• (Verbatim- sources noted)

     

    by Marc E. Angelucci and Glenn Sacks
    September 18, 2004
    NewsWithViews.com

     

    Despite its many painful and unseemly aspects, the Kobe Bryant rape case and the media storm surrounding it have drawn attention to a severely neglected problem: false rape accusations.

    In her recent Daily Journal column, high profile feminist professor Wendy Murphy dismisses the problem of false accusations as an “ugly myth,” and calls for “boiling rage” activism to address what she perceives as the anti-woman bias of the criminal justice system. Like many victims’ advocates, Murphy cannot seem to fathom the possibility that Bryant could be innocent. However, research shows that false allegations of rape are frighteningly common.

    According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.

    Kanin found that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge. Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.

    Kanin’s findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

    The most common reasons the women gave for falsely accusing rape were “spite or revenge,” and to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame (Forensic Science Digest, vol. 11. no. 4, December 1985).

    A Washington Post investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

    It is true, of course, that not every accuser who recants had accused falsely. But it is also true that some who do not recant were not telling the truth.

    According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists “some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions.”

    That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.”

    Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with “scary frequency.” As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver’s ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that “any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes.” According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false.

    The media has largely ignored these studies and experts and has instead promoted the notion that only 2% of rape allegations are false. This figure was made famous by feminist Susan Brownmiller in her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Brownmiller was relaying the alleged comments of a New York judge concerning the rate of false rape accusations in a New York City police precinct in 1974.

    A 1997 Columbia Journalism Review analysis of rape statistics noted that the 2% statistic is often falsely attributed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and has no clear and credible study to support it. The FBI’s statistic for “unfounded” rape accusations is 9%, but this definition only includes cases where the accuser recants or the evidence contradicts her story. Instances where the case is dismissed for lack of evidence are not included in the “unfounded” category. Brownmiller’s credibility can be assessed by her assertion in Against Our Will that rape is “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

    Murphy also contends that the criminal justice system is stacked against women, and that the law reform initiatives promoted during the past three decades have “failed to make a bit of difference in the justice system’s handling of rape cases.” In reality, feminist advocacy and the now ubiquitous rape-shield laws have made an enormous difference in the way the system treats rape cases.

    Some of these changes have been fair, and have led to greater protections for rape victims. However, others have made it more difficult for men to defend themselves, with at times horrifying consequences for the accused.

    For example, in December, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied an appeal by Ralph Taylor, who is serving a 13-year sentence for rape. The court held that evidence of the victim’s alleged prior false allegations of rape was inadmissible because it was considered sexual conduct within the meaning of the state’s rape shield statute. In that case, the defense proffered the testimony of two friends of the alleged victim, both of whom claimed that she had previously falsely accused another man of raping her. The court added that admitting such evidence could “inflame the jury.”

    In her book Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young details numerous questionable rulings in which potentially innocent men were prevented from properly defending themselves by the rape shield laws which Murphy endorses.

    One of these cases concerns an 18 year-old Wisconsin boy named Charles Steadman, who in 1993 was sentenced to eight years in prison for allegedly raping an older woman. Steadman was prohibited from revealing that his accuser was currently facing criminal charges of having sex with minors, and thus had an excellent reason to claim that the sex with Steadman was not consensual. Such evidence was deemed related to his accuser’s sexual history and thus inadmissible.

    In 1997, sportscaster Marv Albert was accused of assault and battery during a sexual encounter with a woman with whom he had had a 10-year sexual relationship. Albert sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, who had been in a mental hospital six weeks before the alleged assault, had previously made false accusations against men who had left her, as Albert, who was engaged to be married, was planning to do. Albert’s offer of proof was denied, compromising his ability to defend himself. Facing a possible life sentence, he chose to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault.

    Murphy’s dogged attacks on Ruckriegle as a veritable “advocate for the accused” are also without foundation. Far from being a black robed patriarch in league with the defendant, Ruckriegle’s rulings were reasonable and, if anything, minimalist. It is not the rulings but the reaction to them by victims’ advocates and the media which are worrisome.

    For example, Ruckriegle granted a defense motion that Bryant’s accuser would not be referred to as “the victim” in court. Such labeling, as opposed to “alleged victim” or “accuser,” undermines the presumption of innocence. However, this motion was hotly contested by both the prosecution and by victims’ rights organizations, which filed amicus briefs and complained that Ruckriegle’s decision created an anti-woman double-standard.

    Ruckriegle also allowed Bryant to introduce evidence that his accuser had had other sexual encounters in the 72 hours before her medical examination for the alleged assault. Bryant’s defense team contended that the microscopic vaginal injuries the prosecution claimed were suffered in the alleged assault could instead have been the product of various consensual sexual encounters.

    Media commentators labeled the 72 hour decision a “bombshell for prosecutors” that “threatens all women,” and likened Ruckriegle to a man who has “tiptoed into a minefield.”

    Murphy is correct that rape is a horrible crime. But false accusations of rape are every bit as horrible. They are a form of psychological rape that can emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person even if there is no conviction, especially for those of less fame and fortune than Bryant. The stigma attaches to the falsely accused for life. Few believe them and few care. Prosecutors systematically refuse to prosecute the perpetrators. And victims’ advocates like Murphy refuse to see falsely accused men as victims, and instead work to minimize and conceal the problem.

    (http://www.newswithviews.com/Sacks/glenn12.htm)

  • I once wondered about why older people turned inside themselves and dwelt for long periods on the past. They would sit and reminisce about memories that originated decades before, sometimes while staring out a window, other times amongst their peers.  Now that I have reached what many think as being older I believe I am gaining a glimpse as to why elders think so.

    A person gains their personality, their bearings in life, fairly early on. You learn to cope with conditions that prevail. You acquire skills that allow you to steer your way through life. You become comfortable. An individual can continue steering this course, using the same coordinates, if you will, for a few decades. Then, unnoticeably at first, what can be called the ‘terrain’ of life slowly alters. Skills that served well become less able to cope with the prevailing terrain. Not only that, but the young begin to compete with your perceptions of what should be, bringing ideas of their own. They reject you, resent your presence, try to push you out of the way.

    Thankfully there is a way to proceed, though you must also step out of the way, and that is to realize that the only permanent thing in this life is change. Keeping abreast with changes may help you understand what is transpiring. Accepting those changes is irrelevant as regardless of your understanding you will be discarded. All the young see you as now is the old codger sitting, looking out the window.

    The older generation, comfortable with what they have found works, shakes their collective heads at the young. The younger generation thinks they know it all. Only time will tell whether the young are headed for a crash. At this point all grandpa and grandma can see is a disaster brewing. When the foundation upon which society has been built and maintained is frowned upon by the young how can the senior see anything but calamity approaching?

    The family has sustained our nation. Now this family is under constant attack. The government with their many handouts has made it easy for a woman to dispose of her partner, her husband, and mother alone. Now from an early age a female is taught that she must empower herself, become strong, totally independent. What need does she have for a man? He becomes a luxury. If she wants him he can stay, at least a little while. When ‘want’, a transient quantity, begins to flag, out he goes with the next trash pickup.

    With a society that denigrates masculinity, insults males from boyhood on, men no longer aspire to be great. Women, upon reaching mid-life, wail sadly, wondering where have all the good men gone… not realizing they themselves are responsible for the destruction about which they moan.

    The wall of the cliff rises ahead. The rails run directly there. The speed of the train seems unstoppable. The brakes will melt anyway. A catastrophe is nigh.

  • Toleration. To what extent should toleration be applied. Does toleration end as those you are tolerating are leading you to your execution? Shouldn’t your toleration have ended a wee bit before you couldn’t do anything about it?

    Many Jews tolerated the German Nazis far too long and went beyond the point where anything could be done about them. It drew in the whole world.

    How far should toleration go? If you hear a crowd of people shouting derogatory things about an ethnic group, should you say something in protest? If you hear of plans for an attack upon a group of people should you turn a deaf ear and remark “They are not coming for me.” If you know there are large stashes of military weapons and groups in training for a future war upon your people, and they do this in your very country, do you just wait until they make a move? Is that the price of freedom, to ignore the signs of impending doom? A little steeper than you imagined, I think.

    There is a peoples that moves into countries and bides its time as it breeds and grows. When it reaches a certain mass it demands all those about them to obey strict edicts and to submit or die. Great Britain, it has been suggested, is already being cut down at the knees and has given in on many points. Many other countries are being invaded by these patience plotters. Patience has always been their ally. Like a slow poison they spread. Strangling dissent, free speech, and common sense.

    To the liberal mind there is no end to toleration. Atheists who boast of rationality seem to think that they can negotiate with these murderers of humanity. Because the people grow alarmed when they are told that they must submit or die, they are labeled haters, doing an injustice. They remark that the individual is not to blame, it is the religion that is to blame. Yet, without the individual, collected with others in groups, there would be no religion. Be civil with those that hate you, they exclaim, be nice and they won’t harm you. They fail to take into account that the person has been compromised by the religion and is no longer capable of rational thought. Do your best to make a point if you will, but it is wasted upon those whose ears only listen to their Imam and hear you not.

  • camp tentEach camp has its own set of rules, laws, and morals. What applies to one camp does not apply to all others. One camp insists that the others follow its set of social standards, while the others insist that others must follow their precepts.

    Individual members must conform to the standards of the group they are in. Though some disagreements are permitted, the main standards must prevail. Any member of any other group that wants to change groups must conform to those standards in existence in the new group.

    Many groups claim great “open-mindedness” in direct conflict with the reality that prevails. It seems that the groups that shout about their “open-mindedness” the loudest usually tend to be the most closed-minded.

    On top of this each group has its inner circle or clique of “beautiful” people that determine all the groups laws and morals. These people always tend to be the closest of friends and will not allow anyone to enter the circle that has the slightest disagreement with them. The circle usually becomes quite impenetrable. 

    Most often individuals wandering into well-established groups containing tight cliques find themselves merely orbiting the clique rather than being actually engaged by any of the members of the clique. Discouraged, these potential new members soon leave never to return. Growth of camps with tight well-established cliques usually stagnates. The clique looks around and without a clue concludes it could not have been due to anything they might have done. They did smile at the camp tent2newcomers at least once, they remark.

    My experience concludes that every camp or group has its own precepts and beliefs and if you vary from them in the least you become an outsider, no longer welcome; pack your bags please. They are indeed open-minded as long as you believe everything they do.

  •      I was reading yet another book written by an atheist when he lamented how terrible the misogyny was in the bible. He went on to describe an incident where god ordered his faithful to kill all the men and boys, all the women who had “known” men, keeping all the virgins for themselves. Well, misogyny was present, but wait… all the men and boys were killed? Seems to me the young boys would be innocent, yet… A lot more misandry than misogyny is afoot.

         How important is life as compared to the rape of women? How important are male lives compared to female lives?

         The bible has always been lambasted for its misogyny. Yet, men are killed in greater numbers than women. Despite their eventual fate as unwilling wives, the spared virgin women are not murdered.  If the numbers are the perspective from which you look, and male lives are given the same value as women’s lives, then the bible is more misandrist than misogynist. One wonders if even in the Christian religion, debased though it be, whether one can state without hesitation that it is patriarchal. It is mostly about killing males, not females.

         I guess it comes down to the weight of it. How much weight does a man’s life carry compared to a woman’s. Generally in society, it seems, it is assumed that men, and even young boys, cannot be innocent. It is always “Save the women and children”, “Women and children first”.

         There are innocent men and boys. These innocent men and boys are being devalued by society. It is time this moral crime ceased.

  •  

    Existence is preferred over non-existence. Something is desired over nothing. Even the adolescent teenager that possesses no maturity imagines themselves able to observe from some higher plane the aftermath of their suicide “to get even, or make them sorry”. The concept of nothingness is as impossible to grasp as is the immensity of very large numbers. Unable to understand the concept of nothingness, that the nothingness also entails not being able to experience the nothingness, people genuinely, naturally,  fear it.

    A son or daughter unable to let go of a parent prefers to think their loved one has advanced to a higher plane, “a better place” upon death. They imagine them whole again, watching down upon them, perhaps even looking out for them. Death, it has been said, is a part of life. If so, why is it so hard to face? Why do they fear the coming nothing? Isn’t it true that before they were, they were not? From nothing to nothing?

    The fear of death is the goldmine of religions. Religions offer a solution to death, though it be necessarily one that cannot be proven. Without a shred of evidence that would stand up in a court of law, religions are permitted to offer an imaginary cure for death. People buy into it by the carload. They are desperate.

    Naturally there are some that do not fear death. Nothingness, they imagine, is better than the existence they are enduring. For these religion also has an answer. It is not just an escape from death they offer, but an escape from eternal punishment for acts of immorality, sins. Even those who do not fear the nothingness fear being tortured hideously for an eternity. They buy into it by the busload. They are desperate.

    Religion wants everyone to believe. Is that enough? No. Religions also want everyone to obey. Through the use of threats of punishment and rewards for obedience religions also control the population. If the religion is the government the punishments become harsher. If they are not the government, to gain the favor of government, religions work to align the masses behind the goals of the government. If, as in the United States, the corporations are de facto rulers, the religion helps to instill a slave mentality in the masses to keep them quiescent and accepting of low wages and bad working conditions.

    The government, corporations, and religious leaders fear atheism for these reasons. Atheism frees people from the religious control and allows them to see reality. People with free minds, free thought, can only be persuaded by reason. Much of what government and business does is done without clear thought, but with only profit or power in mind.  If those in power cannot convince people that they are helpless to oppose government, or that opposing government carries a penalty in the afterlife, control becomes more difficult. Hence the biblical promise that those who have much in this life will have little in the next, while those who have little will have a greater reward. “They’ll get theirs when they die” many humble religious mutter when faced with hardship in which the rich do not have to share. Of course, they don’t want to accept that what happens when you die is nothingness. No tyrant will be punished if all there is, is nothing at all. The frustration they feel is mediated by the belief that enemies in this life will be punished in the next.

    The peoples’ greatest fear is of death and nothingness. The greatest fears of those in power is that people will lose their fear of death, their belief that there is something after this life, of atheism.

     

  • Empathy is the ability to experience, or know, what someone else is experiencing. It is thought to be a product of neurons within the brain called “mirror-neurons”. People commonly experience this phenomenon when they yawn in response to someone else’s yawn.

    Some people are more empathetic than others. Some seem to have a total lack of this ability.

    It is detrimental to have too much empathetic ability. The reverse, too little, is also detrimental. Optimally it would be best to have a moderate amount and be able to control the level.

    Sometimes to do what is right for the many, empathy needs to be suppressed for the few. To be fair, sometimes it is necessary to have deeper empathy for the few than is usually expressed, as in the poor, the deprived.

    Empathy is a part of a normal human’s mental bearings and cannot be totally dismissed, though sometimes, to do the right thing it must either be suppressed or enhanced depending upon the situation. You might want to help some poor street person, but you do not want to give them your whole salary as then your family will starve.

    I think it takes a severe lack of empathy for your fellow man to be a complete capitalist. To be socialists would require that everyone possessed maximum empathy for everyone else. Only a combination of capitalism and socialism would accommodate the average level of empathy found in human beings. This is the only reason the United States survived as a nation after the depression years. If we went to a pure capitalist system as desired by the conservative rich the nation would soon crash. If we became total socialists there would still be people who would be greedy and eventually destroy the nation. Capitalism with a dash of socialism seems to be more stable.

     

  • There is among us a group of haters. Many among this group are unaware that they hate. Those that are unaware are victims of this group just as much as those they hate. There are many names given to this group. An acronym NOW, Women’s Rights Activists, Empowered Women, or just plain feminists.

    From its inception among the KKK this group of haters was formed very much like a Marxist group might be formed. They needed from the onset an enemy oppressor. This oppressor would be villainized by whatever means until the general public, including most of those that were hated, believed the message. False propaganda, including made up figures about pay gaps and “rape culture” and an imaginary “glass ceiling” would be used to convince women and men alike that these poor helpless females were being oppressed. Over and over, anti-male rhetoric would be repeated in all media until the public assumed its present state, that of total gynocentricity. That means favoring only women and girls over men and boys. The campaign would start with the youngest of females. It would be part of the Girl Scouts. The message of female empowerment would be instilled within the minds of these young girls. Female empowerment, meaning, convincing females that men are unnecessary and disposable.

    Many men, and yes, even women, are waking up to realize the lies of feminism. The damage, regrettably, has already been done and is irreversible. There is an entire generation of females that have been poisoned by the message of feminism and have thus been rendered unfit for marriage, unfit for family. Even some of those women that assert they support men’s rights still cling to the lie that they face oppression in life. Once they are poisoned… the damage is done.

    Now, through the help of a willing politically motivated government, the oppression of men has been made legal. Through de facto anti-male laws such as Title IX, The Gender Equity Act (which does nothing of the sort), and VAWA, men have just begun to realize the heel of tyranny has descended.

    Despite all this, many females that participate in these groups think things should continue as if no such oppression of men has occurred. They still want doors opened for them, they still want to be treated as sugar and spice and everything nice. I think this should change.

    When someone does something outside the guidelines set in the Amish community a shunning is in order. The shunned become non-existent. They no longer matter to the community. I propose that men shun feminists, no matter what name they go by, socially and professionally. Don’t speak to them, do not interact with them if possible, and certainly, most importantly, do not patronize any businesses owned by feminists.

  • Hurricanes, floods, tornados, drought, dust storms, and tsunami; all natural scourges humans and animals alike have faced since the beginning of existence.

    Ancient humans decided there must be some cause for these horrible tragedies. They fabricated a cause: Gods, demons.

    Nature has no conscience or consciousness. Nature does not act for or against any organism. Nature is what simply is. It cannot continue blithely, for that would imply an ability of attentiveness that is ignored, but in reality, an attentiveness that does not exist… nature simply is. Nature is indifferent. It is not out to get you. It has no direction. It is simply a product of the forces at work around the planet.

    There are no gods to thank for your survival after a horrendous hurricane. There are no gods or demons to damn after the death of a loved one in a tornado. Luck plays no part. Luck is another of those nonexistent fabricated forces which humans invented. If you survive a flood you simply survived, it just so happened. If anything at all played a part at all it might have been your determination to survive.

    There is yet another thing which does not have any intention or plan. It is evolution. There is no goal inherent within evolution. Each organism survives simply because it possesses that which is necessary to exist within its environment. The lion is well suited to where it lives. The mouse is also well suited to where it lives. There was no plan for these organisms. They are the product of small changes over time that ended up beneficial for survival in the niche in which they live.

    Most surprising for many is the truth that humans are not the end product of evolution. We too, simply possess attributes, attributes that accumulated through minute gradual changes, unplanned, that ended up what was needed to fit the environment, our niche. These changes were affected by the environment. Changes that were not beneficial were eliminated as the pressures of the environment caused an organism that was unfit to die, eliminating them from the procreation pool. There was no goal, no end point, no higher purpose… there was only natural selection. There was no anger, no malice, no none of those, there was only indifference.

    Did you know that, where evolution is concerned, the chimp is better adapted for its environment than we? Does that make them higher on the tree? Is there a “higher” on the tree?

     

  • The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 3,700 times in 2014. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 3 trips to carry that many people.

    Click here to see the complete report.