Sources: U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, indicted on more than a dozen charges related to corruption.

Visit CNN for the latest.

According to the New York Times, an internal military assessment concludes that so far, the “surge” isn’t going too well:

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad. …

The operation “is at a difficult point right now, to be sure,” said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division, which has responsibility for Baghdad.

In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly. …

When planners devised the Baghdad security plan late last year, they had assumed most Baghdad neighborhoods would be under control around July, according to a senior American military officer, so the emphasis could shift into restoring services and rebuilding the neighborhoods as the summer progressed.

“We were way too optimistic,” said the officer, adding that September is now the goal for establishing basic security in most neighborhoods, the same month that Bush administration officials have said they plan to review the progress of the plan.

Anti-war, paleo-conservative blogger Daniel Larison says this is yet another example of the dangers of optimism:

Frankly, Americans are suffering from an overdose of confidence-boosters. They could stand some plain, matter-of-fact talk right about now. Support for the war would have bled away at a slower rate had the administration and military been more cautious in their pronouncements of progress and much less optimistic about the time it would take to get things done. Of course, the truth would be unpopular, but inflating everyone’s hopes and then having them disappointed exacerbates the problem of an already unpopular war. Having heard from the usual suspects that violence was waning, Sadr was on the run and so on, the public will take the relative lack of substantial progress in securing all of Baghdad that much worse than it would have done had those in authority talked down the “surge.” Perhaps it is inimical to a military ethos to do this, but with this administration it seems like the safe advice for managing expectations is “aim low.”

Indeed.

While jumping from blog to blog following random links, I somehow stumbled upon this 14-month-old post from a blogger called “The Glaivester.” In it, he articulates something that I’ve long instinctively believed: that the commonly expressed truism “rape is not about sex” is, um, not true.

I’m not sure why it feels so politically incorrect to say this — it’s not like admitting that rapists are usually motivated in large part by sexual urges somehow makes rape less horrible — but it does. And yet P.C.-ness isn’t a good enough reason to keep spouting a piece of received wisdom that doesn’t seem to be supported by anything in particular. Excerpt, quoting from an even older post:

Men who rape women don’t do it because they hate women, but because they don’t give a **** about women (at least, not the women they rape). They want something, they take it, and they’re by-and-large indifferent to how the person they “take” it from feels.

This is why the “rape isn’t about sex, rape is about violence” analysis falls short. It’s not true - not from the point of view of many rapists - and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don’t rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it’s not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all.

I think that’s right. Of course, as The Glaivester points out, there are exceptions — plenty of them. But as a rule, I think it’s instinctively obvious that rape is usually, from the rapist’s perspective, about sex first and foremost. This is especially true when one considers the prevalence of “date rape,” which cannot plausibly be described as being “not about sex.” (Is the frat boy who slips a roofie in some girl’s drink thinking about “control and power”? Or does he just want to stick his you-know-what in something?)

[UPDATE: The more I think about this post, the more I feel like I should modify my position slightly. The reality is, I don’t know what are “usually” the underlying motivations of “most” rapists. I know that some rapes are extremely violent in nature, and those are probably motivated more by violence than by sex. I also know that some rapes, particularly “date rapes” and “acquaintance rapes,” generally involve a lot less overt violence, and are more clearly focused on the sexual aspect. I don’t know what the percentages are, though. I assume the latter are more common, but I don’t actually know that, and I wonder if my assumption breaks down when prison rapes, wartime rapes, etc. are taken into account.

Here’s the thing, though. The standard position — “rape is about violence, not sex” — is an absolutist position. It denies, implausibly, that any rape can ever be about sex. It posits that rape is, by definition, about violence, power and control, rather than (not in addition to) sex. That’s what I really object to. So, in the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, I retract my assertions, both above and below, that rape is “usually” primarily motivated by sex. I don’t know that. But I do know that it is sometimes primarily motivated by sex, and that’s enough to disprove the absolutist “rape isn’t about sex” school of thought.

END UPDATE, back to original post…]

Of course, it should go without saying that rape is an unspeakably horrible act, regardless of the rapist’s motivation. And as The Glaivester says, “This is not to say that rape isn’t an act of violence, power, and control, but to say that these are usually tools used to get sex rather than ends in and of themselves.” Nor is it an attempt to somehow normalize or de-stigmatize rape; clearly, there is nothing “normal” about pursuing sexual urges through violent, coercive, or otherwise nonconsensual means. Rapists are fulfilling their sexual desires in an extremely f***ed up way. But they’re still fulfilling their sexual desires! The end goal of their chosen act is still to have sex, no? (If it were just about violence, why not beat up the victim, or stab her, or shoot her? Why sexually assault her, unless the motivation is not just violence, but… sex?)

Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but if so, I’d like to hear some actual evidence for the “rape isn’t about sex” idea. (Remember, it isn’t enough to point out exceptions, because I’ve already acknowledged that there are plenty of those. I want evidence that most rapists are primarily motivated by something other than sexual urges.) Just saying it doesn’t make it so, and I feel like this particular counterintuitive axiom has survived too long without serious scrutiny.

(Incidentally, you should really read the whole thing.)

P.S. Here’s a post which, I guess, explains why it’s considered un-P.C. to admit that rape is largely about sex. In it, a blogger called “Dubhe” uses a comment by an idiotic chauvinist pig — who absurdly suggests that men are justifably driven to rape when they are denied sex by frigid women — to demonstrate “why feminism can NOT say ‘Rape is about sex and power’” (but must instead say that it is only about power). Ultimately, writes Dubhe, “When rape is about sex, rape becomes a woman’s fault. If women just gave men sex, there would be no rape. … [T]o say that rape is about sex is to say that women are responsible for their own rapes.”

Obviously, rape is never the victim’s fault; women are never responsible for their own rapes. The barbaric notion of blaming rape victims should be loudly and universally condemned. But how does it therefore follow that “rape is not about sex”? Is it simply that feminists have made a strategic decision to pretend that “rape is not about sex,” in order to deflect the heinous, detestable lie that sexual urges can justify rape? Are they using a little white lie (rape isn’t about sex) to defend against another, more sinister lie (rape is the woman’s fault)?

In a later post, Dubhe writes: “I don’t believe that rapists are after ’sex’, they’re after the ‘win’ or the control that they will get knowing that they ‘wore down’ the woman involved. They conquered her, they have won. THAT is what they’re after, the sex is merely the way they go about getting it.” But he offers no evidence for this belief, and I see no reason to credit it. It might be convenient if it were true, but I don’t think it is. And it certainly isn’t necessary that it be true. Just because sexual urges may underlie or motivate rape, does NOT mean they justify it!!

Given the long history of indefensibly horrible attitudes toward rape, I can understand the motivation behind obfuscating the truth to achieve a desirable end, namely, preventing women from being blamed for rape. But wouldn’t it be better to take the honest course, and remind people of what is obviously true (that rapists, even when motivated by sex, are solely responsible for their own despicable actions) instead of trying to convince them of what seems obviously false (that rapists are never motivated by sex)?

P.P.S. Another good post on this topic, here. Money quote: “I submit that the primary motivators for date rape are sex and utter, reptilian selfishness.”

There’s also this, from a self-defense website (quoted at length after the jump):

(more…)

Um, is this a good argument for passing a law?

The bill’s authors, as well as advocates of comprehensive immigration legislation, have been arguing that flawed as it is, the measure must go forward legislatively and eventually it will be fixed.

Yeah, that’s a good idea! Let’s replace a flawed system with another flawed system, and leave it to some other Congress to “fix” it! That way, at least we can claim credit for doing something. Because the appearance of progress is the same thing as progress!

[/not expressing an opinion about the bill, just saying that’s a dumb argument for it]

Just a question, but knowing what you know now, how would you vote on the floor of the Senate on a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq? That is to say if you could have a complete do over on the subject based on the information you have now would you pick a different path? Various debates and arguments in the press, online etc. have, for some reason, made me curious as to how people would answer such a question.

An interesting rebuttal to Christopher Hitchens… by his brother, Peter Hitchens. The topic is atheism vs. religion, and I’m not endorsing everything Peter says (though I do tend to agree that Christopher’s atheism is so fervently believed as to be a form of “faith” itself), I just think it’s interesting food for thought, and figured it might trigger a fun debate here.

Oh, this is good.

[Bumped to top. -ed.]

As long as Becky and I are asking my readers random questions, here’s a good one: If you had 3 to 5 weeks off (after the bar exam) with no work, school or other obligations … What would you do? Where would you travel? How would you spend that last, precious chunk of time before entering the working world?

P.S. To the extent that timing/seasons matter to people’s recommendations… we’re talking about August here.

As minor-league baseball posts go, this one isn’t as exciting as the Mississippi nutso video, but oh well. My high-school classmate Joe Serfass, whose burgeoning pro baseball career has been the subject of several previous posts here, continues to impress. Last week, he had a homecoming of sorts, and it was a very successful one:

Newington’s Joe Serfass grew up attending Rock Cats games with his father, George, and other family members.

So when the former Eastern Connecticut All-American was signed by the Mets in 2004, he knew his journey through the minors could one day traverse New Britain.

“My first goal when I signed a pro contract was to get to Double A, knowing that Binghamton is in the Eastern League and I’d have a chance to play at home,” Serfass said.

The 6-foot-3 righthander pitched two scoreless innings in Binghamton’s 9-2 victory over the Rock Cats on Wednesday. About 50 friends and family members - including his father, mother Bev Nogas and wife Tara - stood and cheered while Serfass lowered his ERA to 1.69 in 16 innings over nine games.

Nice going, Joe!

Meanwhile, the baseball team Joe used to play for — the Newington High School Indians — have reached the state semifinals! They got there by beating Fitch-Groton in a 12-inning thriller yesterday. Here’s another article about the game.

The #3-seeded Indians (20-3) face surprising semifinalist #18-seed Bunnell (16-7) at Yale Field on Tuesday. The winner advances to Saturday’s title game, also at Yale Field, against either #1 Amity (24-1) or #12 Stamford (16-6).

No NHS team has won a state championship since 1994, when I was in seventh grade.

Even better than the fight between the Cubs pitcher and catcher is this video of the Phillip Wellman, manager of the Mississippi Braves AA team, going nuts after being ejected from a game in Chattanooga, Tennessee on Friday.

Title shamelessly stolen from the YouTube post :-)

You’ve probably heard already about yesterday’s big anti-terror news, the foiled JFK plot:

Federal authorities announced Saturday they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a “chilling” attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods.

WCBS explains that “the suspects believed explosives could ignite the pipeline at JFK and destroy the airport and parts of Queens, where the line runs underground.” But the key phrase there, it turns out, is “the suspects believed.” According to at least one expert, that belief was flat wrong:

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

“That doesn’t mean wackos out there can’t do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly restricted,” he said.

Now, look, I don’t go out of my way to assume that the government is “hyping up” terror plots… but um, isn’t U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf being a little too credulous here? She says “the devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable,” but that statement isn’t very meaningful if the plot could not have succeeded as envisioned. She echoes the terrorists’ own claims that the attack would have caused “greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks,” calling this “one of the most chilling plots imaginable.” But isn’t that all dependent on the fire and explosion going “up and down the line,” which apparently would not have happened?

If I hatched a “plot” to kill thousands of people using fairy dust, a magic wand, and a Harry Potter spell, it wouldn’t be “chilling” so much as ridiculous. And the mere fact that I might have believed the plot would succeed, doesn’t make it so. [UPDATE: Likewise in commenter Doc’s alternate analogy, if I hatched a “plot” to kill thousands of people with a knife. It’d be good to catch me, obviously, but it would be rather idiotic to uncritically repeat my own assertions that the knife attack would have been “worse than 9/11.”]

Now, perhaps the government has its own expert advice that differs from Mr. Kuprewicz’s. If so, I’d like to hear it. But as it stands now, this seems like much ado over not very much.

That said, of course it’s a very good thing that these men, who clearly intended to harm America (and who could certainly have killed at least a good handful of people), are in custody. I congratulate the authorities for busting up this plot, and I am grateful for their efforts. I just don’t think we should be throwing around “worse than 9/11″ rhetoric unless it’s, you know, actually true.

P.S. There’s also this: “Since Defreitas [one of the plotters] has worked at the airport, security has tightened, and his knowledge of the operation was severely outdated.”

As I said, I’m glad we got these guys, but for me, this just doesn’t pass the sniff test as a terribly serious plot. Between the apparent physical impossibility issue, the outdated expertise issue, the plot’s silly code-name (”Chicken Farm”), and the ridiculous statement that blowing up JFK Airport would be especially traumatic because “[Americans] love John F. Kennedy like he’s the man… it’s like you can kill the man twice” (huh?), I’m just not that impressed.

UPDATE: I found Mr. Kuprewicz’s e-mail address online, and on a lark, shot him an e-mail, asking for a bit more detail and whether he agreed with my conclusions here. To my surprise and delight, he wrote back almost immediately:

You are correct in that a pipeline explosion will not move up or down a pipeline. One can get a serious explosion depending on the pipeline at the point of release, usually a big rupture where the dynamics forces in the pipeline cause the pipe to shrapnel, but the burning front remains at the general site of the release. Depending on several factors which are pipeline specific…a pipeline fire and/or explosion can be quite large, but no where as large as suggested by various commentators who appear to be very uninformed about this important infrastructure (both pipelines and terminals). …

Reviewing your blog, I would not disagree with your posted opinions and observations on the overstatements concerning this threat.

He also suggested this Yahoo group, a “pipeline safety discussion list,” which contains some more reactions to the JFK plot coverage. Among other things, it includes a link to an ABC News article quoting an unnamed official as saying that the plot “was not technically feasible”:

The pipeline snakes more than 100 miles from Pennsylvania through New Jersey to JFK. Once they learned of the plot, authorities investigated at what points the pipeline could be accessed and found that even if those points were bombed, there would be little to no impact — and no ignition — and that the only way to wreak havoc at JFK would be to
detonate bombs at the airport itself.

But, a source said, “They never let go of the idea,” and seemed determined to find a way to execute it regardless.

Another post on the Yahoo group wonders “if the plotters got the idea of a fire traveling down a pipeline from Hollywood.” It links to a UPI article on the impossibility of the plot:

Blowing up a jet-fuel pipeline at New York’s Kennedy airport might not have produced the chain-reaction inferno the accused plotters allegedly imagined.

An examination of safety documents and scientific studies by UPI Saturday indicated it would be virtually impossible for flames to travel through the line and ignite at other points along the line.

Commercial airliner fuel, known as Jet-A, is a form of kerosene and requires a mix with air before it becomes explosive. Because pipelines are under pressure, the fuel would be forced out through the hole in the pipe where it would likely catch fire. The flames, however, would not travel back through the line.

Explosions along petroleum pipelines carrying jet fuel in the San Jose and Seattle areas in recent years caused casualties; however, the blasts were limited to the original breaches.

The communists are after our precious bodily fluids again! First fluoridation, now toxic Chinese toothpaste! Somebody call Gordon Sinclair!

I agree with Glenn Reynolds one hundred percent: “the ridiculous effort to purge all risks from childrens’ lives” is truly a scourge of modern society.

Unfortunately, no politician (or prosecutor) is ever going to stand up and tell an angry public that there is a certain amount of acceptable risk inherent in our childrens’ lives. It’s obviously, logically true, but as I’ve noted before, logic doesn’t matter when “it’s for the children.”

Sometimes, a tragedy is just a tragedy, not a crime. (Original post here — and be sure to read the comments, they’re interesting.)

Mammatus in Nebraska. (Hat tip: Literal Barrage.)

Resident Hillary-haters shouldn’t miss this. Heh.