Republicans and rape comments appear to have an almost cyclic regularity with election periods. If you recall, the Republicans were in a strong position last elections when candidates started making bizarre and at times creepy comments — alienating voters and tipping the balance in the Senate.
Now, Republican Maine state Representative Lawrence Lockman appears to have lined up early in the rape theme line (as early as 1995) in addition to extreme statements regarding abortion and homosexuality is under fire for comments he’s made in the media regarding rape, abortion, and homosexuality.
An activist uncovered a press statement in 1995 in which Lockman reportedly says “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.” What is most remarkable about this statement — other than the statement itself — is that I find it virtually incomprehensible beyond treating rape as a casual analogy. Moreover, it is reported that this was in an actual press statement not some comment at a bar or unguarded email. He likewise said in a letter to Bangor News that “Clearly the practice of sodomy is learned behavior, and those addicted to this form of biologically-insane sex are at high risk for all manner of serious medical problems.”
He is also accused of once suggesting that the HIV virus can be spread through mosquitoes and bed sheets. He opposed HIV infected students attending school by saying “It’s peculiar that the government is telling health care workers that surfaces contaminated with bodily fluids should be thoroughly disinfected, but at the same time they are telling us that toilet seats have some magical property that they are able to resist viruses.” Lockman also reportedly asserted that liberals made AIDS epidemic worse by assuring “the public that the practice of sodomy is a legitimate alternative lifestyle, rather than a perverted and depraved crime against humanity.” He once warned that there could be a quota system on the way to require gays and lesbians in every workplace: “You can bet the rent money they will demand that employers set up goals and timetables to achieve 10 percent homosexual representation in the workforce and in government contracts.”
Lockman responded to the criticism by saying “I have always been passionate about my beliefs, and years ago I said things that I regret. I hold no animosity toward anyone by virtue of their gender or sexual orientation.” As long, presumably, that they do not use the toilets or engage in homosexual relations.
In his official bio, it states that
Lockman studied liberal arts at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia and Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. He is a 1967 graduate of Philmont Christian Academy in Jenkintown, Pa.
He works as a Territory Manager in eastern and central Maine for National Write Your Congressman (nwyc.com), a non-partisan legislative research organization with members in all 50 states.
From 1992 to 2010, Lockman worked as a Territory Manager in eastern Maine for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and qualified numerous times for NFIB’s prestigious President’s Club, as well as the biennial Small Business Summit in Washington, DC. Prior to his tenure at NFIB, Lockman was employed for 16 years at Diamond Occidental’s lumber mill in Passadumkeag.
However, he does say that he “regrets” the bit about rape.
Jim22 wrote “The Fed Reserve and the govt. messing with the market isn’t a free market anymore”
True, and that’s a good thing.
Elizabeth Warren pointed out that the U.S. had a major crash every 10-15 years – until the Depression. The panic of 1907 caused the NYSE to drop by 50%, with many runs on banks. Then we got smart and created the FDIC, the SEC, and many other institutions we take for granted today (the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, but its role wasn’t understood yet). After WWII — which can be considered to be the world’s largest stimulus package — we did not see another major crash until the 1980s, when Reagan started dismantling the systems which had protected us for decades. Then we repealed Glass-Steagall and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and viola! Depression 2.0.
Paul,
http://www.thejubers.com/images/image12.png
Paul, you had to turn yourself into knots to come to that conclusion.
Annie – it is pure logic or critical thinking, whichever you like.
Saucy,
I am anti Islam actually. It’s a misogynistic religion. Having said that are you trying to say women here in this modern secular country should just shut up and thank their lucky stars they don’t have it as bad as Islamic women, who are cursed with being born a woman in an Islamic society? That sounds a bit sexist.
Annie wrote “There is a sordid history when it comes to women too.”
To paraphrase one of your earlier comments, it’s not the same “sordid.”
By the way, the HBS link you provided was interesting. Do you realize that women living in Islamic countries actually live under worse conditions today? I’ve often wondered why feminists are not anti-Islam.
saucy – feminists are usually progressives and progressive are anti-Israel, so therefore they are pro-Islam, hence anti-women.
Call me crazy, but is this misogynistic doofus being paraded in the ‘media’ for a sinister purpose? Republicans and Democrats–you always have to choose between dumb and dumber, or the lesser of two evils. We need more prominent political parties than just the two….I say, bring back the Bull Moose party!
Annie, Are you talking about Greenspan Clothing company? I’m not sure why you feel they would need to be regulated, then again you probably want everyone regulated, so maybe I do get it. If you are referring to Alan Greenspan, then you are making my point. The Fed Reserve and the govt. messing with the market isn’t a free market anymore so don’t blame the free market when those entities step in and screw it up. We don’t have a free market and we don’t have capitalism, we do have crony capitalism though.
http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/wes/collections/women_law/
There is a sordid history when it comes to women too.
blhlls wrote “Laws exist protecting you against being denied a job because you are male, white, or too old or too young”
No, no, maybe, no. Take a paralegal employment law class at a community college or just buy the textbook. Paralegal textbooks are usually quite good at explaining the law.
I have personal knowledge of a lay-off which resulted in all of the men in the department being terminated; none of the women were terminated. In another case, I saw a conference room filled with mostly men aged 50+ hearing their lay-off spiel; their paperwork included a provision that anyone who wished to receive layoff compensation needed to sign away their rights to sue for age discrimination.
There’s an economic cost to hiring transvestites, something I would think the many libertarians here would appreciate. At one company, a transvestite was hired, but neither men nor women wanted him in their lavatory, so the company built a third-category lavatory. Slightly off the subject: an adult transvestite in Idaho insisted on using the women’s lavatory, yet he peed standing up, annoying the women in the adjoining stalls (see below URL).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/13/us-usa-transgender-idaho-idUSBRE93C01U20130413
The problem I have with affirmative action (except, see below) is that it is reverse discrimination. If an albino is denied employment, there is no special recourse. Regarding discrimination: either we allow everyone to sue or we allow no one to sue.
African-Americans and Native Americans are the only ones who should be eligible for affirmative action because of our sordid history. No one else. And even that should have limits.
Ah yes, we sure can trust the free market to police themselves, ask Greenspan.
Yes, the guy seems like an idiot. But philosophically, what is worse murder or rape?
Annie, forcing people to hire gays isn’t equal rights. And yes, I do believe business’ should be able to discriminate however they want. But you also have the right to not go there or protest them. Let the free market sort it out.
The ability of politicians to make stupid comments is almost limitless, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually be running on a pro-rape platform, even 20 years ago.
While I find the comment tasteless, has anyone considered whether, rather than an endorsement of rape, this was simply a poorly thought out attempt at an argumentum ad absurdem?
One could take the point that since the use of presumably lesser (that is, _nonlethal_) force against another person in the conduct of a rape is morally (and legally) wrong, then, assuming arguendo that a fetus is a person (and by nature completely defenseless), it is, a fortiori, morally wrong to use, or solicit the use of, _lethal_ force to conduct an abortion, and therefore,it should be made illegal.
If one accepts the premises, the argument makes a certain amount of sense.
Porkchop – I read the comment the same way you did and thought it was funny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/business/supreme-court-raises-bar-to-prove-job-discrimination.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The SCOTUS made it even more difficult to win an employment discrimination suit. Supreme Court raises bar to prove job discrimination.
Paul. It’s difficult FOR ANYONE to prove discrimination.
http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/charge.cfm
Sex/ gender discrimination. Paul, here you go.
Beldar here. I felt honored that the wikifreaks (not leaks) folks would entrust this to me to pass on. Yesterday a “datathief” gathered less than metadata from a smartphone belonging to a clerk who works for a Judge whom you Earthlings know as Alito. The “data” reveals that Alito and his pals on the Court have been discussing with a high ranking security figure from the Executive a decision which will spill over onto government spying on you. So a decision will be reached soon which looks innocuous at first, that any cop can seize any cellphone for a short time and take data off of it. Then give it back so that the seizure was a mere search not a seizure. The intention is to use the word “data” not “information” so that it seems innocuous. The car stop is the scene of the crime. The expired plate on the car is the justification. You are forewarned. I have to go now and report back to my planet that things just went to hell in a handbasket here in AmeriKa.
I figured the article on the Maine Republican would be a good topic to go off topic.
Paul C. Schulte: Laws exist protecting you against being denied a job because you are male, white, or too old or too young whether or not you choose to utilize the mechanisms available.
blhlls – actually trying to prove any of those things is the problem. I was turned down for a job where they hired only women. I filed a complaint. Unsurprisingly, the complaint officer was female. She found NO discrimination.
Homosexuals deserve the same protections from discrimination as other people who are born with differences. Is it not wrong to discriminate against someone because of genetic or developmental differences?
This guy is a troglodyte. Of course homosexual people deserve the same protection from discrimination as women, older people, and minorities. Why not? Is it correct to not rent or hire or serve someone because of their sexual orientation? If gays were given ‘special’ rights would it be considered special to give them the SAME rights as heterosexual people? That’s not special at all.
Annie – why should men not be given protection from discrimination?