[updated 5-16-2011]
I wasn't there for the event but the story as related via the media has me very curious. The story, as I understand it, is that Kahn was taking a shower when a maid entered his room. Kahn then came out of the shower completely naked and sexually assaulted the maid. Does this sound strange to anyone else?
I'm not saying that it is not possible that this Kahn fellow believed his own hype so much that he thought he could just randomly attempt to rape a maid in a high end hotel in his room where he is known to be staying. Most criminals try to have some kind of alibi or excuse. A person in his position knowing full well he does not have diplomatic immunity and is not on his home turf makes me think the story just putting himself out there legally is a bit off to me.
I believe that Kahn was expecting a prostitute, a high end one at that. I suppose that he usually requests role playing in which she is supposed to be "shocked" at his naked appearance, show some level of resistance and then succumb to his "manly ways and 'charm'" and end up fucking; in the bathroom makes sense. I will suppose that it is usual for these women to be "let in" by some staff (perhaps even given a key). I think he came out and did his usual 'oh well...hello madamoiselle....". I suppose she did what any actual uninterested maid would do by rebuffing his advances but keeping it "professional". Kahn, not realizing this isn't the prostitute, become more aggressive (and turned on) and when it was too late realized that this was not the prostitute and he was now on the hook for at least sexual assault and probably attempted rape (it will probably get plead down to sexual assault). Realizing the legal issue at hand he hastily dressed and grabbed his particulars and made a rush to the airport before police could arrive and did not expect that he would be unable to get out of the country.
Again, I could be wrong and he could just be the type to think he could just grab up a random maid in a high end hotel, but I know that men of his position use prostitutes on the regular and those prostitutes usually provide men like him with certain fantasies that are not likely to be had at home. The maid scenario makes sense given the apparent power dynamic involved.
Update-
Having recently reviewed the news in regards to earlier history I'm going to put the odds at 60-40 for prostitute expectations to "believing his own hype" I say that for a couple of reasons:
1) The young woman in France said that when Kahn planned on assaulting her he invited her to an empty apartment that only had a bed and a camera. So it is CLEAR that this fellow not only wanted to have sex with that woman but expected to film it. Perhaps then he has a stash somewhere with his previous "exploits".
Furthermore that assault makes sense for someone who knows what he has in mind is illegal. An apartment where there is no chance of people traffic. A place easy to remove evidence. A place where he is not known and, depending on the arrangement, one he could 'deny" being. None of which applies at the Sofitel.
The second thing that is here that underscores my earlier scenario was how the woman said his aggression came in stages, which I am all but certain happened at the Sofitel.
2)UN "Peacekeepers" and other international bodies are known to have been raping African women with impunity. The maid in question is an African (by what I heard this AM) and if this guy believes his own hype could certainly think that "poor African women" are easy prey.
3) It was said this morning that if Kahn had been on IMF business then he would have had diplomatic immunity. That changes things a bit since:
a) he could have believed himself to be on IMF business or like other business people could make it look like he was on IMF business. However the latter is unlikely given the IMF's response to this matter. It could be the case that he forgot he was not under diplomatic immunity when he caught the 'unholy spirit".
b) What then was he doing in NY at a 3k a night hotel without his wife? I understand that she has her own life and business matters, but it goes to underscore what I believe to be normal for men of his position. Was he in NY at a high dollar hotel expecting the services of a high dollar prostitute expected to role play? Does this guy have an MO of soliciting hotel maids?
His lawyer is saying that is client will plead not guilty which is completely expected. Only dumb asses without lawyers plead guilty. The experts are saying that he may either deny the charges or claim it was consensual. The former is unlikely to fly, the latter plays into the "I thought she was a prostitute" angle. Assuming they actually use that as a defense to get from rape to sexual assault. Of course he would have to admit in public that he uses the services of high dollar prostitutes when away on IMF business (or non-business). I'm not clear that he's willing to go there. Then again these charges have already ended his career and political future so aside from his wife (and the possible financial fall out from a divorce) I don't see why he shouldn't admit to that to avoid jail time.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Why So Defensive?
"The dog de cry out
is deh dog weh you lick"
-Jamaican proverb
The recent article by Brienne Walsh entitled "An Open Letter to the Women Who Are Telling Me It's My Fault I'm Not Married made the above proverb come to mind. Her article was a response to a previous piece posted to the Huffington Post by Tracy McMillan entitled "Why You're Not Married"
Ms. Walsh's major point was this:
If she had left it at that this post would not have been written because the above is the same thing I tell women, and men. If you're not married it is your "fault" (I prefer "choice"). I would add that the reasons for her current ability to chose such a lifestyle isn't only due to the advances made by women but by technology created by men. It's all symbiotic really. But that is a minor quibble. The major quibbles start here:
Notice the quick, fast and in a hurry jump from "I'm not married" to "bad relationship". This is typical of far too many women (and men) who assume that if a relationship isn't "perfect" (whatever that may be) then it must be god awful and metaphorically stifling. I don't know what article this woman read, but McMillan's piece did not advise anyone to stay in a 'bad relationship". It did however bring up the unrealistic and completely selfish definitions that a lot of people have of "good relationship". So yeah, that sound you're hearing? That would be the dog crying out.
But Ms. Walsh wasn't finished. Instead of dissecting McMillan's piece and her 8 points, which I would have done, Walsh decides to cut to this part:
This is by and large true and the level of "Free agent penis" is directly related to a male's status. This "free agent penis" concept is particularly true in this current "monogamy as normal" social organization. I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of human sexuality but I'll say this: Monogamy is an artificial block on a male's ability to reproduce. Biologically speaking it serves him very little benefit to stay attached to a single female for his entire reproductive life. Females on the other hand naturally benefit from keeping a male around and to not have him create other children that "steal" resources away from her own. Keep this in mind because it is going to be relevant in a few.
Walsh goes into her objection to McMillan's "getting something" statement culminating in:
"We learned how to expect literally nothing from a man" We? We who? And WHO taught girls this? I suggest that her problem in this regards lies with those who, while rightfully fighting for legal "first class citizenship" for women, also had the idea that they'd fuck around with certain social conventions that forced men to become responsible and marriageable. Besides, from what I've heard men were treating women like crap before women were mysteriously taught to expect "literally nothing from a man". I'm so confused.
The rest though, particularly "spraying willing women" is exactly correct though. Seriously. If you're not willing, there are others who are. And ummm that is the entire point of "the game". Catch your man (or woman) before someone else does. Apparently some women haven't come to terms with the fact that "independence" doesn't give them much of a leg up in the finding a life mate game. Don't blame me though. Blame your genes.
Besides, there she goes again with the negativity. "Boredom"? "Eternal boredom"? I do say, I think this woman really has unresolved relationship issues.
There's that dog makin' noise again.
But Walsh continues to show us just how clueless she is by giving us The Story:
So let's review this. Some presumably drop dead gorgeous woman took all her time gaining status and thought that such status would get her a man. Apparently this "extremely bright" woman never thought to evaluate the fact that in the sexual realm of humans Males display status to attract females. Males display such status in order to convey the ability to protect and provide and that they have good survival genes to pass on to offspring. Not the other way around. Furthermore; generally speaking, males who go after "high status" females, generally use said females resources to attract and impress other lesser status females. Think the guy who drives his girlfriends Benz to the club to pick up women. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard "high status" women complain about men they "upgraded" who turned around and used that "upgrade" to get "lower status" women.
Furthermore; in this story the "high status" female apparently found some guy "hot enough" to lay with and have a child with. It doesn't surprise me at all because she's "beautiful". And "beauty" ranks no. 1 on every straight male's priority list for females. And please do not listen to these lying men who claim otherwise. Any man who claims otherwise who is not involved with a straight 0 on a 1-10 scale has proven my point.
Now in regards to the comment made by the "high status" woman's male friend in regards to the two types of men she would have to choose from. He is generally correct. I hate to say this, really I do, but I have run into so many well educated women who are downright nasty. They are generally condescending to anyone who they believe has a lesser education than they do, work a lower status job than they do or have lesser income than they do. They have nasty things to say about things that men generally like or like to do be it the music they listen to, games they play (or that they even do so), etc. I'm not saying that these women represent most or even a large percentage of "high status" women, but they are out there and they generally have one of the types of men mentioned in the quote. They either snag a man as high status or higher than she is who is very strong willed and who'll tell her to "shut the fuck up" when she gets "out of pocket". Or she gets a man whom she can manipulate and hen peck. He'll take it 'cause he knows he can't do better. This last part will probably come to a surprise to Ms. Walsh but yeah, men compromise too. Shocking I know...I know some of us actually get past the fantasies of hour glass shaped sex slaves. Shocking I know.
*eye roll*
What I'm sure Ms Walsh and Ms. High Status missed though was the real meaning behind the "sandwiches" comment. I'm going to assume that Walsh and company thought that a sandwich sealed the deal. No it did not. I would put down crispy green cash that rather than having an attitude that he owes her something, this guy's wife actually, gulp, catered to this man. She was probably the first woman who he really liked, to have went out of her way to make the sandwich where previously his girlfriends were on some "What do I look like?" or "what's wrong with your hands" shit. She probably made that sandwich with care and attention. I'll bet she was humming a tune happily too. Probably asked him if he wanted a drink to go with it. She put that joint on a clean tray and gave him a kiss on the cheek. And while he was biting into that sandwich and that feeling of satiation flowed over his body he thought of all the times she treated him well, All the women before her that gave him shit when he asked for a sandwich and perhaps one that got away who did do it for him but he was too dumb to see what he had. He thought about his friends who had been telling him he had struck gold and better "do the right thing" and he said to himself: "you know what I need to tie this up."
But I'm sure this scenario is too hard for Ms. Walsh to understand. So they'll be wondering if it was the Mayo.
Lest you think I'm being to harsh look at Ms. Walsh's next commentary:
Mind you I didn't quite dig McMillan (and others) constant chatter about male "insecurity" because this isn't about security as much as it is about biology. There are certainly "insecure" people out there, but there is a difference between "insecure/ social phobia" and "insecure/ biological drive". However; Walsh has a point. Why doesn't she go for men who are into women like her? Note that she doesn't answer the question. Why not? Why does Ms. Walsh have so many male "friends" who by her accounts are "into her" and is still not married? By her own account they are "secure". So what's the problem? The problem is the same biological human sexuality issue that spans "status". She is probably not attracted to them "like that" and she is probably holding onto some fantasy man that none of those men qualify for. What's that? Yes the dog making noise again. She's all ME-I-ME-I-ME-I.
E-I E-I oooooooooh.
I believe McMillan had a point on that.
The last point that Walsh makes, really pissed me off though. Really:
I don't do running the man out the family unit. I don't. In African-America, there is, unfortunately a pandemic of children living with one parent. I'm not cool with it. It is not a good thing to have males disconnected from family and child rearing. In the end, such an idea that children should be had without a man is to turn men into simply sperm factories. It is no less objectification than what many feminist speak about in regards to women. What's even worse is that rampant single motherhood contributes to the idea that Walsh began with: not expecting anything from men. What's worse though, is that in reference to my discussion on monogamy, a woman who decides to have a child on her own, immediately drops many potential mates from her pool as a good number of men are unwilling to provide for another man's children. And it is entirely within their right to make such a decision. Of course Walsh does not care about that because it's all about her.
Overall though Walsh missed the entire point of McMillan's piece:
The entire point of McMillan's piece was to help people like Ms. Walsh make their own decisions by showing the fucked up thinking processes that are preventing some women who claim to want to be married from doing so. McMillan's piece highlights that some of the difficulties that some women are facing are of their own making. Any mature person would actually understand that. Immature people, and I think Walsh qualifies as one, are always looking to blame other people.
Those men are insecure.
Those men are intimidated by x y or z.
I want a b or c and if I can't have it then I'll take my dildo and go home.
I won't do A B or C in order to get him and it's his fault for expecting that.
Everything for them is the fault of someone or something "out there" instead of focusing on what they have to do to get what they claim they want. If a woman doesn't want to be married that's her business. And really she ought not indulge in "why you're not married" articles because they are not for her. And when someone asks here why she isn't married she should say like I do:
It's a result of choices I have made. And until I make new and different choices my status will likely stay the same. No one else is to blame.
I'll close with a Yoruba proverb that many of us "single and old" people need to take to heart:
Don't let best become the enemy of good.
is deh dog weh you lick"
-Jamaican proverb
The recent article by Brienne Walsh entitled "An Open Letter to the Women Who Are Telling Me It's My Fault I'm Not Married made the above proverb come to mind. Her article was a response to a previous piece posted to the Huffington Post by Tracy McMillan entitled "Why You're Not Married"
Ms. Walsh's major point was this:
I know it's my fault I'm not married. I know that in the future, if I don't get married, it will be my fault as well. And thanks to the advancements made by the women in the generation above me, it's my decision to make.
If she had left it at that this post would not have been written because the above is the same thing I tell women, and men. If you're not married it is your "fault" (I prefer "choice"). I would add that the reasons for her current ability to chose such a lifestyle isn't only due to the advances made by women but by technology created by men. It's all symbiotic really. But that is a minor quibble. The major quibbles start here:
Because staying in a bad relationship just because it is heading towards marriage is like putting a plastic bag over your head, and just letting in enough air that you can stay alive.
Notice the quick, fast and in a hurry jump from "I'm not married" to "bad relationship". This is typical of far too many women (and men) who assume that if a relationship isn't "perfect" (whatever that may be) then it must be god awful and metaphorically stifling. I don't know what article this woman read, but McMillan's piece did not advise anyone to stay in a 'bad relationship". It did however bring up the unrealistic and completely selfish definitions that a lot of people have of "good relationship". So yeah, that sound you're hearing? That would be the dog crying out.
But Ms. Walsh wasn't finished. Instead of dissecting McMillan's piece and her 8 points, which I would have done, Walsh decides to cut to this part:
Because ultimately, marriage is not about getting something -- it's about giving it. Strangely, men understand this more than we do. Probably because for them marriage involves sacrificing their most treasured possession -- a free-agent penis -- and for us, it's the culmination of a princess fantasy so universal, it built Disneyland.
This is by and large true and the level of "Free agent penis" is directly related to a male's status. This "free agent penis" concept is particularly true in this current "monogamy as normal" social organization. I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of human sexuality but I'll say this: Monogamy is an artificial block on a male's ability to reproduce. Biologically speaking it serves him very little benefit to stay attached to a single female for his entire reproductive life. Females on the other hand naturally benefit from keeping a male around and to not have him create other children that "steal" resources away from her own. Keep this in mind because it is going to be relevant in a few.
Walsh goes into her objection to McMillan's "getting something" statement culminating in:
And so we learned how to expect literally nothing from a man. And do you know what happened because of that? We learned to let men treat us like crap. We came to believe that men were doing us a favor by settling down -- because otherwise they would be out spraying the world of willing women with their abundant seed. We were taught to be grateful if a man showed interest in us, and we became fearful at all times that he would leave us once he did. Women of my generation are still the second-class citizens of
fairy tales: only now, we don't even have the chivalry or the ever-blooming roses to comfort us in our eternal boredom.
"We learned how to expect literally nothing from a man" We? We who? And WHO taught girls this? I suggest that her problem in this regards lies with those who, while rightfully fighting for legal "first class citizenship" for women, also had the idea that they'd fuck around with certain social conventions that forced men to become responsible and marriageable. Besides, from what I've heard men were treating women like crap before women were mysteriously taught to expect "literally nothing from a man". I'm so confused.
The rest though, particularly "spraying willing women" is exactly correct though. Seriously. If you're not willing, there are others who are. And ummm that is the entire point of "the game". Catch your man (or woman) before someone else does. Apparently some women haven't come to terms with the fact that "independence" doesn't give them much of a leg up in the finding a life mate game. Don't blame me though. Blame your genes.
Besides, there she goes again with the negativity. "Boredom"? "Eternal boredom"? I do say, I think this woman really has unresolved relationship issues.
There's that dog makin' noise again.
But Walsh continues to show us just how clueless she is by giving us The Story:
A few weeks ago, I was interviewing a woman who is at the top of her chosen profession. She's a single mother to her teenage daughter. She is enormously successful, well-educated, beautiful -- and never married.
Our conversation eventually -- and inevitably -- led us to the topic of why she never married, and to illustrate the point, she told me a story. "When I was younger," she said, "I was dating a man who told me: 'You're extraordinarily smart, and you're extraordinarily beautiful. You need a man who is either so strong that he can stand up to you, or so weak that you can walk all over him. I'm just a normal man. I'm not the man for you.'"
[20 years later, they met again, and she asked him why he had married his wife. "She made good sandwiches," he said.]
So let's review this. Some presumably drop dead gorgeous woman took all her time gaining status and thought that such status would get her a man. Apparently this "extremely bright" woman never thought to evaluate the fact that in the sexual realm of humans Males display status to attract females. Males display such status in order to convey the ability to protect and provide and that they have good survival genes to pass on to offspring. Not the other way around. Furthermore; generally speaking, males who go after "high status" females, generally use said females resources to attract and impress other lesser status females. Think the guy who drives his girlfriends Benz to the club to pick up women. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard "high status" women complain about men they "upgraded" who turned around and used that "upgrade" to get "lower status" women.
Furthermore; in this story the "high status" female apparently found some guy "hot enough" to lay with and have a child with. It doesn't surprise me at all because she's "beautiful". And "beauty" ranks no. 1 on every straight male's priority list for females. And please do not listen to these lying men who claim otherwise. Any man who claims otherwise who is not involved with a straight 0 on a 1-10 scale has proven my point.
Now in regards to the comment made by the "high status" woman's male friend in regards to the two types of men she would have to choose from. He is generally correct. I hate to say this, really I do, but I have run into so many well educated women who are downright nasty. They are generally condescending to anyone who they believe has a lesser education than they do, work a lower status job than they do or have lesser income than they do. They have nasty things to say about things that men generally like or like to do be it the music they listen to, games they play (or that they even do so), etc. I'm not saying that these women represent most or even a large percentage of "high status" women, but they are out there and they generally have one of the types of men mentioned in the quote. They either snag a man as high status or higher than she is who is very strong willed and who'll tell her to "shut the fuck up" when she gets "out of pocket". Or she gets a man whom she can manipulate and hen peck. He'll take it 'cause he knows he can't do better. This last part will probably come to a surprise to Ms. Walsh but yeah, men compromise too. Shocking I know...I know some of us actually get past the fantasies of hour glass shaped sex slaves. Shocking I know.
*eye roll*
What I'm sure Ms Walsh and Ms. High Status missed though was the real meaning behind the "sandwiches" comment. I'm going to assume that Walsh and company thought that a sandwich sealed the deal. No it did not. I would put down crispy green cash that rather than having an attitude that he owes her something, this guy's wife actually, gulp, catered to this man. She was probably the first woman who he really liked, to have went out of her way to make the sandwich where previously his girlfriends were on some "What do I look like?" or "what's wrong with your hands" shit. She probably made that sandwich with care and attention. I'll bet she was humming a tune happily too. Probably asked him if he wanted a drink to go with it. She put that joint on a clean tray and gave him a kiss on the cheek. And while he was biting into that sandwich and that feeling of satiation flowed over his body he thought of all the times she treated him well, All the women before her that gave him shit when he asked for a sandwich and perhaps one that got away who did do it for him but he was too dumb to see what he had. He thought about his friends who had been telling him he had struck gold and better "do the right thing" and he said to himself: "you know what I need to tie this up."
But I'm sure this scenario is too hard for Ms. Walsh to understand. So they'll be wondering if it was the Mayo.
Lest you think I'm being to harsh look at Ms. Walsh's next commentary:
So when you say to me, Tracy McMillan, that I have to work around a "man's fear and insecurity in order to get married," I say to you, why aren't you telling me that I should be going out to look for the men who wants a woman like me? (They do exist; some of them are my friends.) Instead of being told I need to medicate my "craziness" to pander to a man's itty-bitty oh-so-witty ego, I want a man who is every bit my match, and is not scared off by that.
Mind you I didn't quite dig McMillan (and others) constant chatter about male "insecurity" because this isn't about security as much as it is about biology. There are certainly "insecure" people out there, but there is a difference between "insecure/ social phobia" and "insecure/ biological drive". However; Walsh has a point. Why doesn't she go for men who are into women like her? Note that she doesn't answer the question. Why not? Why does Ms. Walsh have so many male "friends" who by her accounts are "into her" and is still not married? By her own account they are "secure". So what's the problem? The problem is the same biological human sexuality issue that spans "status". She is probably not attracted to them "like that" and she is probably holding onto some fantasy man that none of those men qualify for. What's that? Yes the dog making noise again. She's all ME-I-ME-I-ME-I.
E-I E-I oooooooooh.
I believe McMillan had a point on that.
The last point that Walsh makes, really pissed me off though. Really:
When are women going to start telling women not to be afraid of raising children by themselves?
It might not be easy for us to be single mothers, but it would surely be workable, just another way of doing things that would have the same balance of happiness, sadness, and hardship as any other life I may choose to live.
I don't do running the man out the family unit. I don't. In African-America, there is, unfortunately a pandemic of children living with one parent. I'm not cool with it. It is not a good thing to have males disconnected from family and child rearing. In the end, such an idea that children should be had without a man is to turn men into simply sperm factories. It is no less objectification than what many feminist speak about in regards to women. What's even worse is that rampant single motherhood contributes to the idea that Walsh began with: not expecting anything from men. What's worse though, is that in reference to my discussion on monogamy, a woman who decides to have a child on her own, immediately drops many potential mates from her pool as a good number of men are unwilling to provide for another man's children. And it is entirely within their right to make such a decision. Of course Walsh does not care about that because it's all about her.
Overall though Walsh missed the entire point of McMillan's piece:
All that I'm trying to say, ladies, is stop trying to frighten me; make me feel empowered. Speak to me like I can make my own decisions, and don't demean the difficulties I may be having finding a guy who I think is worth my time and energy.
The entire point of McMillan's piece was to help people like Ms. Walsh make their own decisions by showing the fucked up thinking processes that are preventing some women who claim to want to be married from doing so. McMillan's piece highlights that some of the difficulties that some women are facing are of their own making. Any mature person would actually understand that. Immature people, and I think Walsh qualifies as one, are always looking to blame other people.
Those men are insecure.
Those men are intimidated by x y or z.
I want a b or c and if I can't have it then I'll take my dildo and go home.
I won't do A B or C in order to get him and it's his fault for expecting that.
Everything for them is the fault of someone or something "out there" instead of focusing on what they have to do to get what they claim they want. If a woman doesn't want to be married that's her business. And really she ought not indulge in "why you're not married" articles because they are not for her. And when someone asks here why she isn't married she should say like I do:
It's a result of choices I have made. And until I make new and different choices my status will likely stay the same. No one else is to blame.
I'll close with a Yoruba proverb that many of us "single and old" people need to take to heart:
Don't let best become the enemy of good.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
How Nokia Lost It
The recent news of the new CEO at Nokia deciding that Nokia would need to go in a different direction and jump off the "burning platform" did not surprise me at all. As a consumer of their Internet Tablet product I completely understand why Nokia is in the bind that it is in. Let me explain.
Nokia had the jump on touchscreen and wifi enabled devices when it released the Internet Tablet 770. I did not have one of these largely because I had never heard of it. Don't be surprised if you had never heard of it either. Nokia did a shit job of marketing the device. The excuse given for this "nit marketing" was that it was an "experimental device" and some sort of step one in five or so steps.
Seriously.
When the buzz about the upcoming IPhone was around Nokia released the N800 Internet tablet as an update to the 770. I bought one of these and still use it. Like the 770 it had a touchscreen, full web browsing featuring flash lite but also had a swiveling camera and an upgraded processor. It did not have a cell radio nor built in GPS but it could tether to a phone via DUN and to a GPS receiver via Bluetooth. Believe me when I say that the tablet was at its best when connected to the net at all times. It was arguably technically superior to the iPhone in many ways. However; the problem was this: Every time someone saw the Tablet the first question they asked was "what kind of phone is that?" and once I said that it was not a phone, all interest was lost. If you have to explain what your product is and more than one sentence, it's likely to fail. With the IPhone entering the market this was especially true for Nokia. But it gets worse.
Nokia still insisted that the n800 was stage 2 of whatever and not for "consumers". This line of "thinking" was very prominent in discussion boards such as Internet Tablet Talk (now talk.maemo.org) where many of the board members dismissed the IPhone as a toy for people who were suckers to the Jobs Reality Distortion Field. Many of these persons have since left for Android devices.
Ahem.
Many of these individuals would discuss the finer points of phone data plans for tethering. Which GPS receiver was best. What other OS's they could install, installing replacement browsers, e-mail clients and the REAL problem: What OS bug they found (and there were plenty).
Many bugs simply went unfixed by Nokia. The phrase we learned was "fixed in Freemantle" meaning the current OS at the time, Diablo, was not going to get any more updates and that device we had was now obsolete. As a matter of fact there was a group of members who created an update to deal with many known issues. Nice of them but really, that should have come from Nokia.
Thanks.
Of course the owners of the IT 770 knew that planned quick obsolescence was coming because their device had been abandoned by Nokia son after the N800 was released. So we knew it was coming. Having customers who know their stuff is going to be dumped soon is also a shit move. Many were in denial and merely did not want to believe this would happen to us so soon. Oh and did I mention that any OS update required complete wipe of the OS and applications? Oh fun. To Nokia's credit they fixed that particularly bad process...right before abandoning the platform and moving to the N900.
The N900 was an actual phone. Of course they shrunk the screen. Older developers soon dropped app compatibility with the previous systems. New ones would say they didn't have the time to code their
Product for the obsolete N8xx series or wimpy had no interest.
Small note I skipped the n810 which is was merely a cosmetic update to e n800 with the major changes being a slide out keyboard, onboard GPS and a better screen. They did remove the full SD slot for a micro SD slot rendering many of our SD cards....you know. It you had an 800 the incentive to upgrade depended largely on whether you wanted onboard GPS and/or the keyboard.
Sucks to be us.
The N900 was released about a year ago and was actually a tempting buy aside from it's tendency to eject it's USB port which also serves as the power port. It too was under marketed by Nokia. sorry I was too generous. not marketed at all in the US. Why?
1) It was step3 or 4 of step whatever.
2) not a consumer device.
And my favorite:
3) obsolete 'cause Meego was going to eat Maemo and well, see what happened to the N8xx series.
Oh did I mention that it only worked on T-mobile's 3G band? Seriously. I am not making this up. Six bills and 2G throughput for non t-mobile customers, which would be most of us in the US.
So in essence the whole Internet Tablet thing that Nokia was doing was adjust a bunch of "history repeating". Where we the so called geek consumer was asked to pay $400 to $600 to beta test their product which should have been their future but were just steps of some process. To nowhere apparently.
So what really doomed Nokia?
1) they treated their Internet tablets like some back lot paper airplane experiment which it charged it's customers for.
2) No US advertising to speak of. If I hadn't seen a report about the N800 in Arstechnica.com I would have never even known the thing existed. I still have not seen a single advertisement for the current IT. Of course that is due to item 1 above.
3) listening to it's geek base internal and/or external who said they would not want. Cell radio in it. Tech savvy geek are not the mass market. If you're seeking mass market appeal, they are the wrong demographic to listen to. Had I been able to say "yes this is a phone" there is no number of sales that I think I could have made of my current device.
4) lack of OS updates and applications. Nothing says "we don't give a damn" more than a lack of fixes and improvements on a regular basis for a product. That the mail app hangs regularly and chews battery in the process is something that ought to have been fixed. The fact that the browser Daemon will sit and chew battery after the browser quits ought to have been fixed. The fact that the swivel camera would not re-orientate whe the camera was facing away from the user ought go have been fixed. I should not have to shell out 4 to 6 hundred bucks for basic fixes to software.
So yeah, Nokia's on a burning platform and they're the one that set fire to it, fed it fuel and air while creating "bubble notifications" for Symbian.
Nokia is going to have to do that thing called advertising. You know, print, web and TV adverts. Their geek base is gone with a move to Windows phone OS deal with it. Whatever Nokia puts out it needs to be supported and targeted at consumers which means regular OS updates to fix issues and create more value as the product ages. Abandoning a product a year or less after it comes to market is simply not acceptable for a product that runs 600 bucks. Nokia needs to learn from the dumb stuff it did with what should have been a successful product, the Internet Tablet, and not repeat those errors.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Nokia had the jump on touchscreen and wifi enabled devices when it released the Internet Tablet 770. I did not have one of these largely because I had never heard of it. Don't be surprised if you had never heard of it either. Nokia did a shit job of marketing the device. The excuse given for this "nit marketing" was that it was an "experimental device" and some sort of step one in five or so steps.
Seriously.
When the buzz about the upcoming IPhone was around Nokia released the N800 Internet tablet as an update to the 770. I bought one of these and still use it. Like the 770 it had a touchscreen, full web browsing featuring flash lite but also had a swiveling camera and an upgraded processor. It did not have a cell radio nor built in GPS but it could tether to a phone via DUN and to a GPS receiver via Bluetooth. Believe me when I say that the tablet was at its best when connected to the net at all times. It was arguably technically superior to the iPhone in many ways. However; the problem was this: Every time someone saw the Tablet the first question they asked was "what kind of phone is that?" and once I said that it was not a phone, all interest was lost. If you have to explain what your product is and more than one sentence, it's likely to fail. With the IPhone entering the market this was especially true for Nokia. But it gets worse.
Nokia still insisted that the n800 was stage 2 of whatever and not for "consumers". This line of "thinking" was very prominent in discussion boards such as Internet Tablet Talk (now talk.maemo.org) where many of the board members dismissed the IPhone as a toy for people who were suckers to the Jobs Reality Distortion Field. Many of these persons have since left for Android devices.
Ahem.
Many of these individuals would discuss the finer points of phone data plans for tethering. Which GPS receiver was best. What other OS's they could install, installing replacement browsers, e-mail clients and the REAL problem: What OS bug they found (and there were plenty).
Many bugs simply went unfixed by Nokia. The phrase we learned was "fixed in Freemantle" meaning the current OS at the time, Diablo, was not going to get any more updates and that device we had was now obsolete. As a matter of fact there was a group of members who created an update to deal with many known issues. Nice of them but really, that should have come from Nokia.
Thanks.
Of course the owners of the IT 770 knew that planned quick obsolescence was coming because their device had been abandoned by Nokia son after the N800 was released. So we knew it was coming. Having customers who know their stuff is going to be dumped soon is also a shit move. Many were in denial and merely did not want to believe this would happen to us so soon. Oh and did I mention that any OS update required complete wipe of the OS and applications? Oh fun. To Nokia's credit they fixed that particularly bad process...right before abandoning the platform and moving to the N900.
The N900 was an actual phone. Of course they shrunk the screen. Older developers soon dropped app compatibility with the previous systems. New ones would say they didn't have the time to code their
Product for the obsolete N8xx series or wimpy had no interest.
Small note I skipped the n810 which is was merely a cosmetic update to e n800 with the major changes being a slide out keyboard, onboard GPS and a better screen. They did remove the full SD slot for a micro SD slot rendering many of our SD cards....you know. It you had an 800 the incentive to upgrade depended largely on whether you wanted onboard GPS and/or the keyboard.
Sucks to be us.
The N900 was released about a year ago and was actually a tempting buy aside from it's tendency to eject it's USB port which also serves as the power port. It too was under marketed by Nokia. sorry I was too generous. not marketed at all in the US. Why?
1) It was step3 or 4 of step whatever.
2) not a consumer device.
And my favorite:
3) obsolete 'cause Meego was going to eat Maemo and well, see what happened to the N8xx series.
Oh did I mention that it only worked on T-mobile's 3G band? Seriously. I am not making this up. Six bills and 2G throughput for non t-mobile customers, which would be most of us in the US.
So in essence the whole Internet Tablet thing that Nokia was doing was adjust a bunch of "history repeating". Where we the so called geek consumer was asked to pay $400 to $600 to beta test their product which should have been their future but were just steps of some process. To nowhere apparently.
So what really doomed Nokia?
1) they treated their Internet tablets like some back lot paper airplane experiment which it charged it's customers for.
2) No US advertising to speak of. If I hadn't seen a report about the N800 in Arstechnica.com I would have never even known the thing existed. I still have not seen a single advertisement for the current IT. Of course that is due to item 1 above.
3) listening to it's geek base internal and/or external who said they would not want. Cell radio in it. Tech savvy geek are not the mass market. If you're seeking mass market appeal, they are the wrong demographic to listen to. Had I been able to say "yes this is a phone" there is no number of sales that I think I could have made of my current device.
4) lack of OS updates and applications. Nothing says "we don't give a damn" more than a lack of fixes and improvements on a regular basis for a product. That the mail app hangs regularly and chews battery in the process is something that ought to have been fixed. The fact that the browser Daemon will sit and chew battery after the browser quits ought to have been fixed. The fact that the swivel camera would not re-orientate whe the camera was facing away from the user ought go have been fixed. I should not have to shell out 4 to 6 hundred bucks for basic fixes to software.
So yeah, Nokia's on a burning platform and they're the one that set fire to it, fed it fuel and air while creating "bubble notifications" for Symbian.
Nokia is going to have to do that thing called advertising. You know, print, web and TV adverts. Their geek base is gone with a move to Windows phone OS deal with it. Whatever Nokia puts out it needs to be supported and targeted at consumers which means regular OS updates to fix issues and create more value as the product ages. Abandoning a product a year or less after it comes to market is simply not acceptable for a product that runs 600 bucks. Nokia needs to learn from the dumb stuff it did with what should have been a successful product, the Internet Tablet, and not repeat those errors.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, December 10, 2010
Lessons Learned from Horror Flicks
I run. Like sub 6 min. miles when I choose. As I went up in pace I learned e hard way that for most of us, we're not going to run 12 miles at the same pace that we run a 5k. Not a few of us go out way too fast and get caught somewhere along the race by someone else who we "left in the dust" at the beginning of the race. Which brings me to Jason.
Those of you familiar with the Halloween series knows that Jason, perhaps the slowest moving serial killer in movie history almost always manages to catch his prey. Jason paces himself. After all he can't be all out of breath and passed out when he finally catches his victim. No, Jason knows that most amateurs will bolt from the start line, or in his case, the very sight of him. He knows that most people cannot keep that initial pace up for very long and once winded will slow to a pace that is much slower than a faster pace they could have sustained for a longer period of time. It is at that point that even at a slower pace, Jason can catch up and decapitate his victim.
So the lesson is: run your race and keep your pace. It's the best way to survive.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Those of you familiar with the Halloween series knows that Jason, perhaps the slowest moving serial killer in movie history almost always manages to catch his prey. Jason paces himself. After all he can't be all out of breath and passed out when he finally catches his victim. No, Jason knows that most amateurs will bolt from the start line, or in his case, the very sight of him. He knows that most people cannot keep that initial pace up for very long and once winded will slow to a pace that is much slower than a faster pace they could have sustained for a longer period of time. It is at that point that even at a slower pace, Jason can catch up and decapitate his victim.
So the lesson is: run your race and keep your pace. It's the best way to survive.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
New Kindle for the Web Beta
Works on my Nokia N800 in the Tear Browser. The full screen mode is the best bet. Only fits a few lines of text on screen though. How about that for an "ancient" piece of hardware?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Elin is Pookie
A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere -MLK Jr.
Stop ya eye rollin' over that quote and read on.
When Arizona passed their "immigration enforcement" law, SB 1040, people went nuts. They called the law legalized racial profiling. One would have thought that somehow prior to the passage of that bill that actual legalized racial profiling hadn't already been standard op in the country. I had long pointed out that hundreds of thousands of people in NYC, particularly black men are stopped and frisked when they have committed no crimes which is a blatant violation of their 4th Amendment rights. This has been going on for years but it was not seen as a big issue, Why? In my opinion it's the general idea that niggas are criminal and so it's OK. Well having allowed that precedent to go unchallenged we now have Arizona. Hence the reason for the quote regarding a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
So those of us who understand that when an injustice happens to someone "way over there" or "who can afford it", it poses a danger to the rest of us. Thus we have before us the Tiger Woods divorce fiasco.
Black and Bougie posted a piece in regards to "Pookies" that contained this gem:
Apoplectic fits of Twitter rage? really? I love (sarcasm) how certain females love to misstate what men are thinking or doing. Love it. The author trots out the tired line of "well that's not going to apply to them". Really? I refer the reader back to the above discussion of Arizona. The supposedly small and insignificant decision "over there" will in fact affect them should they get married and unfortunately get divorced. And, ahem, that goes for women as well.
Mind you, the piece goes into an excellent discussion of why Pookie is best left alone or at least why he ought to be carefully watched. However; This isn't about defending Pookie, or Woods for that matter. This is about, shall we say, equality.
I was reading the Twitter discussion about Pookies and "Mr Fix it". The discussion could be summed up like this:
Beware of men who have little to offer by way of income or other assets, because after you pull them up and set them up, you may end up divorced in which case you, the high net worth female, will find yourself out of a house or other "marital property" and paying for a man who didn't do much for you. Except perhaps warm the sheets.
Honestly I can't disagree with this statement. But it cuts both ways. Which brings us to the soon to be ex Woods.
It is reported that Elin Wood's is asking, straight faced, for $750 million.
Yes. $3/4 billion. Pause and let that amount sink in for a bit.
These same females who are correctly objecting to Pookie getting a free ride off their hard work actually AGREE that Elin Wood's deserves $3/4 billion.
Sheer hypocracy.
Let's run down Elin's history shall we. She met Tiger Wood's in 2001. At which time Mr. Woods was already winning major tournaments. In fact by the time Wood's married Elin, he was on a record winning streak. What was Elin doing in 2001? She was a Nanny.
A Nanny.
In three years Elin goes from Nanny to the wife of the greatest golfer in the world. That's like Pookie going from parking cars to Oprah's mansion. OK?
And let me ask. What exactly did Elin do to enable Mr. Woods to earn his money? Was she his trainer? Nope. Would anyone argue that Tiger Wood's trainer is perhaps the one person other than Mr. Woods who has had a direct impact on Mr. Woods ability to earn? Has that trainer (or trainers) been paid $750 million for their services? If not, could we not argue straight faced that if anyone actually invested in Tiger Woods in such a manner that actually produced income that it would be Woods' trainers?
Lets be clear here. Elin Woods was not your typical wife. Unlike those women I see everyday. She was not working a full time job to help ends meet. She didn't leave the job to come home and take care of the kids and cook dinner and clean the house like so many women do. No. Lets be honest here. The Woods had a maid or two or three. They likely had in house chefs. They hired grounds keepers to take care of the lawn. Neither Woods probably ever had to worry about a car note or even owned a vehicle long enough for it to break down.
Elin didn't have to clean shit. Elin didn't have to cook shit. Elin didn't have to get up early in the morning to go to some job not paying her what the dude in the next cubicle with less qualifications than her was earning. No, Elin Woods went from Nanny to Escalade, beach front property, 1st class air travel, Shopping at stores I don't even bother looking in the window of. First class all the way. All Elin had to do for all that was show up at tournaments and cock her legs to the side on occasion.
Elin is Pookie. You can't argue that Pookie ought to be avoided cause he'll use your shit and then try to claim more at the divorce hearing and then say that Elin deserves $750 million (greater than the GDP of some nations) when she brought absolutely NOTHING to Wood's earning potential other than white skin and blond hair.
Some will argue that the $750 includes child support. Look, maids and nanny's would have been taking care of Woods' kids anyway. If the judge is so concerned about them being taken care of then that judge ought to award custody to Woods.
Now some idiot will misconstrue this as defending Tiger Woods. I could care less about what Tiger Woods does. What I do care about is the precedent that is set when someone can lay claim to someone's hard earned income, when they had a negligible part in the earning of that income and I don't care what gender they are. Such a precedent is a danger to everyone.
Does Elin deserve a payout? Absolutely. Mr. Woods stepped out on his marriage contract. He should not have. I have no problem with even a multi-million dollar payout for that. Personally I'd cap that at $50 million which I still think is excessive for someone who brought next to nothing to the marriage. I would not agree to her not being able to speak on her relationship. Woods cheated. That's just one of the fallouts. But if she did agree to such a gag, then I would up the award due to the fact that such a gag would impact her earning potential.
So lets be fair. Elin has shown that she is a gold digger period. She knows she hasn't done anything warranting $3/4 billion but she's asking for it anyway. We, well actually the women supporting this bid ought to recognize that she is no different to Pookie and stop defending that demand.
Stop ya eye rollin' over that quote and read on.
When Arizona passed their "immigration enforcement" law, SB 1040, people went nuts. They called the law legalized racial profiling. One would have thought that somehow prior to the passage of that bill that actual legalized racial profiling hadn't already been standard op in the country. I had long pointed out that hundreds of thousands of people in NYC, particularly black men are stopped and frisked when they have committed no crimes which is a blatant violation of their 4th Amendment rights. This has been going on for years but it was not seen as a big issue, Why? In my opinion it's the general idea that niggas are criminal and so it's OK. Well having allowed that precedent to go unchallenged we now have Arizona. Hence the reason for the quote regarding a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
So those of us who understand that when an injustice happens to someone "way over there" or "who can afford it", it poses a danger to the rest of us. Thus we have before us the Tiger Woods divorce fiasco.
Black and Bougie posted a piece in regards to "Pookies" that contained this gem:
Yesterday, @CarolynEdgar started discussing Elin Woods' alleged request for $750MM in a divorce from Le Tigre. This sent a bunch of men into apoplectic fits of Twitter rage. Then it was pointed out that for most of them… this wasn't going to be an issue. It was further pointed out that in this day and age when professional women outnumber and out earn men (amongst the African American ranks) chances were that in a lot of divorces, the woman would end up paying the man anyway. This segued into her hilarious rant on why it's a not always a great for an upwardly mobile chick to date Pookie or Ray-Ray:
Apoplectic fits of Twitter rage? really? I love (sarcasm) how certain females love to misstate what men are thinking or doing. Love it. The author trots out the tired line of "well that's not going to apply to them". Really? I refer the reader back to the above discussion of Arizona. The supposedly small and insignificant decision "over there" will in fact affect them should they get married and unfortunately get divorced. And, ahem, that goes for women as well.
Mind you, the piece goes into an excellent discussion of why Pookie is best left alone or at least why he ought to be carefully watched. However; This isn't about defending Pookie, or Woods for that matter. This is about, shall we say, equality.
I was reading the Twitter discussion about Pookies and "Mr Fix it". The discussion could be summed up like this:
Beware of men who have little to offer by way of income or other assets, because after you pull them up and set them up, you may end up divorced in which case you, the high net worth female, will find yourself out of a house or other "marital property" and paying for a man who didn't do much for you. Except perhaps warm the sheets.
Honestly I can't disagree with this statement. But it cuts both ways. Which brings us to the soon to be ex Woods.
It is reported that Elin Wood's is asking, straight faced, for $750 million.
Yes. $3/4 billion. Pause and let that amount sink in for a bit.
These same females who are correctly objecting to Pookie getting a free ride off their hard work actually AGREE that Elin Wood's deserves $3/4 billion.
Sheer hypocracy.
Let's run down Elin's history shall we. She met Tiger Wood's in 2001. At which time Mr. Woods was already winning major tournaments. In fact by the time Wood's married Elin, he was on a record winning streak. What was Elin doing in 2001? She was a Nanny.
A Nanny.
In three years Elin goes from Nanny to the wife of the greatest golfer in the world. That's like Pookie going from parking cars to Oprah's mansion. OK?
And let me ask. What exactly did Elin do to enable Mr. Woods to earn his money? Was she his trainer? Nope. Would anyone argue that Tiger Wood's trainer is perhaps the one person other than Mr. Woods who has had a direct impact on Mr. Woods ability to earn? Has that trainer (or trainers) been paid $750 million for their services? If not, could we not argue straight faced that if anyone actually invested in Tiger Woods in such a manner that actually produced income that it would be Woods' trainers?
Lets be clear here. Elin Woods was not your typical wife. Unlike those women I see everyday. She was not working a full time job to help ends meet. She didn't leave the job to come home and take care of the kids and cook dinner and clean the house like so many women do. No. Lets be honest here. The Woods had a maid or two or three. They likely had in house chefs. They hired grounds keepers to take care of the lawn. Neither Woods probably ever had to worry about a car note or even owned a vehicle long enough for it to break down.
Elin didn't have to clean shit. Elin didn't have to cook shit. Elin didn't have to get up early in the morning to go to some job not paying her what the dude in the next cubicle with less qualifications than her was earning. No, Elin Woods went from Nanny to Escalade, beach front property, 1st class air travel, Shopping at stores I don't even bother looking in the window of. First class all the way. All Elin had to do for all that was show up at tournaments and cock her legs to the side on occasion.
Elin is Pookie. You can't argue that Pookie ought to be avoided cause he'll use your shit and then try to claim more at the divorce hearing and then say that Elin deserves $750 million (greater than the GDP of some nations) when she brought absolutely NOTHING to Wood's earning potential other than white skin and blond hair.
Some will argue that the $750 includes child support. Look, maids and nanny's would have been taking care of Woods' kids anyway. If the judge is so concerned about them being taken care of then that judge ought to award custody to Woods.
Now some idiot will misconstrue this as defending Tiger Woods. I could care less about what Tiger Woods does. What I do care about is the precedent that is set when someone can lay claim to someone's hard earned income, when they had a negligible part in the earning of that income and I don't care what gender they are. Such a precedent is a danger to everyone.
Does Elin deserve a payout? Absolutely. Mr. Woods stepped out on his marriage contract. He should not have. I have no problem with even a multi-million dollar payout for that. Personally I'd cap that at $50 million which I still think is excessive for someone who brought next to nothing to the marriage. I would not agree to her not being able to speak on her relationship. Woods cheated. That's just one of the fallouts. But if she did agree to such a gag, then I would up the award due to the fact that such a gag would impact her earning potential.
So lets be fair. Elin has shown that she is a gold digger period. She knows she hasn't done anything warranting $3/4 billion but she's asking for it anyway. We, well actually the women supporting this bid ought to recognize that she is no different to Pookie and stop defending that demand.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Problem With Statutory Rape Laws
The recent arrest of LT over his alleged statutory rape of a 16 year old has gotten me to thinking about the issue of statutory rape. For those not familiar with the term, statutory rape is when a minor engages in sexual intercourse. Period. Under the law a minor cannot consent to sexual intercourse. It is an odd law when you really think about it. In fact the law is so odd that in many states (if not all) there are various exceptions. These exceptions generally surround sexual intercourse between minors of similar age. But those exceptions highlight the serious constitutional problem with statutory rape laws. Let me highlight a few of them:
1) Rape by definition requires intent. No one "accidentally" rapes a person. A rapist explicitly does not inquire, care or regard the wishes of his or her victim. A rapist can never say that he or she "didn't know" that the person did not consent. Even in the case of a person who has sex with a person who is knocked out drunk cannot claim ignorance. A passed out person cannot give consent simply because they are physically unable to do so.
Statutory rape, being defined as rape defies this logic because statutory rape laws do not require any intent on the part of the person charged with this crime. which leads us to problem two:
2) Unlike the vast majority of laws (if not all, I'm not a lawyer so I can't make an authoritative statement on that), statutory rape is a charge with no defense. It is the only law I know of that completely bypasses a person's ability to defend his or herself. All the government has to show is that the victim is in fact a minor. That is all. Think about this for a minute is there any other felony that one cannot argue a defense for?
Lets make up an hypothetical situation. You are a baggage handler. A co-worker who is a terrorist hands you a bag full of explosives set to go off while the plane is in the air. You put the bag on the plane. Plane blows up. Hundreds of people die. The bag is identified and video is presented that shows that you put the bag on the plane. Case is closed.
You, the hypothetical baggage handler would immediately argue that:
1) You had no idea the bag was a bomb. If you had known you would not have put the bag in the plane. However if the law was written the way the statutory rape laws are, that would not be a valid defense. The fact that you put the bag on the plane meant that you committed a terrorist act. End of story.
Or
2) The person who handed you the bag represented himself (clothes, demeanor, etc) as an authorized and trusted airport personnel whom you had reasonable expectations to not be trying to get you to commit a crime. Again if the law was written the way the statutory rape laws are, that would also not be a valid defense. That you did not know that the person was not a criminal with criminal intent would not absolve you from the fact that you put the bag on the plane. Furthermore, that you did not inquire, on the spot, for paperwork proving that said co-worker was not a criminal and that you did not open this bag and check it for explosives, would also not a viable defense because again, you put the bag on the plane and therefore you committed a terrorist act.
Clearly no reasonable person would accept such a legal prosecution. Clearly the baggage handler was duped into aiding an actual criminal into committing a crime the handler had no intentions of committing. No prosecutor in his or her right mind would prosecute the baggage handler even though 100's of people are dead.
In reality the baggage handler would be arrested and interrogated. They would tell their story, the person who gave them the bag would be identified, etc. etc. and that person would be sent home. Why would this happen? Because the law has to recognize that people are sometimes duped into abetting or committing criminal offenses they would not have committed. When this is done by law enforcement it is called entrapment. When done by civilians it is referred to as blackmail, fraud, extortion, etc.
This brings us back to LT. According to news reports LT's position was that he asked this girl her age. She told him she was 19 when in fact she was 16. I haven't seen her. Nor do I know how she was dressed, whether she had makeup on, the lighting in the room, etc. I do know that 16 year olds can in fact be mistook for 18-19 year olds and some 18-19 year olds can be mistook for minors.
A lot of people want to make the argument that a "grown man" like LT ought not be fooling around with 19 YO. Maybe so. But that's not illegal. Our personal morality on the matter isn't legally relevant. What is relevant is that in NYS if a minor gives a false statement of his or her age to a would be statutory rapist that is the basis of a valid defense (well if you have a decent lawyer). In LT's case the "victim" made an official statement that she told LT she was 19.
What is bothersome about many of the statements made by people about the case purporting that 16 year olds are incapable of decision making is that if a 16 yo commits murder, the state demands justice. While that 16 yo is tried in juvenile court, there is still an expectation of responsibility on the part of this minor.
Such a thing shows a two facedness about statutory rape laws. How can a 16 year old minor be so unable to consent to sexual intercourse, but can be held responsible for committing a rape themselves or stealing, killing, committing assault, etc.
Some say that we can't expect a 16 year old to tell the truth. That argument doesn't make sense either. 16 year olds can get on the stand and be expected to testify truthfully. They are expected to be truthful and pick out their attackers in a lineup. How then do we suddenly say that in reference to sexual behavior and telling their age they suddenly lack the capacity to tell the truth? Fact is that 16 year olds make decisions about who they will or will not have sex with all the time. They know full well that they can get an STD. They know they can get pregnant. There is little mystery in regards to sex with a 16 year old unless that minor has been locked up in a place with no access to TV, radio or internet.
Let's be honest about what statutory rape laws are for. They are for teachers who start sexual relationships with their students. They are for baby sitters or other adults who know full well the age of their victims but still initiate or accept an invitation for a sexual relationship. They are for pedophiles who are online and seek out minors. They are for pedophiles who stalk school yards and other places where persons known to be minors are in regular attendance. They are for persons who carry out long term relationships with an adult in order to have access to their children. In short statutory rape laws exist to prosecute those who knowingly and willingly engage in sexual intercourse with a known minor. When the law does not take into account that there are a minority of cases where the supposed "rapist" does not know the true age of the victim and it is reasonable that said perpetrator could think that the person is in fact "legal" then that law is very faulty. I dare say that such a law is unconstitutional. Remember that the founders were of the opinion that it is better to let a 100 guilty people go free than to let 1 innocent "man" lose his liberty.
Why does this matter? It matters because once a law is on the books that takes away a defendants right to show that he or she had no intention of participating in a crime, then the door is open for more laws to be written that prosecute people without any viable defense. And we know this has already happened.
1) Rape by definition requires intent. No one "accidentally" rapes a person. A rapist explicitly does not inquire, care or regard the wishes of his or her victim. A rapist can never say that he or she "didn't know" that the person did not consent. Even in the case of a person who has sex with a person who is knocked out drunk cannot claim ignorance. A passed out person cannot give consent simply because they are physically unable to do so.
Statutory rape, being defined as rape defies this logic because statutory rape laws do not require any intent on the part of the person charged with this crime. which leads us to problem two:
2) Unlike the vast majority of laws (if not all, I'm not a lawyer so I can't make an authoritative statement on that), statutory rape is a charge with no defense. It is the only law I know of that completely bypasses a person's ability to defend his or herself. All the government has to show is that the victim is in fact a minor. That is all. Think about this for a minute is there any other felony that one cannot argue a defense for?
Lets make up an hypothetical situation. You are a baggage handler. A co-worker who is a terrorist hands you a bag full of explosives set to go off while the plane is in the air. You put the bag on the plane. Plane blows up. Hundreds of people die. The bag is identified and video is presented that shows that you put the bag on the plane. Case is closed.
You, the hypothetical baggage handler would immediately argue that:
1) You had no idea the bag was a bomb. If you had known you would not have put the bag in the plane. However if the law was written the way the statutory rape laws are, that would not be a valid defense. The fact that you put the bag on the plane meant that you committed a terrorist act. End of story.
Or
2) The person who handed you the bag represented himself (clothes, demeanor, etc) as an authorized and trusted airport personnel whom you had reasonable expectations to not be trying to get you to commit a crime. Again if the law was written the way the statutory rape laws are, that would also not be a valid defense. That you did not know that the person was not a criminal with criminal intent would not absolve you from the fact that you put the bag on the plane. Furthermore, that you did not inquire, on the spot, for paperwork proving that said co-worker was not a criminal and that you did not open this bag and check it for explosives, would also not a viable defense because again, you put the bag on the plane and therefore you committed a terrorist act.
Clearly no reasonable person would accept such a legal prosecution. Clearly the baggage handler was duped into aiding an actual criminal into committing a crime the handler had no intentions of committing. No prosecutor in his or her right mind would prosecute the baggage handler even though 100's of people are dead.
In reality the baggage handler would be arrested and interrogated. They would tell their story, the person who gave them the bag would be identified, etc. etc. and that person would be sent home. Why would this happen? Because the law has to recognize that people are sometimes duped into abetting or committing criminal offenses they would not have committed. When this is done by law enforcement it is called entrapment. When done by civilians it is referred to as blackmail, fraud, extortion, etc.
This brings us back to LT. According to news reports LT's position was that he asked this girl her age. She told him she was 19 when in fact she was 16. I haven't seen her. Nor do I know how she was dressed, whether she had makeup on, the lighting in the room, etc. I do know that 16 year olds can in fact be mistook for 18-19 year olds and some 18-19 year olds can be mistook for minors.
A lot of people want to make the argument that a "grown man" like LT ought not be fooling around with 19 YO. Maybe so. But that's not illegal. Our personal morality on the matter isn't legally relevant. What is relevant is that in NYS if a minor gives a false statement of his or her age to a would be statutory rapist that is the basis of a valid defense (well if you have a decent lawyer). In LT's case the "victim" made an official statement that she told LT she was 19.
What is bothersome about many of the statements made by people about the case purporting that 16 year olds are incapable of decision making is that if a 16 yo commits murder, the state demands justice. While that 16 yo is tried in juvenile court, there is still an expectation of responsibility on the part of this minor.
Such a thing shows a two facedness about statutory rape laws. How can a 16 year old minor be so unable to consent to sexual intercourse, but can be held responsible for committing a rape themselves or stealing, killing, committing assault, etc.
Some say that we can't expect a 16 year old to tell the truth. That argument doesn't make sense either. 16 year olds can get on the stand and be expected to testify truthfully. They are expected to be truthful and pick out their attackers in a lineup. How then do we suddenly say that in reference to sexual behavior and telling their age they suddenly lack the capacity to tell the truth? Fact is that 16 year olds make decisions about who they will or will not have sex with all the time. They know full well that they can get an STD. They know they can get pregnant. There is little mystery in regards to sex with a 16 year old unless that minor has been locked up in a place with no access to TV, radio or internet.
Let's be honest about what statutory rape laws are for. They are for teachers who start sexual relationships with their students. They are for baby sitters or other adults who know full well the age of their victims but still initiate or accept an invitation for a sexual relationship. They are for pedophiles who are online and seek out minors. They are for pedophiles who stalk school yards and other places where persons known to be minors are in regular attendance. They are for persons who carry out long term relationships with an adult in order to have access to their children. In short statutory rape laws exist to prosecute those who knowingly and willingly engage in sexual intercourse with a known minor. When the law does not take into account that there are a minority of cases where the supposed "rapist" does not know the true age of the victim and it is reasonable that said perpetrator could think that the person is in fact "legal" then that law is very faulty. I dare say that such a law is unconstitutional. Remember that the founders were of the opinion that it is better to let a 100 guilty people go free than to let 1 innocent "man" lose his liberty.
Why does this matter? It matters because once a law is on the books that takes away a defendants right to show that he or she had no intention of participating in a crime, then the door is open for more laws to be written that prosecute people without any viable defense. And we know this has already happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
