Happy Monday (said no one ever)!

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Perhaps you all have noticed in my writing that I’m not a very optimistic person.  One could accurately describe me as a grouch or (in the spirit of the upcoming Christmas season) a Scrooge.  I’m usually the person in a group asking questions like “why do this” or “what purpose does this serve?”  That mentality has utility but it’s also important to remind yourself about the positive things in your life as well.  “Counting your blessings,” as the saying goes.

PessimistReasoning
Photo Credit: <http://runtime-era.blogspot.com/2013/07/being-pessimistic-programmer-but.html>

My pessimistic disposition usually paints Monday as a negative day in my mind as the day marks the beginning of a new work week with the next weekend furthest from it.  This mentality can be flipped over for an opposite feeling.  Why not look at Monday as the start of new opportunities for the new week?  A new week means new things to do and more acts to accomplish.  A day to re-organize your goals, short-term and long-term.

Sunday and Monday =

planning days

 

 

NewWeekNewGoals
Photo Credit: <https://twitter.com/MondayMotivater/status/800601512665870336>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make it a goal to find more inspiration and motivation on Monday.

 

 

4 Possible Corroborators for Kavanaugh Accuser, Problems still at Issue

Credit for cover image: BBC, 9/23/2018.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

The USA Today reported this morning that the legal team for Professor Christine Ford, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s initial accuser, has four sworn statements from four different people corroborating the Palo Alto University professor’s allegation of sex assault at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh back in 1982 – one of the corroborators being Ford’s husband and the other three close friends.

“In documents sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee and obtained by USA TODAY, Ford’s attorneys present declarations from Ford’s husband, Russell, and three friends who support the California college professor’s accusation that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982.

The declarations will be used by Ford’s attorneys during a committee hearing on Thursday that could determine the fate of Kavanaugh’s embattled nomination.  He also faces a second accusation of sexual assault from Deborah Ramirez, who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself and pushed his genitals into her face at a drunken party during the 1983-84 academic year at Yale University.”

SOURCE: Steve Kiggins and Richard Wolf, USA Today, 9/26/2018.

While four sworn statements may be slightly more credible than one allegation on its own, the flaws in the Professor Ford’s initial allegation still have not been addressed.  Chief among them: the fact that the crime allegedly occurred over three decades ago making it incredibly difficult to track down specific corroboration from that area at that time, the lack of details regarding the specific place and time of the alleged crime, the apparent lack of consistency between Ford’s account to her therapist in 2012 and her recent account to U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, and the question of why the alleged victim waited so long to tell anyone about the crime.

There is also an issue with these four corroborators: they all were told of the alleged crime in the past five years (after Ford’s first telling of her account to her therapist in 2012) so it still does not answer the question of why she waited so long to come out.

This case surrounding Judge Kavanaugh has apparently spawned a discussion on Twitter under the hashtag “#WhyIDidntReport,” the discussion comprised of various women claiming to be victims of sex crimes explaining why they did not report the alleged crime to the police.  Most of the reasoning for not reporting seem to relate to the alleged victim’s emotional state at the time (which would obviously be distraught, I’m not denying that) as well as a distrust in the American justice system (which is flawed but still among the best on the world).

“Under the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport, thousands of women began recounting why it took them many years to talk about their attacks.  By Sunday, there had been 675,000 tweets.”

SOURCE:  British Broadcasting Corporation, 9/23/2018.

There is one thing that Professor Ford could have done to avoid all of this political drama currently playing out.  Assuming that she is telling the truth, she should have reported the crime as soon as possible (back in 1982).  Ford says she was in high school at the time.  Why didn’t she at least inform her parents of this horrible crime against her?

Regardless of the emotional state of the victim, reporting a sex crime as soon as possible after the fact is the best way to get the law on your side, it will significantly increase that chances that the alleged criminal will be caught by police.  This is true for all crime, the longer the victim waits to report it, the more difficult it will be for law enforcement to raise legal charges and obtain a conviction.

An accusation is not a conviction and the media is not a court.

Since the accusation from Professor Ford, there have been many a proselytizing online from self-proclaimed feminist activists, self-righteous individuals shouting at the public through their Web accounts to “believe women.” At the time I’m writing this, there is a trending hashtag on Twitter, “#BelieveSurvivors.”

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Brett-Kavanaugh-Capitol-Visit-Article-201809132123-1

Photo Credit: New York Law Journal, 7/11/2018.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has been accused of a second instance of sexual misconduct.  This new allegation from Deborah Ramirez, a former classmate of Judge Kavanaugh, dates back to the 1983-84 academic school year at Yale University.

Regarding the first allegation from Professor Christine Ford (Palo Alto University) which dates back even further to Judge Kavanaugh’s high school academics in the 1980’s, the current university professor has agreed to testify before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this coming Thursday after negotiations over the conditions of her appearance.

Since the accusation from Professor Ford, there have been many a proselytizing online from self-proclaimed feminist activists, self-righteous individuals shouting at the public through their Web accounts to “believe women.”  At the time I’m writing this, there is a trending hashtag on Twitter, “#BelieveSurvivors.”

This is the main problem with cases of sexual misconduct/harassment/assault: people are way too quick to run to the media in an emotional defense of the supposed victim defending themselves with the common objection, “why would someone lie about being assaulted?”  I don’t know why anyone would lie about being victimized.  I don’t know why anyone would rape or kill another person.

I don’t know.

Ben Shapiro at The Daily Wire breaks down the flaws in Professor Ford’s story in an editorial:

Screenshot_2018-09-24 6 Questions About The Sexual Assault Allegations Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

SOURCE: The Daily Wire, 9/17/2018.

“You don’t have to believe that Ford is lying to believe that these allegations require more substantiation.  Thirty-year-old events are difficult to reconstruct; memories change over time.  Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in many cases.  And she could be telling the absolute objective truth, of course.”

Ryan Saavedra breaks down the flaws in Ramirez’s story in another editorial:

Screenshot_2018-09-24 10 Serious Problems With New Accusations Against Kavanaugh

SOURCE: The Daily Wire, 9/24/2018.

Maybe Professor Ford and Ramirez are telling the truth about Judge Kavanaugh, maybe the judge did act inappropriately on more than one occasion in his youth.  The alleged actions supposedly took place decades ago and the accusers have not provided very many details as to the time and place making an official investigation damn-near impossible.  Professor Ford says that she wants the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate her alleged crime but we don’t even know if her alleged crime would fall under the FBI’s jurisdiction.

We don’t know the truth and, in the absence of the facts, we should not be taking any sides.  Taking sides in various media outlets will only serve to introduce needless bias into these cases.

 

Standing opposed to something is easy, standing FOR something is more difficult.

The website Poynter, which specializes in journalism news and education, published a selection of excerpts of various editorials curated together from several newspapers across the country.  The curation had a theme: opposition to President Trump. 

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

The website Poynter, which specializes in journalism news and education, published a selection of excerpts of various editorials curated together from several newspapers across the country.  The curation had a theme: opposition to President Trump.

Click the image below to be redirected to the curation.

Screenshot_2018-08-16 America, help The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write
David Beard, “America, help!  The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write,” Poynter (2018).”

Newspapers should be oppositional to governments because opposition and dissent is fundamental to the concept of free speech, but opposition should not be the sole purpose of an organization.  Standing opposed to something is easy, standing for something is usually more difficult.

Chicago Sun Times: “We are the enemy of societal failings.”

What does that mean?  What societal failings?  Can newspapers decide what makes a society fail?

I don’t think news organizations should not be proselytizing a particular ideology, they should simply be outlets for truth (facts only).

The “enemy of racism?”

There will always be racism and bigotry in any society, that is a part of human nature.  To hate is a part of being human.  To fight against racism is to fight against a part of humanity.  Ideologues with a utopian vision of a so-called “perfect society” fight against their view of evil by fighting against the darker sides of human nature in an attempt to mold humans into a tool for their utopia.  Instead of moralizing about human emotions, we need to accept the positive aspects of our humanity with the more negative aspects and live with a decent balance.

Tracing Transgenderism

It should not be controversial to say that men and women are different between each other.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Men and women are inherently different from each other.

^ The above statement may be considered offensive by many in the contemporary LGBT(Q+whatever) movement for absurd reasons that I don’t give one shit about and it raises the question of where this existentialist ideology began.

It can be traced to a psychologist, Dr. John Money (1921-2006), and a curious case of male twins (Brian and Bruce Reimer) born in 1965.

British Broadcasting Corporation, “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis,” (September 2014).

Dr. Money specialized in sexology and had written case studies about hermaphrodites and sexual transitions.

The story begins with a botched circumcision on one of the twin boys, Bruce Reimer.  The infant’s penis was burnt off and the Reimer parents chose not to operate on the other twin.  The parents were distraught and did not know what to do for their son, Bruce.

The Reimer’s eventually learned about Dr. Money from a television program.  The psychologist convinced the parents to raise young Bruce as part of an experiment regarding nature versus nurture; Dr. Money wanted to prove a hypothesis revolving around childhood socialization and whether or not gender could be taught rather than simply born.  Prior to the Reimer twins, Dr. Money had not performed any clinical studies on non-hermaphrodites.

Here lies the initial problem with the experiment: it was an opportunity for an ambition.  It is understandable that the Reimer parents wished to give their deformed some a sense of normalcy in childhood but Dr. Money was seeking a chance to prove his hypothesis and exploited the tragedy of these parents’ situation.  It also seems like Dr. Money had the end-goal in mind from the start of the experiment.

Bruce Reimer’s early childhood was marked with visits to Dr. Money and forced socialization tactics (wearing female clothing, playing with supposedly female toys, etc.) in an effort to convince him of his female identity.  However; as Bruce grew into adolescence, he began to reject the socialization and revert backward to his original gender.  Apparently, Bruce hated his visits to Dr. Money and was grateful to his brother for letting him play with his (male) toys.

The story ultimately ends tragically with the deterioration of both brothers’ mental health and their deaths, although Dr. Money continued talk up his experiment as a success despite resistance from the young Bruce Reimer.  The moral of this story is one of hubris in which a scientist falls in love with his own hypothesis and goes to extreme lengths to prove it with the goal of being etched into the annals of history.  A particular personality or an identity cannot be forced onto a child because a person cannot be forced into an identity.  Any parent that forces their child into a specific role will most likely be met with resistance.  The idea that gender has no relation to biology is based on a lie.

Steven Crowder of late-night fame “Lowder with Crowder” ranted about this subject more in-depth.

 

From New Mexico’s rural north to the big city.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

In March of this year, I migrated south from the village of Questa in northern New Mexico to the city of Albuquerque.  It was a dramatic change going from a village (not even a town) of less than 2,000 people to my state’s largest city of approximately 559,200 people.  I’ve lived in rural New Mexico since 2005, so for all intents and purposes, I’m from rural New Mexico.  I attempted to go back to southern California in 2016 after graduating from college but then I got a closer look at housing prices over there; I came back to the high desert with open arms.  Although, I’ve always preferred more urban environments over rural towns for purposes of convenience.

My initial hesitancy to move to Albuquerque was based on crime statistics (number one in the country for auto theft) as well as a less than favorable local reputation.  However; my two best friends in this state secured an apartment in one of the better neighborhoods in the city and offered me a chance to move in with them.  I accepted the opportunity because I was tired of living with family members; I wanted a place I could legitimately call my own (or at least 1/3 my own).  I had my own experience with local crime early this month and I may write about that in a future post but, other than that one instance, my apartment living in Albuquerque as been decent.  I’m using my hand-me-down car a lot less than in rural Questa and I’ve been attempting to “get out more” so goes the phrase.  I’ve learning more about the culture around the craft beer industry and scouting some local hangout spots where taps drip and gossip floats.  One brewery on Unser Boulevard, the Lava Rock Brewing Company, has a spectacular eastern view of the Sandia Mountains from its gated patio.

20180504_151945
East view from Lava Rock Brewing Co.

It seems New Mexicans really enjoy congregating around craft beer since there are 20+ local breweries/taprooms in Albuquerque alone.  Can you blame us?  We’re in the middle of a desert.  What else are we going to do with our water?

Communication, congregation, and productivity are keys to solidifying a community.  There are a lot of small communities in New Mexico but not much communication between those communities.  One reason for such isolation is the geography, the vast space between each region of the state.  I assume that as been an issue with communicating across the American west throughout history but, in the twenty-first century with our computer technology and digital environments, there are less excuses for not connecting with one’s neighbors.  Even a solitary curmudgeon like myself can understand the importance of being in touch with one’s locality.

The Media Outrage Machine Must Die

If you ever find yourself the target of an angry mob over something you said on a media platform, DO NOT make a public apology.  Double down and embrace the hate.

Featured image courtesy of <theantimedia.com>.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

If you ever find yourself the target of an angry mob over something you said on a media platform, DO NOT make a public apology. Double down on your ideals and embrace the hate.

The media outrage machine is arguably a product of the 24-hour news cycle and the extreme partisan climate Americans see in our politics these days. When television news stations run programs all day, every day, how much of what they’re covering is actually news worthy? What is news worthy? What topics are simply used as filler for day-time programs?

I think a news station that is required to run programs all day, every day, is destined succumb to partisan play (catering to a particular faction or ideology). Political journalists should be writing about promises from political candidates, candidates’ financial sources, financial corruption, elections, votes, election fraud, voter fraud, legislation, government appointments, government edicts, conflicts of interest, (you get my point) any number of issues relating government functions and public transparency. Drama between two specific commentators is not news worthy.

The new poster boy for the Democratic Party, David Hogg, was wrong to sick his sycophants on Laura Ingraham and attack Ingraham’s advertisers. Ingraham’s initial tweet about Hogg and his college aspirations wasn’t even that insulting compared to most political insults these days and, in any case, she already apologized for it (something Ingraham should not have done). Ingraham should have ignored Hogg’s whining and continued with her usual banter. On the flip side, Hogg cannot step into the political arena and then claim the victim card once he’s criticized. I don’t care if he’s a high school student, his ideas (like everyone else’s) are not immune to criticism.

I suppose I should be cheering Hogg and Ingraham for further contributing to the fall of mainstream media. That’s what happens with a business model that caters to the lowest common denominator of our society.