Amazon is re-booting Sid and Marty Krofft's Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. This is an amazing development. I'm so happy. I think my kids thought I was making it all up Mr. Show did a fantastic skit based on ol' Sid and Marty. And just in case you think that was over the top, check out Lidsville. Oh my childhood.
Before the Holidays I made myself a promise that I was going to immediately break. I had decided that one way for me to get my mind back on track and start feeling better about the way things were going was to return to somewhat active status on this here blog. You all can see how well that worked out. We're at that time of year when everything is broken and everything is due, and the beginning of the year means anything that's not due or broken is going to change, so there's no way to know exactly what I am supposed to do about everything that's due or broken or changing. Shorter blog: I'm in flux. I hate that. Despite still believing that I made the right choice when I made my choices, I am very wary about the state of maddad's world. You know, with all the breaking and change and flux. On the other hand, aside from all the breaking and change, things are going pretty well. So technically, all this complaining is ridiculous. Technically, maybe. But... when a guy who works from home doesn't seem to have the time to write a paragraph per day on his shitty little blog, there's something wrong. Imma figure it out and fix it.
I went off on liars the other day and got a bunch (one) of highly visible pundits (internet nobody) into a mood of serious self reflection (incoherent and silly rage-spiral). Since everyone is in such a good mood, and willing to examine the issue from all sides (pissed off and completely inflexible in their opinions), I've decided to discuss the topic further (double down on my call). A bunch of insane shrieking lunatics has decided that the best way to put men in a box is to indict all men, from birth, as rapists. No one, really, believes these idiots, so in an attempt to get people to take this crazy notion seriously, they lie. Bald-facedly. Knowingly. They lie because these lies, "support the narrative". "Narrative", in this sense means exactly what narrative has always meant, a story. A "narrative" can be true or fictitious, but in order for a "narrative" to be true, it must actually be not false. There is no way to determine this, however, because in order for a "narrative" to be proven true it's necessary to ask some questions, and it is forbidden to ask questions about rape. Since I am not allowed to question the veracity of certain people's claims, even if those claims are provably false and not provably true, I'll stick to broad questions about reported statistics. The numbers are important here. Why do I think the numbers are important? Because, there is already far too much rape and sexual assault committed in this country. The penalties for it are, and should be, severe. Because rape is a horrible thing. Every civilized culture on the planet abhors rape. Every man detests the rapist, he is an anathema to society. If rape is permitted to go on unprosecuted, barbarism has won out. Rape is an evil, it's as simple as that. So if this currently fashionable narrative is true, then we are living in a barbarous, uncivilized, evil time and almost every third man I know is a rapist and that, I'm glad to say, is just not so. The narrative that these power hungry, anti-male zealots are advancing these days is that one out of five college women will be raped during their time on campus. Here's the original datasheet. I'm not going to pick apart the methodology. I won't have to, the result will speak for itself. Here's the CDC weighing in, so I guess sexual assault is a disease? And here's this asshole repeating it, and we know he's never uttered a false word in his life. But... according to the DOJ, in 2013 there were only 25.2 forcible rapes reported per 100,000 people in the US, and there are 2 million more women enrolled in college then there are men. Given those numbers, does the one-in-five women sexually assaulted while in college story pass the smell test? In 2012, there were 11,723,732 women enrolled in college. There were 85,141 reported rapes in the US. If all of those reported rapes happened on campus, there would still be roughly only three-quarters of a percent (or .73%) of college women raped. That would mean that over 99% of rapes went unreported. Let's look at it another way. If 20% of the 11,723,732 women enrolled in college in 2012 were raped, that would be 2,344,746.40 rapes. If all of the rapes reported in the US in 2012 happened on campus to these women, that would mean that on US college campuses there were 2,259,605.4 unreported rapes. In 2012 there were 8,919,087 men enrolled in US colleges. If every rape was committed by one man, a little over one-quarter of male students (or 26.29% are rapists) would have committed rape, almost every single one of those men would have gotten clean away (25.33% of all male students get away). Let's say, for argument's sake, that the rapists who get away are divided equally by year, that would give us 564901.35 rapists per year. Pardon me, but I think if a half-million or so uncaught rapists were entering the workforce every year, someone would notice. Now, let's use some numbers reported by the schools. According to this website in 2012 there were 4135 sex offenses reported on campuses by colleges required to report and 2505 reported in campus housing. I don't know if these should be combined or not, but I'll combine the numbers just in case. Over four years, 2009 to 2012 there were a total of 22589 sex offenses, forcible and non-forcible reported to the Department of Ed. That's an average of 5647.25 sex offenses reported per-year. That 5647.25 is equal to 6.56% of the average total reported rape in the country for those years! You may see the one in five beginning to fill out here, right? No. The average number of women enrolled in college per year over the same four years is 11,830,217, so it comes to about one half of one percent. There was an average of 86112.5 reported rapes per year reported to the DOJ for the entire country for those four years. If all of those rapes happened on-campus to our pool of enrolled women there would still be less than one percentage of college women who were rape victims (or .73%). For that One in five figure to be correct there would have had to be at least an additional 591510.85 rapes unreported PER-YEAR. Even if we add the average number of rapes reported in the entire country from 2009 to 2012 to the yearly average of the total number of sex offenses reported by the Department of Education between 2009 and 2012 we still don't reach 1% of the average number of women enrolled in college over the same four year period. Twenty percent of 11,830,217 is 2,274,283.65 that's two and a half million sexual assaults over four years. Given the average number of men enrolled in college over those same four years, 8939975.25, then, again if every assault was committed by a single man, 25.44% of male students sexually assaulted someone. Here's where we go into the wild. Over the same four years, 2009 to 2012, local and state police reported a total of 27 sexual assaults that occurred on campus or in campus housing to the Department of Education. What about the other 22562 sexual assaults that occurred on campus over those four years? Did the police not report them? Did they not get reported to the police? The police only reported 0.12% of the total reported sexual assaults that occurred on college campuses throughout the US to the Department of Education. If we average it out over four years, and use the one in five number, it's worse. Much worse. The police reported 0.0003% of sexual assaults on campus. Even worse than that, according to the database there were no arrests for sexual assault made on campus (and I selected all in the US and Outlying Areas). Now do you see why I think this one-in-five is bullshit? There is no way. NONE. If every year almost 600,000 women were sexually assaulted on college campuses in the US, women wouldn't be going to college. There certainly wouldn't be a market for co-ed colleges, much less co-ed dorms, or in some cases, rooms. Fraternities would have disappeared sometime in the 50's. There would be no party scene or "college experience", because women wouldn't go. Let's face it, we'd be back to Victorian Era levels of prudery in this country pretty damn quick, and some women would be bitching about that too. You know, 71% of human resource managers in the US are women. If the one-in-five number is true, then 28.17% of HR managers were sexually assaulted in college. Wouldn't there be a bias against hiring men on account 26% of college educated men are rapists? Trivializing rape by lying about how much is happening unreported is wrong and dangerous. This particular lie is pernicious and evil, and will end badly. It's already showing its frayed seams. The only way to perpetuate this fiction is to make sure that no one is allowed to ever ask any questions about any rape accusation, no matter how impossible, cooked up, or crazy the circumstances seem. This is going to make it extraordinarily hard for real rape victims to be believed and to get the justice they deserve. There are very few people in the world who can hear terrible stories about people, groups and institutions that they know and have experience with and accept those stories uncritically. It also seems, to me, that if this lie is allowed to continue unchallenged, that it's just possible that eventually young men will feel they can act with impunity, since there's less than one percent's chance that the rape will be reported. Or, in other words, look what she was studying, she was asking for it. I may be unfortunately proven right, in 2013 there was a one-third increase in reported sexual assault on campus.
I have a lot to talk about. First off, as Reason suggests, this entire story is total bullshit. Not "something happened, just not what she said" bullshit, entirely, 100% USDA Prime bullshit. Here's how I know. It has nothing to do with the weird movie-style violence, such as being thrown through a glass-topped table and serially raped on the broken glass for three hours by seven people who don't get cut, or having a beer bottle thrown at your face, where it breaks the glass but not the skin. Or even the massive beating that leaves no trace. It's the conspiracy. According to the Rolling Stone story, the girl manages to escape through a side door wearing the dress that she had been raped in for three hours, while lying on broken glass and being beaten over and over. Then she contacts three friends who, after hearing her story, tell her to not say anything so that they can continue to attend the parties given by the accused serial rapist fraternity. Nine people in that fraternity are rapists, but you still want to go to their parties? This defies belief. Especially since the rape is supposed to be some sort of initiation rite of passage for new brothers. Who in their right mind would continue to associate with this group? Why would anyone want to join the "rapist" frat? Why hasn't anyone else ever come forward? These guys aren't Skull and Bones. No one from UVA is going to end up President and drone you for telling on him for pulling a train. They throw good keg parties? "Sorry Mable, I know I have a good chance of getting raped, but they always have the BEST jello shots at Pi Phi on Thursdays, so I REALLY don't want you to go to the cops, or the hospital, or to the health center. Don't screw this up for me. I'm sure the bleeding will stop on its own." Let's be serious, if you meet that girl, she's a keeper. "Where were you tonight honey?" "Oh, the usual. I went to a strip club, murdered a prostitute, nothing big." "Really? No gang rapes? My big boy's slowing down. Keep those paychecks coming, a girl has needs." Utter bullshit. And it doesn't relieve any of my skepticism that the author of the original Rolling Stone piece uses this asshole as an expert on campus rape. On to the other side of bullshit. This tidbit from NPR. There's a lot of chatter that the falling price of oil is just DEVASTATING to the OPEC countries. Total bullshit written by a bunch of people who think in terms of static demand. When OPEC floods the market with oil, people use more oil. OPEC oil. Because it's cheap. OPEC sells more oil at a lower price, gets a short term BOOST in income, like a sale at Macy's. They use this money to pad their Swiss accounts before the war that's destined to come any day. It has NOTHING to do with the economy in OPEC countries. Most of those countries nationalized the oil industry YEARS ago. The idea that Iran needs $170 to break even on a barrel of oil is ludicrous on its face when the price of production to the people getting paid is exactly ZERO! If I control production at the point of a sword, and I can sell 10 barrels at $100 or 20 barrels at $75, I'm charging $75. Especially if keeping the price artificially low makes it tough to extract oil from the ground in countries where the people making the oil have to actually get paid. Put another way, if Chinese lightbulbs suddenly cost Americans so much money that we started making our own lightbulbs here in America, the Chinese government would make Chinese lightbulbs cheaper. BECAUSE THEY CAN. THIS IS SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T READ THE NEWSPAPER OR WATCH THE GODDAMN NEWS. Maybe, now that journalism is a profession on par with doctors, lawyers and dentists and requires a graduate degree for entry, just maybe the journalists have spent so much time in college raping, that they forgot to study economics?
It's cold today. Really cold. When I'm in the office and it's cold my damn toes go numb. I sit on a concrete slab six foot under ground with only a carpet pad and carpet between me and frozen earth. In the past I've used boot warmers, hot hands, and even microwaveable slippers to keep my feet warm. Nothing works for very long. This year is looking to be as cold, if not colder than last year, and last year was too fucking cold. I'm pretty much done with the weather here. It's time for me to move to a beach somewhere. I'm compiling a list of trade-offs between living here and living on the beach. I'd miss my wife and kids for a bit, that would be one. Traffic is an issue in warmer climes, but on the other hand, I wouldn't have to drive anywhere. I could sleep outdoors. I might be able to walk places. Then again, I couldn't afford a house, so I'd be in a trailer... or maybe a boat. If I lived in a boat, I'd have to wear an eye patch. But if I really let myself go and get one of those huge round beer bellies, I could wear shorty shorts and oil it up and maybe some gold chains and go all Telly Savalas. Maybe a peg leg? I could eat or drink my way to diabeetus. I'm not really seeing a downside to the beach. I could loose feeling in my feet because of insufferable cold or endocrinological collapse. I'd rather be warm. Time to break out the Reese's and cheap flavored rum.