There shall be more. I truly feel sorry for the people stuck in our wars, but I don't know which I pity most: our soldiers or their civilians. How much longer before the fiction of Exceptionalism is shattered completely and our nationalism be widely known as only a tool of the wealthy? We can't be that far off in time, but in terms of events, I don't know how many.

A symtom of social hysteria is a contempt for and a suspicion toward those who don't show the proper, expected level of fear or outrage.

So, enjoy another friendly bridge burned and another step toward marginalization. I suppose it's better than being successful at starting a social hysteria like the satanic ritual cult "investigations" of the late '80s and early '90s, which started with feminists, and from which people are still in prison on impossible charges. Whenever you disregard scientific discipline and skepticism in favor of grasping fear and outrage, you put innocent people in danger, and perhaps, more danger than the object of your hatred and fear.

I take rape very seriously, BTW, but I draw the line strictly at hysteria and psychosis, and if that isn't serious enough for you then it may be better that I'm not on your visitor list.

A symtom of social hysteria is a contempt for and a suspicion toward those who don't show the proper, expected level of fear or outrage.

So, enjoy another friendly bridge burned and another step toward marginalization. I suppose it's better than being successful at starting a social hysteria like the satanic ritual cult "investigations" of the late '80s and early '90s, which started with feminists, and from which people are still in prison on impossible charges. Whenever you disregard scientific discipline and skepticism in favor of grasping fear and outrage, you put innocent people in danger, and perhaps, more danger than the object of your hatred and fear.

I take rape very seriously, BTW, but I draw the line strictly at hysteria and psychosis, and if that isn't serious enough for you then it may be better that I'm not on your visitor list.

When middle and lower classes become smarter than their privileged overlords, who are subject to hubris and ultimately, laziness. You can't live in a privileged environment and suffer some decay. I mean, just like when we learned to cook and so now straight sets of teeth are become scarcer due to an environment that doesn't insist on a stringent jaw structure. This applies to social structures as well.

I'll tell you, OWS is making a grave mistake here. And I mean one that may cost them any turn of public sympathy in their favor, and that's so important in this struggle.

And, yes, my own first reaction was, "Yeah! Take that SVU." Until I thought about this. They can't afford to be seen suppressing anybody else's speech.

And even if it's a heartless, soulless corporation behind it, the writer and director are creative people and they have their names on it.

I mean if you presume women hide it in anonymous surveys, how can you presume that men don't exaggerate at it in this survey? I mean, men have been known to make up "conquests." Or are you telling me that men are inherently more honest than women, even about their criminal behavior? I find that statement as implausible as you do.

I can't help it that you linked me to the blog rather than the actual study and the blog misinformed me, or that your source was so uninterested that they didn't read the study and look at the age distribution.

So invested? I'm sorry you're irritated for having to provide sources when otherwise I have no reason to think this is credible enough for the effort, at least immediately. Otherwise, I would also be scouring Birther websites just to show I'm invested enough to be skeptical that Obama was born in Kenya. Or how about 9/11 conspiracy? Got to show I'm interested, 300,000 words and a month after I know it's bullshit, just so I have a right to skepticism.

Oops! There weren't any were there?

Yep, even though some Tea Partiers actually came armed, there weren't any arrests.

So, which one is really opposing a corrupt system and which one is a tool of that system?

I now think the Occupiers made a mistake restraining this, as obnoxious as SVU might have been. In the position their in, their support for free speech has got to be unwavering, with as few "buts" and caveats as possible.

As offensive as SVU might be, and my immediate reaction is to be offended by this fictionalization of the movement for commercial purposes, the Occupiers should be tolerant of free speech, as tolerant as they expect the police and city to be.

Besides, even after they found the guy, the sexual assault did occur.

They were wrong for this. It was probably the first big mistake the movement has made, and I'm guilty of it, too.

So, that's something that doesn't really offend either side.

However, L&O doesn't tend to be politically even-handed. What I notice is they make enviro-terrorists or liberal activists the perps, probably just because they perceive it to be topical or unusual, and for no other reason.

I'm thinking L&O:SVU were doing the story about the sexual assault that did occur. If Occupy gets any fictional publicity, why would that event get chosen of all others?

. . . and when you arrived in there, you find the first question is, "Have you ever falsely accused a man of forcing you to have sex with him?" or "Have you ever, for financial gain, spread rumors that a man raped you?"

Wouldn't you feel insulted? How much respect would you have for researchers? How honest would you be? How honest do you think most women would be? Do you really think most women would feel that they owed the researchers the truth?

Now, how plausible is it that they tricked many guilty men into being honest about sexual assault by not calling it rape? Were there any penalties to admitting sexual assault, or just lying on the survey?

Maybe researchers included this question, "Have you ever lied to somebody who offended or insulted you, or asked you obnoxious questions made to make your whole gender look bad?"

So, for the sake of argument, let's say six percent were rapist. Did the survey a control group for how many pathological liars they could expect? Probably, there were more liars than the six percent who said they were rapists.

Before you get into outrage in thinking that any survey on shameful, illegal activities queried with insulting question mean anything, also inform yourself that people lie about sex more than anything else. That scientifically demonstrated fact is the bane of all sex researchers. Sex is psychologically complicated, and people lie about it for all kinds of reasons. Remember that one survey where they asked males of college age how many sex partners they had in the last year? The average number was twelve?

Now the researchers who do these surveys know all this. Yet they put them out these spectacular results as though they have any scientific validity whatsoever. And women's groups simply consume them without question.

In fact, your source says it was college age men, and the numbers, between the surveys, still do not add up. If you extrapolate to the general population, and 4 percent of guys commit 5.8 sexual assaults by that time, there is no way the percentage of women raped add up to only 14.8 percent. Even if the guys were not all college age. In fact, if the men's survey was valid, the number of women suffering sexual assault has to be significantly higher than women are reporting. Like double or more.

So, either women are under-reporting it even in anonymous surveys, or men are over-reporting it when surveys are anonymous, or both. I could imagine why men would try to screw with the researchers; I don't immediately see why women would screw with theirs. Either way, the numbers are questionable.

I hate to point that out. Also, her first link doesn't work.

If 6% of college aged men have raped, and 14.8 percent of women (by the second link) have been raped, and 2.3 have suffered attempted rapes, that's a little more than three women per rapist. And the estimate of rapists has to be placed higher since those were college-age men, and you would think more men would "turn" somewhat later. Now, one would think that rapist would be attacking women a lot more, since as this post also points out, rapists believe other men are rapists. What would restrain them?

It's too bad the first link doesn't work. Wording can be very important in a survey like that, especially when you are trying to measure the incidence of a variable you're trying to evade.

And BTW, I never joke about rape.

I hope my nation doesn't make me eat these words, but with his background, the guy has to be insane on his own ego to even try it, and shamelessly unaware of what a dick he is. Tapping Bolton as S of S seems almost rational by comparison.

Or perhaps before eggs have even evolved? I mean, he hasn't even won a caucus or primary yet. The election year has not even arrived, yet he smugly declared that he would be the winner the day after Cain dropped out. If Cain was standing in his way, Newt should re-examine his own strength as a candidate. Fact is, Newt winning isn't even remotely possible, and the very fact he he would run is a symptom of a personality disorder worse than Nixon's.

Maybe he's just trying to egg on progressive outrage to prove something to conservatives. It's funny how the very thought of appointing Bolton to anything is what's least wrong with Gingrich's statement.

Maybe they wouldn't attract those personalities if they were required to be professional and take real consequences when they brutalize and violate somebodies rights. A city administration that allows this has no excuse. The federal government has no excuse when they don't bring police officers up on charges because of this. Especially when the evidence is overwhelming.