The Jellywhite Almanac: Tuesday morning bucket of rape edition

Good morning – Taylor Swift had ‘za and ice cream for her 21st birthday, and I’m slowly coming to the realization that she might be a very boring person. That sux. The Giants won an ugly, pre-seasony game last night after three days of travel and a site change.

Minnesota is horrible, btw. A buck-fifty in total offense? AP went 14 for 26 yards. I wonder if Minnesota fans are finally second-guessing the Favre Derby that once again consumed the preseason. Just desserts, I say.

Naomi Wolf has quite the piece on rape – in a 1,500-word piece, she uses the term rape prodigiously, 29 times by my count, the theme of which appears to be there ain’t no escapin’ a duct-tape rapin’… The piece is about Julian Assange being held in solitary confinement on a rape accusation, but her point is that lots of women are brutally raped and … I think that’s her point. While most of the raping cited is from third-world countries, here’s the paragraph that caught my attention:

In the US I have heard from dozens of young women who have been drugged and raped in college campuses across the nation. There is almost inevitably a cover-up by the university — guaranteed if their assailants are prominent athletes on campus, or affluent — and their rapists are free. If it gets to police inquiry, it seldom gets very far. Date rape? Forget it. If a woman has been drinking, or has previously had consensual sex with her attacker, or if their is any ambiguity about the issue of consent, she almost never gets a serious hearing or real investigation.

Wow. The Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape by a stripper were a) athletes and b) affluent, but they were also c) hung out to dry by Duke administrators and faculty, who presumed them guilty long before any fact-finding had taken place. The players were ultimately cleared after their names had been smeared and their reputations ruined, but hey, that’s just one case, right? Odd that Wolf didn’t bring up the most famous rape case in the United States involving affluent college athletes, no?

NPR has a story about charging electric cars, because, well, it’s NPR. No mention is made of what type of carbon-offset or lackthereof is entailed in switching to a car that is powered mainly by gas to a car that is now powered mainly by coal-fired power plants.

This is posted at Althouse and American Power and about a thousand other places – I have more on this at the GOC, but for now, a recap – the Top 10 YouTube vidz of the year:

This piece over at AmThink is decent, but this paragraph sums up the idea:

At the end of the day, President Obama is a politician ill-prepared for the office he holds and desperately seeking help from whoever he feels has an answer to his political problems.  He is in a bed of his own making, able to reach out to only like-minded progressives just as clueless on matters of economics and who really believe that a massive dose of their agenda will succeed where it has never succeeded before.  Obama was shrewd enough to capitalize on a confluence of events to get elected president, but he is unable to admit that he doesn’t know what to do now that he has the job.

H/t Instapundit for this awesomeness on “Meet the Press,” from WSJ Editorial Page editor Paul Gigot:

Well, they’re saying, “No, no, no. No, shift.” However, implicitly, it is a shift. I love the symbolism of two Democratic presidents–not one, but two–endorsing Bush tax cuts, saying, “We need them crucially to help the economy.” The president, I think, is implicitly admitting that tax rates matter. After a couple of years, as you showed on the–with the, the discussion with Austan Goolsbee and Tim Geithner had said, “They don’t matter.” We–now they’re saying, yes, they do matter, and then implicitly admitting that tax cuts matter more for growth than spending. And it makes you wonder why didn’t they do this two years ago.

Also from American Power, there’s this interview about the Celtic Tiger with an Irishman in America:

Great paragraph from John at Power Line:

Karl Marx classified people according to their relationship to the means of production. That was, perhaps, a plausible approach in the 19th century. Nowadays, however, it makes more sense to classify people according to their relationship to the trillions of dollars that flow from the productive private sector to the parasitic public sector. One could argue, with a great deal more force than Marx was able to muster, that 21st century America has a ruling class. It consists of those who direct and profit from the trillions of dollars that our government, at its various levels, extracts from working Americans. The footsoldiers of today’s ruling class are the public employees who command ever-increasing salaries and benefits and who, through their unions, provide much of the money and many of the votes that keep our ruling class in power.

Finally, as my Kindle anticipation grows by the hour, I installed the Kindle for PC ap – time to start downloading!


About godsowncrunk
I'm King B, the originator of the Jellywhite lyrical style and god's own crunk.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: