How Mellisa Harris-Perry Won My Respect

It's all over the internet by now how Mellisa Harris-Perry and her cohorts over at MSNBC made a racist attack on the Romney family, mocking Mitt and Anne's adopted black grandchild.Standard operating procedure for MSNBC.

 

But then something rather marvelous happened.

Deep inside of her,there's still a core of decency, and it was sickened at what she had done.

The very next day,first thing in the morning, she went on Twitter (and on the air, for all that I know)and issued a heart felt apology, as she put it 'without reservation.' She said there were no excuses for her behavior , and made a point in a subsequent tweet that "I work by guiding principle that those who offend do not have the right to tell those they hurt that they r wrong for hurting. Therefore, while I meant no offense, I want to immediately apologize to the Romney family for hurting them"

She also tweeted, "I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices."

In other words, a real apology, not a Barack Obama-style 'sorry if you were inconvenienced or something because I lied' apology.

I know for a fact that she wasn't ordered to do so by the suits at MSNBC, who've let far worse stuff go.And it's not like the Romneys had any ratings clout like Sarah Palin does. She simply did it because it was the right thing to do.

And I respect that.It would have been far easier for her to just wallow in the 'attagirls' from her Leftist cohorts and say nothing.

The apology, hopefully, is just a first step for her.Real teshuvah, repentance involves not only recognizing what you've done and doing your best to fix it,but to learn something from it so you don't repeat your misdeed, to spend some soul time thinking 'Why did I do that? How can I avoid doing it again'?

Whatever else we might disagree with, I have a feeling I and Ms. Harris-Perry would agree on that. So I wish Melissa Harris-Perry the very best in that endeavor of self-examination.

A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

The election is over, and President Barack Hussein Obama has won re-election.

There are some political, strategic reasons why I and so many others got this so wrong, but rather than go into details and analyze them here, I'd prefer to deal with the big picture issues. They're far more important.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan represented the old, traditional culture of America, that built the country and preserved our Republic these 236 years. They represented an opportunity to retrace our steps and return to the traditions of that democratic republic.

They were, essentially, decent and patriotic men who were rejected by just over half of the electorate in favor of someone with a demonstrated record of failure who concentrated on exacerbating the divisions in the country in order to retain power. The ironic joke is that Barack Obama has managed indeed to retain that power, but in a manner that so alienated half the country that he will be unable to govern effectively by mandate, or indeed in any other way.

What that really means will be a lot clearer, even to those celebrating the president's re-election tonight in about two years or so. The proof of that is that according to all the exit polls, the number one concern of the vast majority of voters was the economy, most of them said it was getting worse, not better and fully seventy-seven percent of voters called the economy not so good or poor.

Yet half of them voted against an experienced business man with a history of success in meeting difficult challenges and turning around failing enterprises in favor of someone whose only offer was more of the same.Essentially, half of America voted for the status quo.

That course is unsustainable, and raising taxes on 'the rich' this president successfully demonized to enough of the country to win tonight will simply grease the skids.

That's fairly similar to what happened to George W. Bush in 2004. People were afraid to change horses in midstream, especially for someone as eminently unlikeable as John Kerry. So they gave the incumbent a chance to follow through on his policies and perform. Remember 'I have political capital and I intend to spend it'?

The only difference is that President Bush had an actual mandate, and control of congress for two years of his second term. President Obama doesn't even have that much,(a few thousand votes in some of the strategic battleground states would have changed things entirely) and he's conducted himself in such a way that his fall from grace will be even more precipitous than President Bush's was.

The economy is not going to get better.

President Obama and the people around him still have the exact same attitude towards oil, coal and gas and skyrocketing energy prices are going to become the new normal.That will add up not only to higher prices at the pump but increased prices for food and goods.

In two years, about the time of the next midterms, we will almost certainly be facing stagflation and the harsh reality of the fiscal debacle this president created will be readily apparent even to many of the True Believers. As ObamaCare kicks in, Americans will be stunned at the taxes they incur and the bureaucracy they're going have to cope with. People used to being able to get care on demand are going to be shocked at how long they need to wait for a procedure, and they'll have to cope with a major shortage of doctors as fewer and fewer physicians will either go elsewhere or simply do something else because they won't be able to accept what ObamaCare offers them for their services without going bankrupt. Seniors will discover to their horror that everything they were told about rationed care is absolutely true.

The disillusionment will be fierce.

And on top of all that, the major scandals that began during the first Obama Administration will almost certainly burst into flame midway into the second. Benghazi, the Green energy scandals and Fast and Furious aren't going to go away, Darrel Issa is still going to be chairman of the oversight committee with subpoena power and the GOP dominated House is not going to be in a conciliatory mood.

The House may even put their collective foot down and refuse to raise the debt ceiling without quid pro quo cuts in spending the president will be unwilling to give them, and will almost certainly fight the president's continued hollowing out of our military tooth and nail. And in spite of tonight's disappointing showing, there are still enough Republicans in the Senate to filibuster., even if they need to be leaned on to do so.So we may even see gridlock similar to what's occurring today.

These things will all come to a head midway through this president's second term and it won't be pretty. Remember you heard it here first.

For now, what's apparent that whether they realize it or not, half of America apparently voted to emulate European socialism when the evidence of how well that's working is right before their eyes. They will experience exactly what they voted for now now to to the point where it sickens them, and they will either pull the reins and change or change will come to them as a natural consequence, because that's how it works. Ask the Greeks or the Spaniards.

It will be a harsher lesson than it needed to be, but perhaps a better one because of it.

For the rest of us, the ones on the other side of the divide, the question we must ask ourselves is different. We need to ask ourselves, what did tonight teach us about our half of the country? About the other half? And how can we use that knowledge to our benefit? Focus. This is a chance for new strategies and a brand new start, and it is eminently doable because no matter what, Obama and the Democrats are going to own what happens in the next four years.

And by the way, opting out is not an option. There are no bolt holes, not really. Flee history and politics and they have a horrible way of catching up with you in spite of your best efforts. Choices you refuse to make get made for you.

Unfortunately, in the meantime this is going to be a hard rain indeed that falls.How hard depends on us and how we embrace what could actually be a gift of fortune, depending on what we make of it.

Societies either embrace real change or they decay and decline. Decay and decline is a possibility, but in our case, rather than simply declining, we are a lot more likely to do what the Romans did in a similar situation. They decided this democracy stuff was too much trouble and dangerous to their physical security and survival. So they abandoned their republic and their traditional liberties altogether to become empire.

We have a chance to embrace real change, freed of a great deal of baggage if that is how we decide to make use of it.

A hard rain doesn't just storm and thunder. It washes away the old detritus. It cleanses.


-Selah-

A Different View Of Labels, Israeli-Style

There's a great deal of press these days about protests, differences and divides in Israel.And various labels and stereotypes are frequently employed.

Here's an excellent short video with a compelling view on the subject. Change the details, and it could be applied in our own country to Americans as well.

(H/T to my Number One Fan)

A Must Read- George Will's Birthday Column For His Down's Syndrome Son

This column, entitled 'Jon Will's Gift' is in a class by itself. Here's a slice:

When Jonathan Frederick Will was born 40 years ago — on May 4, 1972, his father’s 31st birthday — the life expectancy for people with Down syndrome was about 20 years. That is understandable.

The day after Jon was born, a doctor told Jon’s parents that the first question for them was whether they intended to take Jon home from the hospital. Nonplussed, they said they thought that is what parents do with newborns. Not doing so was, however, still considered an acceptable choice for parents who might prefer to institutionalize or put up for adoption children thought to have necessarily bleak futures. Whether warehoused or just allowed to languish from lack of stimulation and attention, people with Down syndrome, not given early and continuing interventions, were generally thought to be incapable of living well, and hence usually did not live as long as they could have. [...]

Jon was born just 19 years after James Watson and Francis Crick published their discoveries concerning the structure of DNA, discoveries that would enhance understanding of the structure of Jon, whose every cell is imprinted with Down syndrome. Jon was born just as prenatal genetic testing, which can detect Down syndrome, was becoming common. And Jon was born eight months before Roe v. Wade inaugurated this era of the casual destruction of pre-born babies.

This era has coincided, not just coincidentally, with the full, garish flowering of the baby boomers’ vast sense of entitlement, which encompasses an entitlement to exemption from nature’s mishaps, and to a perfect baby. So today science enables what the ethos ratifies, the choice of killing children with Down syndrome before birth. That is what happens to 90 percent of those whose parents receive a Down syndrome diagnosis through prenatal testing.

Which is unfortunate, and not just for them. Judging by Jon, the world would be improved by more people with Down syndrome, who are quite nice, as humans go. It is said we are all born brave, trusting and greedy, and remain greedy. People with Down syndrome must remain brave in order to navigate society’s complexities. They have no choice but to be trusting because, with limited understanding, and limited abilities to communicate misunderstanding, they, like Blanche DuBois in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” always depend on the kindness of strangers. Judging by Jon’s experience, they almost always receive it.

Read the whole thing. You'll be happy you did. I especially love the last paragraph.

Awful Woman Steals Baseball From Child

This one beggars belief.

During a game between the Astros and the Diamondbacks at Minute Maid Park, a player tossed a baseball to a little girl in the stands. An absolutely horrid woman standing next to her first tried to reach in front of her to get the ball. When she missed and the little girl caught it, the woman simply ripped it out of the girl's hands and took it away from her. And then turned to her group to show off 'her' baseball and garner a few high fives from her friends while the little girl walked away heartbroken.

You have to wonder about someone like this. What she was thinking, how she justified it, whether she'd been spayed yet.

There was a time when no adult would think of doing this to a child, or if one forgot themselves and did, they'd risk major feedback and retaliation by decent society.

On the bright side, the play-by-play guy noticed this, talked to the Astros and reportedly came up with an autographed ball for the child. And many of the commenters on the original story had the same reaction I did.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Weiner Affair And The Disintegration Of Our Politics

"I used to be disgusted. But now I'm just amused" - Elvis Costello

Much has been said about the lack of civility in our political discourse, the declining quality of our politics and politicians.

The current reaction to the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal is a pretty large sign post for anyone looking for an explanation.But not perhaps for the obvious reasons.

After all, sex scandals involving politicians have been around ever since man began living in civilized communities. In our own political history, we've had a lot of presidential mistresses and assignations, a president who had an illegitimate child he had to acknowledge in the middle of a campaign, another president who was known for having bootleg liquor, whores and all night poker parties with his cronies in the White House, a congressional leader who made an absolute idiot of himself over a stripper, and a presidential front runner caught on a yacht with his mistress and a flock of other women, photographed with his eyes looking like a pair of squashed grapes.

And that was all before Bill Clinton blew into DC and gave a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Have a cigar.'

What's changed is how we as a society regard low morality in our leaders, whether it is sexual, financial or political.

In the past, such behavior - particularly sexual behavior- was conducted with great discretion and secrecy, and when it wasn't, American society almost always demanded the resignation or retreat from public life of the politician involved.

Not anymore. At least when it comes to our political elites.

There was a time when getting caught sending salacious messages and graphic photos to underage girls would have been cause for widespread contempt in both the public and one's congressional colleagues and leadership, and a cause for intense pressure to resign 'for the good of the party', as the media beat the drums. Based on the defenses I'm hearing from Democrats for Anthony Weiner, that no longer applies.

In an unintentional bit of wicked irony, one of Weiner's chief defenders in Congress is none other than Representative Charlie Rangel. It says a great deal that Rangel himself, a corrupt tax cheat and thief who would be rotting in jail if he wasn't a congressman, a Democrat and a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus sees Weiner as having 'done nothing wrong' and Rangel is certainly not alone in that.

Just for giggles, let's extrapolate this from an empirical point of view rather than a moral one. This is not 'just about sex.' We have here a public servant committing what amounts to lewd acts with women young enough to be his daughter that could even be said to be borderline sexual harassment, doing it as a newlywed of less than a year with an attractive young wife and as an expectant father, doing it repeatedly with no thought of the consequences and then attempting to cover it up with a cock and bull story that showed no respect either for himself, his spouse or his constituents.

One could say with justification that Congressman Weiner has an overpowering weakness in a certain area and that he has abysmally poor judgment.

Now imagine that this gets shoved under the rug, and Congressman Weiner continues his career and that he eventually ascends to a crucial committee chairmanship..Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Intelligence, something like that.

So we would have someone who's already demonstrated his horrible judgment and who is prone to an overpowering weakness when it comes to very young women in a key decision making and advisory position and with access to government secrets.

What if our enemies know about this weakness and exploit it by setting Congressman Weiner up in a situation where he can be blackmailed, influenced or successfully pumped for information by a young female he's seeking to impress..who just happens to be a spy? Such things have happened before. The Soviets used this technique many times, especially in Europe and called it a 'Honey Trap.' Among many occasions, they used it on New York Times reporter Walter Duranty to obtain favorable coverage even in the worst days of Stalin's tyranny. They even used it once in our own embassy in Moscow to compromise the military guards there and get access to bug the embassy.

Or what if someone takes advantage of Weiner's foible to influence his vote, get him to lend his influence to passing certain legislation or towards getting a certain position in Washington filled, or to avoid questioning or thoroughly examining someone or something?

None of these are trivial questions.

Neither is the idea of what acceptance of this kind of behavior does to government in general.

When a president, a cabinet official or a congressperson is guilty of corruption or moral turpitude and gets away with it, it does something horrific to out trust in government officials. A large part of the consent of the governed our system is based on consists of that trust and respect, and when a Charlie Rangel, a Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, a Bill Clinton or an Anthony Weiner breaches that standard egregiously and gets away with it, it reflects on everyone in government and lessens that trust and respect.

Weiner's defenders seem to either not understand that or simply not care, and yet these are the same people who seize on every event and every sentence no matter how trivial that comes out of Sarah Palin's or Michelle Bachmann's mouth as headline news and an opportunity to attack them.

The juxtaposition is interesting. On the one hand, we have two women whom are in relatively normal and traditional marriages and who enjoy committed, close and even admirable family lives,while on the other hand we have a man who has created what is obviously a dysfunctional marriage due to his own sleazy behavior. Yet it is these women who are demonized and attacked on a constant basis, even to the point of exhortations to gang rape and death threats, some issued under the guise of 'comedy'.

Is it any wonder that people sense a decline in the quality of those people willing to run for office and serve nowadays?

In the end of course, it's all about the Agenda. Anthony Weiner has no plans to resign his seat, nor is there any real pressure for him to do so from the members of his own party, notwithstanding a few public statements on the matter. If he had any respect for his oath of office, he'd resign immediately. Instead, he's going to Get Out Of Dodge for awhile, go to rehab, wait for the fuss to die down and resume his career as an up and coming Democrat.

The real problem is not just Weiner's actions, but those of his enablers. It's not just merely embarrassing that they're not embarrassed. It's a real symptom of decay and a danger to our Republic. If a rising tide lifts all boats, a sharply lowered one puts them all in danger of running aground.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Breaking: Weiner And Huna Abedin Are Expecting. Weiner To Resign Tonight?

The Weiner story just took a new twist. Apparently the congressman and his wife, Huna Abedin are expecting their first child.

According to what the NY Times genteely refers to as 'three people with knowledge of the situation' Huna Abedin, 35, is in the early stages of pregnancy.

At the same time, the Weiner saga just gained even more traction as an x-rated photo of Weiner's weiner has surfaced.

While Andrew Breitbart had the shot, sent to one of the congressman's virtual hootchies, he had declined to release it. Unfortunately, apparently in a move to prove his credibility, Breitbart showed it to satellite radio shock jock Gregg Hughes,AKA Opie while he was being interviewed and Hughes took a clandestine photo of it and released it over the internet.

Meanwhile, a number of Democrats are calling for Weiner to resign. And I've heard a very strong rumor from a reliable source that he's going to do just that, tonight.

The person I feel sorriest for in this whole sordid mess is Weiner's wife, Huna Abedin. I can just imagine how she feels, being married for the first time at age 35, being hit with this out of left field - and now finding out she's pregnant to boot.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

What Does Peace Mean Anyway?

Peace is said to be a high priority, no matter whom you talk to.People crave it and pray for it, and rightly so.

This is a much more important issue, I think, than most of us realize, especially in these days when people use terms like 'The Long War' and 'the peace process' .Yet few of us, especially in the West actually stop to think of what we really mean by peace, and what you can't define clearly is frequently illusory.

The Bible provides one definition, with the prophet Isaiah talking of a time of peace so profound that men will not only transform the arms of battle into implements of peace but cease to study the arts and strategy of war.

That's obviously an unrealized ideal in the immediate future.

Islam is much more direct about the matter. Westerners are confused when Muslims say that Islam means peace (actually, it comes from the Arabic aslama, which means submission). To Muslims, who divide the world into dar Islam, the part of the world where Islam rules and the non-Muslim world, referred to as dar harb ( literally the house of war), peace is much simpler. It's a condition where the entire world is dar Islam, exactly what Mohammed ordered his followers to strive for right before his death in 632 CE, according to the Hadiths.

If some Muslims talk of peace when they actually mean a time of dar Islam, it's understandable that something gets lost in translation - sometimes deliberately so.

So, is peace then simply an absence of war and conflict? It ain't necessarily so.

After the signing of the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI in 1918, France's Commanding General Ferdinand Foch said in an amazingly prescient remark, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."

What Marshall Foch understood was that while Germany had been bled white and the home front was collapsing, the German Army had not been decisively defeated. He guessed that the German military establishment and their political allies would use that fact to inflame revanchist sentiment as a springboard to a new war as soon as possible, and realized that the Versailles Treaty would last only as long as the allies maintained military superiority over Germany and occupied a strategic part of the German homeland.

The first fifteen years of the armistice between the World Wars could be said to fit this definition of an absence of war and conflict, but beneath the surface the conflict seethed, and as Foch predicted, the German Army continued to claim it had been 'stabbed in the back by traitors at home', a refrain that was echoed by the Nazis, the Stahlhelm and other groups who favored abrogating the Versailles treaty. The army continued to enjoy prestige in Germany and became almost a state within a state,drilling and training men in secret in a de facto violation of Versailles.

When the political climate was right and Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1933, the violations became even more blatant, German rearmament increased and three years later Hitler sent the army into the strategic Saar and the Rhineland and ended the allied occupation. Outright war came only a few short years after.

The Middle East is currently witnessing a similar example of the ending of an 'armistice' that arose from similar circumstances. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a war of annihilation that was essentially a continuation of the Six Day War in 1967.

Unlike the 1967 war, Egypt and Syria caused considerable Israeli casualties and advanced before they were ultimately thrown back with heavy losses. Israel General Arik Sharon made military history by ignoring his orders and crossing the Suez Canal behind the Egyptians in a brilliant maneuver, trapping the main Egyptian Third Army in an iron ring.Rather than destroy the 3rd Army as a fighting force and go on to  a decisive victory, as Sharon advocated,Israeli PM Golda Meir and the Labor government in power at the time followed American and UN direction to seek a ceasefire and avoid an Arab 'humiliation'. General Sharon was ordered to release the Third Army almost intact back to Egyptian lines.

Meanwhile,on the Syrian front Israeli Brigadier General Rafael "Raful" Eitan (Z"l) led a division that stopped the Syrians at Nafekh, threw back the Syrian forces and advanced to within striking distance of Damascus.General Eitan became an IDF legend in that campaign when he rallied his exhausted troops by personally picking up a bazooka, taking out two Syrian tanks and turning the Syrian advance into a retreat

It's interesting to contrast the two results. In Syria, there was never any talk of peace with Israel, but there was comparatively little overt hostility either, except through proxies like Hezbollah. With the IDF only a short hop from Damascus, the Syrians have had ample motivation to avoid outright war with Israel ever since. That motivation would disappear,of course, if the Israelis ever returned the Golan to Syria.

In Egypt, there was a similar situation analogous in many ways to what occurred with Germany after WWI.Even though Egypt's forces were defeated, their armies were not defeated decisively,to the point that the Egyptian regime was able to propagandize to their own people that they had not lost the 1973 war at all, that they had in fact won.

In that context, the Camp David Accords, by which Egypt obtained the Sinai was seen as an accommodation and even a capitulation from Israel by Egyptians, and it had the additional benefit of removing Israeli forces from striking distance of the Suez Canal and Cairo.In war, after all, it is the victors who gain territory and concessions.

In consequence, what has occurred between Egypt and Israel was not peace but an armistice, as Marshall Foch would have put it.The two countries signed and kept a formal peace treaty (largely subsidized by US baksheesh to Egypt of over a billion dollars per year) but demonization of Israel and Jews never stopped in Egypt's mosques, schools and media.The Mubarak regime kept the arrangement, but was never unwilling to use the Egyptian hatred for Jews and Israel to its own advantage.

The US trained and equipped Egyptian Army has been rebuilt and has always performed its war games exercises from the standpoint of fighting Israel as its main foe on its Eastern borders, and indeed the Egyptian Army's weaponry and deployment makes no sense otherwise.

With the fall of the Mubarak regime, the key points of the armistice - diplomatic relations, trade and the demilitarization of the Sinai - have all been or are likely to be  suspended by Egypt as the country reverts to its overt hostility towards Israel, and if outright war is unlikely simply because Egypt cannot afford it financially or in terms of stability right now, it certainly will not be 'peace' and Egypt will almost certainly be siding with Israel's enemies Hamas and by extension Syria and Iran as the Muslim Brotherhood takes over more political power.

Let's examine, in contrast an instance of real and lasting peace, the one between the victorious Allies and Japan and Germany after WWII.

The allies made a point of insisting on an unconditional surrender in both cases, and refused several offers of an attractive armistice from the Nazis, who attempted to split the allies by offering a separate peace to the Western allies so that they could devote all of their efforts to throwing back the Soviets.

At the end of the war there was no question either among Japan and Germany's armed forces or their people that they had been decisively defeated. Both countries had been devastated, suffered severe shortages of food, housing, medical supplies and fuel and were forced to accede to military occupation in order to avoid being totally destroyed.The fascist ideology that had ruled both nations was discredited and destroyed, unlike what happened to Germany in WWI.

Both countries lost significant territory - the Germans lost Alsace-Lorraine to France and a huge swath of territory to Poland and the Japanese lost the Kuril Islands, Saipan and the oil rich and strategic territory of Sakhalin.

To put it in perhaps a more modern context, both countries suffered major real and concrete costs for launching and losing a war of aggression, both were forced to absorb and resettle a significant number of their nationals as refugees in their remaining territory and there was never any question at all of ephemera like 'land for peace.'

As a consequence, the populations of Germany and Japan both came to the realization that their respective countries had come perilously close to ceasing to exist, and made a collective decision that their survival lay in real peace, an end to aggression, the pursuit of prosperity and western-style democracy.

Real peace, is after all, a collective agreement to live and let live. Only when two peoples mutually decide to make that a heartfelt goal can it exist, and without that basic realization all the schemes and negotiations, all the promises of land for peace, territory swaps, redrawn borders and the like are just a prelude to another round of conflict.

Or to put it in even simpler terms, real peace comes when the cost has been so great for the aggressor that resorting to hostilities again for anything other than an existential threat is almost unthinkable.


Because, in the end, real peace is the fruit of decisive victory. That's a lesson of history that could stand to be revisited today.

- Selah -

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Mother Sets Fire To 13-Year-Old Daughters' Gloating Rapist

This is an old story I ran across in my web meanderings, but it poses an interesting question.

A Spanish mother decided to dole out a little street justice to the man who raped her 13-year-old daughter at knifepoint by dousing him in petrol and setting him on fire.

Believe it or not, Antonio Cosme Velasco Soriano, 69, only received a nine year sentence for snatching a 13-year-old girl off the street when she was shopping for her mother and raping her at knife point. There was no serious doubt that Soriano had done the deed, and the sentence represented a plea bargain.

Apparently he was let out on a three-day pass and returned to his home town of Benejúzar. While he was there, he passed his victim's mother in the street and taunted her about the attack, calling out "How's your daughter?", before heading into a crowded bar.

Mom returned to the bar, turned Soriano around to face her, pulled the bottle she was carrying from under her arm, poured it over him and then lit a match.

Soriano suffered 60 per cent burns on his body in the attack and survived for 11 painful days before succumbing to his injuries.

The mother fled to Alicante, where she was arrested the same evening. When she appeared in court the next day in the town of Orihuela, she was cheered and clapped by a crowd, who shouted "Bravo!" and "Well done!"

The woman claimed to have no recollection of the attack.

I have no information on how the case was ultimately disposed, but I ask you - was she right or wrong? What would you do if someone scarred you and one of your children for life and was walking around free as a bird and taunting you about it?

More to the point, do you think that this incident might make potential rapists in this little corner of Spain think twice before hurting someone?

This is one of those ultimate issues things I love to discuss!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!