The “Affirmative Consent” Trap

From Instapundit:

The “Affirmative Consent” Trap -- California lawmakers take on “rape culture” at the expense of rights

The reigning assumption in Sacramento—and Washington, D.C., for that matter—is that universities aren’t taking the problem of campus sexual assault seriously enough. A state audit released in June drew precisely that conclusion, and recommended that California’s state universities “do more to appropriately educate students on sexual harassment and sexual violence.” Every campus has a rape crisis center of some kind, with counselors on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Every campus police department offers rape defense programs. “Take Back the Night” programs are ubiquitous. Is more training and “education”—meaning more bureaucracy—really the answer?

Neither the legislature nor the state auditor seems to challenge the claim, unchanged and virtually unquestioned for nearly 30 years, that either one-in-four or one-in-five college students is a victim of sexual assault. As Heather Mac Donald has pointed out, if that figure is correct, “campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions.” But it’s almost certainly not accurate. “No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years,” Mac Donald observes. Consider the one-in-four or one-in-five figure in light of the number of sexual assaults reported in the nation’s most crime-ridden cities. Mac Donald notes, for example, that the rape rate in New Orleans was .0234 percent in 2012.

Do the math, the conventional wisdom is a lie. Remember Sandra "The Slut" Fluke and her figures on birth control costs for a law student?

The Week in Pictures - Disbarment Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Sandra Fluke on Hobby Lobby -- 'A Woman's Boss Should Not Have a Say'

From Joel Pollack of Breitbart California:

Sandra Fluke, whose campaign for free contraception elevated her to national prominence while she was still a law student at Georgetown University, denounced to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case: "A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions," Fluke stated on Twitter.

A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions-stakes are too high for us to be silent #HobbyLobby http://t.co/xZ247dqtMf
— Sandra Fluke (@SandraFluke) June 30, 2014

Fluke seems to have misunderstood--or miconstrued--the case. Hobby Lobby sued precisely because it did not want to have a say in, or be forced to pay for, the private contraceptive decisions of its employees. The company, which is run according to the owners' religious principles, objected to contraceptives that act as abortifacients.

Similarly, CNN's asked Hobby Lobby's attorney, Lori Windham, why she wanted to "bring the employer into what should be a very private decision-making process between a woman and her doctor." Windham's response: "Hobby Lobby would love to stay out of this, and leave this decision to a woman and her doctor."

Fluke's logic process can be summarized below:

Sandra Fluke Still Wants Stuff For ‘Free’

From Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller:

Remember Sandra Fluke? She’s the professional college student who became famous when a prominent radio host said something rude about her.

Now she’s parlaying that “success” into highly effective political campaigns like this:

Any day now, #SupremeCourt decides whether corporations can deny women access to contraception. http://t.co/xZ247dqtMf
— Sandra Fluke (@SandraFluke) June 27, 2014

Did you catch that? Corporations want to “deny women access to contraception.” By, um, expecting them to pay for it themselves.

Remember, she was the one who claimed that colleges MUST provide contraception to it's female student, because a typical female law school student, life herself, would spend over $3000 during her 3 years in laws school.

So let's do the math. 3 years = 36 months. Assume birth control pills cost $30 a month; 36 x $30 = a grand total of $1080. Just as a side note, Walmart sells generic birth control pills for $4 a month.

I guess she must be using condoms. Again, the math, let's assume she like designer condoms that cost $1 each. $3000 = 3000 condoms ....... 3 years would equal 3 x 365 = 1095 days. 3000 condoms divided by 1095 days = 2.72 condoms a day.

Whoa! ! ! !

It is any wonder Rush Limbaugh called her a slut?

Feminazism After All

From Steven Hayward at Powerline Blog:

I always thought Rush Limbaugh was a little over the top with his designation of feminists as “Feminazis,” but being over the top is his job, after all.  It appears he was also prescient.

Right now the most formidable critic of contemporary radical feminism is Christina Hoff Sommers.  You can view her new YouTube series of short weekly commentaries, “The Factual Feminist,” starting here.

Well, rather than argue with the challenges Christina lays down, someone just decided to . . . burn her book The War on Boys, and post gleeful photos of the deed on Imgur.

Godwin's Law on Internet discussion states that the first one to mention Hitler or Nazis have, by definition, lost the argument, because, they can't argue logically anymore and have resorted to name calling.

Limbaugh has been predicting the direction and zealot nature of the feminists for years and many dismissed him as an "entertainer", but he called this one years ago. Like when he predicted the SUV would become the symbol of global warning in the early 90's.

Indicted Democrat State Senator Leland Yee, the Kochs, and the Press -- There’s no journalistic skepticism about the motives of those on the left.

From Jonah Goldberg of National Review:

Leland Yee, (an indicted) Democratic state senator and candidate for secretary of state in California, has been a longtime champion of gun control. This week he was arrested on numerous charges, including conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and conspiracy to illegally transport firearms. Yee, a prominent foe of assault weapons, allegedly took bribes to set up a meeting between an undercover agent and an international arms dealer to broker the sale of automatic weapons and shoulder-fired missiles. A lengthy FBI affidavit also describes Yee’s ties to a Chinese triad and his desire to help out Islamist militants.

In short, the story makes for what journalists call “good copy.”

And yet, so far no reporter has raised the possibility that Yee supported tighter restrictions on guns in order to keep gun prices high and his own services in demand. Economist Bruce Yandle popularized the idea of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalition. The apocryphal Baptists want to ban alcohol. Bootleggers don’t make much money when liquor can be bought legally at a grocery store or bar. So the bootleggers bankroll the Baptists’ effort to ban booze.

Now I sincerely doubt that Yee was that clever. The more likely explanation is that he believes in gun control and he’s a greedy hypocrite (and maybe not too bright either). The fact that gun-control policies are to his advantage is just a happy coincidence.

What’s interesting — and vexing — to me is that this sort of analysis is all the rage when it comes to conservatives and Republicans, and utterly incomprehensible to most journalists when it comes to liberals and Democrats.

Since he's from San Fransisco, I'm inclined to think he believes in Gun Control (for others) AND is a greedy hypocrite, i.e. a Democrat.

Consider the Koch brothers, the billionaire businessmen and philanthropists. The Democratic party raises vast sums off demonizing the Koch brothers. (Slate’s David Weigel reports that fundraising e-mails mentioning the Kochs raised roughly three times as much as those that didn’t mention them.) This explains why Senate majority leader Harry Reid calls the Kochs “un-American” and liars every chance he gets.

Meanwhile, many media outlets are all too willing to take their cues from Democratic talking points. For instance, the Washington Post recently ran a shockingly shabby story insinuating that the Kochs have a lot to gain from the Keystone pipeline. The story was utterly debunked by John Hinderaker of the website Powerline. (The Kochs have no stake in the pipeline, and even if they did, so what?) But the Post’s piece was typical of the media’s fascination with the idea that the Kochs’ political activities are simply cover for their desire to maximize profits. ......................

I have no problem with journalistic skepticism or the search for ulterior motives. I just object to the idea that only Republicans might have them.

Al Gore reportedly left government with a net worth of less than $2 million; he’s now worth more than $200 million, in part by profiting from climate policies he lobbies for. Gore surely believes in those policies, but why does he get the benefit of the doubt? GE spent millions on politics in exchange for “green energy” policies that generate billions in profits that wouldn’t exist in a free market. Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon recently chronicled how George Soros and new liberal golden-boy fat cat Tom Steyer have financial interests at stake in their own preferred public policies. And yet they get glowing treatment from the press as idealists sacrificing profit for principles.

The irony is that it’d be in the media’s business interest to report on the seedy underbelly of liberal politics, too. But they don’t, because they actually do put their liberal principles before profits.

Al Gore, another liberal Democratic hypocrite.

Woman Who Can’t Afford Her Own Birth Control Scrapes Up Money to File for Congressional Run

From John Fund at National Review:

The retirement of liberal Democratic warhorse Henry Waxman has opened up a House seat that includes almost all of Southern California’s most tony neighborhoods: Malibu, Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, and Rancho Palos Verdes. Up to a dozen candidates will run in the non-partisan June primary, in which the top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to a November runoff. Two possible surprising outcomes: Feminist icon Sandra Fluke going to Congress or the district electing a small-business-owner Republican-turned-independent. ........................

Fluke has since moved to Los Angeles and become a “social-justice advocate.” Her limited time in the Golden State hasn’t stopped liberal activists such as DNC operative Hilary Rosen from promoting her candidacy, and Fluke says she is seriously considering a run. Even though several elected Democrats are lining up to run, name ID in the expensive L.A. market is everything and Fluke trumps almost all of her potential challengers in that category.

Great, she moves to Kalifornia. Just what we need another gold digger, who want me, the taxpayer, to pay for her sex life.