Daily Archive: 03/26/2015

Mar 26 2015

2015 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament: Regional Semifinals Day 1

The big shuffle.  Teams that were playing on Day 1 are now playing on Day 2 and likewise.  Results from both the 21st and 22nd.

I count 5 upsets.

Results from the 21st-

Score Seed Team Record Score Seed Team Record Region
92 11 UCLA 22-13 75 14 UAB 20-16 South
64 1 Kentucky 36-0 51 8 Cincinnati 23-11 Mid-West
73 2 Arizona 33-3 58 10 Ohio State 24-11 West
75 6 Xavier 23-13 67 14 Georgia State 25-10 West
68 1 Villanova 33-3 71 8 * NC State 22-13 East
64 4 Georgetown 22-11 75 5 * Utah 26-8 South
87 4 North Carolina 26-11 78 5 Arkansas 27-9 West
67 3 Notre Dame 31-5 64 6 Butler 23-11 Mid-West

Results from the 22nd-

Score Seed Team Record Score Seed Team Record Region
54 2 Virginia 29-4 60 7 * Michigan State 25-11 East
68 1 Duke 30-4 49 8 San Diego State 26-9 South
65 2 Kansas 27-9 78 7 * Wichita State 29-4 Mid-West
72 3 Oklahoma 25-10 66 11 Dayton 26 – 9 East
87 2 Gonzaga 33-5 68 7 Iowa 21-12 South
72 1 Wisconsin 32-3 65 8 Oregon 25-10 West
59 4 Maryland 27-7 69 5 * West Virginia 24-9 Mid-West
66 4 Louisville 25-8 53 5 UNI 30-4 East

This Evening’s Matchups-

Time Channel Seed Team Record Seed Team Record Region
7:15pm CBS 3 Notre Dame 31-5 7 Wichita State 29-4 Mid-West
7:47pm TBS 1 Wisconsin 32-3 4 North Carolina 26-11 West
9:45pm CBS 1 Kentucky 36-0 5 West Virginia 24-9 Mid-West
10:17pm TBS 2 Arizona 33-3 6 Xavier 23-13 West

Mar 26 2015

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Trevor Timm; It’s OK to leak government secrets – as long as it benefits politicians

It is hypocritical that some leaks will land you in jail, while others just lead to a slap on the wrist

When it comes to classified information, some leaks are more equal than others. If you are a whistleblower like Edward Snowden, who tells the press about illegal, immoral or embarrassing government actions, you will face jail time. But it’s often another story for US government officials leaking information for their own political benefit.

Two stories this week perfectly illustrate this hypocrisy and how, despite their unprecedented crackdown on sources and, the Obama administration – like every administration before it – loves to use leaks, if and when it suits them.

Scott Ritter: Espionage, by Any Other Name

Recent reporting by the Wall Street Journal that Israel has spied on U.S. negotiators who are crafting a deal with Iran that would limit that nation’s ability to enrich uranium in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions has raised alarms within the White House. As the Wall Street Journal noted, the issue that rankles the Obama administration the most isn’t the fact that Israel spied on the United States — Israel has long topped the list of “friendly” nations that actively collect intelligence on the American target — but rather that the Israelis have used information so gathered to enable a program of directed political action in Washington, DC designed to undermine the policies of the United States. Israel accomplished this by feeding the “take” back to Republican lawmakers in Congress in order to facilitate legislation intended to derail the ongoing international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. [..]

Congress has every right — even a duty — to oppose the policies of the Executive Branch where there is legitimate disagreement. This can even extend to articulating strong pro-Israeli positions when it comes to Iran and its nuclear program. But it does not permit the kind of coordination that transpired between Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to selectively leak classified U.S. negotiating positions and strategies in an effort to derail the ongoing talks between the United States and Iran. In fact, there is little difference between the role played by John Boehner and his fellow Republicans in Congress in doing the bidding of Israel today and the role played by Alger Hiss and other members of the so-called “Ware Group” working on behalf of the Soviet Union back in the 1940’s. Hiss and his fellow travelers sought to influence U.S. policy on behalf of their masters in Moscow; Boehner and his cohorts seek to do the same on behalf of their masters in Tel Aviv.

Nancy Altman: The Wrong Math

“It’s simple math,” is the refrain often uttered by those seeking to explain why cutting, not expanding, Social Security is the choice to make. A variation of that phrase, “arithmetical realities of an aging society,” appeared in Fred Hiatt’s recent opinion piece (“Never-Compromise Wins Again,” Washington Post, 3/23/15). The math is simple, but Mr. Hiatt gets it wrong. [..]

The appropriate measure to assess affordability, one that takes into account productivity, is the percentage of our Gross Domestic Product–the total value of all goods and services–represented by Social Security. Currently, Social Security represents about five percent of GDP. In the future, at its most expensive, it will represent about 6.2 percent. Many other industrialized countries spend a much higher percentage of their GDP on their counterpart programs right now than we will at Social Security’s most expensive. Compared to that 6.2 percent of GDP, for example, Austria today spends 11.9 percent, Germany, 10.7 percent, and Japan, 9.8 percent.

The question of whether Social Security should be expanded, fully funded at its current level of scheduled benefits, or scaled back is not one of math or demographics, but one of values- how we choose to spend our combined wealth. Confusing this question is some other wrong math.

Richard (RJ) Escow: Hillary’s Challengers – and the Anti-Wall Street Wave

Former governor Martin O’Malley and former senator Jim Webb spoke at a firefighters’ union event earlier this month. Both are the subject of renewed press interest as they contemplate entering the presidential race. Sen. Bernie Sanders has been publicly weighing a run. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being encouraged to enter the race.

All four have criticized Wall Street’s unethical practices and undue political influence. Leading contender Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has not.

Should that worry Democrats? [..]

The Clinton team might prefer to see this challenge go away, but that’s not likely to happen. That means she has a choice: she can offer her own strategy for reining in Wall Street, or run the risk of allowing others to define her position on this issue – in ways that could harm both her prospects and her party’s.

Earl Otari Hutchinson: Stephen A. Smith’s GOP Delusion Is Nothing New

ESPN host Stephen A. Smith has gotten quite a reputation for being a controversial tell-it-like-he-sees-it guy. That’s fine in sports punditry. He’s an ex-jock, and in that world pretty much any inanity will fly. But when Smith pursed his lips and ventured outside sportsdom to quip that blacks should vote GOP at least one election go round he proved once again that sports and entertainment personalities that venture opinions about politics more often than not embarrass themselves. If we want to be more charitable, the best that can be said is that Smith is just the latest in a long line to peddle the delusion that the GOP can change its ways and become an open-arms party for blacks. Those who routinely peddle that are usually a handful of GOP would-be presidential contenders such as Rand Paul, an infinitesimal and politically inconsequential handful of GOP elected officials, and an always dependable core of conservative media and think tank contracted black conservatives.

Before, during and after every national election, they kick into high gear and contend that getting more blacks to jump political ship will be a major seismic jolt to the Democrats and be a start toward breaking the lock that the Democrats have on the black vote. Smith, as with the rest that spout this fantasy, grab a headline or two, and get plenty of airtime on conservative talk radio and TV.

Rene Denfeld: Why we execute people is the big question, not how

“There’s no nice way to kill someone,” a man facing execution once told me, raising heavy eyes.

From my work as a licensed death penalty investigator, I know this too, which is why Utah’s decision to reinstate the firing squad for executions doesn’t trouble me the way it might trouble others.

Attorneys hire me to find out the truth. I’m the one who ferrets out long-lost witnesses, digs into dusty basements to unearth ancient records, and finds the evidence that exonerates, or – more often – explains.

I love my job, because I am the one person who gets to understand why.

Why do people do such terrible things to each other? Why is our country so enthralled with murder that we bookend one death with another?

Mar 26 2015

The Two Headed Coin

Cause…

Congress’ Medicare ‘Fix’ Could Leave Seniors Paying More

By David Dayen, The Fiscal Times

March 20, 2015

Washington perpetually laments the loss of bipartisanship in this polarized political environment. But ordinary Americans might want to fear one example of bipartisanship’s return, and what it could mean for their pocketbooks.

John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have been locked in negotiations to clear two of the biggest hurdles facing Congress this year: the so-called “doc fix” for Medicare reimbursement rates, and an extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). We don’t have all the details, because the negotiations have taken place far from the public eye, with the release of the House and Senate budgets this week affording them cover.



The “doc fix” refers to the rate the government pays doctors who see Medicare patients. A 1997 law created something called the “sustainable growth rate” or SGR that governs the level of payments. Since Medicare spending consistently outstrips economic growth, this translates into large reimbursement cuts under the SGR formula. If nothing is done by April 1, the reimbursement rate will fall by 21 percent. More important, doctors claim they would react to pay cuts by prioritizing other patients, making it harder for Medicare beneficiaries to get treatment.

This 21 percent cut should always be accompanied by the phrase “in theory,” because every potentially large rate cut since 2002 has been patched; hence the phrase “doc fix.” On 17 different occasions, Congress has made sure Medicare doctors get their expected paycheck, sometimes even adding a small raise, and often finding money somewhere else in the budget to offset it.



Congress appears to want to stop having conversations with angry doctors every year, and have cast about for a permanent “doc fix” that would repeal and replace the old Medicare payment system. Doing this would cost $177 billion over the next decade, but the Boehner-Pelosi negotiations are looking at covering less than half this, around $70 billion in back-ended cuts, and letting the rest add to the budget deficits. To sweeten the pot for liberals, the emerging package would include a two-year, $30 billion extension of CHIP for 8 million children, at the boosted benefit levels under the Affordable Care Act. The tentative plan is for the House to vote next week, and throw it into the Senate’s lap just before the April 1 doc fix deadline.

It’s the other half of the cuts that get problematic. There would reportedly be more means-testing for Medicare beneficiaries, increasing premiums for seniors showing income over $133,000 and couples over $266,000. These seniors would have to pay 65 percent of their total costs under the new plan. This would go up at higher incomes. Means-testing historically dips lower and lower as budgeters try to get more out of beneficiaries, so this continues that ratcheting process for Medicare.



But this would raise out-of-pocket expenses on all 9 million seniors with a Medigap plan, including the 86 percent of these beneficiaries who have incomes under $40,000, and almost half with incomes below $20,000. So this cut hits those who can’t really afford it. (This idea, along with the means-testing, was in President Obama’s budget, incidentally.)

The proper term for this is cost-shifting, pushing funding for a public program onto those who get the benefits. Medigap was created to deal with cost-shifting in Medicare, and now Congress may look to shift costs within it as well. And like means-testing, cost-shifting is prime terrain for double-dipping over time.



All of this is being done to protect doctor salaries, which are among the highest in the industrialized world. Maybe Medicare doctors shouldn’t endure a 20 percent pay cut, but the idea that they wouldn’t see patients if the cut were 5 or 7 percent doesn’t pencil out. Plus, doctor payment rates are tied to Medicare premiums, as the Congressional Budget Office has explained: “Beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of Medicare pay premiums that offset about 25 percent of the costs of those benefits.” This means that any permanent change to a new doctor payment formula will likely result in a hike to Part B premiums.

Clearly everyone in Congress hates the messy process of annual “doc fix” patches, and the uproar from the hospital lobby that accompanies it. But nobody in Washington has raised the point that higher costs for ordinary patients might not be a great solution to the supposed problem of lower cash flow for doctors.

And Effect-

U.S. Voter Turnout is Low Because There’s Little to Vote For

by Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report

Wed, 03/25/2015

President Obama wants you to believe that the political map of the United States would be transformed – “completely changed,” he says – if citizens were required by law to vote. Obama told a town hall meeting in Cleveland that mandatory voting would “counteract” the influence of money in the U.S. electoral process. That’s a hell of a statement from the guy who wrecked the public campaign finance system by opting out of it in 2008, and outspent his Republican opponents in both of his runs for the presidency. Obama ought to have his picture on a million dollar bill.

But, why does the United States have the lowest voter turnout in the industrialized world, including Russia? It’s not because Americans are happier with the way they’re living than the rest of humanity. The U.S. ranks 17th on the global Happiness index and 23rd on the Satisfaction with Life scale. And, although racial exclusion in voting is very important when comparing Black voter turnout with whites, white Americans also vote in numbers far below almost all of the rest of the developed world.

Americans don’t vote because both major political parties are answerable to the same people: the moneyed classes, the power structures that determine the issues that will be on the political agenda long before the party primaries begin. This is called the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the rich.

The corporations and bankers choose the menu; the only option citizens have is whether to select from the pre-packaged list of candidates, or stay home. Almost two out of three chose not to vote in 2014. They were not behaving irrationally. Since both major parties are controlled by the rich, only the most minor tinkering with the way the country is actually run, is tolerated. No matter how many people vote, very little changes, because the U.S. offers the narrowest spectrum of electoral choices in the industrial world – which is why it has the lowest voter turnout.

The Democrats want to keep their lock on the Black vote, but they have no interest in Black people voting their own political agenda, for the simple reason that Blacks are the most left-wing constituency in the country and must, therefore, be kept in check by the Democratic Party machinery. It is the Democrats who have for decades sought to break up concentrations of Black voters, spreading them out across a number of districts. This gives the Democratic Party a better chance to win seats in more districts, but it means that only those Black candidates that can appeal to a substantial segment of white voters can win election. The Black political conversation is left in a state of arrested development. Ultimately, even the Black political landscape turns into a desert, and rational Black people choose not to vote.

What’s so hard to understand about why Congressional approval, indeed our satisfaction with all elected officials from President to Dog Catcher, is in the toilet?

It’s because they toady to the wealthy and not to the voters.

Mar 26 2015

Cartnoon

Cause…

Congress’ Medicare ‘Fix’ Could Leave Seniors Paying More

By David Dayen, The Fiscal Times

March 20, 2015

Washington perpetually laments the loss of bipartisanship in this polarized political environment. But ordinary Americans might want to fear one example of bipartisanship’s return, and what it could mean for their pocketbooks.

John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have been locked in negotiations to clear two of the biggest hurdles facing Congress this year: the so-called “doc fix” for Medicare reimbursement rates, and an extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). We don’t have all the details, because the negotiations have taken place far from the public eye, with the release of the House and Senate budgets this week affording them cover.



The “doc fix” refers to the rate the government pays doctors who see Medicare patients. A 1997 law created something called the “sustainable growth rate” or SGR that governs the level of payments. Since Medicare spending consistently outstrips economic growth, this translates into large reimbursement cuts under the SGR formula. If nothing is done by April 1, the reimbursement rate will fall by 21 percent. More important, doctors claim they would react to pay cuts by prioritizing other patients, making it harder for Medicare beneficiaries to get treatment.

This 21 percent cut should always be accompanied by the phrase “in theory,” because every potentially large rate cut since 2002 has been patched; hence the phrase “doc fix.” On 17 different occasions, Congress has made sure Medicare doctors get their expected paycheck, sometimes even adding a small raise, and often finding money somewhere else in the budget to offset it.



Congress appears to want to stop having conversations with angry doctors every year, and have cast about for a permanent “doc fix” that would repeal and replace the old Medicare payment system. Doing this would cost $177 billion over the next decade, but the Boehner-Pelosi negotiations are looking at covering less than half this, around $70 billion in back-ended cuts, and letting the rest add to the budget deficits. To sweeten the pot for liberals, the emerging package would include a two-year, $30 billion extension of CHIP for 8 million children, at the boosted benefit levels under the Affordable Care Act. The tentative plan is for the House to vote next week, and throw it into the Senate’s lap just before the April 1 doc fix deadline.

It’s the other half of the cuts that get problematic. There would reportedly be more means-testing for Medicare beneficiaries, increasing premiums for seniors showing income over $133,000 and couples over $266,000. These seniors would have to pay 65 percent of their total costs under the new plan. This would go up at higher incomes. Means-testing historically dips lower and lower as budgeters try to get more out of beneficiaries, so this continues that ratcheting process for Medicare.



But this would raise out-of-pocket expenses on all 9 million seniors with a Medigap plan, including the 86 percent of these beneficiaries who have incomes under $40,000, and almost half with incomes below $20,000. So this cut hits those who can’t really afford it. (This idea, along with the means-testing, was in President Obama’s budget, incidentally.)

The proper term for this is cost-shifting, pushing funding for a public program onto those who get the benefits. Medigap was created to deal with cost-shifting in Medicare, and now Congress may look to shift costs within it as well. And like means-testing, cost-shifting is prime terrain for double-dipping over time.



All of this is being done to protect doctor salaries, which are among the highest in the industrialized world. Maybe Medicare doctors shouldn’t endure a 20 percent pay cut, but the idea that they wouldn’t see patients if the cut were 5 or 7 percent doesn’t pencil out. Plus, doctor payment rates are tied to Medicare premiums, as the Congressional Budget Office has explained: “Beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of Medicare pay premiums that offset about 25 percent of the costs of those benefits.” This means that any permanent change to a new doctor payment formula will likely result in a hike to Part B premiums.

Clearly everyone in Congress hates the messy process of annual “doc fix” patches, and the uproar from the hospital lobby that accompanies it. But nobody in Washington has raised the point that higher costs for ordinary patients might not be a great solution to the supposed problem of lower cash flow for doctors.

And Effect-

U.S. Voter Turnout is Low Because There’s Little to Vote For

by Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report

Wed, 03/25/2015

President Obama wants you to believe that the political map of the United States would be transformed – “completely changed,” he says – if citizens were required by law to vote. Obama told a town hall meeting in Cleveland that mandatory voting would “counteract” the influence of money in the U.S. electoral process. That’s a hell of a statement from the guy who wrecked the public campaign finance system by opting out of it in 2008, and outspent his Republican opponents in both of his runs for the presidency. Obama ought to have his picture on a million dollar bill.

But, why does the United States have the lowest voter turnout in the industrialized world, including Russia? It’s not because Americans are happier with the way they’re living than the rest of humanity. The U.S. ranks 17th on the global Happiness index and 23rd on the Satisfaction with Life scale. And, although racial exclusion in voting is very important when comparing Black voter turnout with whites, white Americans also vote in numbers far below almost all of the rest of the developed world.

Americans don’t vote because both major political parties are answerable to the same people: the moneyed classes, the power structures that determine the issues that will be on the political agenda long before the party primaries begin. This is called the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the rich.

The corporations and bankers choose the menu; the only option citizens have is whether to select from the pre-packaged list of candidates, or stay home. Almost two out of three chose not to vote in 2014. They were not behaving irrationally. Since both major parties are controlled by the rich, only the most minor tinkering with the way the country is actually run, is tolerated. No matter how many people vote, very little changes, because the U.S. offers the narrowest spectrum of electoral choices in the industrial world – which is why it has the lowest voter turnout.

The Democrats want to keep their lock on the Black vote, but they have no interest in Black people voting their own political agenda, for the simple reason that Blacks are the most left-wing constituency in the country and must, therefore, be kept in check by the Democratic Party machinery. It is the Democrats who have for decades sought to break up concentrations of Black voters, spreading them out across a number of districts. This gives the Democratic Party a better chance to win seats in more districts, but it means that only those Black candidates that can appeal to a substantial segment of white voters can win election. The Black political conversation is left in a state of arrested development. Ultimately, even the Black political landscape turns into a desert, and rational Black people choose not to vote.

What’s so hard to understand about why Congressional approval, indeed our satisfaction with all elected officials from President to Dog Catcher, is in the toilet?

It’s because they toady to the wealthy and not to the voters.

Mar 26 2015

The Intellectual Bankruptcy of the Center-Left

The First Domino

Kenneth Storey

Feb 2, 2015

The Rise of Podemos

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

What is Behind the Collapse of the Centre Left Parties in Europe?

The NeoLib Experiment has failed.  They’re not even good at lying anymore.

Mar 26 2015

On This Day In History March 26

This is your morning Open Thread. Pour your favorite beverage and review the past and comment on the future.

Find the past “On This Day in History” here.

Click on image to enlarge

May 26 is the 146th day of the year (147th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. There are 219 days remaining until the end of the year.

On this day in 1637, an allied Puritan and Mohegan force under English Captain John Mason attacks a Pequot village in Connecticut, burning or massacring some 500 Indian women, men, and children.

The Pequot War was an armed conflict in 1634-1638 between the Pequot tribe against an alliance of the Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, and Saybrook colonies with American Indian allies (the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes). Hundreds were killed; hundreds more were captured and sold into slavery to the West Indies. Other survivors were dispersed. At the end of the war, about seven hundred Pequots had been killed or taken into captivity. The result was the elimination of the Pequot as a viable polity in what is present-day Southern New England. It would take the Pequot more than three and a half centuries to regain political and economic power in their traditional homeland region along the Pequot (present-day Thames) and Mystic rivers in what is now southeastern Connecticut.

The Mystic massacre

Believing that the English had returned to Boston, the Pequot sachem Sassacus took several hundred of his warriors to make another raid on Hartford. Mason had visited and recruited the Narragansett, who joined him with several hundred warriors. Several allied Niantic warriors also joined Mason’s group. On May 26, 1637, with a force up to about 400 fighting men, Mason attacked Misistuck by surprise. He estimated that “six or seven Hundred” Pequot were there when his forces assaulted the palisade. As some 150 warriors had accompanied Sassacus to Hartford, so the inhabitants remaining were largely Pequot women and children, and older men. Mason ordered that the enclosure be set on fire. Justifying his conduct later, Mason declared that the attack against the Pequot was the act of a God who “laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to scorn making [the Pequot] as a fiery Oven . . . Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling [Mystic] with dead Bodies.”  Mason insisted that any Pequot attempting to escape the flames should be killed. Of the estimated 600 to 700 Pequot resident at Mystic that day, only seven survived to be taken prisoner, while another seven escaped to the woods.

The Narragansett and Mohegan warriors with Mason and Underhill’s colonial militia were horrified by the actions and “manner of the Englishmen’s fight . . . because it is too furious, and slays too many men.” The Narragansett left the warfare and returned home.

Believing the mission accomplished, Mason set out for home. Becoming temporarily lost, his militia narrowly missed returning Pequot warriors. After seeing the destruction of Mystic, they gave chase to the English forces, but to little avail.

Mar 26 2015

The Breakfast Club (Steve and Kermit)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover  we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:30am (ET) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

 photo 807561379_e6771a7c8e_zps7668d00e.jpg

Breakfast Tune: Steve Martin and Kermit the Frog in “Dueling Banjos”

Today in History


Highlights of this day in history: Israel and Egypt sign a peace treaty; Bodies of Heaven’s Gate cult members are found in Calif.; The first U.S. team to win hockey’s Stanley Cup; ‘Funny Girl’ opens on Broadway; Singer Diana Ross born. (March 26)

Breakfast News & Blogs Below

Mar 26 2015

The Daily/Nightly Show (Violence Against Women)

Yobama

Tonight the Twitter comes through again (h/t TMC).  Our topic is Slut Shaming and our panelists are Shenaz Treasury (regular), Regina King (the voice of Huey and Riley Freeman), Sabrina Jalees (CBC personality), and Jordan Carlos (Stephen Colbert’s ‘Black Friend’).

Continuity

The Jetsons

This Week’s Guests-

Amy Ziering is the producer and Kirby Dick is the director of The Hunting Ground, a documentary about college campus rape and rape culture that opened last Friday in wide distribution (well, as wide as documentaries generally get) after debuting at Sundance to great critical and audience acclaim.  After its theatical run it will be shown on CNN.

In a way this is a follow up to their 2012 film The Invisible War which was about rape and rape culture in the military.

The documentary focuses on the claim that 20% of women in colleges in the United States are sexually assaulted, and that disciplinary action only occurs in a small fraction of alleged assaults. It also claims that students are rarely expelled for rape.

There are several students who are interviewed in the film about their experiences being sexually assaulted at their college campus. They spoke about college administrators who ignore them or make them jump through hoops because they are more concerned about keeping rape statistics low.

Two of the film’s main targets were Harvard and the University of North Carolina, but they also report about fraternities such as Sigma Alpha Epsilon.

In addition, there is a section of the film about Jameis Winston (a quarterback for Florida State University) and the multiple accusations of sexual assault against him. His alleged victim Erica Kinsman publicly speaks about the incident at length for the first time.

The principal protagonists are Andrea Pino and Annie E. Clark, two former students of the University of North Carolina who were raped on campus.

Jon Ronson’s web exclusive extended interview and the real news below.