I've been extremely disappointed with the media coverage of a recently filed lawsuit against the Department of Defense. There are many articles out there, like the one I've linked here, the the suit claims that the Pentagon allows an environment of sexual harassment and sexual assault and turns a blind eye when there are reports of such conduct.
Just so you know where I'm coming from right from the start, I am what the Navy calls a "Sexual Assault Victim Advocate". I have "duty" for two-week periods every so often, and if there is a reported sexual assault at my command during that time, it is my job to assist the victim in anyway possible; first and foremost, by ensuring that they receive care and support. To "qualify" as an advocate, you must attend initial training (40-hours) and then attend refresher training at least 20 hours a year. I signed up for this position because I would want someone in my corner if it happened to me. My eyes were totally opened during the initial training.
So, back to the issue of sexual assault in the military… it is DEFINITELY a problem. No doubt about it, and no denying it. It's really sad. But there are a few facts that are missing in the media's reporting of the lawsuit filed against the military.
Current statistics claim that as many as 1 in 3 military women are sexually assaulted during their time in the military. That's tragic. But what the media doesn't mention is the statistics, for example, on sexual assault on college campuses. 1 in 4 (only slightly better than the military) college women are sexually assaulted during their academic careers. Equally tragic. The media has done a great job of painting the military as a bastion of sexual assault when in fact, sexual assault is an epidemic all across America.
Another part of the media's coverage has been about an increase in reports of sexual assault in the military. First of all, it's true. BUT it's only half the story. One of the big issues with sexual assault is reporting. Many women (and ESPECIALLY men) are not comfortable coming forward to report a sexual assault. There are a myriad of reasons, and I'll only mention a few. 48.8% of college women (and I would be willing to bet the statistic would apply to military women) have been victims of attacks that meet the standard definition of rape, but don't believe themselves that it's rape. That's RAPE, not lesser forms of sexual assault. So there is much sexual assault that is not reported because the victim is not even sure whether or not it IS sexual assault.
The next statistic should scare you guys to death, since both of you have daughters. 70-80% of victims of rape and sexual assault know their assailant. They are friends, co-workers, associates, neighbors, etc. It's not the creepy guy in the bushes. So, many victims are not comfortable reporting because of the association. It's too much to deal with.
Another reason for not reporting is what is called "re-victimization". Questioning by police, media attention, a long lawsuit… all these things can mean that the victim has to re-live what happened over and over. It's horrible. And so again, that scares many away from making a report to the authorities. Also, think of a few of the well-known sexual assault cases over the past several years… one that comes to mind for me is the Duke lacrosse team. The two women who made the accusation of sexual assault were DESTROYED in the press. Every facet of their lives, especially their sexual lives, was exposed and debated in public. Would you want that to happen to you?
Let me get back to the rise in sexual assault reporting in the military. A few years ago the military found that there were A LOT of sexual assault victims that never reported the crime because they didn't want a police investigation, etc., and they didn't want others to know about it. And because they didn't want a mandatory investigation, they were unable to seek out any help. They were left to deal with the aftermath on their own.
With the specific purpose of wanting to provide care and support to victims of sexual assault without them having to endure the fallout of an investigation, the military created two separate systems of reporting.
The first is called "unrestricted" reporting. If a victim of sexual assault reports it, for example, to their chain of command, an investigation will occur. No doubt about it. The fastest and easiest way for a commanding officer in the military to lose his/her job is to NOT investigate a report of sexual assault. "Unrestricted" reporting means that NCIS will get involved, people will be interviewed, including the victim, etc. People are going to know about it. It will more than likely be in the news as well. Optimally, the military does want people to make unrestricted reports, because that's the only way they can go after the perpetrators of sexual assault. This was the ONLY reporting option a few years ago.
The second method is called "restricted" reporting. If you call a victim advocate (like me) you can be assigned an advocate and receive all the support available without having to deal with an investigation. In other words, you'll still be assigned an advocate, and you can get medical care, psychological counseling, etc., but no one else is ever going to know about the assault. No one calls the police, no one initiates an investigation, there is no requirement to tell your story to anyone. You simply get the medical/psychological care that you need to deal with the aftermath. The unit commanding officer is only told (by the unit Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Coordinator, a paid civilian position) that there was a report of sexual assault within his/her command, but that's it. End of story. He/she, doesn't know who, why, when, where, etc. Nothing. Just that there was an assault.
So here's my point: I believe the number of reported sexual assaults has gone up in the military BECAUSE of the restricted reporting option. The military has done exactly the RIGHT thing by providing a means for victims to get the help that they need, rather than NOT report and NOT get any help because they don't report it. If the military took away the restricted reporting option I'm sure the number would go back down, not because of a decrease in sexual assaults, but because of a decrease in reporting.
The media will tell you that the restricted reporting option is the vehicle that the military uses to allow perpetrators to get away with the crime. But it's not true. Any victim has the option to do an unrestricted report. But the focus in the military is on support for the victim, hence the two forms of reporting.
Lastly, lets' talk about prosecution of the crime of sexual assault. Spend some time on the RAINN website and the statistics will shock you. Statistically, 15 of 16 rapists in America will walk free for the crime. It's estimated that only 4% of reported sexual assault cases end in conviction. FOUR PERCENT!! That is insane. The reasons for the conviction rate are numerous and I could write 15 pages on that alone. You can guess the issues involved… one of the primary issues being physical evidence. And even if there is physical evidence, with the high rate of association between the victim/perpetrator, the defense usually claims that the sex was consensual.
In the military we do have a Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is an additional set of rules that we have to follow in the military. However, we are not deprived of the rights of any other citizen under the law. What I mean is that if I were accused of sexual assault tomorrow, I have a right to request a lawyer and a trial by a jury of my peers. Who wouldn't want that?? So, military punishments (convictions) are going to be about the same as they are nationwide, which is, again, FOUR PERCENT. The media's portrayal of the treatment of perpetrators of sexual assault in the military has been unfair as it implies that if a servicewoman makes a complaint of sexual assault that the accused automatically should be punished. But the alleged perpetrator has the protection of the legal system just like anyone else.
It's a terrible statistic, but again, I'm just trying to point out that the problem of sexual assault is not unique to the military. I feel terrible for what those women (and two men) in the lawsuit had to endure, but from personal experience, I would be surprised if any college in America provides the kind of training and support systems in regards to sexual assault that the military provides.
Yes, we have a problem with sexual assault in the military, but I personally feel that we are doing a lot to protect and help victims, even above and beyond what the rest of the country is doing in response to this epidemic.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Marc on Pets
Sometimes when I have a lot to say on a subject, it paralyzes me a little bit because it seems like it will take too long to complete my thoughts. That's my lame excuse for a long absence from the blog. So here goes, although I may not be able to get everything out that has gone through my mind on this subject.
Let me start by saying, Brad, that I'm very sorry for your loss. There are no "ideal" conditions for putting down a pet. For lack of a more sophisticated word, it sucks, no matter how it goes down. Putting our Andie down was one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life, and that is not an exaggeration.
It's really no surprise that the pet industry is so huge. Unfortunately, a good part of that is because pets, just like cars, have become a status symbol. Not just the pet itself, but the pet accessories. The really outrageous stuff is probably associated with people that have more money than they know what to do with anyway. I doubt that the guy who is working double shifts at 7-11 is worried about an eye lift for his dog or is buying specialty organic fresh prepared meals for his cat. Rich people are excessive in all kinds of things, and pets are no exception. When you have money dripping out of your ears, why not? I still remember the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker scandal when it was discovered (among other things) that they had an air-conditioned dog house for their Saint Bernard. It sounds completely outrageous, but if you had Bil Gates money and loved your dog, wouldn't you build him a posh dog house? What's the difference between a $10K dog house and a $185K car? The answer is that they are both ridiculous in the mind of people that don't have that kind of money.
I'll take a little detour here for a minute and say that even the idea of pure bred dogs and the money associated with them is crazy to me. There are a million perfectly good dogs available for adoption in shelters. I know there are benefits of knowing family history, etc., but wanting a certain breed of dog just to say that you have a certain breed of dog doesn't sit well with me, and in many cases that is the rationale. I will admit here that I'm a bit biased because Jennifer and I managed to get a pound dog that would be in the running for best pound dog in the world. But if we ever decide to get another dog, it will definitely be another adoption. Even for people who are looking for a pure bred, you can find them through breed specific rescues if you are willing to be a little bit patient.
The part of the article that (sadly) made me laugh a little was that 40% of American pets are obese. Big surprise. That's because people are as undisciplined with their pets as they are with their kids! They feed them all kinds of junk food, don't take them out for exercise, and wallah! Fat pet. We're not saints by any means, but we don't give Duke table scraps. He yaks them up anyway, but it also has gone a long way in keeping him extremely healthy.
The hard part is the medical care. In the end, the guiding principle for me has to be quality of life. As you guys know, we are trying to sort out some medical issues with Duke right now. What is making it difficult is that his quality of life is great… none of what is going on is really affecting his day to day life. So, do we have a potentially cancerous growth taken off his leg? It means surgery ($$), discomfort for Duke, AND he's 14 years old. Do we do it? Is it going to do anything for his quality of life? It's difficult when you can't communicate with your pet. Duke can't tell me if his leg hurts (it doesn't seem that it does) or if he wants to have surgery. We've eliminated radiation because of the cost ($7500).
Even if he was 4 or 5 I'm not sure I'd be willing to spend that kind of money, but then again I'm not sure. Duke is family. He really is like a son to us. And when you put it in those terms, how much money are you willing to spend on medical issues for your family??
The bottom line on for me in regards to this huge pet industry is that it is simply another symptom of wealthy America. If you've watched the news in the past year or two you would think that we're standing in line for our ration of bread every day. But we're not. We have LOTS of money. If Jennifer and I weren't enjoying the standard of living that we currently do, the issue of pets and money would be a lot simpler.
Let me start by saying, Brad, that I'm very sorry for your loss. There are no "ideal" conditions for putting down a pet. For lack of a more sophisticated word, it sucks, no matter how it goes down. Putting our Andie down was one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life, and that is not an exaggeration.
It's really no surprise that the pet industry is so huge. Unfortunately, a good part of that is because pets, just like cars, have become a status symbol. Not just the pet itself, but the pet accessories. The really outrageous stuff is probably associated with people that have more money than they know what to do with anyway. I doubt that the guy who is working double shifts at 7-11 is worried about an eye lift for his dog or is buying specialty organic fresh prepared meals for his cat. Rich people are excessive in all kinds of things, and pets are no exception. When you have money dripping out of your ears, why not? I still remember the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker scandal when it was discovered (among other things) that they had an air-conditioned dog house for their Saint Bernard. It sounds completely outrageous, but if you had Bil Gates money and loved your dog, wouldn't you build him a posh dog house? What's the difference between a $10K dog house and a $185K car? The answer is that they are both ridiculous in the mind of people that don't have that kind of money.
I'll take a little detour here for a minute and say that even the idea of pure bred dogs and the money associated with them is crazy to me. There are a million perfectly good dogs available for adoption in shelters. I know there are benefits of knowing family history, etc., but wanting a certain breed of dog just to say that you have a certain breed of dog doesn't sit well with me, and in many cases that is the rationale. I will admit here that I'm a bit biased because Jennifer and I managed to get a pound dog that would be in the running for best pound dog in the world. But if we ever decide to get another dog, it will definitely be another adoption. Even for people who are looking for a pure bred, you can find them through breed specific rescues if you are willing to be a little bit patient.
The part of the article that (sadly) made me laugh a little was that 40% of American pets are obese. Big surprise. That's because people are as undisciplined with their pets as they are with their kids! They feed them all kinds of junk food, don't take them out for exercise, and wallah! Fat pet. We're not saints by any means, but we don't give Duke table scraps. He yaks them up anyway, but it also has gone a long way in keeping him extremely healthy.
The hard part is the medical care. In the end, the guiding principle for me has to be quality of life. As you guys know, we are trying to sort out some medical issues with Duke right now. What is making it difficult is that his quality of life is great… none of what is going on is really affecting his day to day life. So, do we have a potentially cancerous growth taken off his leg? It means surgery ($$), discomfort for Duke, AND he's 14 years old. Do we do it? Is it going to do anything for his quality of life? It's difficult when you can't communicate with your pet. Duke can't tell me if his leg hurts (it doesn't seem that it does) or if he wants to have surgery. We've eliminated radiation because of the cost ($7500).
Even if he was 4 or 5 I'm not sure I'd be willing to spend that kind of money, but then again I'm not sure. Duke is family. He really is like a son to us. And when you put it in those terms, how much money are you willing to spend on medical issues for your family??
The bottom line on for me in regards to this huge pet industry is that it is simply another symptom of wealthy America. If you've watched the news in the past year or two you would think that we're standing in line for our ration of bread every day. But we're not. We have LOTS of money. If Jennifer and I weren't enjoying the standard of living that we currently do, the issue of pets and money would be a lot simpler.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
She's a beauty, huh Clark? (recent email dialogue)
From: Brad
To: Marc, Ed
Subject: Why wouldn't we?
This has Baldwin family adventure written all over it…
http://ragbrai.com/forums/topic/ragbraii-bus-for-sale#post-4642
---------------------------------------------------
From: Marc
To: Brad, Ed
Subject: Re: Why wouldn't we?
I don't want to be a wet blanket here, but I will be THAT guy who does have some realistic points to consider...
1) Although the purchase cost is $2500, we have no way of predicting cost of any potential maintenance or modification costs to make it comfortable enough to live in for a week
2) Whoever drives the bus would require a CDL Class C license which is a little more involved then showing up, paying money, and having your picture taken. And I really can't see Big Al ever agreeing to driving a bus across the state of Iowa.
What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------
From: Brad
To: Marc, Ed
Subject: Re: Why wouldn't we?
Like I said...family adventure!!!
------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc
To: Brad, Ed
Subject: Re: Why wouldn't we?
Tax, title, and insurance, storing it when we're not using it... why do I always have to be the level-headed one??
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Brad
To: Marc, Ed
Subject: RE: Why wouldn't we?
Dear Mr. Curmudgeon,
The solution to all these problems is clearly Big Al and Eddie the Balla…
Big Al has got nothing better to do than get his CDL. He’ll do it if I agree to get my hair cut (he hates my hair, making me love it even more!). In addition that might provide some military interrogation relief from you as he may be temporarily distracted. I’d be happy to fund his investment in our cycling comfort by getting his CDL.
Eddie the Balla has an empty lot next to him. It’s a little soggy but nothing a couple hundred bucks worth of gravel couldn’t solve. He’ll pull a couple benjis off the money tree in his backyard and get some gravel on the marshland next to him. Parking spot issue fixed!
We could do a variety of fundraising activities that would be both fun and contribute the financial viability of the venture. I’m thinking stuff like $5 during RAGBRAI week for anyone who wants 3 minutes with a can of spray paint and our “new” ride. We roll that sucker in front of the beer tent at 10pm every night and open the cash register! We could even have tax, title and license paid for before it even leaves Ed’s house if we open this up to Alex and Luke.
Family adventure, this plan is fool proof! Think about it…
Regards,
The Solution Finder
------------------------------------------------------
From: Brad
To: Marc, Ed
Subject: RE: Why wouldn't we?
Ed,
I just spoke with Marc and am excited to report an about face regarding his outlook on this opportunity. I’ll let him fill in the details, but suffice it to say his only concern at this point is that our fundraising venture would likely lead to us drinking all our profits while parked by the beer tent. He might have something there, so we’ll have to work on that one.
Marco why don’t you give Eddie the Balla the specifics of your excitement! Ed you might want to start getting bids on that gravel work. Marc and I agreed a POS bus in your yard…isn’t that the Missouri way?!?!
Family adventure or bust!
Mr. Relentless
Pets and the family unit
Sheila and I struggled over the last few weeks in how to deal with our ailing cat Mooka. Marc and Jennifer are currently dealing with a similar struggle with their puppy Duke. Ed has dealt with the realities of pet ownership recently with Brit. All great examples of a phenomenon relatively unique to American culture: the development of pets as part of the family unit.
In a class I am teaching we recently examined a case on the pet economy based on the linked article in business week. Although this article was written in 2007 and the facts and figures may be aged, the content and talking points are obviously still relevant today. Read and let me know your thoughts.
$41 billion spent annually on pets, WOW!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)