Wrongfully convicted people is what always infuriates me. This country has a track record with doing this to blacks. The absolute worst cases are when multiple people are tried for a crime and all wrongfully convicted.

One of the most famous cases is the Central Park Jogger case that convicted 5 minority males, a.k.a. The Central Park Five, of brutally assaulting and raping a white woman in Central Park. They happened to be running with a group of 20-30 juveniles who were committing actual harassment and assault on people in the park, but happened to do at the same time a serial rapist named Matias Reyes was brutally raping Trisha Meili. They weren't near the location when it happened, but during questioning the police never told the kids where the crime took place. The kids were railroaded and coerced into implicating the others.

The most central person responsible is Linda Fairstein who was the lead investigator (and busy promoting her books on Facebook, who has never suffered any consequences for ruining the lives of five kids. In fact, after Mr. Reyes confessed to raping the woman, Fairstein only slightly changed her original conclusion and said the kids must have helped him rape her because no man could to that by himself.

The five kids filed a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the city of New York, and the city refuses to settle.

It was a simple task to discover Elizabeth Lederer on Google, just as those boys were easy to find in the park. The petition has found someone to blame, repeating the very mistake of the injustice it deplores.

The petition against Ms. Lederer, in part, reduces her life in public service to a single moment, the jogger case. In fact, she has a lengthy résumé of unchallenged convictions in cold cases, having pursued investigations of forgotten crimes.

No one lives without error.

And designating a single villain completely misses the point and power of the documentary. The jogger case belongs to a historical moment, not any one prosecutor or detective; it grew in the soils of a rancid, angry, fearful time.

For my part, I'm a little puzzled by Dwyer's defense. Before she scrubbed her bio, Lederer proudly advertised her role in the prosecution of the Central Park Five. Ledere did not simply fail to live "without error." She sent a 16-year old boy to Riker's Island on the basis of coerced testimony. She sent four other boys off to prison, and she did this even after it was revealed that no DNA from any of the attackers was found on the victim. The real rapist was not found because of the investigative efforts of the police or Lederer, but because of his own need to confess. If not for that confession the Central Park Five would still be considered rapists. By that time the rapist had gone on to rape other women, killing one.

The notion that someone who played a principle role in this travesty should be training lawyers at one of the best schools in the country is rather amazing. We are not suggesting that our prosecutors must live "without error." We are suggest that those who participated in one of the most dubious cases in the city's history, and have never apologized for it, should not be in the business of educating the next generation of lawyers.

The reason I didn't clearly state that I quit was because I felt the other stipulation - asking me to stop talking about "the controversy" -

would violate the terms of my contract.

So yeah, that's why I quit. If the order had been simply to remove the company name from my profile, I would have agreed no problem

This particular exchange gave me that nasty /r/shitredditsays//r/tumblrinaction vibe.

   
       
Someone needs to go back to their sociology/"gender studies" classes and quit pretending they know a damn thing about the real world.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFcAzIWOHpU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFcAzIWOHpU</a>

How fucking out of touch do you have to be to, on national television, just straight up lament minorities getting their voices heard. I mean we all know Fox is racist as hell, but the complete lack of pretenses here caught me by surprise.

You are willing to become almost completely Naked in public, and yer either skinny( Well, some or most of you, THINK you are ) or you have Big Boobies. Notice I didnt say GREAT Boobies? You are what I refer to as "CON-HOT". Well not by my estimation, but according to a LOT of average Comic Book Fans who either RARELY speak to, or NEVER speak to girls. Some Virgins, ALL unconfident when it comes to girls, and the ONE thing they all have in common? The are being preyed on by YOU. You have this really awful need for attention, for people to tell you your pretty, or Hot, and the thought of guys pleasuring themselves to the memory of you hanging on them with your glossy open lips, promising them the Moon and the Stars of pleasure, just makes your head vibrate.

I don't think you understand how incredible that image is. Take it as a whole. Look beyond the graphic and into the image reflected on it. It is astounding.

Dear Alex Peters-Day,

I write to you as one of the many students of LSE deeply concerned about your plans to build transgender toilets across campus. The fact that you have chosen to prioritise your political agenda over the well-being of students proves extremely worrying. Political games should not be played with student’s safety.

As such, I wrote an article in the London Student Newspaper making the case against transgender toilets in a debate piece, which was published yesterday. This morning, I was shocked to the core when I discovered you had decided to remove the London Student paper from campus in an attempt to censor my article.
Then, you issued a statement libellously calling me “transphobic”, which I find deeply offensive. All I had done in the article was expressed a view shared by many on campus, which as usual happens to be different to the view you hold.

I would hereby like to give you an opportunity to apologise for (i) your undemocratic censorship of my article, (ii) your libellous claim that I am “transphobic” and request that you (iii) immediately withdraw your earlier statement. As a General Secretary, students expect you to be more tolerant of opposing views and to engage in serious policy debates, instead of avoiding them by labelling your opponent with derogatory terms.

Given your history with UGM vote rigging and election fraud scandals, I am aware you might not be the biggest proponent of democracy. Nevertheless, I ask for you to consider putting the issue of Gender Neutral toilets up for an online referendum, allowing the students of LSE to have a say on this important matter.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely,
Jason Wong.

Somebody with more free time than me, Photoshop a picture of a throne sticking out of Obama's abdomen (obdomen?) please.

Surveillance footage shows Hoeffel entering the store at about 12:55 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 28. She bought a soft drink and walked away. She then returned to the counter, grabbed the small stack of pamphlets, took them outside and threw them into a trash bin.

Nagra said he went outside to ask the mayor why she took all four of the pamphlets that had been placed on the counter in front of the register.

“She said, ‘It’s against my beliefs,’” Nagra said. “She said, ‘This is against Christianity.’”

Hoeffel later said she disposed of the pamphlets because of a lack of personal interest, not as a statement about the religion.

This goes back to the cavemen days. Men like to provide for women and their families. It's in their DNA. I'm obviously no scientist, but I bet if you could hear a Y-chromosome talk, it would say, "I want to provide and hunt." When the woman is the primary breadwinner, it's going against nature. I'm not saying that it's bad or wrong, I'm just saying that it can feel off.

Gawker apparently published an article that's basically some rape/pedo apologist bullshit. I'll let Ta-Nehisi Coates explain

Cord's rebuttal is regrettably familiar. It is of a piece with those who, when told what they are doing (e.g. you have committed a racist act), attempt to defend themselves by claiming you are naming what they are (how dare you call me a racist). It is very easy, in this world, to retreat into a pique of offense-taking -- instead of considering, for instance, that by implying that a seven-year old child consented to have sex with an adult, by portraying a rape solely through the eyes of a rapist, one has committed a rather severe journalistic and ethical lapse.

The specific objection, as much as I can tell, is to the charge that Cord has authored "a vague rape apologia." I don't know what to say. I think when you describe a rapist as "falling for" his victim; when you imply that someone has consented, who not only has not, but actually cannot: in such a case, I am not clear why "vague rape apologia" is, somehow, an unfair characterization.

"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said in the statement. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

...

But the statement criticized by the Romney campaign came early in the day, before the attacks on the two embassies, and was put out not by the White House, but by the Cairo embassy itself.

The White House later disavowed the statement as not approved by Washington, according to a senior administration official speaking to Politico.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson. The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

Distgusting show show of support for a disgusting POTUS. I suspect the food and service is disgusting as well. If you support big government stepping all over the constitution then by all means eat here....I will never step foot in this place...

For a small American business (built on Capitalist business models) owner to openly accept and embrace an open, devout communist synthesizer/ Socialist Party Member is nothing short of shameful. *See Obama 2016 and Google "Obama" for evidence.

This IS not "His" country, as he believes it is, rather, it's ours, "We The People". For someone is who was supposedly a "Constitutional" attorney/ professor, it sure seems to be a throne in his side. It seems difficult to reconcile what his direction for this country is, and where Our Constitution and "We The People" allows us the pursuit of happiness....

Always happy to add another name to our boycott list. We will not support obama-loving MARXISTS. Not now, not ever. This estabishment has been added to the FL section of my list, and Scott Van Nuzer's name has been added to list of MARXISTS in the United States. Thank you for identifying yourself so we know who the enemies of this Nation are....

Making are president look like a weak defenseless woman by picking him up is disgusting. The Gov. should shut you down. Food sucks service is ok...

There's some interesting reporting in this Gawker piece on pedophilia. Unfortunately it's undermined by a bizarre lack of sympathy for children who've been sexual assaulted This is not a minor problem. This starts from the from the very first sentence:


I am sure it is a lot easier to listen to Terry to talk about this, than it is for the girl whom he raped to talk about it. Which is what it's called, by the way. Rape.

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd prefer being called a "rape apologist" as opposed to "some jerk" seeking page views. What you were called was "insensitive" - and your defence here doesn't go very far to dispel it. You are making this about your professional cred as opposed to understanding the real harm such facile language can do to victims.