Now that's fascinating

Brett Kavanaugh's accuser notes that she decided to "come forward" when reporters started coming to her classes, and outside your her home.  Um, help me out here, Dr. Ford.  Since you hadn't come forward yet as an accuser, tell me how those reporters knew that you were so interesting.  It suggests that either you, or one of your handlers--like Senator Nifong Feinstein--was getting the word out, contrary to your, ahem, sworn testimony.


Also very interesting is that she "doesn't know" who paid for that polygraph test--and how she took it when the day before, she was said to be on an island in the mid-Atlantic.  It casts her veracity in doubt regarding both her polygraph, and her unwillingness to fly. 


As someone who (I believe) helped expose a predator, I understand not coming forward at the time, and being shy about testifying.  However, the manipulation of the process, and the total lack of corroborating evidence not originating in Ford herself, makes me skeptical of where this is going.


Update; National Review is doing great work covering the hearings, as befits an outfit filled with lawyers.  Her "fear of flying" appears to be overcome rather routinely, doesn't remember details of what she shared with the Washington Post, and also didn't know any details of the polygraph test she took.  She also appears to have refuted her husband's claim that she'd mentioned Kavanaugh's name to her therapist in 2012. 


But we should be totally sure of what she says she experienced back in the early 1980s while intoxicated, of course. 

Well, actually, I don't, yet

Say what?  Well, it strikes me that one of the most dangerous things many people in #MeToo are doing is to say #IBelieveYou.  How so? 


Well, it introduces a presumption of guilt and an absolutism that is really more of a product of faith than of evidence.  When this happens, something very dangerous occurs; the question of guilt or innocence becomes unfalsifiable.  The trouble with this is that if a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it simultaneously cannot be proven, and when unfalsifiable premises like #IBelieveYou are introduced, that reduces a great portion of sexual assault investigations and trials towards a mere popularity contest. 


You can see this, really, in the behavior of Democrats who supported Hilliary Clinton, wife of serial philanderer and sexual abuser Bill and head of Bill's "bimbo eruptions" team, but then assume the guilt of Brett Kavanaugh on far flimsier evidence than caused Bill to surrender $850,000 and his law license in a sexual harassment lawsuit.  When we say #IBelieveYou, we discard the notions of witness credibility, corroboration, and other evidence.


This also has a very nasty side effect (again, see "Bill Clinton") of empowering the people who are most likely to commit sexual assault while victimizing the best possible allies of abused women.  How so?  Simple.  Those with a narcissistic personality disorder are both "sexually adventurous" and able to manipulate others--a deadly combination enabling them to commit, and get away with, sexual assault.


Those without the disorder are, then, left with little defense when politicians with NPD, like Dianne "Nifong" Feinstein, seek to try them in kangaroo court.  Here is a defense lawyer's view on what shows him that accusations are "off" in terms of evidence.  Yes, it is precisely what the handlers of accusers like Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford are doing.   Word to the wise.


Those who would support #MeToo need to come to grips with the fact that #IBelieveYou may be one of the most counter-productive ideas they've come up with, actually making the world more dangerous for women.  It's time to replace it with "I'll take you seriously" and restore the primacy of evidence and the legal process to these matters.

In a just world....

....this little demonstration by many at Yale Law School would make them difficult to employ.  How so?   Simple; of all people, students at and graduates of the most prestigious law school in the country ought to know that he said/she said investigations rarely go anywhere, that politically motivated outrage rarely arrives at the truth, that people who admit they were drunk during events in question rarely make good witnesses, and that the four people believed to have been there by the first complainant have all said that it didn't happen. 


The second accusation fell on the same hard rocks of evidence, and who wants an attorney who does not instinctively clue in to these things--or who ignores them when they are politically convenient?


What is especially galling to me is that nobody seems to be asking their "allies", Dianne Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal, where they were when Planned Parenthood was found to have been ignoring their responsibility to report clear evidence of statutory rape?  Or, for that matter, where was Feinstein when the matter of an admitted sexual harasser, and probable rapist, was before the Senate in 1998? 


"On the wrong side of the argument", of course. 

On a lighter note

....at least two former Buffalo Bills players claim that at least one child was born due to there being nothing to do in Buffalo besides, well, you know. 


Beyond the obvious question of whether this is a bug, or a feature, of living there, I've got to wonder about someone who is so taken with the restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and theaters in his city that he neglects to show affection to his wife.  I enjoy good food and a good movie, but seriously?

A way out

It's probably not a total solution, and I'm guessing David French wouldn't say it is, either, but French makes a great case here that one big way to improve our society's performance with regards to sexual assault is to (duh?) treat it as the criminal matter that it is.


Duh, again, and this means a lot of things.  First of all, it would mean that Title IX investigations would more or less encourage the complainant to (rightly) talk to the police, and the conclusion would more or less be a suspension if the accused is indicted, and an expulsion if convicted.   You might have a little more for university specific rules--say prohibition of fornication at Christian colleges--but otherwise, the matter would go to the police and courts--and sex crimes units would be adequately funded and staffed.  No more rape kids ignored for years, no more cases neglected.


In companies, it would mean the same thing--HR's role would be, apart from company specific policies and non-criminal harassment issues, to nudge complainants to the police, firing at a point ranging from indictment to conviction. 


How to implement it?  French gives a hint there as well; what about teaching kids about what filing a police report entails in these and other cases to de-mystify the process?  What about teaching kids that "he said/she said" rarely goes anywhere, and that the police and prosecutors are simply trying to see if the case has a firmer basis?


It makes a whole lot more sense, in my view, than retaining Title IX as it currently stands, with "preponderance of evidence" standards and a failure to allow cross examination of witnesses in many cases.  Which is, of course, why Democrats would fight tooth and nail to prevent it.


These hard cases are, after all, a gold mine for them, where Senators who looked the other way when Bill Clinton and Planned Parenthood broke these laws can posture piously and tell us how the latest halfway credible accusation is incredibly significant.....as long as the accused is a Republican, or someone they can do without like Weinstein.

Statistics in perspective

I was looking at this tweet from one of my heroes, and it occurred to me to try and put things into perspective.  Yes, it does appear from this study that false rape accusations are in the range of 2-8%, probably with a best estimate of 6% or so.  Now, let's put it in perspective.


For every 1000 estimated sexual assaults (defined broadly), only 370 victims report the crime to police.  From those reports, only six perpetrators ever do jail time.  Presumably some get probation or other penalties.  Let's assume a total of 10 people get penalized, probably representing a much larger portion of sexual assaults than we might guess--those who rape, rape repeatedly.  So, apart from wrongful convictions, we might guess that, say, 50 of 1000 victims actually get some degree of justice, although they might not know it. 


However, if we have a 2%-8% false reporting rate, we would presume that in addition to 370 factual reports that cannot be proven false, eight to thirty false reports are filed.  This means that not only is there insufficient evidence to indict, but moreover that the police found sufficient evidence to declare the report false.  Yes, we might infer that there ought to be a lot more perjury trials, as the victims of Mike Nifong and other corrupt prosecutors would tell you.  A false accusation can put a man (or woman) through Hell, and apparently we've got more clearly false accusations than convictions.


That leaves 360 accusations, plus or minus, that are in the "insufficient evidence to convict" category.  Some are genuine crimes, some are mistaken identity (this is my best guess on the Ford/Kavanaugh controversy now), and some are flat out false accusations where the police can't quite prove that they are false.


Part of this makes sense; sexual assault almost by definition occurs without extra witnesses, and delays in reporting prevent physical evidence from being collected and impair the accuracy of reports.  The huge prevalence of intoxicant abuse among both perpetrators and victims of sexual assault takes a toll as well. 


But with that known, let's understand what that 2-8% false accusation rate really means.  Again, it means that false accusations are as common as prison sentences for sexual assault, and if we can't improve that ratio, people can and will lose confidence in the system for punishing these crimes.

Word to the wise

Apparently, a "loving couple" in California, apparently a surgeon and his aspiring schoolteacher/dancer girlfriend, have been accused of drug-induced rape after over 1000 videos of them having sex with unconscious victims were found in his home.


Now "innocent until proven guilty" and all that, but as the evidence looks pretty damning, we might conclude a few things.  First of all, sometimes people will do some seriously sick stuff, and sometimes people will help others do so.  Honestly, an aspiring teacher helped her boyfriend rape other women?  Seriously?  But yet there is video; she was at least being the female equivalent of "cuckolded."


Second, sometimes these things can go under the radar for a long, long time.  It boggles the mind to think that dozens, or hundreds, of women who woke up in a strange home with a nasty hangover and pain/foreign substances in strange places without anyone ever going to the doctor or contacting police.


Third, it can take police a long time to take action even when there are credible allegations--in this case, it's been 23 months since a woman was rescued by police after being raped, and 29 months since a woman went to police with multiple drugs in her system.  It almost seems as if it took the police months, or years, to take action even when they knew the very apartment where the crimes occurred.


Finally, if you're going to go out drinking, this sad case suggests that you'll be wise to go with a friend who will remain sober enough to help you out if someone "puts the moves" on you in this sort of way, and quite frankly it might be smart as well to commit to remaining relatively sober overall.  It might also be smart to avoid what we used to call "singles bars"; like it or not, I don't know that an "anything goes" sexual culture is compatible with personal safety.   Things that Grandpa would have instantly recognized as the work of a "rake" go under the radar when it's acceptable to go home with someone that very night.

I guess I missed that

Apparently the latest thing in critical race theory is the notion that white men who grow a beard are doing so because of racism.  I guess that explains why Bull Connor was clean shaven, and why Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass wore beards.


On the bright side, if the frontiers of racism have receded so far that we are free to worry about whether or not a man wears a beard, we are in better shape than almost any society in the history of the world.  I don't think we're there, but that some people apparently think we are is a promising sign.

The Fashion Industry in One Quote

From model Karlie Kloss:


my body became more womanly....hips and thighs appeared....I started losing jobs.


Keep in mind here that many would argue that even now, she's quite slender.  What she's saying, really, is that the fashion industry's view of a woman doesn't exactly equate to how women are actually built.  I know that it makes the sewing more difficult, but I do have the dream that someday, somewhere, a fashion designer will figure out how to clothe real women instead of the "boys with breasts" that inhabit fashion runways.

Terroir Incognito

On Sharper Iron, a fundamental Baptist website I read often, one contributor linked an Amazon link to Gisela Kreglinger's The Spirituality of Wine, a book where the author attempts, in a semi-secular way, to present both the Biblical view of wine, as well as how the world of wine developed in Europe and the world as a whole, and finally goes into something of a dissertation on the risks of commodities vs. local products.


In other words, it's three books in one, in a manner of speaking, at least from a "fundagelical" perspective.  In the "first book", Kreglinger does what we would suggest any good fundamental Baptist ought to do; she simply takes seriously the Biblical passages telling of the ubiquity of wine, its blessings in moderate use, and its dangers in overuse and drunkenness. 


Coming from a Lutheran perspective, and from a family that has produced wine for half a millennium, however, she also feels compelled to discuss how the monks and nuns of old--and of modern times--developed many of the techniques used in wine-making, as well as most of the major hybrids/land-races of wine grapes. 


This leads to the most fascinating, confusing (to me at least), and controversial part of the book; where she discusses the differences between mass market wines (and even beers) and those which really speak of the climate, hybrid, soil, and more in the making of that wine.  Her writing has a bit of a "Wendell Berry" vibe, being a touch anti-commodity in the process.


And this is, really, why I read the book four times to try and grasp this argument, as Scripture simply does not speak obviously of things like terroir--roughly meaning "terrain", but in practice meaning all of the subtle factors of a vineyard that make its wine unique.  But that said, I did some thinking about the matter, and I remembered the case of Bezalel, the artist behind the Tabernacle and the Ark.  Noteworthy is that Bezalel used a number of supplies from various localities--the origin was, in a manner of speaking, the product.  Terroir, no?


I thought of Proverbs 22:29, where the skilled tradesman would find his work before kings.  I thought of Jesus' comment that the "old wine is better", and the amazement at the wine He made in John 2.  And so I am persuaded that there is a case to be made in Scripture for distinctly local products, to include wine.  So there is at least some Biblical support for the notion that we can honor a Bordeaux or a Franconia wine for its origins. 


In this section is as well a good discussion of the benefits and risks of alcohol.  Kreglinger is a huge fan of wine as an antiseptic, aid to heart health, and the like, but does not downplay the risks of abuse and addiction.  In responding to this, she notes that there is a huge difference between the risks of wine and of hard liquor, and that societies that enjoy wine simultaneously learn the methods of using it responsibly. 


All in all, I give this book 4 of 5 stars (corks?  glasses?), and the missing star is really because the author has tackled a huge topic, and simply does not have the space--or perhaps the inclination?--to fill in the gaps needed to go from the obvious Biblical truth that wine is a blessing in moderate use to the point of affirming wine as a local product instead of a commodity.

Word to the wise

Check out this tweet from John Manly, attorney for hundreds of Larry Nassar's victims in their lawsuit against Michigan State University.  Read it very carefully; he is picking on (rightly) interim MSU President John Engler for mismanagement leading to the $500 million award to his clients.  To me, it almost seems as if--as I've suspected--Nassar's victims are by and large far more interested in repentance and apologies than they are in money.   In other words, they took blood because it was all Engler offered, but they were not out for blood.


Not that a certain amount of money is not needed--they have lost certain opportunities and many require mental health care and the like--but if you're in leadership in an organization that is dealing with crimes like those of Larry Nassar, you might do well to consider the possibility that the complainants are far more interested in an apology and action that will prevent it from happening again than the deed to your organization's property. 

This is your Democratic Party, I guess

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris asked SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh whether he had ever spoken to anyone at the law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres about the Mueller investigation.  Keep in mind here that the firm has 350 lawyers and numerous other personnel, and one could hardly live in DC without discussing the investigation with a few lawyers over dinner.  Never mind the reality that, as a judge, he would have no particular role in this investigation, and interactions with lawyers are often "privileged", as a lawyer like Harris ought to be well aware.


In other Democratic brilliance, Senator Cory Booker (CCCP/D-New Jersey) cited a copy of emails as evidence of Kavanaugh being open to racial profiling, emails that were classified as "committee confidential", and which were not provided to Kavanaugh for review.  Um, yes, Cory, they taught you something about this at Yale Law, and it wasn't how you did this.


Maybe the Democrats do indeed have Senators who are indeed qualified to be on this committee, but it's certainly not showing at this point.

Does the FBI even do traffic enforcement?

Why do I ask this?  Well, apparently it took the FBI over 13 months after being notified of Larry Nassar's crimes to actually get anything going.  John Manly, lawyer for many of Nassar's victims, notes as well that his office's (clients') requests for meeting (to give them evidence) were refused, and that in his opinion, the investigation appears to have been slow walked by both the FBI and U.S. attorneys.   Obviously, they've got some speeding tickets to issue or something.


Of course, those who have been watching the FBI lately are keenly aware that there are a number of things more important to the FBI these days than investigating obvious crimes, like pinning false accusations of Russian collusion on President Trump (or nailing him with a Mickey Mouse allegation from one of his former staffers), ignoring Hilliary's corruption, and the like.  Actually issuing a subpoena or warrant on an obvious case, or even sending a note to local police forces so they could get an investigation started, simply didn't fit the model.


Ugly reality is that this is going to get worse and worse.  It hit MSU hard (rightly so), it's hitting USAG and the USOC hard, and now the list of culprits is extending to the FBI, U.S. attorneys, local police forces, and the like.  Next up: Nassar's former employers at Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, and his high school.  The University of Michigan is an interesting case, since I'd suspect Nassar had something of a fixation or fetish for female gymnasts, but he worked with the football and track teams there.  One has to wonder whether they knew, or suspected, something even then.

Aieee.....

It appears that the barrier between the International Space Station and the zero-pressure, close-to-absolute-zero temperature of outer space is something like 0.040" of aluminium.  I realize that weight is at a premium up there, but yikes.

More on bad behavior in public places

According to the Washington Post's Sally Jenkins, The Ohio State University concussion-ball coach Urban Meyer appears to have tolerated a litany of abuses by Zach Smith, the grandson of former coach Earle Bruce, including domestic abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, and the inability to even purchase airline tickets and meals on his credit card, all while issuing him glowing performance reviews.   (h/t Rachael Denhollander and others)  One point of particular interest is that OSU sent Smith to rehab and did not discipline him when he left that program.


Why so significant?  Simple; getting sent to rehab by your employer means you are no longer a "high functioning drunk", but that your problems are big enough that it's impacting your performance.  In short, Urban Meyer wasn't just facilitating (and deepening) Zach Smith's addictions and abuse of his now-ex-wife, but he was also making his team worse than it otherwise would have been. 

Gutting Title IX protections?

Or, perhaps, not.  I've looked up a number of articles on the (allegedly) proposed reforms of federal Title IX sexual assault guidance, and one thing that strikes me is that I'm not seeing any links to any federal documents written in the past year.  In other words, the New York Times, which broke the story, is carrying on its well established pattern of leaking to damage political enemies.  Who are those enemies?  Well, did you oppose Hilliary?  You're one of them.  The whole kerfuffle has its origins in a political hit job.


And what is that for?  Well, apparently it's to support the old Obama guidelines using preponderance of evidence as a standard of guilt, and also to prevent the accused from cross examining the accuser, among other things.  Proponents cite that preponderance of evidence (50% likelihood plus one iota) is used in civil cases (true), and that the accused can more or less cause the accuser to relive her rape.


Regarding the first, reality is that court after court is slapping college after college down for biased Title IX decisions--a result anyone could have foreseen--and the use of a civil law standard of guilt is dubious to begin with, given that a Title IX judgment does lock the accused out of further education at good colleges.  Want to create a group of mostly male, significantly minority victims who are reasonably intelligent and have very real grievances?  People who might act out those grievances in antisocial ways?  Keep that preponderance of evidence standard.  Want justice?  You might want to change.


Regarding the second, the simple fact is that a Title IX judgment is pretty much a criminal conviction in terms of its effects, and hence you've got to protect the accused's right to confront evidence against him, which would include accusers.  Worth noting as well is that defense lawyers (your other option, really) are not exactly renowned for their manners towards sexual assault victims, either.


Maybe instead of "filtering" the right to confront evidence, or abrogating it completely, we need to consider how we might create a few guidelines for "out of bounds" interrogation?  Maybe we need to work to prepare accusers to work--given that these are at their heart criminal accusations--within the system that can compel testimony and collect physical evidence?


As men wiser than I have commented, to every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, appealing, and wrong.  I do not know--not having seen the actual proposal--whether the DeVos proposal is an improvement overall or not.  I do know, however, that the guidelines in the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter actually endanger victims by destroying trust in the system.  It's time for a good portion of them to go.