Who Gets Rights in America?

Family Guy explains who gets rights in America.

Transcript:

Peter: I declare this land, Quahog!

Quagmire: This place is nothing but a wilderness! What're we going to do?!

Peter: We're going to build a new settlement. We'll have a happy, new life and we'll have equal rights for all. Except blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, gays, women, Muslims...Umm, everybody who's not a white man. And I mean white, white. So no Italians, no Polish. Just people from Ireland, England, and Scotland. But only certain parts of Scotland and Ireland. Just full-blooded whites. No, you know what? Not even whites. Nobody gets any rights. Aah, America!

Let's Call It What It Is: RAPE

On May 1st, the Oakland Tribune published an article about a not so uncommon crime: Two Charged in Sex for Debt Payoff Case in Oakland. Looking at the title, it seems like a simple case of prostitution. "Two charged in sex for debt payoff." Sounds like a lady couldn't pay back her debt so she decided to prostitute herself out to the guy so that she wouldn't have to pay.

Oh, no. It's so much more disgusting and terrifying than that. This article SHOULD be labeled "Two Charged in Rape for Debt Payoff Case." Russell Bileci, 47, owed Maurice Williams, 49, $100 that he had borrowed earlier that night. Williams demanded that it be paid back by later that night. Without the cash to pay him back, Bileci decided to strike a deal with Williams.

Bileci told Williams that he could rape - oh, I'm sorry, have sex with - his girlfriend, an unnamed 46-year-old woman. The woman was asleep in the bedroom that she shared with Bileci when Williams came in and raped her.

This poor woman woke up, demanded to know what he was doing, and was then hit and threatened to be killed by Williams as he proceeded to rape, sodomize, and orally copulate her.

Bileci, the woman's boyfriend of six years, did nothing to stop the rape and "sat in a chair" and "did nothing" to stop the rape as she screamed for help.

Although her pleas and screams for help did not seem to bother Bileci, other residents heard her but were threatened by Williams not to intervene. At 12:30 a.m., some residents finally called 911.

This horrifying event went on for about a half hour before police officers barged into the scene. Williams was caught red-handed, disgustingly enough, as they found him forcing her to orally copulate him in the bathroom.

Williams is charged with two counts of rape, four counts of oral copulation and two counts of sodomy.

For sentencing enhancement purposes, he is also accused of having four prior felony convictions going back to 1987, including two for possession and sales of narcotics, one for assault with a deadly weapon and one for theft.

Bileci is charged with "in concert" counts of rape, two counts of oral copulation,sodomy and four other counts of pandering.

What has become of the men?

Both men have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them and are scheduled to have a pretrial hearing May 19. Williams is being held at Santa Rita Jail in lieu of $550,000 bail. Bileci is also being held there in lieu of $360,000 bail.

This entire scenario is disgusting and terrifying (although not uncommon) enough. But to add to all of this, for some reason the reporter decided not to use the word "rape" ONCE in the article, except when citing the official charges.

This happens way too often in journalism. When a rape occurs, a person is simply "having sex" according to most reporters. Why is that? Is there something wrong with the word "rape?" Does the word "rape" bring up too many disgusting images, is it too triggering?

I wonder if most reporters like this even realize that in some states sexual assault and rape are considered two completely different things in the court of law. In some states, the term "sexual assault" is used interchangeably with "rape." In others, sexual assault is the act of doing sexual things against one's will just short of actually penetrating the victim. Rape, of course, is the actual penetration of someone against their will.

In respect to this article, I looked to find what California's definition of sexual assault and rape are. As it turns out, sexual assault and rape ARE two completely different things with different punishments.

As stated in California's Penal Code 243.4 (a) :

Any person who touches an intimate part of another
person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or
an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person
touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual
gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery.  A
violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding
two thousand dollars ($2,000); or by imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding ten
thousand dollars ($10,000).

Rape is defined in California's Penal Code 261 - 262. The punishment for rape, as stated in California's Penal Code 264 (a) :

Rape, as defined in Section 261 or 262, is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

You're journalists. You should do some research and know whether your state has different definitions of sexual assault and rape. And you should NEVER try to downsize rape by using the word "sex" as a replacement.

This is where a lot of men and women who have been raped get confused. If sex is the same thing as rape, then why would they ever want to have sex? Doesn't that mean that sex is always supposed to be painful, always supposed to make you submit to someone else's will?

Sex involves love, or at least respect. Rape? Not a bit. There is no love in rape. There is no respect in rape. A friend of mine's counselor put it in a really nice way that I like. She said that rape uses all of the same parts and may mimic some of the same actions, but it is NOT sex.

I love how she said that and I think that this is a message that we should be sending out to everyone. I can't even begin to tell you how many survivors of rape that I have talked to that all tell me they're afraid to have sex. They say they don't want to go through that same pain again, that they don't want to be hurt (physically or otherwise), and they're just scared.

No one should have to be scared to have sex. Sex is not an evil. Rape is the evil. We need to help spread this message, especially to journalists and reporters who seem to think that switching the word "rape" out with "sex" is okay.

It is not okay.

Words do matter. They do make a difference.

Drew Petterson indicted for murder of Kathleen Savio

Breaking news!

Drew Peterson, the former Illinois police sergeant, who has been a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, has been taken into police custody this evening.

Police officers stopped his car this evening and he was indicted on the murder charge of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Kathleen Savio was found dead in her bathtub on March 1, 2004. Originally, her death was ruled as an accidental drowning, but after Stacy Peterson went missing in 2007, Savio's body was exhumed and went under forensic examination.

This is a HUGE deal! Like another O.J. Simpson case, Drew Peterson has been suspected by the public at large for killing/assisting in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. The police were called 18 separate times to his house for domestic violence with his wife Kathleen Savio alone.

His other wives have also said that he has been abusive in the past. According to his second wife, Vicki Connolly, he was abusive throughout their 10-year relationship and was also abusive to her daughter from the age of 8 to 17.

It would seem that after this story became a huge media outbreak that there would be no more worries about new victims being added to Peterson's toll. However, in December 2008, it was confirmed that he was engaged to a 23-year-old mother of two, Christina Raines, who claims to love him and insists that she does not fear for her safety.

On January 30, 2009, it was brought to attention that Raines had moved out of Peterson's house. According to authorities it was because Christina Raines' father had given her an ultimatum: Peterson or him. He had already announced that he would not attend their wedding. Raines' father told the press that he was concerned about how Drew Peterson had begun to control his daughter and he feared for her safety, comparing her to Stacy, Peterson's last wife.



Unfortunately, in February 2009, Drew Peterson and Christina Raines both appeared on NBC Today together, announcing that Raines had moved back into the home with Peterson. Raines admitted that none of her friends or family members support her decision.

Drew stated that even though his divorce to his still missing wife is not yet final, he wishes to be married "as soon as possible."

It seemed like all we could do was hope and pray for Christina Raines safety, but thankfully, now Drew Peterson is arrested and charged with murder for at least one of his wives. This is a huge step.

Let us hope that justice will be done and that he will claim no more victims.

Supreme Court - Sexism v. Ed Gillespie

Yesterday afternoon, CNN's "The Situation Room" had former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie on to discuss the nominees for Supreme Court Justice. Gillespie stated that "it would be wrong" for President Obama to only check out women for potential nominees because, he explained, President Obama should be looking for "the most qualified candidates."

When Blitzer asked about Harriet Miers, a nominee that Bush had originally selected to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor after her retirement, Gillespie put his big ole foot in his mouth with this:



Transcript:

Blitzer: …remember the president, your President, the President Bush, uh, he did find a woman, Harriet Miers—

Gillespie: I remember it well. Yeah, sure, I was there.

Blitzer: —to be his nominee, and that didn't exactly work out. Did he get gun shy after that?

Gillespie: He did not get gun shy after that, uh, but I think that, you know, in the next round of, uh, the selection process, uh, the person who emerged as clearly most qualified—really head and shoulders above, uh, others—were Samuel Alito, and there wasn't really a woman who was of a comparable experience and skill and temperament and intellect.

It amazes me that somehow there was not ONE woman, not a single lady, who was better/equal to Alito (who actually ticks me off anyway, so please don't let there be an equal counterpart!) even lived in the U.S. No, he couldn't have just said there wasn't another [enter specific party here] woman, but there just wasn't a woman in general who could take on the job.

What I love especially, is that there wasn't a woman with a good enough temperament as this Alito, this man. Because, y'know, all women are crazy, hormone-driven, PMS-ing creatures who can't ever act emotionally rational. Ever.

Yep. You got us there, Gillespie. We don't have any women capable of being judges. I mean, c'mon.

They're women. Non intelligent, PMSing, emotional women.

Silly lady folk. Thinking that they might get a fair representation since they make up over half of this country's population. What were they thinking?

Real ladies don't vote!

American Dad!, you sly devil, you've done it again.





Transcript:

Hayley: This whole business of baking contests for women is so 1950s. Why don't you get back your right to vote while you're at it, Mom?

Francine: I don't vote. It's just so confusing. I go into the booth, pull the curtain, and count to ten. Then I come out, yell, "DEMOCRACY!" and run to my car.

Afghan Women Protest New Law

Today, in Kabul, Afghanistan, roughly 300 women protested the pending law that, if passed, would require a woman to gain permission from her husband before leaving the home and even give in to his sexual desires (a.k.a., allow a woman's husband to rape her.)

Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed the bill last month and Afghanistan's Parliament approved it. The law was forwarded to the Ministry of Justice and Supreme Court for review on April 4th. Although the full text of the bill is not currently available to the public, it has been confirmed to allow a husband to demand sex from his wife every four days, unless she is sick or could somehow be physically injured by intercourse. It also changes the age at which a girl may be married to only 16. (Think about it, parents. Your sixteen-year-old daughter - y'know, the one that's so "sweet" and wants to learn how to drive so she can take her friends out to Taco Bell during lunch period during school? Yeah, she'd be married off. Imagine that and shudder, if you will.)

The only women who would be affected by this law would be Shiites, making up less than 20% of Afghanistan's population of 30 million people. Still, many people are afraid that this sort of oppression of Afghan women would lead back to Taliban-like rule.

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001.


The protest, featuring women holding banners reading, "We don't want Taliban law," took place outside of a Shiite mosque. This mosque is actually run by Ayatollah Asif Moshini, the most powerful Shiite cleric who played one of the biggest roles in drafting and passing of the bill.

These women were amazing brave as counter protesters - roughly 1,000 men and women - shouted obscenities at them and threw small stones and pebbles at the protesters.

"You are a dog. You are not a Shia woman!" shouted one enraged man to a protester holding a banner. "This is my land and my people," she responded.

"We are here to campaign for our rights," asserted an Afghan woman, speaking in a loudspeaker at the protest.

Many counter protesters, which included both men and women, said that the protest was the fault of Westerners who misinterpreted the law.

As reported in The Associated Press:

"We don't want foreigners interfering in our lives. They are the enemy of Afghanistan," said 24-year-old Mariam Sajadi.

Sajadi is engaged to be married, and said she plans to ask her husband's permission to leave the house as put forth in the law. She said other articles — such as the one allowing husbands to demand sex — have been misinterpreted by Westerners prejudiced against Islam. She did not elaborate.

The counter protesters continued to mock the women, "Slaves of the Christians!" as they pelted the women with stones. The police tried desperately to keep back the angry mob as they tried to attack the women.

According to Jeremy Starkey, a reporter for The Independent newspaper who attended the protest, "I saw the men surging forward on a number of occasions."

A number of policewomen joined arms to form a circle around the women protesters, shielding them from the violence of the crowd.


For more information about this event, click on these links:

Afghan Women Pelted With Stones During Rape Law Protest - CBC News

Shakesville has two posts - One with the Quote of the Day and one with pictures aplenty to get your blood boiling.

Afghan Women Attacked For Protesting Marriage Law - The Associated Press

Afghan Women Protest New Law on Home Life - New York Times

Afghanistan Won't Allow Law Forcing Martial Sex, Envoy Says - Bloomberg

Bill O'Reilly and the "Left Wing Loons" Continues...

So last time I introduced you to the Bill O'Reilly "zomg they totally made fun of me1!!!1!1one!!" issue. Amanda Terkel, a blogger on ThinkProgress.org, was harassed and stalked, then ambushed by O'Reilly's henchman. O'Reilly airs the footage, editing to his delight, and then talking trash and making false accusations of Amanda Terkel and the ThinkProgress.org crew.

Well, you'd think that a little (well-read, but still relatively small in the big scheme of things) blog and a young lady like Amanda Terkel wouldn't be much of a threat to O'Reilly, right?

Wrong.

Oh, goodness, that man cannot stop talking about ThinkProgress and the rest of the "hate" website! Believe me, people, Bill O'Reilly keeps doing such childish things as calling names (I'll get to that in a sec), making up lies (They're haters! They attacked a rape victim and her family! They're just like Hitler! ...oh wait, scratch that last one), and just talking about Amanda Terkel and what she wrote non-stop.

I mean, c'mon, Bill. Someone writes a post on a blog that isn't affiliated with any big corporations (not according to him, though) and mentions something horrible you said a couple years ago. She didn't attack you, the Alexa Foundation, rape victims, or anything. She merely brought to light that maybe, just maybe you weren't the best speaker for the It Happened to Alexa Foundation event. And yet here he goes, whining, complaining, and calling names.

Alright, let's cover what he's doing now. I was hoping that after the whole ambush thing on Ms. Terkel that he might have one more segment about it and then leave it alone. Nope.

Amanda Terkel, distressed (but still strong and moving!) from her harassment from O'Reilly and his henchmen decided to take action against his "ambushes." She started the Stop Supporting the O'Reilly Harassment Machine project. Terkel, along with anyone else who wants to join her campaign, e-mailed the O'Reilly Factor's corporate advertisers, detailing what happened to Amanda Terkel and at least 40 other people over the years, and asked that they stop advertising during his show.

Of course, why would anyone listen to a little woman and a few other people against the big Bill O'Reilly and the big cash awaiting them? Well, you'd be surprised. You see:

1. It's not just Terkel and a few of her readers. So far, over 10,000 (yes, you read that right) have responded and e-mailed the advertisers. One person can't do a lot in this kind of situation. But 10,000? Heck yeah, baby!

2. True, a lot of corporations are extremely reluctant to give up advertising time, but there has actually been a lot of progress, and some of the corporations have actually agreed to boycott the Factor!

UPS issued a statement on March 26th. An excerpt:

UPS values and takes seriously the comments from personal emailers and those posted on your site....Further investigation is underway related to this placement.

Today, UPS announced that it would no longer advertise during O'Reilly's show! An excerpt:

Thank you for sending an e-mail expressing concern about UPS advertising during the Bill O’Reilly show on FOX News.... At this time, we have no plans to continue advertising during this show.

So yes, a difference can be made. And sure, people say that oh, some other companies will just take the advertising space and the show will go on. But look at what's happened already! UPS said it wouldn't advertise during the showtime. I think that's a huge thing, and the biggest thing we need to do to stop Bill O'Reilly from doing such heinous things such as stalking (I don't think we'll ever be able to make him stop saying bad things about victims) is to raise AWARENESS. The more people who see what O'Reilly is doing, the more people who will boycott, stop watching entirely, or do some sort of action of their own.

Now all of this seems to be getting under Bill O'Reilly's skin. He first accuses NBC of controlling Amanda Terkel, sorta like a pawn, I guess. Then he accuses ThinkProgress of being a part of or forcing NBC to do things. Well, which one is it, Bill? Does NBC own ThinkProgress or does ThinkProgress own NBC? And is Amanda Terkel just some simple young lady who was used and paid to write a blog?

For anyone, even his followers, it's pretty difficult to keep up with what's going on in this situation according to O'Reilly. His opinion and what's going on changes all the time. It's very confusing.



I especially love this quote:

They’ll go after your sponsors, they’ll go at your house, they’ll go after your family.

Yes, O'Reilly, we have obviously all gone after your family, standing outside your house with torches and pitchforks. Oh, wait...
However, YOU, sir, did have a young woman stalked and then harassed for statements she made a long time before. And you're saying that they're evil? Really, O'Reilly? Really?

Now did you notice who else was suddenly tossed into the mix? President Barack Obama. Now how in the world does the president of the United States have anything to do or even care about what a blog says or does?

Think Progress is a part of the Center for American Progress whose co-founder and CEO is John Podesta. Well, apparently Podesta has access to the president and while O'Reilly did us all the favor of not directly accusing him of being part of these "loons," he certainly seems to constantly press the issue that he has access to the president.

It's like he's trying to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. Watch out! Crazy left wing loons are in with the president! The horror! What next? Commies??

O'Reilly later read questions that people sent in to him and one of them asks, "how do you expect to avoid a lawsuit after you attacked John Podesta?" O'Reilly explains that he has only presented the facts with no "ad hominems." Really? Check out what ThinkProgress has to say about that.

It seems like there is beginning a bitter feud between O'Reilly and...um...well...about half of America, really. So who will win?

Stay tuned and find out!