« NY TimesWatch: Silencing The Lambs | Main | Atwar Bajat Video A Hoax »

May 08, 2006

Oopsie! I Did It Again!

What is the common thread in these stories?

Duke woman drinks all afternoon, then attends frat party where she inhales marijuana smoke from a vaporizer. She then files rape charges after waking the next morning with the feeling "something had happened".

Police had no trouble tracking down the "perpetrator". The accused rapist helpfully left his contact information on her computer after walking her home.

Rich Gorman is currently serving 5 years for sexual battery:

For the past six months, I've been staring at a 30-pound box filled with court documents and what's left of a young man's life following one college night and a 5- to 15-second disputed sex act.

That is, 5 to 15 seconds into the act of sexual intercourse, she said, "Stop."

He stopped immediately.

She claimed rape.

The "victim," whom we'll call Chastity, contradicted herself and changed her story several times ... She was drinking and making out with Gorman earlier in the evening.

She also went willingly into his apartment on the night in question, and this is key. She initially told police that she was pulled struggling from the car and dragged into his apartment, where she was raped. When she was told that parking lot cameras might have captured her going into the apartment, she changed her story, admitted that she wasn't forced, and that she walked voluntarily into the apartment.

My suspension of skepticism ends right there, but there's much more, including a prior rape claim by the "victim" at another college a few years earlier. Same victim, same scenario, except that she recanted in that case, saying she wasn't sure it was a rape because she was drunk. All the preceding was ruled inadmissible during Gorman's trial thanks to rape shield laws.

21 year-old "victim" of exploitation is suing Best Buy, Anheuser-Busch, Playboy, and Deslin Hotels:

Monica, 16 at the time, went to Daytona Beach for spring break. She decided to go watch a wet t-shirt contest one night. The next night she decided to participate in a wet t-shirt contest. She admits that she lied to promoters about her age in order to participate. She even paid them $5 in order to participate in the wet t-shirt contest. She voluntarily got up on stage in bikini bottoms and a cut off tshirt and allowed men to pour water all over her body. She even admits that she made a conscious decision to allow men to rub against her and do whatever it took to win the contest. She performed for the cameras she saw in the audience. She even won $100 for her voluntary performance that required her to lie to join.

"Now she’s upset that those materials are being distributed as part of a Playboy video because she didn’t realize her voluntary participation in the filmed wet t-shirt contest that she both lied and paid to enter would end up on tv and be seen by her neighbor who would call and tell her parents.

"Poor little Monica later says, ’I think it makes me look like some kind of prostitute or porn movie star, almost like I am trying to show my body to the camera, which I was not.’ Considering she’s already confessed that a) she voluntarily participated after attending the night before, b) she paid to show off her nearly naked body to strangers for money, c) she lied to show off her nearly naked body to strangers for money and d) she was willing to do anything to win the money reserved for the girl who showed her nearly naked body on stage in front of strangers and cameras in the most exciting manner, I would like to believe she doesn’t actually have a case. However, stupid people who can’t take responsibility for their actions always seem to get something by abusing the court system."

I'm just curious: if willingly becoming intoxicated constitutes an excuse, why can't any of the men in these incidents claim that as a defense?

Oh. Because that excuse only works for thoroughly modern women who demand complete equality and freedom while reserving the right to claim victim status later on when they are confronted with the consequences of their actions.

Posted by Cassandra at May 8, 2006 08:51 AM

Comments

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Let us not accept responsibility for our behavior, since we were just letting our hair down and getting into the spirit of things. Above all, she is showing jailer's remorse: She isn't sorry she acted like a slut, only that she got caught.

Posted by: Cricket at May 8, 2006 10:44 AM

This kind of thing should be one of the best reasons (besides avoiding unwanted pregnancy) to not have sex with anyone until you're married... And to not get anywhere close to something that could get you into trouble if someone changes their mind...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at May 8, 2006 01:25 PM

No means no?!

Try this:
Guy: Hey babe, would you mind having sex?

Gal: No, not at all!

Posted by: camojack at May 8, 2006 01:28 PM

As a man, I have to say that this guy's behavior was no better than hers. It's just that there's a criminal charge that can apply to the man but none against the woman. I don't think we could ever pass a law punishing women for flirting, wearing seductive clothing, or sending false signals of willingness to go all the way. I don't think we should. But it makes an interesting thought experiment when one thinks back on the defenses/excuses interposed on behald of Bill Clinton in the Monica scandal, most of which boiled down to "she showed him her thong underwear, and he's only a man" or "it's just about sex."

Posted by: AST at May 8, 2006 01:32 PM

Yeah, ok, but what about the Constitutional protections for accused? You're supposed to be able to confront your accuser, right? So, if there's evidence that isn't just suggestive but exculpatory -- like in the case of the guy in for five years for "sexual batter" -- why isn't it admissable? Why isn't a law preventing him from introducing that evidence unconstitutional on its face?

Posted by: Grim at May 8, 2006 01:54 PM

His behavior absolutely was better than hers.

They spent the day drinking and making out. She went home with him willingly, and decided part-way into having sex that she did not want to continue.

He listened to her when she said she wanted him to stop and even drove her home, which he was hardly obligated to do.

Subsequently, she filed false charges against him based on an incident she couldn't remember, including lying and saying she was pulled struggling from the car and dragged into his apartment, where she was raped. Only when she found out there might be a tape did she admit the lie.

His mistake was assuming that treating her like a lady despite her behavior would shield him from ANOTHER false rape accusation.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 8, 2006 01:56 PM

Feminists have done their best to invert the presumption of innocence in rape charges, another reason I think the anonymity of the accuser is a dubious idea & should be weighed on a case by case basis. If she's drunk, she's complicit.

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at May 8, 2006 02:19 PM

> Feminists have done their best to invert the presumption of innocence in rape charges, another reason I think the anonymity of the accuser is a dubious idea & should be weighed on a case by case basis. If she's drunk, she's complicit.

I concur, there is certainly a middle ground here which we have gotten a hell of a long way away from.

In a case of overt rape, it is one thing, but when you are dealing with "he said, she said" cases, I can say that, if I'm a juror and they try and hide crap like that from me, he's getting off. Any time it comes down to he said, she said, the reliability of the accuser is certaily relevant and entirely applicable. Former accusations OF RAPE against the male should also be admissible. Both strongly reflect against the reliability of the only witnesses.

One problem with our whole "justice" system is the inability of jurors to be active participants, or at least through the judge, in the system.

Jurors should be able to directly submit questions to be asked of witnesses and of the judge (for clarification of the law and its application).

Jurors should be allowed to read the specifics of the law, and to ask for as much explanation as the court deems willing to give on the meaning, the background, and the why of the law.

An attorney I know told me that, decades ago, a panel of highly respected legal experts produced a list of recommended changes in court procedure which would result in a more just system. Such changes have never been enacted anywhere. Be interesting to see a breakdown as to why.

Posted by: OhBloodyHell at May 8, 2006 02:40 PM

Ah, yes, the myth of the modern woman. I am told by the feminists that women are simultaneously strong, confident and sophisticated women who have thrown off the shackles of a patriarchal past, but also helpless waifs who must be protected at all costs, maidens who must be sheltered like some 18th century southern belle from the consequences of their actions; none of which is ever their fault. She simply fainted away when some cad forced his coarse, vulgar attentions on this dainty flower.

Yup, there can be no question that the modern woman is both mature enough to not need any man, and, at the same time, immature enough to not know what she is doing, and thus must be protected from men (who are known brutes and transgressors against the feminine gender). She is both responsible (sisters are doing it for themselves), and irresponsible (don't blame me for having loose morals, my saintliness was corrupted by those evil men).

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Posted by: a former european at May 8, 2006 03:15 PM

This has been my problem with the "date rape" idea from the beginning. If a woman is drunk, or under the influence of other substances, she is not responsible for her behavior. But the guy is responsible whether he was drinking or drugged, or not.

Certainly, I'll agree that it may have been a more traumatic experience for her to wake up sober and realize that she'd had a bad experience. But she's got to deal with that trauma some other way than to call it rape. I'm willing to propose that many a man has woken up sober and felt guilty, ashamed, disgusted, incredulous, etc. at his behavior from the night before.

The best solution is not getting stupid drunk.

Posted by: April at May 8, 2006 03:20 PM

And not to sleep with people you aren't married to...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at May 8, 2006 03:28 PM

Miss Ladybug, you are making sense. However, in sleeping with people one isn't married to, the idea is that it has to be legal (both parties over 18) and consensual(both parties know what they are getting into or what is getting into them), and that there are no obligations on either of the parties if a Good Time Was Not Had.

Getting drunk/stoned/wasted/sh*tfaced is not Responsible Behavior for either of them. Were I the judge, I would tell the young lady (the lady part being questionable)that since she was drunk
and lied, that she has no reason to complain about rape and dismiss the charges. I would then tell the young man to get a VD test and to stay celibate until he got married to someone who was worthy of him.

Posted by: Cricket at May 8, 2006 03:36 PM

First, the generalities.

Get over the unmarried sex stuff. Really. While I encourage everyone to wait as well, and discourage such cheap liasons, there will never be many who wait until they have already bought the car to test drive it. Sorry that sounds crude, but that is a fact. You can be smart in pre-marital sex, or stupid. Besides, even if you didn't do it before marriage, most people who say that didn't follow their own advice. That isn't to say you can't advise against something you did, e.g., drugs, but you should know better when giving advice about pre-marital sex. Assuming the facts as presented here, I don't think this guy did anything that should be deemed "risky." Had he made out but chose to say no to her at first, he still might have been accused of rape, as a revenge tactic by the spurned woman. I cited a rape study from Lafayette, IN here a few weeks ago that said 55% of the rape allegations in a town over 9 years were recanted, and of those one of the three big motivations for the false accusation was revenge. You don't have to have sex at all to make up a rape allegation.

Abstenance benefits are worth preaching, but just having pre-marital sex doesn't mean you are or should be open to rape allegations.

Besides, wives can allege rape too.

Another: the victim's drinking before being raped isn't an excuse to let the perp go either. Now, this case is different with all its exculpatory issues, but I sense a real "drunk women deserve it and if it did happen they should just move on" attitude in some posters. What crap. F'n drunk, unconscious/semi-conscious women should be a crime and punished, though hopefully the woman learned a lesson and won't make the same mistake. But let's not get all 1950's on women here.

The real problem here is the apparent huge conflicts in the victim's story. If she says no in the act, and he stops without finishing, and then drives you home, I can assure you that it wasn't rape, date rape or anything else.

I understand rape shield laws. They tried to protect women from the argument that if a woman had ever partied or had sex willingly, then she was a slut and gave it up on the occassion at issue. The law is a valid law. How it is applied to prior, recanted and fasle accusation of rape is beyond me. That just sounds like the misapplication of a valid, good law.

I agree on the ananimity issue. Seems it should be case by case. Sometimes the accused, especially when publicly accused, should have the right to put his victim's credibility in issue.

Posted by: KJ at May 8, 2006 05:44 PM

There's a college professor who is best known for teaching that all sex between a man and woman is really just rape on the mans part.

Unfortunately there are many people who believe it.

As far as the first girl goes I don't feel the same way as KJ because from what little I've read, she is a slut and she needs to learn some kind of lesson sometime.
Better sooner than later.

To excuse behavior like that is akin to approving of it, in which case she'll never learn what she needs to know.

If she doesn't like waking up and feeling slutty then she should stop going out and acting slutty.

As to juries being well informed on laws and how they apply, that's the last thing a procecutor would want in a case like this.

Lawyers might practice and understand law from front to back but...that can only go so far in a jury trial.
The jury is the decider and it's how they interpret the law that matters.
The judge is like a referee who says what is allowed and what is not, while the lawers fight it out.

Whichever lawyer is more persuasive usually wins.

I've been called for jury duty several times in the last 7 years and I've been rejected every time.
Why? Because I don't know how to answer vague and leading questions. How can you answer a vague question truthfully without a contradiction?

As to the former 16 year old. She may actually have a case against Playboy and Best Buy.
I'm not a lawyer but a naked 16 year old girl being distributed on a video is illegal as far as I know.

I also think that Playboy in particular (as the presumed producer) has a legal responsibility to ensure against such a thing happening.
Release form or not, they have to at least try to verify the legalities before just dumping it on the market.
They have lawyers for that at Playboy.

I suppose the deciding question will be, did they even try?


Posted by: Joatmoaf at May 8, 2006 07:17 PM

KJ,
I don't think we are getting all 1950s on the women here...just the careless and reckless behavior of drinking to the point of insensibility, and then
because there is a gap, alleging something that didn't occur because of said gap, and to give teeth to the allegation, a statement of force, which was retracted when confronted with the evidence that was contrary. It smacks of entrenching the victim/oppressed mentality in women and does nothing to teach responsible behavior. Maybe if the victim is held properly accountable, the message will go out to other women who are doing this that they can't get away with this nonsense.

Posted by: Cricket at May 8, 2006 07:27 PM

KJ, it is the double standard that bothers me. I am encouraged by some of the posts of the women here, but if women want to be truly taken seriously as equals and cast off the shackles of a 1950s patriarchal society, then they have to likewise cast off the tendency to play the victim/helpless maiden card in order to escape the consequences of their reckless behavior.

If a guy walks into a bar all belligerent and looking for a fight, then he deserves the ass-kicking he's probably going to get. That would be a direct consequence of his conduct.

If a woman walks into a bar, dressed in next to nothing, and comes on to every guy in the place, then she is likewise engaging in risky behavior which will probably lead to a conclusion she may regret in the morning.

Both situations might lead to unlawful conduct. The former would be assault and battery, the latter would be some form of rape. The difference is that the guy in the former scenario would gain no special privileges or protections, and probably very little sympathy. His propensity for violence and fighting would likely be admitted into evidence.

For the girl, however, she is "shielded" and given all sorts of special protections. Her propensity for fornication or at least for making false rape accusations, will be excluded from evidence. She will also gain all sorts of sympathy as the helpless waif whose virtue was soiled by the big, bad men.

I am not trying to make light of rape, but I do believe that we should have a consistent approach to crimes. Are we not all supposed to be equal under the law, or are some more equal than others? It smacks of hypocrasy to me.

Posted by: a former european at May 8, 2006 09:23 PM

Who was it that said men rule the world?

Posted by: Dr. Harden Stuhl at May 9, 2006 01:48 AM

There you go again.

The fact that the young woman in the latest known Duke rape allegation had been drinking is not at all probative on whether or not she was raped. Either she consented, or she did not. Passing out from drink or drugs is not consent. The most telling evidence so far is that the young man did not admit to having had intercourse with her. If he had believed she consented there would be no reason for him to deny having had intercourse.

Cassandra, I doubt you ever grasp the legal issues in the topics you insist on blogging. If you ever write a coherent entry on an legal issue, let me know.

Posted by: Mac Diva at May 9, 2006 02:45 AM

Absent physical evidence of force, the matter devolves into a question of whose word the jury believes because the only "evidence" being advanced (that we know of) that she was raped is that she awoke the next morning feeling "something had happened". She even admits she cannot remember the alleged assault, so she cannot even testify to what happened. A "feeling" is not evidence of rape.

In this country, you still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed the crime - that burden is laid on the prosecution, not the defense.

What does the victim have?

1. Possibly evidence sex took place? That alone would not establish rape, only sex that may or may not have been consensual. It would, however, impeach his credibility since he said he never had sex with her. On the other hand, defendants (especially young ones) have been known to lie out of fear. He knew he was facing a rape charge, so lying does not prove he raped her, only that he lied about sex having taken place. Keep in mind that we have only her word that an non-consensual sex took place and her memory is faulty - again, a credibility issue.

2. Evidence of force? We don't know, but the news story doesn't mention it. This would be the first and only evidence that it was rape, since she can't testify to anything that happened if she was unconscious, can she? Without this, you have only her "feeling" that she may have been raped. That is not usually enough to convict a defendant.

What does the defendant have?

1. He walked her home and left his contact information on her computer. This implies he thought she enjoyed his company enough that she might call him again. It does not prove he didn't take advantage of her, but then he does not have to prove that - he only has to counter her allegation that non-consensual sex (that she can't even remember) took place.

Why would someone who had just committed rape leave their contact info? Do rape victims normally phone up their attackers the next day and ask for an encore?

2. She agreed to walk to a concert and then back to her room with him, which normally implies you are enjoying someone else's company and do not feel threatened by them. After that, she cannot say she remembers either having sex with him or being raped.

What "evidence" has she advanced to prove he raped her beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yeah. I thought so. He does not have to prove she was NOT raped - defendants don't have to prove their innocence.

She has to prove she WAS raped.

She can't remember the alleged attack, so there will be no testimony from her to that effect.

At any rate, this wasn't even a law post and I never addressed the legal issues. It was a battle of the sexes post, the entire point of which (and you seem to have missed that as usual) was that choices have consequences and all three of these women INTENTIONALLY placed themselves in a vulnerable position. At no time did I say, or even imply, that this excuses rape.

So once again you argue a point I never made.

I doubt your reading comprehension skills will ever improve to the point where you can manage to address what the author did say instead of inventing fictitious arguments. But if you ever do learn to make a germane argument, let me know.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 9, 2006 05:47 AM

I agree that an injustice was done here. I just don't think letting someone get away with rape b/c the woman is drunk or impaired is how you treat a woman a lesson. Getting raped is the lesson. Letting a predator go who will do it to another impaired woman, or maybe an unimpaired one next time, puts us all in danger.

mac, that was rude and ignorant. Cass writes quite well about her legal subjects, especially for a non-lawyer. She isn't always "right" -- but only b/c I am.

Posted by: KJ at May 9, 2006 08:15 AM

Mac
Thank you for telling me you went to law school. If I ever need a lawyer, I will hire KJ or spd.

KJ, for me the argument hinges on irresponsible behavior, the lies and the lack of consent. Which pretty much proves the point of us rightwingnuts:
Don't sleep mischieviously or put yourself in a position where credibility is a factor of he said she said. While I will admit that I love the chivalry of men, I will also point out that honor for women to be worthy of that should also be upheld. It sort of goes with what Cass was saying about eqaulity.

Soemthing about rubies and worth come to mind.

Posted by: Cricket at May 9, 2006 10:06 AM

I'm sorry mac but I fail to see how the most telling evidence is that the man refused to admit that he had sex with her.

Perhaps you could educate me on why that is because you seem to overlook the very real possibility that he is telling the truth.

As a lawyer that is unconsionable because you seem to have already convicted him.
That's not how the system is supposed to work.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at May 9, 2006 11:34 AM

The only men who don't lie are John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

We all know that they are upright persyns of transrace, gender and flexible morals.

Posted by: Cricket at May 9, 2006 11:44 AM

Well, give Kennedy and Clinton their due -- whatever their flaws, they're not transgendered. They've got the flaws of men.

Kerry I'm not so sure about.

Posted by: Grim at May 9, 2006 01:09 PM

Well, I was trying to be inclusive. You know how divisive us wingnuts are. I figgered if anyone suffered as much as they have with Mary Jo Kopechne,
Paula Corbin Jones and Juanita Broderick they would understand womyn's issues.

Posted by: Cricket at May 9, 2006 01:42 PM

I know, as a white guy, I am going to walk down the streets of Harlem late at night, with 100 dollar bills clearly hanging out of my pockets, and shouting at the top of my lungs that Strom Thurmond was right: them niggrahs sure been getting uppitty lately.

If something happens to me, though, don't any of you dare judge me! A robber or someone intending to do me bodily harm should know that "no" means no and I did not consent to be robbed or accosted. Why, naive little old me had no idea such barbarous things could happen! I have the right to do whatever I please, whenever I please, and always be fully protected from harmful consequences of my conduct. Isn't that what America is all about? So what if I tried to get that darkie street gang on the corner to join me in a rousing rendition of "Mama's little baby loves shortnin', shortnin', mama's little baby loves shortnin' bread." They had no right to beat me up just because they don't appreciate good music!

You don't understand, this has been a horrible, traumatic experience for me. I am the victim here. Don't you feel sympathy for my plight?

Posted by: a former european at May 9, 2006 01:53 PM

The difference is that we see violence to suppress racism (and certain other things) as more or less wholesome; whereas rape is in fact an evil.

A group of young Harlem gentlemen who chose to suppress your display would be performing a sanitary measure from a social point of view. So were the young men from Carolina I once observed dragging a fellow out into the parking lot after he addressed one of the young ladies in the following terms: "Listen, bitch, I'm from the Bronx and..."

Both the suppression of intentionally offensive behavior, and the defense of ladies from such rudeness, are social goods. I myself am entirely willing to wink at a certain amount of violence being fielded in their pursuit. Something short of murder or grievious bodily harm, certainly -- but a good beating would be only what you deserved.

Posted by: Grim at May 9, 2006 02:17 PM

But, Grim, I am such an innocent, naive cherub, that I had no IDEA that that was racist. You can't hold my actions against me. It wasn't my fault, you see, I am the sainted victim in our culture. Haven't I suffered enough? And who are you to judge me, anyway, you heartless brute? I am (sob) traumatized! How can you possibly expect me to suffer the consequences of my actions? I should be able to act as irresponsibly as I want and it is YOUR duty as a member of society to ensure I am always protected from any harm.

Finally, thievery, assault and battery are CRIMINAL offenses. Are you encouraging lawlessness? Nothing I could ever do would justify someone performing a criminal act upon me and violating the sanctity of my person. I am always pure, and my actions as a victim may not be judged. Your focus should be on those dastardly criminals who hurt me!

Your attitude re "protection of ladies" is an expression of a male-dominated, patriarchal society designed to keep womyn oppressed and subservient to men. Today's womyn are bold, sophisticated, mature and confident. They don't need to be treated like some 50s housewife by you, mister!

Posted by: a former european at May 9, 2006 03:16 PM

afe:

You're a punk :)

Posted by: Cassandra at May 9, 2006 03:23 PM

"Finally, thievery, assault and battery are CRIMINAL offenses. Are you encouraging lawlessness?"

I think I was, yeah. :)

Posted by: Grim at May 9, 2006 03:24 PM

Why thank you, Cass. You say the sweetest things, my dear.

Grim, I knew you were one of those evil men who secretly support rapists! If you dare criticize the actions of a crime victim, PARTICULARLY a woman, then you are hardly better than a criminal yourself! I bet you think that all women should be raped, don't you? My women's studies professor warned me about men like you, right before she tried to kiss me.

Posted by: a former european at May 9, 2006 04:03 PM

Oh, I didn't realize you were a woman (it's sometimes hard to tell with Europeans). In that case, my paternalism means that I will of course hold any physical attack on you to be a moral wrong, and a crime to be punished.

Posted by: Grim at May 9, 2006 04:36 PM

"...an expression of a male-dominated, patriarchal society designed to keep womyn oppressed and subservient to men."

Perhaps if womyn were more oppressed and subserviant, there would be much less reported rapes.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at May 9, 2006 06:06 PM

American women bitch and whine too much for me.a certain segment of our populace,don't seem to know what they want;I would like to see a debate against modern feminists exposing them as the frauds they are!I am fed up with them always trying to excuse the irresponsible behavior of sluts and whores and put them in the category of rape victims!what happened to the women in Central Park was rape,you getting sloshed to you pass out with somebody you don't know isn't,and it doesn't help that the weenified feminists(men in name only)always bow to the pressure from these women!I don't see Ms.Steinem coming to the rescue of somebody Hirsi Ali,or what is happening in the muslim world,they don't want to do the hard really principled stuff,they want to make hay about cheesy,tawdry,and defend the irresponsible behavior of our sex.Hell,ladies can't have both ways,make up your minds already,either the women are tough and strong or their not!and I'm not talking about physical strength either!I'm glad that I've finally awaken to the garbage that they have been selling to us for over 40 years and no longer a slave to foolishness.Have these ladies also considered that this no means no nonsense that they boldly shove down our throats will fly if the Islamofacists get a hold of them?!They better think about it,if they know what is good for them.I refuse to be a good Dhimmi!

Posted by: Lisa Gilliam at May 9, 2006 09:14 PM

Amen, Lisa. My whole point here was just to attack the hypocracy and double standard.

Grim, I am not a woman, but I play one on TV for purposes of this argument. I was brought up with an old-school, chivalrous type of attitude towards women also. At the same time, the legal and social double standard offends my sense of fairness and justice on this issue.

Posted by: a former european at May 10, 2006 03:43 PM

By the beard of the Cartoon Profit, who let Lisa out? How DARE she come here and make sense! It offends my moral sense of wishy washy ethics to hear truth to power spoken by her, Grim and afe.
Cass, you need a beating with a feather for daring to express such common sense and knowledge and for having well read and literate readers. Shame on you.

Posted by: Pink Turbaned Progessyve For Peace at May 10, 2006 06:02 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)