So, I’m listening to the radio this morning, and there was a little one sentence news blurb telling me than Leonard Boswell will be leaving the hospital tomorrow.

Did anyone else realize that he was even still in the hospital?

That means he has been in the hospital for TWO WEEKS.  Of course, we still don’t really know what’s going on with him because he won’t tell us anything, just that it was a “routine” procedure.

What kind of “routine” procedure requires two weeks in the hospital?

What’s the deal Boz?  Why won’t you tell us what’s going on with you?  Ted Kennedy has brain surgery, and we know so much about it, it feels like we’re on the hospital staff.  Leonard Boswell has surgery, and you have to be a member of the CIA to know what’s going on.

Boz, your constituents have a right to know the status of your health.  It is relevant to your capability to do your job.  The more you keep us in the dark, the more people are going to think something very bad is going on.

So, you can either tell us it actually is something serious, or you can keep us in the dark and have us assume it is.  Take your pick.  Neither scenario will be particularly helpful to your political career.

Iowans should demand to know what’s going on.  We let you slide once, Mr. I-had-a-20-pound-tumor-removed-and-underwent-chemotherapy-but-I-don’t-have-cancer.  Don’t expect it to happen again.

By Emily Geiger

The latest news in the U of I rape case is that the Board of Regents has decided to re-open its investigation into whether or not the University handled this whole situation properly.  The Regents had previously conducted a similar “investigation” and released a report in June saying that the University had followed proper procedure, basically clearing all University officials of wrongdoing.

Now that the mother of the victim has released her letters to the media, the Regents believe that their previous conclusion needs to be reconsidered.

I have one question for the Regents.  If you “investigated” this incident previously, why did no one talk to the victim’s family as part of that “investigation”?

It is obvious that no one bothered to contact the victim’s family (which makes me question whether they even talked to the victim) or else they would have heard about the existence of these letters and been informed of the mother’s concerns with how the University handled the situation.

Well, I guess there could actually be two options here.  Either the Regents did a half-ass investigation (and then proceeded to tell the public that the University was blameless), or the Regents did know about the mother’s concerns and ignored them, and now they’re grandstanding. 

I guess I’m hoping for inept over corrupt.  But these days, who can tell?

Oh, and on a side note, how arrogant and smarmy is Gary Barta?  I saw him being interviewed last night on the news, and it made me nauseous. He was saying how sure he was that the University (i.e. him) would be cleared of any wrongdoing. 

Um, Gary, you knew about all this right away when it happened, and you failed to inform Vice President for Student Services Phillip Jones, which you were required to do under University policy.  Good luck explaining that one.

And another thing.  Dude, you make $300,417 per year.  You have the nastiest teeth I’ve seen in a long time.  Take a few grand and get those fixed. 

When I read Beaumont’s piece in the Register yesterday, I knew it would stir the already festering pot.  And then, of course, people read Krusty and read all sorts of things into it that I’m not sure were really there.

Here’s the thing people need to remember, especially the moderates who focus on fiscal issues rather than social ones.  The election of Scheffler and Lehman as our national committee-people really isn’t that big of a deal.  Sure, it’s a moral victory for the social conservative grassroots, but there’s only so much national-committee people do.  Scheffler and Lehman are far more dangerous to these moderates in their roles as activists. 

As activists, they can cajole legislators and perhaps even change some hearts and minds.  As national committee-people, they can either maintain Iowa as first in the nation (i.e. maintain the status quo, which not many people even really notice) or blow Iowa’s first in the nation status and tick a lot of people off for decades to come.  Not exactly a win-win situation.

For a long time, the moderates (who have held the elite positions in the party) have told the SoCons that we need to focus on the issues on which we all agree (i.e. the fiscal issues), so the SoCons should just shut-up and get on board.  After all, we’re better off with moderate Republicans than with Democrats, right? 

So, the little SoCon worker bees should just keep our mouths shut and do what we do best: door-knock and make phone calls, and do it with a smile.

Now, the perception being put out there by people like Diane Crookham-Johnson is that the tables have turned.  The reality is that the moderates are still in control of things like our state chairmanship and the RNC.  But, let’s just say they have turned.  Shouldn’t the moderates just focus on the fact that we all still agree in the fiscal issues and shut-up and get on board?  After all, we’re better off with SoCon Republicans than with Democrats, right? 

So, maybe the elite moderates should just keep their mouths shut and do what they do best: write their big, fat checks, and do it with a smile.

The more we find out about reported rape incident last fall involving two University of Iowa football players, the more disturbing things get, and the worse it looks for the University. 

For a long time I heard people asking the question, if this girl was really raped in October, why did she not report it until mid-November?  That’s when a search warrant was executed by the state’s Department of Criminal Investigation at a U of I dorm where the rape took place. 

Well, it turns out that the victim did report the rape much sooner than November.  According to a letter the victim's mother sent to University official in November which was recently shared with the press, within 36 hours of the incident, the victim had reported the rape to SEVERAL U of I officials including U of I Athletic Director, Gary Barta; Associate Athletic Director Fred Mims; football coach, Kirk Ferentz; Betsy Altmaier, a UI faculty member and a representative on the Presidential Committee on Athletics that serves as a liaison to the Big Ten and NCAA; and the victim's coach (the victim is apparently a U of I athlete herself… sound familiar?).  The victim also when to the ER and had a rape kit done (i.e. evidence collection). 

So why did we not find out about all this until a month after the incident?  Why were the police not involved until a month after the incident?  According to the victim’s mother, it is because the victim was strongly pressured to let the athletic department (that’s right, not the University, but the athletic department) handle things “informally.”  The victim was assured by these people that they would take care of it.  Really, do they have an athletic department jail these guys were going to spend hard time in?

From what I can tell reading the news reports, it looks like the athletic department officials were supposed to inform other University offices (including the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity and Vice President for Student Services Phillip Jones) of what had happened and what they knew, but they failed to do so. 

When the victim’s father contacted Jones on November 13, Jones denied any knowledge of the situation.  When the victim finally did talk to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity the victim’s mother said the interviewers “were aggressive and forceful in their interviewing tactics and accusatory in their stance. [The victim] told me afterwards, while crying, that they basically accused her of bringing this upon herself. She was interviewed with the intention of making her feel that she caused this.”  Not even the U of I public safety department (i.e. campus police) were told of the incident.

Can we say cover up?

The worst parts of the story for me were:

1.  The victim soon found out that one of her rapists was living three doors down from her with his girlfriend.  She had to see her attackers regularly, and they and their friends on the football team (and other sports teams) regularly called her names such as “whore” upon seeing her.  It seems it was shortly after this started that he victim realized the university wasn’t going to help her and went to the police herself.

2.2.       It seems it was determined from evidence collected in the rape kit that the victim was raped by three different men (not just the two she remembered).  The victim did not know this.  Somehow, the University found out about this within a week of the incident, but did not inform the victim.  The victim did not find out about this until she heard it from police weeks later.

I am quickly losing faith in the U of I and Kirk Ferentz.  “We’re going to handle this informally.”  What the hell does that mean?  It can’t mean that they were going to help put these guys in jail for what they had done, which is where they belong.

Hey Kirk, if one of your wife or daughter were raped, would you want it to be handled “informally,” or would you want the guy to rot in jail for life (or at least a big chunk of it)?  How would you feel if your wife or daughter were raped, and you found out that her attacker had done this before, but he wasn’t in jail because some other idiots had decided it would be best if it was handled “informally”?

It is obvious that, in the mind of these cowardly athletic department officials, getting kicked off the football team was the worst punishment these guys could/should get.  How would any “informal” action possibly protect all the other potential victims of these predators?  Even if they were quietly discharged from the University of Iowa, that might prevent other women on the U of I campus from dealing with them, but what about the rest of the world?

After getting discharged from the team, these guys went to other schools to play football.  What about the women on those campuses, or any other woman on the street they came in contact with?  How on earth did Kirk & Co. think that kicking these guys off the Iowa football team was going to protect them?

I’ve read statistics that the average rapist rapes between 8 and 16 times before being caught.  Does anyone really think that these guys have never done anything like this before, or that they aren’t likely to do it again?

The way the University handled this is shameful.  I sincerely hope that everyone will think about this before they pay for another game ticket, buy any Hawkeye gear, or contribute to another alumni fundraiser. 

Just keep in mind that, when you do, you’re funding the sexual victimization of the female population of Iowa City at the hands of the men’s football and basketball teams (no, we haven’t forgotten about Pierre Pierce). 

We used to be able to look up to those strong young men in the black and gold (and their leaders).  They were heroes to so many young (and young-at-heart) people in this state. 

Now, we are fearful of them. 

Now, that heroic image is gone, along with the innocence of a young woman who was victimized in the worst way possible, and then betrayed by the people who were supposed to protect her.

The other day, when I was searching for photos of David Gregory, I came across many good ones. I chose one and added what I hoped was an amusing caption. And as I was doing this, I got to thinking that that caption actually applied to all the amusing photos I found of David Gregory.

David Gregory portraying himself in a game of charades.
(i.e. loudmouth)

David Gregory portraying himself in a game of charades.
(i.e. wild-eyed crazy dude)

David Gregory portraying himself in a game of charades.
(Do I really have to explain this one?)