The Daily Beast publishes column that alleges ‘true rape’ doesn’t occur in prison

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, will likely fare well in prison because “true rape” is mostly a myth, according to a column published by The Daily Beast on Thursday.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years for leaking U.S. secret documents on Wednesday. She is expected to serve her time at the Fort Leavenworth military base in Kansas.

In a column published by The Daily Beast on Thursday, author Mansfield Frazier said Manning was likely to be “treated quite well” based on his own experiences in prison. He said the popular image of widespread prison rape was untrue.

Though Frazier admitted federal reports showed more than a third of transgender former inmates were sexually assaulted in prison, he claimed this statistic wasn’t measuring incidents of “true rape.” Inmates who were closeted often falsely said they were raped to hide their sexuality, he claimed. Frazier said closeted homosexuals were “one reason for high recidivism rates.”

Frazier wrote:

Indeed, the vast majority of experienced convicts know that “true” rape is not a common occurrence in prison. That doesn’t mean that homosexual sex doesn’t occur—it certainly does. But it’s really not that unusual for a new prisoner to show up on the compound and begin walking around the yard in pants far too tight. Before long they drop the soap in the shower, get a little close to another naked man, and then— simply because they’ve never been able to come to terms with their own sexuality—tell anyone who will listen (but, interestingly enough, they usually never complain to the guards) that they were “raped.” And a week or two later it could happen again, and then again.

Responding to a critical commenter, Frazier doubled-down on his claim that some men wanted to be raped. In the comments section, he wrote:

True rape against anyone is horrible, and I would never condone it. But, there are some guys in prison who set themselves up for “rape” again, and again, and again. All they have to do if they don’t want to participate in the sexual activity is to go into protective custody … but men many don’t. Why?

Nearly one in 10 prisoners report having been raped or sexually assaulted by other inmates, staff or both, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Inmates who identify as gay or bisexual are particularly vulnerable. More than one-third of gay and bisexual male inmates said that they were victimized in prison.

UPDATE: The column was later edited and the paragraph about “true rape” was removed.

7 Mind Blowing Moments From Zimmerman Juror B37′s First Interview

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

On Monday night, one of the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial offered shocking insight into how the group of six women reached its decision to acquit the defendant of all charges in the murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Juror B-37 — who initially planned to write a book about the trial — revealed that the jurors considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in reaching their verdict, appeared to strongly sympathize with the defendant, and felt that race played no factor in the incident. Below are Juror B-37′s most surprising revelations:

1. Martin was responsible for his own death.

JUROR: It was just hard, thinking that somebody lost their life, and there’s nothing else that could be done about it. I mean, it’s what happened. It’s sad. It’s a tragedy this happened, but it happened. And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn’t happen.

2. Juror felt just as sorry for Zimmerman.

COOPER: Do you feel sorry for Trayvon Martin?

JUROR: I feel sorry for both of them. I feel sorry for Trayvon, in the situation he was in. And I feel sorry for George because of the situation he got himself in.

3. Zimmerman should continue to serve as a neighborhood watchman because he has learned his lesson about going too far.

COOPER: Is George Zimmerman somebody you would like to have on a neighborhood watch in your community?

JUROR: If he didn’t go too far. I mean, you can always go too far. He just didn’t stop at the limitations that he should have stopped at.

COOPER: So is that a yes or — if he didn’t go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable —

JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I — I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson.

COOPER: So you would feel comfortable having him now, because you think he’s learned a lesson from all of this?

JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn’t know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

5. Zimmerman was only guilty of using poor judgment and was “egged” on to follow Martin by the 9/11 operator.

COOPER: Do you think he’s guilty of something?

JUROR: I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car. But the 911 operator also, when he was talking to him, kind of egged him on.

6. Race played absolutely no factor in Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin.

JUROR: I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber, or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood because of all that had gone on previously. There were unbelievable, a number of robberies in the neighborhood.

COOPER: So you don’t believe race played a role in this case?

JUROR: I don’t think it did. I think if there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian, if they came in the same situation where Trayvon was, I think George would have reacted the exact same way.

COOPER: Why do you think George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin suspicious then?

JUROR: Because he was cutting through the back, it was raining. He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. But I mean, that’s George’s rendition of it, but I think the situation where Trayvon got into him being late at night, dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking, if that’s exactly what happened, is suspicious. And George said that he didn’t recognize who he was.

COOPER: Well, was that a common belief on the jury that race was not — that race did not play a role in this?

JUROR: I think all of us thought that race did not play a role. [...]

COOPER: It didn’t come up, the question of, did George Zimmerman profile Trayvon Martin because he was African-American?

JUROR: No, I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch, and he profiled anyone who came in acting strange. I think it was just circumstances happened that he saw Trayvon at the exact time that he thought he was suspicious.

7. Zimmerman’s history of reporting black men to the police and his decision to follow Martin played no role in the verdict.

COOPER: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager, none of that in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

JUROR: Exactly. That’s exactly what happened.

Juror B-37 twice used the phrase “George said,” even though Zimmerman himself didn’t testify. Tapes of Zimmerman explaining the incident were shown in the courtroom.

Texas man guns down couple over dog poop on his porch

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Police say a 75-year-old man in Dallas is being charged with Capital Murder after he allegedly shot and killed two neighbors because they had dumped dog feces on his porch.

According to The Dallas Morning News, Chung Kim had repeatedly complained to management at Sable Ridge Apartments that Michelle Jackson and Jamie Stafford, who lived above him, had dumped dog feces on his porch and allowed their dog, Selena, to urinate on the upstairs balcony which dripped down to his patio.

Tension finally boiled over on Monday when Kim was on his patio and shot 31-year-old Jackson multiple times as she stood on the patio above him, police said. He then reportedly went upstairs and shot Stafford, who was also 31, as he was trying to escape. After Stafford fell from the second floor, Kim is accused of going back downstairs and shooting him again.

I heard about eight or nine gunshots just go off, ‘Bow, bow, bow,’ like three separate times,” resident Michael Issa told KXAS. “It was like, first there was two or three, then there was a pause for like 30 or 40 seconds and then there was another three or four shots, and there was a pause, and a couple more shots.”

“I waited for like three or four minutes and I ain’t hear nothing. I came outside to smoke a cigarette and look upstairs and there’s feet hanging over my head,” he recalled.

Resident Yoland Washington said that three of the couple’s children were away from home at the time of the shooting, but an infant had been in the apartment.

“When they come home today, their mother and their father is gone,” Washington lamented. “Little baby — they call the newborn Little Mama — Little Mama is not going to never know her parents. She’ll never know her parents. Never.”

I heard about eight or nine gunshots just go off, ‘Bow, bow, bow,’ like three separate times,” resident Michael Issa told KXAS. “It was like, first there was two or three, then there was a pause for like 30 or 40 seconds and then there was another three or four shots, and there was a pause, and a couple more shots.”

“I waited for like three or four minutes and I ain’t hear nothing. I came outside to smoke a cigarette and look upstairs and there’s feet hanging over my head,” he recalled.

Resident Yoland Washington said that three of the couple’s children were away from home at the time of the shooting, but an infant had been in the apartment.

“When they come home today, their mother and their father is gone,” Washington lamented. “Little baby — they call the newborn Little Mama — Little Mama is not going to never know her parents. She’ll never know her parents. Never.”

Neighbors told the Morning News that Jackson had volunteered about 30 hours a week for AmeriCorps VISTA, helping to combat poverty. She also tutored disadvantaged children through the nonprofit Dallas Community Lighthouse.

Local AmeriCorps director Keven Vicknair said that Jackson had been going to school for a degree in education.

“She was really happy she was going back to school,” he explained. “It’s insane that this happened to her [when] everything was looking up. She was great.”
Child Protective Services took temporary custody of the 1-month-old child, but all of the children are now staying with relatives. The couple’s dog is being adopted by a neighbor.
Watch this video from KTVT, broadcast Feb. 4, 2013.

In Response To A String Of Sexual Assaults, New York Police Tell Women To Cover Up Instead Of Catching The Attacker

By Marie Diamond/Think Progress

In response to a string of at least 10 unsolved sexual assaults in Brooklyn, New York police are reportedly stopping women on the street who are wearing clothing they say is revealing and advising them to cover up if they don’t want to be raped. The Wall Street Journal reports on the disturbing message police officers are allegedly spreading:

Lauren, a South Slope resident, was walking home three blocks from the gym on Monday when she was stopped. The 25-year-old, who did not want her last name to be used, was wearing shorts and a T-shirt when she claims a police officer asked if she would stop and talk to him. He also stopped two other women wearing dresses. [...]

“He pointed at my outfit and said, ‘Don’t you think your shorts are a little short?‘” she recalled. “He pointed at their dresses and said they were showing a lot of skin.”

He said that such clothing could make the suspect think he had “easy access,”said Lauren. She said the officer explained that “you’re exactly the kind of girl this guy is targeting.”

The New York City Police Department did not deny that officers were stopping women to talk to them about their clothing, but reasoned, “They are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.” But however well-intentioned, focusing on women’s choices — rather than the attackers’ — is just another way of blaming potential victims. It’s wrong to suggest that women are responsible for the actions of the attacker, or can somehow control whether they are targeted or raped.

Jessica Silk, the founder of a community group formed in the wake of the attacks, Safe Slope, criticizes the reported tactic as “completely inappropriate.” She says that instead of discouraging women from wearing certain types of clothing, police should be sending the message “Here are ways you can protect yourself.”

Many women in the neighborhood, who are already frightened and taking steps to protect themselves, are protesting that their clothing choices shouldn’t even be part of the discussion. Lauren, one of the women who was stopped, asks, “Where do you draw the line? I can’t wear shorts?” She says she thanked the officer but said she would prefer that he focus on catching the perpetrators, rather than scrutinizing women’s appearance.

Montana Legislator Introduces Bill To Declare Global Warming ‘Natural’ And ‘Beneficial’

By Brad Johnson

A bill has been introduced in the Montana state legislature to declare global warming a “natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it,” and that it is “beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana.” State Rep. Joe Read (R-MT), a farmer and emergency firefighter who unseated a Democratic incumbent in 2010, introduced HB 549 “to ensure economic development in Montana”:

The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana’s natural resources it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.

(2) The legislature finds:

(a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;

(b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and

(c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it.

In an exclusive interview with the ThinkProgress Wonk Room, the 55-year-old first-time legislator explained why he filed this bill to outlaw science, which even he admitted was a “radical” act. Read did not consult any climate scientists — including Montana’s own experts, who warn of drought, infestation, wildfires and “large economic impacts” — in the drafting of this bill. Instead he relied on his own experience andunderstanding of the issues at play. He told us:

If you follow the money, the science has been pushed toward where the money is coming from. The money is coming from the federal government.I believe global science is an ideal, not a true science.

Donald Trump Points To Snow Storms, Calls For Al Gore To Be Stripped Of Nobel Prize

From Huffington Post

Donald Trump wants the Nobel Committee to strip former Vice President Al Gore of his Nobel Peace Prize.

The New York Post reports that the billionaire told a country club crowd of 500 that recent snow storms on the east coast prove that Gore is wrong about global warming:

"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore."

And

"Gore wants us to clean up our factories... when China and other countries couldn't care less... China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity."

"The Donald" did not include Vancouver's unseasonably warm temperatures and lack of snow in his weather observations.

After last week's record-breaking storms, many scientists went to great lengths to explain that the storms do not disprove climate change. Some even believe that climate change contributed to the storms.

Last Friday, another billionaire, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, went after climate change deniers and explained that climate change and CO2 emissions pose a huge threat to people everywhere.

In 2009, Forbes ranked Bill Gates as the richest American with a net worth of $50 billion. Donald Trump ranked 158 on the same list, with a significantly smaller net worth of $2 billion.