I had an interesting debate with a coworker today about people that lie about sexual assaults. Many agencies that educate the public about sexual assaults naturally will advocate that sexual assaults should never be labeled as false accusations. In fact, these same advocacy groups suggest that sexual assault are extremely underreported, and all should be taken seriously. On the other hand, there are people out there that will lie about rape because they want to revenge, redemption, or redirection. We both agreed that the key to sexual assault was consent. But in America, we have 5o states, and each state has its own definition of consent or how it’s defined. Consent will continue to become difficult to prove because of its one person’s word against another, and the criteria of consent have varying interpretations.
When we think about sexual assault, we may be drawn to an immediate violent crime where a person is raped by force leaving bruises or other injuries. But that way of thinking has shifted in the current definition of sexual assault by a multitude of interpretations to include touching a sexual organ or part. But watch any television show or passionate movie, and it is doubtful that the instantaneous sex scenes will ever demonstrate either person giving consent and sometimes play a role of sexual battery or questionable touching. I mention this scenario because many situations where people are involved in sexual roles are often similar to what we see on the big screen or television. Our conversation discussed if pop culture is somewhat responsible for not providing a benefit of educating the public about acceptable consent methods. If we mix in the ambiguous definitions of each state law, then the debate will continue for eons. Sure, no means no and we should respect that limitation. But in some cases, consent suddenly becomes a no that was never mentioned or insinuated.
People don’t typically lie about sexual assault. The subject in the question is that some do and the number appears to be growing. I am not suggesting or diminishing the numbers that sexual assaults don’t occur. But finding accurate numbers with regards to false reportings can be a challenge. It would require data such as lie detection or counterclaimed physical evidence. The data that most rape advocacy groups utilize is based on studies that were completed between 1974 to 1986 which lists false reportings at 2%. But if you seek data from 1983 to 2004 then the number of false claims jump to 57% or higher. This information is provided from a 2006 paper by Philip N.S. Rumney in the Cambridge Law Journal. It demonstrates that there is a plausible argument that people do lie about sexual assaults or rape which is a disturbing trend.
But why would anyone want to lie about sexual assault? Is it because they regret what they did and want to turn back the clock as if it didn’t occur? But why would sexual assault advocate groups and law enforcement lie or mislead courts, schools, and the public about data the clearly shows a pattern of false allegations? The topic is very sophisticated and ultra sensitive to grasp. People do lie on both sides and now is the time to introduce stiffer penalties for false police reporting and perjury in court. I fear that the future of sexual relations may be filled with smartphone recordings and sex tapes galore to reduce the burdens of rape accusations. The future of courtrooms juries will become a porn-like atmosphere where sex tapes will be viewed as evidence to either prosecute or reject a sex claim. Even with DNA forensics, the courts are filled with political agendas and elected prosecutors and judges. They too have an agenda to win cases to be reelected. We should place more emphasis on the truth and balanced investigation so that we are not revisiting an innocence panel twenty years from now and paying out outrageous sums because of shotty investigations, weak data, and emotional leverage inside the courtroom.
Perhaps it is safe to say we should return to a moral conscience society where we are careful not to place ourselves in situations where vulnerability could take place. Equally, there should be basic respect that individuals don’t benefit from a situation because the conditions are favorable. But we don’t live in a perfect world. However, we shouldn’t be adding to the imperfections to create falsehoods well after the fact. It’s one thing to have a credible case but another where the credibility is clouded and vague. Those that lie about sexual assault only hurt those victims of other sexual assaults and rapes. It makes our society suspicious and apprehensive especially in a time where adults should be reduced based on education and community information. But states should also take a moment to properly codify and streamline consent and federalize sex crimes so that education is improved and reduces the mixed definitions of assault.
Last week Kim Jong Nam, the son of the late North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, was assassinated according to Malaysian police. Kim Jong Nam died shortly after two women put a substance on his face while he was checking in for a flight. Police have not said how the women were able to apply the nerve agent to Kim’s face and also avoid becoming ill themselves. The seeming contradiction of a poison that could kill him quickly but not sicken the attackers has stumped experts. A statement from the inspector general of police said that a preliminary analysis from the Chemistry Department of Malaysia identified the agent as “VX Nerve Agent.”
When I heard the news events regarding Kim Jong Nam I couldn’t help but think, “this is like a 007 film in real life.” The scary world of missile test launches just took a back seat causing the world to become a whole lot more terrifying. Just think for one moment that every bomb terror plot or dirty nuclear device that our nation heavily investigates and monitors now has to deal with a potential military grade nerve agent that can kill unmonitored within seconds. What makes this story interesting is that it was quickly administered with the potential to expose others in a public area such as an airport. Look for a moment at the diplomatic chaos it has stirred. Is Homeland Security prepared for this new threat both domestic and internationally? Maybe on paper, but perhaps not as prepared as we may think.
My question is, “was this a test of a new terrorism threat to airport security?” If so, how will airports or security experts deal with detecting nerve agents as a threat from public places? But another question is where did this nerve agent come from? It has been since the 1960’s since nerve agents were widely identified. Ask any soldier from the Cold War Era, and they will mention stories about Nerve Agent Treatment Autoinjector training scenarios. The threat was real until Congress banned nerve agents in 1972. 32,000 tons of nerve and mustard agents had already been dumped into the ocean waters off the United States. Currently, Russia stockpile of nerve agents is still available but lacks the money and resource to destroy it. Perhaps this is the footprint from where an international investigation should begin? But that is likely to occur due to the current relations between the United States and Russia.
I would suggest that Congress and the United Nations begin an accountability audit of nerve agent nation facilities immediately. This is not the time to point fingers at how the nerve agent was acquired or used. It is a time to place steps and practices, so this horrible event doesn’t escalate into a catastrophic incident. If I were the Director of the CIA, I would be concerned how a nation such as Malaysia has a military grade nerve agent on its land. What if this nerve agent was in a small container on a plane bound for the United States? Do we have the technology to intercept it? These are the questions that you and I should be concerned about.
Recently the Trump administration decided to return funding back into private prisons. If you want a glimpse into what a private prison operation looks like, then you may want to watch a few seasons of Orange Is The New Black. Of course, television shows depict a Hollywood styled message, but we should be mindful that this is neither Oz nor Prison Break. Prisons and jails house real people that were found guilty of crimes ranging from failure to pay child support to murder. It has been documented that prisons are now the new mental health facilities yet many in prison cannot seek help because of budget cuts or constraints. Therefore, it’s doing time. Privatization of prisons is nothing more than a false sense of money savings scam combined with corruption and injustice. You cannot build a discount Supermax prison facility and purchase electricity, water, and security at a reduced rate. Private prisons are a fraud providing a sense of fiscal responsibility.
I remember a time where prisons were called the Department of Corrections. This fancy title doesn’t seem to carry much weight if prisons and jails are considered a revolving door. I am skeptical when someone calls a correctional facility a revolving door especially when those terms originate from the very people that administer prisons. Why not reintroduce education, job skills, and mental health requirements back into prisons? Yes, it is costly. But failing to provide that very funding is why prison populations grow and sometimes spiral out of control. Funding is not about building more jails and prisons. Funding should be about investment so that jails and prisons don’t become overpopulated. It appears the counties and states are spending in technological requirements that federal grants already contribute or pay for rather than spending on health care, education, and programs to reduce repeat offenders. Prisons also want to keep matters quiet and private as not to require oversight. This is perhaps why prison and jail administrators don’t want outsiders that could raise or report issues such as abuses or the lack of programs.
Prison privatization may save a few dollars here and there, but the bureaucracy continues. I would suggest that if private prisons are going to facilitate and house inmates to save money, then state and federal agencies should be responsible for providing mental health care. There should be some form of oversight so that the revolving door mentality is reduced. I would also suggest that prison population census begins showing the numbers of inmates returning the system within a two year period. That way we the public can determine if we are not just saving money, but reducing our recidivism rate. However, if the general public wishes to throw money at a revolving door prison system thinking that cutting individual funding may save money, resources, and create deterrent conditions then perhaps the public should spend a few days in prison or jail to understand its overall impact.
Trump said in his campaign speeches that he was going to clean up American crime and begin deporting illegal immigrants. Naturally privatized prisons are one suggestion of facilitating that need. But prisons are not a proper answer when it comes to deportation methods. Other nations deport immediately and allow an individual to appeal from their host country. Simply filling up an immigration prison will cost Ameican taxpayers; not illegal visitors. Prisons already endure a stigma of organized crime and accelerating inmates to advance from low-level crimes to dangerous criminal activity. Do we want to encourage an immigration violation to become an escalated criminal? No prisons are needed for deportation. An airline or bus ticket can do that. Our domestic prisons should be to house criminals that rape, murder, steal, or feloniously ruin our society. To clean up American, we must learn to re-educate America about our laws and consequences. Spend money on educating prisoners and buy an airline flight for an immigration problem. I’m sure our private aviation sector would enjoy profiting a bit more money from that idea. It’s far cheaper than housing an immigrant for over six months or more. Otherwise, the only winners are the prison industry and its stockholders.
Remember those Town Hall meetings where politicians are supposed to meet the public and answer questions or concerns? It seems that we are a bit too loud for our members of congress or senators. Apparently, the Town Hall meeting has become somewhat similar to a lynch mob of angry constituents that want answers but don’t receive them. Needless to say, it was politicians with intelligent talk during the election cycle that demanded accountability in Washington has now gotten full throttle from its own people… but members of Congress don’t like it.
Before I become the conspiracy theorist at large, I want to say that when politicians throw accusations that Town Hall meetings are filled with staged protesters. Let’s not forget when the same thing was lobbed and mentioned during the Democratic town hall meetings. Now that the Republicans have a taste of their own medicine they can either choose to blame the media or blame the people that interrupt the meetings – or both. But one thing is for sure, politicians won’t answer pressing questions. In fact, I have heard one politician say, “there is no one size fits all” plan. I hate to say it, but that is what legislation and law should be all about. You don’t create a law to hurt one side and allow the benefit to the other. This is why past laws are vague enough to balance between both sides.
Today it seems that Congress wants to strip away the layers of balance between liberal and conservative. This is why laws are clogged in our court system. The constant bickering back and forth over the same rehashed legislation continues to divide people. Town Hall meetings are intended to listen and facilitate balance so that laws protect people, not hurt them. When politicians run from the microphone from town hall meetings and instead seek ten thousand dollars a plate fund raisers naturally people will be pissed.
Now is the time for politicians to learn to approach its constituents from both parties and find out how to balance effectively and seek diplomacy. For once in my life, I somewhat wish we had a system in place similar to Great Britain. Once there is a no confidence vote or election process then the entire house is abolished, and elections occur rather quickly. There are no three years of presidential campaigning. You can’t run from the microphone, the press or the people in Britsh politics. Also, you must form a coalition with another party to form a substantial majority. I do like that idea. Perhaps as leaders of the free world we should reevaluate are we actually listening to the people is politics. In American politics we nothing more than smoke and mirrors filled with artificial applause and artificially placed people?
If you asked me a year ago about immigration reform, I would probably shrug my shoulders as if immigration issues don’t really affect me. Ask me today, and my answer will demonstrate an out of control point. A close friend of mine recently had a car accident where another motorist ran a red light t-boning his car. He was injured, and both cars were totaled. What makes this interesting is the person that was at fault was in the United States illegally driving someone else’s driver license with expired license plates under a fictitious company name and no insurance. Needless to say, it is a messy situation. The driver was arrested but released on bond and never showed up to court leaving the insurance company to sort it all out. The police officer that arrived at the court said he has dozens of similar cases mounting to frustrations, but his department is prohibited from making minor traffic infraction stops for fear of profiling.
I am mindful that this case could be a small portion of issues versus an entire migrant population that does obey the law. However, I am surrounded by illegal pop-up businesses in my neighborhood. It is so bad that county inspectors come to cite improper business operations without a license or permit only to have the inspector be greeted by someone that doesn’t speak English or a different person on each visit. The homeowner who doesn’t exist receives unanswered mail. The county inspector I recently spoke with said, “I have thousands of such infractions that have overwhelmed our department. All we can do is flag the property tax records to collect.” Many of the homes with illegal businesses have children born in the United States making them immediate citizens while the parents are the ones here more than likely illegally. It is a huge dilemma that places innocent children and parenting at risk begging the question of how to remedy the immigration problem?
Another issue in our neighborhood is Hispanic gang activity. To be honest, I was unaware of this activity until police began hinting at organized crimes where innocent people are gunned down to clear neighborhoods to make them Hispanic or Latino only. A recent violent parking lot robbery only blocks from my home have put my community on high alert. I fear that because there is a division between Hispanics, African Americans, and Caucasians. The tension is growing because of hit and run accidents, graffiti on homes or stop signs, break-ins, and violent crime. It seems that when an arrest is made and a deportation order is rendered that the person disappears into the system only to reappear later under another false pretense of an assumed name. Our town has seen too many repeat offenders that were deported only to return within the year. To me, this is nothing more than a form of organized crime.
Personally, I want everyone to have a chance at the American Dream. But I do have an expectation and prioritization that those that applied and provided due diligence in the official application process be granted priority. Those that bypassed the process should, in my opinion, go straight to an immigration jail. There are rules and procedures for a reason. I think it is time to revamp our naturalization laws with regards to birthing rights. Your parents must be American if you are born in the United States. If the laws are good enough for our allies, then it should be good enough for us. I am not trying to close the door on immigration. Instead, I suggest that we have a door that opens and closes. The current immigration door appears to be propped open with no guard at the door checking to make sure that those that meet our basic immigration standard are allowed into the United States.
Today I was listening to a rather heated conversation about alt-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Apparently, he was alleged to have spoken with an online broadcast about his sexual relationships at an early age with older men. The conversation went over the top, so to speak, and became a cross over the line where Yiannopoulos eludes to himself and his priest engaged in a sort of sexual circumstance when he was a pre-teen. Naturally, this is a profoundly disturbing revelation, but Milo does raise an interesting perspective and disturbing information about consent in America, the definition of classical pedophilia, and how homosexuality is labeled.
I am in no way defending pedophilia or Milo Yiannopoulos’s extreme rhetoric. However, he began this taboo conversation with some nearly correct facts. He was correct that pedophilia is listed for a child that is under the age of thirteen years old. The age of consent in America significantly differs state to state and is widely misunderstood. But most conservative Americans tend to create this false impression that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. Because of what Yiannopoulos said I am confident that the religious right will once again begin to label the LGBT community as a precursor to pedophilia. Milo said, “if I were 15 and experimented with another boy a year older than I then we are freaks. But when a straight couple the same age does the same thing they are coming of age.” He is correct there is a division of standards between the straight and homosexual community.
Let’s face facts. Milo knows how to cleverly troll the internet and media to begin a conversation – even if it’s the wrong way to start a discussion. But I chose to listen beyond the filth and shock to the story of many talking points of the LGBT community. Honestly, there is a divide in our nation with the LGBT age of consent standards. For example, in New Hampshire, West Virginia, and many other states the age of consent between a straight couple is 16 years of age. But the law in these states and others makes it illegal for a gay or lesbian couple to consent until age 18. North Carolina and other states have similar laws. Naturally, there will be either LGBT members remain in the closet until they are adults or the sex offender registry will continue to demonstrate a disproportionate amount of LGBT members because of outdated laws. So basically to combat the age of consent law many states raised the legal consent age to 18 making the slightest form of sexual contact a felonious crime. Maybe we can learn a lesson from our neighbors in France, United Kingdom and Germany where the age of consent is 16 regardless of the other individual’s age. But of course, they teach sex ed in schools where we are nearly forbidden to do so. Instead, you read your taboo sex discussions on internet boards. So much for America setting the standard.
Homosexuality in America will continue to become labeled with misinformation and slander as long as constructive sexual discussions remain hidden from view. Dr. Ruth was once a household name on television. She discussed many sexual behaviors but eventually was taken off the air mainly in part by conservatives that felt her educational comments and suggestions shouldn’t be heard during peak broadcast hours. Ruth was eventually moved to cable during the late 1990’s losing the critical audience she should have been talking to all along. I fear that Milo’s comments will hurt the gay & lesbian communities. Some people only hear what they want to hear and that may be “a gay man talked about his pedophilia experience” or something out of context but similar. That trolling moment is what scares me and how it can become similar to the debunked Hillary Clinton Pizzagate conspiracy.
When we sit down to view or read the news we expect and rely on a credible source of information. In reading or viewing it is up to us to determine if more information is warranted. A problem that I see with the media is that it is having to fact check along with providing information from whomever it decides to interview or discuss. This is where the media is caught in a trap because the news is sandwiched in between viewpoints and reporting. Naturally, any opposing person would be quick to blame the media as altering the interview or hinting at its own credibility standard.
The media has an intricate delivery system. If you are a newspaper, then you only have an avenue of reporting by a cutoff deadline. The news changes like the wind so that printed newspaper article could potentially become old news by the time it is delivered or read. 24-hour news networks or online news perhaps provides too much news. After all, it must refresh its content if the news story lay claims that its information was taken out of context. This is why I think we have too many political television and radio shows. Each one delivers its own perspective, and in most cases, so one-sided that it becomes an extension of the media which is supposed to be a neutral agent of reporting. In any case, it’s difficult.
President Trump has a unique and unorthodox way of creating a news cycle. I remember when President Reagan would speak before a camera it was as if your trusted uncle was telling you a story that made you feel secure. However, when you peeled back the layers, you found that the delivery was great, but safety was questionable. Trump, on the other hand, will shoot from the hip creating an almost circus-like atmosphere with tiny organization or focus. To me, Trump has a subliminal way of changing the subject matter where you begin to wonder what was the original question?
While I am appreciative of our media, I must ask that media only report what Trump says and not interpret or provide viewpoints. Let the American people do that. Yes, the media can help become a part of diplomacy but let the world judge Trump by his own words. That alone may be enough for the world and general public to quickly assess that we cannot afford to keep him in office or make the same mistake at election time again. When the media interprets or provides fact checking then perhaps it is getting in the way of what the opposition party should be doing. Let the Democrats step up and become the fact checkers. Eventually, the Trump train will run out of steam and coal of credible information.