Yup, that's exactly why I put "ex-rape" in parentheses — to avoid getting bogged down in estimates of how non-reporting rates for rape might differ on- and off-campus. (And in any case, you're surely aware of the swath of new data/studies showing that the rape risks skew higher for non-college young women than those…

Buju Banton? Beanie Man? If Nicki cites her heroes like that, feminists will make the decision for her.

Surprising — but on reflection, it may be possible. A look at the crime stats suggests that the on-campus rate of crime is about a fifth that of New Haven itself — with the gap on violent crime (ex-rape) much wider still.

As a New Haven resident (and a woman, presumably), where would you feel safer at midnight, say: at a frat party; or on the streets of New Haven off-campus?

The word "analytics" is just a fancy term for information, and anyone who argues that information isn't useful is a big dummy.

I see a wide-ranging array of responses to the 40K figure, all with one thing in common: not a jot of change in the original headline.

"we all know it was perpetrated by Christians..."

Funnily enough (sic), if the reference had been to "scalping" instead of "lynching," I think most of us would've assumed it'd be equally silly to specify Native Americans as being the perpetrators.

The NYT piece talks about "nearly 4,000" victims over the 1877-1950 period.

Great find. When the Tory-graph chides an institution for being a bit, ahem, behind the times, that's a pretty withering critique.

Um, what exactly was the Team Jez char count when the Gawker seating chart was leaked last month?

Haha... have a prized TGR hat but never posted there. Checking out the forums now tho.

Yeah, no kidding. The point was: There comes a point where you're so good that there's no such thing as a random outsider who's on your level, or close to it. You know the entire community of peer talent.

Under-appreciated but very true. World Cup skiers are like any world-class athlete when it comes to random competition. The thought process is always "If I don't know your face, I can stomp the hell out of you."

It's actually about as linguistically precise as you can get. "Lewd" means "characterized by, or inciting lust or lechery" — and to all but a fraction of the adult population there's nothing arousing about a 13-year-old girl walking through a store.

Yup, seems like a likely goal... and hence all the more reason to get that paper trail looking super-tight, instead of capitulating first and then fighting an uphill battle later.

"a man who literally whored out himself..."

California has a specific statute (40008) covering this issue: reckless driving with intent to capture images for a commercial purpose now gets a higher penalty. (Or it can.)

"Nationwide is on your side..."

Here's a more detailed description of the judge's reasoning (and ruling) from local coverage — just on the off-chance you're not trolling. The "invasion of privacy" statute in Oregon appears to be quite extensive, for example.. but also quite specific as it applies to public spaces: