Rape

The #SoWhat Movement


cjones09222018

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that Republicans are defending Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee who is accused of sexual assault and attempted rape. They’ve already defended Nazis.

Donald Trump says “Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people he’s ever known,” but Trump has known people like Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Stephen Miller, Roy Cohn, Rodrigo Duterte, Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un.

Kavanaugh is accused of sexually assaulting and trying to rape Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist in Northern California, at a social gather in the 1980s when they were both teenagers. She claims Kavanaugh was holding her down and trying to get her clothes off, covering her mouth, so she couldn’t scream, while one of his friends watched. Kavanaugh claims he didn’t do it, and then claimed he wasn’t even at the party. Ford says she was afraid Kavanaugh would inadvertently kill her.

The friend that Ford says witnessed the incident claims it didn’t happen, but he’s also written a book titled, “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk.” Kavanaugh’s witness is a guy who has boasted about binge drinking until he blacked out.

One of Kavanaugh’s defenses is a list produced by Republicans of 65 women, who knew the nominee during high school, who say Kavanaugh never sexually assaulted them. Seriously. There are a few weird things about this list. One is, it was revealed shortly after Senator Dianne Feinstein revealed the letter detailing the accusation against him. While Feinstein has been criticized for holding back on the letter, there’s speculation that Republicans were also aware of the accusation and had the list ready just in case.

Another problem with the letter is how did Kavanaugh even know 65 women during his high schooldays since he went to an all-boys Catholic school? Granted, I wasn’t the most popular kid in high school, but it was public and I didn’t know 65 girls. In fact, I still don’t know 65 women. Out of those 65 women vouching for the judge, only two will actually go on the record and publicly defend him.

Also, while it’s good there are 65 girls he didn’t assault, even Jeffrey Dahmer could have produced a list of people he’s known that he didn’t eat.

When asked Monday if he may withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, Trump said, “what a ridiculous question.” He also said he hasn’t spoken to Kavanaugh since the accusations came out, despite the nominee spending nine hours at the White House Monday (maybe it was for the famous meatloaf). But, we don’t know what will come from the hearings next week. Kavanaugh may come off so poorly that they have no choice but to pull his nomination. Seeing that Trump has wilted on “always deny, deny, deny” and says he’s OK with waiting for the confirmation, and he’s known to throw people under the bus quickly, it may not be a “ridiculous” question.

Republicans, who believed all the accusations against Harvey Weinstein and wanted Al Franken tossed from the Senate for pretending to grope a woman, don’t believe Kavanaugh’s accuser. Senator Orrin Hatch, who is on the Judiciary Committee, says the woman is mistaken and may be “all mixed up.” Hatch was also on the committee in 1991 for Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court, where he defended him against sexually harassing Anita Hill, called her a liar, and later said she owed Thomas an apology.

Republicans also argue that if it did happen, then it was so long ago and while he was a teenager, so it shouldn’t be important now. Would you want to hire a guy suspected of being a rapist while he was in high school thirty years ago? Would you want him setting legal policy? Would you want to give him a lifetime appointment?

Just like in 1991, Republicans are not going to come out of the hearing smelling like roses. Their questioning of Ford next week will likely contribute to the women vote and the blue wave coming in November.

The one thing we definitely will not receive from next week’s hearings is proof. Each of us will believe one or the other. Do I believe her at this point? I do. She’s passed a polygraph, had mentioned it years ago before Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court, and it wouldn’t make sense for an intelligent person to subject herself to the lifetime of bullying and harassment she’s about to be the beneficiary of from Republicans. Who in the right minds would look at what they did to Anita Hill and say, “I want some of that?”

And, since Brett Kavanaugh is already on the record as a liar, I don’t believe him.

Your support in the form of donations is appreciated. I am fully independent as I’m not employed by a newspaper or with a major syndicate (leaving one to be independent). It does take a lot of work to provide you with cartoons, columns, and videos almost every day (more than any other political cartoonist), and I don’t charge my clients much at all. If you can, please consider making a financial contribution to keep the fun flowing, or purchase a signed print for $40. Whether you can help support, can’t, or just choose not to, please continue to enjoy and keep reading my work. Thank you!!!

You can purchase a signed print of this cartoon.

Watch me draw.

Advertisements

Just A Little Bit Rapey


cjones06082016

Today Donald Trump compared the benefits of Trump University to Stanford University. I think he was just comparing the odds of being raped.

Brock Turner, a former student at Stanford University and swim team member was convicted of three felony counts of sexual assault and sentenced to just six months behind bars last week for raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. The judge has sparked national outrage by citing the potential of Brock’s “bright” future, and only sentenced him to six months in jail, which he would be eligible for early release after three. He’s not even going to big boy prison. He’ll do less time than people convicted of selling or even possessing marijuana in many cases.

In addition to this ruling, Turner is appealing because three months in jail is just too much time to serve for rape. Prick.

His victim read a letter in court to her assailant. Part of it reads:  “I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin two lives.’ You and me. You are the cause, I am the effect. You have dragged me through this hell with you, dipped me back into that night again and again. You knocked down both our towers, I collapsed at the same time you did. If you think I was spared, came out unscathed, that today I ride off into sunset, while you suffer the greatest blow, you are mistaken.”

Heavy and very powerful. She’s right.

One of Brock’s buddies wrote a letter to the court blaming the entire thing on alcohol and two kids being stupid. Brock’s daddy said his son shouldn’t receive too harsh of a penalty for only 20 minutes of action. How about that! I never knew rape had a meter.

You can’t blame alcohol. You can’t blame the victim. You can’t say it’s because she dressed really nice, as if being turned on isn’t your problem to deal with. You can’t blame it on her being “slutty.” You can’t even blame it on her if she touched your butt.

No still means no. A woman unconscious and thus being incapable of saying no also means no.

Brock and his frat boy white privilege is getting off light. Personally, I think the judge should throw him in the dumpster.

I might be the first cartoonist to cover this issue. I won’t be the last, partly because I set the trends. HAHA. Seriously, I can think of only one cartoonist who is probably working on it right now and I totally expect it to be awesome.

Most of my newspapers will not run this cartoon. I fully realize that. But sometimes you have to make a statement while knowing most won’t share it.

Did you like this cartoon? Want to help a cartoonist make a living? Look to the right of this page and make a donation through Paypal. I need to buy pens, paper, sandwiches, and dog food. The starving cartoonist and his Beagle appreciates it. If you’ve donated in the past, THANK YOU!!!

Sloppy Journalism


cjones04072015

I am always amused when conservatives criticize the media. They criticize it for being biased toward the left and being inaccurate. Meanwhile they’re all fans of Fox News, The Daily Caller, Breitbart, The Blaze, etc., and they share stories from these sources all over social media. It seems a conservative’s answer for biased media is more biased media. I’m also intrigued by conservatives in the media who complain about the liberal media, forgetting that they’re conservatives in the media. I’m especially puzzled when conservative journalists exhibit a lack of knowledge of how news organizations operate.

You can point out to right wingers that their sources are extremely flawed, much more so than the “Lame Stream Media.” It just goes over their heads. Conservatives only spot bad journalism from the main stream media, after it’s been pointed out to them. I have had conservatives scold me for citing a story from Media Matters, Politifact and Snopes then back up their argument with a link to the Daily Caller. Irony, hypocrisy, facts, and humor are not conservatives strong points. These are the same people who want to hear foreign policy advice from Dick Cheney.
Rolling Stone Magazine messed up (not the band. They mess up every night and people pay thousands of dollars to hear it). What the magazine did was commit errors you learn to avoid in journalism 101. You don’t take a source’s information on blind faith. You make phone calls and check sources. It is amazing they put so much time, detail, attention, coverage, and promotion into such a flawed story. The rest of the media wasn’t wrong on the story as they were reporting stories on a story.
The biggest tragedy in this isn’t as much a journalism tragedy as it is a human tragedy. Rape is still a serious issue among fraternities in America and now there’s more attention to a sloppy story. This does not mean we can now ignore the crisis on American college campuses. Not only will women be even more afraid to report rape, news outlets will be more hesitant to write about it.
A lot of journalists are amazed Rolling Stone’s reporter hasn’t been fired. I don’t think she should be fired. I think a punishment of sort should be dealt out but her career shouldn’t be sacrificed. She didn’t make anything up. She didn’t lie. Her source lied. Her greatest error was wanting to believe the story to the point that she didn’t check if the facts were true. That happens everyday in journalism and on national platforms.
How many times has Fox News given a platform to someone who was lying or aired heavily edited videos that present information as they want it digested? How many times has the still employed Bill O’Reilly made something up? Ever notice that Bill’s lie are always where he’s the hero of the situation?
I don’t even want to talk about how often those other partisan sites are wrong because that’s almost a daily thing.
I don’t just blame these “news” sources. I blame consumers. Fox News is number one among viewers by a wide margin. They’re not number one because they’re “fair and balanced”, accurate or the best source for information. They’re number one because most news viewers want to be told what they want to hear.
The best way to start to repair this (for TV news) is to fire everyone who’s a politician. Stop paying people to be on your network who are activists or politicians. That goes for MSNBC too. They need to fire Al Sharpton. Not because he’s a “race baiter” as conservatives say. They need to fire him because he’s a political activist and maybe because he’s also really bad as a news host. He’s not intelligent enough to deliver news, interview people and he shouts everything. While MSNBC is at it they should fire Ed Schultz. Not so much because he’s an activist but just because I don’t like that guy. Since I’m on the subject I’m going to point out to the ignorant that MSNBC is only the liberal network at night. Seriously. Go watch Morning Joe.
Rolling Stone has a history of great writing and breaking stories. They just stepped all over their reputation. They need to take extra steps to restore their integrity and trust among their readers. They need to give their writer the same opportunity, maybe with baby steps. Every news organization will make mistakes. It’s how they respond after the truth comes out that’s very important to whether we can continue to trust them. Do they give a correction and find the source of the errors or do they blame those that point out the errors and remain silent?
A lot of consumers don’t care, depending upon their source.
Accountability is demanded more from liberal and mainstream news outlets. Facts have a pesky way of being biased toward the left.