August 31, 2013

"Washington Post’s ‘second look at statutory rape’ click-trolling inspires #WaPoPitches."

"Is the Washington Post getting into Slate’s business of click-trolling, or do the paper’s editors really think it’s time for a national conversation on sex between teachers and underage students?"

5 comments:

Big Mike said...

Karasik isn't the only writer for the Post who needs psychiatric counseling, just currently the most obvious one.

Is Bezos a closet pedophile? Is Karasik currying favor?

n.n said...

Another effort to distinguish between rape and rape-rape? It's a little late for moral thoughtfulness, or is it manipulation of perception with ulterior motives.

EDH said...

I tend to agree with Instapundit: it does seem the "indefensible" becomes defensible once the screw turns and women are on the receiving end, be it alimony reform or sex with students.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

EDH,

Except that the WaPo article is actually about a male teacher and a female student.

EDH said...

Michelle,

I'm describing "sea changes" in attitude, media culture and what's an acceptable position to hold, not seminal cases.

Alimony reform didn't happen in Mass because of the single case of a woman or a gay. But it did happen once it was recognized that those two groups were also adversely affected by the status quo.

Coincidence? Before that, men's rights advocates were crack pots. In fact, they still are, because how can they be disadvantaged with "white male privilege".

But the divorce bar that profited so much from maintaining the old system could no longer pigeonhole the opposition to alimony reform as male crackpots.

Cynthia Creem faces Ethics Questions over Alimony Reform

The potential ending of this money machine for Massachusetts lawyers left them in a bit of a panic. Lucky for them, former legal lobbyist and practicing divorce lawyer Cynthia Creem is the chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee and has the ability to block H1785.

Creem sponsored S1616 on behalf of the Boston Bar Association. This bill would modify the current law by adding just the words “and duration.” It would leave a law without guidelines and preserve the lawyers sauce mill. At the public hearing on S1616, not one regular citizen testified in support – but representatives of the lawyer’s lobbies were there in force.

But now some are questioning whether Cynthia Stone Creem has a conflict of interest problem. You see, Creem is a prominent divorce lawyer at the firm of Stone, Stone & Creem – a firm that profits handsomely from the current broken alimony law.


I'm suggesting this may be a similar "sea change" going on with respect to sex with the underaged. It's clear there's already a disparity in charging and sentencing.