in and make a claim and we'll get the ball rolling for ya!'"
http://www.tronanews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=36
- +2 diggs
- -0 / +2
Stewart seems to have taken an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude towards Fox News in this clip. Stewart routinely criticizes Fox News for taking statements out of context and yet that's exactly what he does here. Right before the question about being sexually attracted to little boys, Sandusky was asked if he was a pedophile. Sandusky promptly and emphatically answered "No" to that question. The question about being sexually attracted to little boys was a bit redundant and so it stands to reason that Sandusky would repeat it since he was probably wondering why he was essentially asked the same question twice. He responded by attempting to elaborate beyond a simple one word answer since Costas apparently wasn't satisfied with a simple no. Taking another page from the Fox News playbook, Stewart goes on to malign Sandusky's lawyer. Usually Stewart is a bit more impressive, but this clip is strictly amateur hour, perhaps an intern wrote the script.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
FAKE STATISTICS ALERT: "According to the child sexual abuse prevention organization Stop It Now!, as many as one in three girls and one in seven boys experience sexual abuse. By far, most of those cases go unreported."
The actual, scientifically supported, estimate for sexual abuse rates for both genders combined is somewhere between one out of 20 and one out of 32. The fake, advocacy numbers were simply pulled out of the backside of some advocate trying to win support for what may well be a good cause; however, resorting to deception to win support is not justifiable. What goes unreported is the alarming number of false accusations of sexual abuse. Indeed, people are so eager to believe accusers that making false accusations has become a common way to get revenge and in the case of the Penn State incident it may be nothing more than a money grab. While it is possible that Sandusky did sexual abuse children, the grand jury report is not very convincing (unless read naively at face value) and so it is just as likely that Sandusky has been falsely accused.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
Using hyperbole usually is a sign that your case isn't strong enough to hold up on it's own, which isn't the case here so it serves no purpose other than to make people skeptical.
And I'm one of the biggest advocates of innocent until proven guilty, but anyone who heard Sandusky's interview with Bob Costas can't realistically think he is innocent. It is a study in how to give long, meandering answers, with thinly veiled attempts at obfuscating direct and pointed questions.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
I'm not sure if this is what PETA had in mind, but it hardly seems fair that some animals get eaten and other animals get treated like they're part of the family. Stop the hypocrisy and eat a dog or a cat for T-Day this year! Here's my video pitch advocating the inclusion of cats on the T-Day menu:
http://youtu.be/LYmTSIIwGOQ
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
The students at Penn State had every right to be angry. The board of trustees rushed to judgement, as does Jon Stewart, and assumed that the grand jury report contained facts and not accusations. We live in a land where the accused is supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and in this case everyone involved is presumed guilty and will have a hard time proving themselves innocent regardless of what the facts may actually happen to be in reality. The students were protesting this hypocrisy, the political correctness of always believing the accusers, and the whole damage control process that results in many poorly considered and unfair decisions.
- +1 diggs
- -0 / +1
To refer to the accusers as victims is a bit premature since they may well be false accusers. The grand jury report is far less than convincing and reflects the normal tendency of law enforcement to overstate its case in order to advance its agenda of scoring a conviction. To support possible false accusers is to enable plots to get rich or obtain revenge. When the justice system can be used in this way, then its integrity is jeopardized. Further, referring to the accusers as victims contributes to the GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT problem inherent in sex crimes. None of us wants to live in a country where one is guilty until proven innocent! Maintaining neutrality until the defense has presented its case and being skeptical of all claims made by the prosecution is the only way to promote fairness and justice. Anything else compromises the integrity of the entire criminal justice system.
- +1 diggs
- -1 / +2
The grand jury report was not terribly convincing, IMHO, and I'm sure you realize that such reports tend to overstate the evidence in order to advance the case. As for what you consider to be a relevant difference, I simply disagree. While preschoolers may be coaxed into making false accusations with ice cream and praise from an airhead pretending to be a psychologist, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that teenagers and young adults can be coaxed into making false accusations with the promise of multi-million dollar settlements and a little coercion from detectives overly eager to score a touchdown in the form of a conviction. Detectives tend to allow themselves to become convinced of guilt rather easily and from there it's just a series of rationalizations to a false conviction.
- +2 diggs
- -0 / +2
You do raise some valid points, but the chance of teenaged boys being willing to admit to having been sodomized or otherwise sexually abused, even for a big cash settlement, isn't nearly as likely, IMHO. But I find much more agreement with your reply to me than with your original comment.
I also will freely admit that being the mother of two little boys, I have a hard time being dispassionate about this.
- +1 diggs
- -1 / +2
As long as you are including yourself on the list of "internet lawyers" as you put it, then I guess you can't be criticized for hypocrisy. Of course, if all it takes to be considered an "internet lawyer" is that one expresses an opinion regarding legal matters, then, it would seem, that the term is rather meaningless.
- -2 diggs
- -6 / +4
Eye witness accounts have repeatedly been shown to be unreliable and any "confessions" resulting from any "sting" tactic are of questionable validity and open to interpretation. It's best to remain neutral at this time and advocate the basic premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In cases like this one the premise seems to get switched around and none of us wants to live in a country where the accused is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
- +1 diggs
- -1 / +2
i love internet lawyers
explain why defendants are at times subject to increased/decreased bail as well as denied bail.
whether you admit it or not, there is a valid point where the accused will not be treated as 100% innocent based on support of the accusation and nature of the accused crime within an "innocent until proven guilty" environment.
- +1 diggs
- -1 / +2
As long as you are including yourself on the list of "internet lawyers" as you put it, then I guess you can't be criticized for hypocrisy. Of course, if all it takes to be considered an "internet lawyer" is that one expresses an opinion regarding legal matters, then, it would seem, that the term is rather meaningless.
- +2 diggs
- -1 / +3
You completely fail to comprehend anything that I've said. That's because you are sucked into the emotion of the ACCUSATIONS. My assertion is that at this point we only know what the grand jury report says. However, the grand jury report may be entirely inaccurate and may be based on false allegations of abuse. In other words, it has not been proven that any children were actually abused. As reasonable people we must stand up for the idea that the accused is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. What you have done is presume that the accused in GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Rather than honor the most basic principle of justice, you maliciously attack anyone with the moral spine to defend it.
- +1 diggs
- -2 / +3
The best thing to do in this case is to start the recall process and replace all of the members of the Board of Trustees. They are doing the politically correct thing and they shouldn't get away with such cowardice! The right thing to do in this case is to wait and see how this whole matter works out. It is quite possible that Sandusky committed no crime. A careful reading of the grand jury report and a little knowledge of how law enforcement goes about investigating sex crimes (recall the McMartin fiasco and the dozens of similar cases since the 1980s - nothing has changed) would cause any reasonable person to be skeptical of the claims against Sandusky. The Board of Trustees is trying to minimize funding and lawsuit problems when they should be standing up for the most basic principle of justice: The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty! The only people without any moral backbone in this story so far are the members of the Board of Trustees!
- +3 diggs
- -0 / +3
He was seen having anal sex with a 10-year-old boy in a shower. I don't really think a 10-year-old can give informed consent and even if he can, that's still statuatory rape. And that's one case where everyone was informed and basically did nothing.
I'm quite familiar of the cases you're talking about and this is actually completely different. Those cases were where the supposed victims were pre-school aged, for the most part, and were being questioned about what happened at that young age. In this case, all the children were older and in some cases are in their 20s and are quite aware of what happened to them.
And some of the conduct was witnessed. I read the grand jury report and it's pretty damning. I do agree that one of the great things about this nation is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but all the people caring more about the football team than the victims in this case is disgusting.
- +1 diggs
- -1 / +2
The grand jury report was not terribly convincing, IMHO, and I'm sure you realize that such reports tend to overstate the evidence in order to advance the case. As for what you consider to be a relevant difference, I simply disagree. While preschoolers may be coaxed into making false accusations with ice cream and praise from an airhead pretending to be a psychologist, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that teenagers and young adults can be coaxed into making false accusations with the promise of multi-million dollar settlements and a little coercion from detectives overly eager to score a touchdown in the form of a conviction. Detectives tend to allow themselves to become convinced of guilt rather easily and from there it's just a series of rationalizations to a false conviction.
- +2 diggs
- -0 / +2
You do raise some valid points, but the chance of teenaged boys being willing to admit to having been sodomized or otherwise sexually abused, even for a big cash settlement, isn't nearly as likely, IMHO. But I find much more agreement with your reply to me than with your original comment.
I also will freely admit that being the mother of two little boys, I have a hard time being dispassionate about this.
- +2 diggs
- -1 / +3
One of the hallmarks of a person who is drunk on emotion is name-calling. The fact that you resort to such a tactic shows that you have no intellectual integrity. You obviously did not read the grand jury report and your knowledge of the McMartin fiasco is superficial, at best. I suggest you grow up and refrain from the childish habit of name-calling.
- -2 diggs
- -3 / +1
I am drunk on emotion because children got hurt and nobody gave a two s**ts. So yeah, I'm pisse-the-f**k off just like any adult with a heart and soul would be...
But anyway, you just decided to ignore the facts...AGAIN.
How many kids have you raped? Tell us. You are so intent on defending, not only JoePa, but the rapist himself that you must have some bones buried somewhere.
Go to hell. assh**e.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
- +2 diggs
- -1 / +3
You completely fail to comprehend anything that I've said. That's because you are sucked into the emotion of the ACCUSATIONS. My assertion is that at this point we only know what the grand jury report says. However, the grand jury report may be entirely inaccurate and may be based on false allegations of abuse. In other words, it has not been proven that any children were actually abused. As reasonable people we must stand up for the idea that the accused is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. What you have done is presume that the accused in GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Rather than honor the most basic principle of justice, you maliciously attack anyone with the moral spine to defend it.
- +1 diggs
- -1 / +2
blackturtleusFeb 23, 2012Submitter
The story as told by media sources seems convincing at first, but it falls apart when you really think about it. Early in the McMartin case the media had the public convinced that sinister things had happened at the McMartin Preschool. However, after one of the longest and most expensive court trials in the history of the USA, it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax! None of those responsible for allowing the situation to get out of hand were ever held responsible for their incompetence, but several people spent a lot of time in jail and had their reputations ruined as a result. Moral panic anyone?