No rape? No winners.

On January 7, 2016, an absolutely horrific story hit the wire. An 18 year old girl was gang raped by five teenagers in a Brownsville (Brooklyn) playground. Some initial reports indicated she was walking near the playground with a male friend. It turned out that the man she was with was her father. The five boys accused of the crime had a gun and threatened him. The man ran to a nearby store begging for help, but no one assisted. By the time he was able to call the police, the woman had been gang raped repeatedly, and all five boys had fled the scene.

Everyone reacted immediately. Two of the suspects' parents were the ones who turned their sons in. Eventually all five suspects were identified by the press: their names and photos were circulated widely, despite the fact that all five of the suspects were minors, ranging in age from 14 to 17. They were arrested and charged as adults.

The immediate reaction was understandable. People were shocked and outraged at the brutal nature of the reported crimes. Everyone from Mayor Bill de Blasio to Commissioner Bill Bratton to local community leaders to Twitter and Facebook erupted. Most of the reaction was in support of the girl who had been attacked, and how these kinds of attacks must be prevented.

I, myself, remember reacting to the story. I too was horrified at the brutality of the attack. But I also believe that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I remember well a similar situation many years ago when five teenagers were accused of gang raping a woman in Central Park. They were coerced and tricked into confessing and rushed through legal proceedings. They too, despite their ages, were tried as adults and convicted. And they were innocent. Known collectively as the Central Park Five, they are a tragic example of what happens when “we” jump to conclusions and rush to judgment.

Over the next couple of weeks, additional details were quietly coming out. The girl and her father weren't walking near the playground as originally reported. They were actually (allegedly) having sex when the five teens approached them. The father left, and the girl consented to sex with all five boys. The girl allegedly recanted her story of being raped. Despite the report of a gun, the police were unable to find a gun on any of the suspects or in their homes. There was allegedly video taken with a cell phone, showing the girl with the suspects before the alleged attack, as well as showing her having consensual sex with all five boys.

Today, the Brooklyn District Attorney announced that all charges have been dropped against all five boys. Rationale for the action included a lack of evidence, the girl's recantation of the allegations of forced sexual contact and her refusal to cooperate with the investigation. In addition, an investigation into the alleged sexual contact with her father was dropped because she refused cooperation with police in that matter, too. Defense attorneys, of course, retain that charges were dropped because their clients are INNOCENT, not because of a lack of evidence and lack of a participating complainant. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160224/brownsville/rape-charges-dropped-against-5-teens-accused-of-attack-brownsville-park

No one “wins” here. These five boys escaped the fate of the Central Park Five boys. They didn't have to serve a single day of a prison sentence. They did not have to register on any sex offender list. But they aren't unscathed either. Their names and faces are now associated with a heinous sex attack allegation. For the rest of their lives, when their names are typed into a Google search, THIS will come up. At 14, 15 and 17 years of age, when they apply for college or a job or an apartment, THIS will come up. This can follow them for the rest. of. their. Lives.

The girl who was allegedly attacked doesn't win. Whether her behavior was consensual or not, she was most definitely sexually abused. Sex with her father? That was absolutely abuse! I can't help but wonder when it started... Which adult in her life, who was supposed to take care of her, put her on this path of abuse? How much abuse had she already endured that she would have sex with her father, and then let these five boys line up to take turns? How much more abuse will she endure before she hits rock bottom? Because no matter what may happen in the future, with or without her consent, she has a label attached to her.

And women who are sexually assaulted might be the biggest losers of all. As it is, even under the best of circumstances (if you can call them that), when a woman says that she was sexually assaulted, there are a lot of people who roll their eyes and dismiss her allegation as a lie. They will say that she had sex with her attacker, and then either changed her mind or he didn't call her and now she's “crying rape”. She will have every aspect of her life looked at under a microscope. How does she dress? How many dates does she go on? How many men has she been intimate with... ever? In her whole life? That many? My God, what a whore! Did she have any alcohol? Was she dancing provocatively with him? Flirting? Did she really say no?

Every single time a sexual assault is alleged, when no such attack took place, it makes it that much harder for the next woman who is actually assaulted to come forward. It gives people that much more “reason” to question the next woman who says she was forced. To not believe her. To assume she's lying. To side against her.

I am relieved that if these young men did not force this girl to engage in sexual activity, that they will not suffer the same fate as the Central Park Five and any other man who has been falsely accused and convicted of sexual assault. But there are no winners here. 

10 Reasons Not To Leave New York City, Debunked!

I love NYC. I really love NYC. Even on the days when I hate it, I love it. I love it so much that after spending all of 5 days here in 2007, I immediately went home to Green Bay, pounded the virtual pavement until I found a job, put in my notice at work and to my landlord, packed 2 suitcases, bought a laptop and moved here. I didn’t know a soul. I relied on craigslist to find housing. It was sink or swim, and I was bound and determined to swim. And 8 years later, I’m still here.

But I gotta be real… there are days when I think I’ve had enough, and give serious consideration to leaving this bedlam that people think is actually "reality". Especially when I read these ridiculous lists of why no one in NYC ever needs to go anywhere, ever (http://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/ten-reasons-not-to-leave-new-york-ever). For every BS reason you have to stay, I can give you reasons to go.

1. You’ll need a car
Not necessarily. NYC is not the ONLY city in the US, let alone the world, with functional public transportation. And speaking of functional, when is the last time anyone had a full day of commuting and running errands where there weren’t service disruptions, delays and outright fuckery, courtesy of the MTA?  

2. Bagels will be severely disappointing
As with pizza, REAL bagels are getting harder and harder to find, depending where you live and/or work. People say they’ll pay more for a good slice or a great bagel, but if it’s more than $1 or 2 (for just the bagel), they are griping about it. As a result, most of the bodegas have resorted to a smaller, crappier, cardboard-tasting bagel wanna-be, that is equivalent to the Lender's bagel you can get in the freezer aisle at most supermarkets... anywhere.

3. 24-hour food to your doorstep
Again, you’re talking about a very limited piece of geography within Manhattan. If you’re living in the Bronx or further out in Brooklyn (which you might be if you want to be able to actually afford rent), you’ll be lucky to have a handful of options on Seamless, and even those options are typically crappy Chinese food or crappy pizza places. One might think that a more lean offering for food delivery would prompt you to stay home and cook. The only thing is, is that Peapod grocery delivery service, nor Fresh Direct, will deliver to you. The selection for supermarkets in these areas is awful at best. Good luck finding decent fresh meat and produce. In MOST areas, if you want good food, you’re gonna need to get dressed and go get it and if you want decent groceries, you're going to need to travel to get that as well.

4. The summer
If you like stifling hot and disgustingly humid, yeah, you will love summer. But there’s even more people jammed into the City with tourists, huge concert events/festivals, etc. All the cars and traffic (because despite “not needing a car” according to #1, there’s millions of cars and trucks and buses everywhere all the time). Motorcycle clubs galore go revving up and down streets at all hours of the day and night. And who can forget the stench of rotting garbage every single day, no matter where you go.

5. Your dating pool will shrink dramatically
Here’s a newsflash: yes there’s millions of people in NYC but they are the same kind of people you find anywhere, only worse. If you’re someone who’s of the belief that the Man should “take care of things” (i.e., pay for everything on dates plus help the woman with her rent or utilities or groceries or whatever), good luck. The number of men who can actually afford that shit is very small and really picky about who they’ll date (you better be, or look like you could be, a model). If you’re more independent and don’t have a problem picking up the tab (from time to time), get ready to be a Sugar Mama because dudes get used to that mad quick. Dating will turn into either chilling at your place or you footing the bill if you want to go out. That’s not to say there aren’t successful dating experiences. But with the bigger pool of possibilities comes the reality of having to wade through more shit to find what you’re looking for. And still having a very real possibility of “settling” because the search has exhausted you.

6. All the entertainment you could ever want
Ok, so this one is really on point. I can’t lie, and don’t even what to. THIS is, in all honesty, what probably still keeps me from washing my hands of NYC and moving on. It doesn’t matter what you find entertaining, NYC has it. Every day. Without fail. All you have to do is go. The problem? Of course, it’s the price tag. After paying rent and bills and making sure you have food and toilet paper, there’s usually not a lot left to relegate to your entertainment fund. So even though there’s a zillion (literally) things you’ll want to do, you very likely won’t be able to afford to do them. So although this is totally true…. in the end, it’s more of a tease since the entertainment options are there and you can’t take advantage.

7. You’ll actually have to plan how you’ll get home from a night out
Please. Uber and Lyft has made transportation extremely accessible. And unless you’re in Mayberry, you can always call a cab. You will have to call, though, because most cities do not pick of fares off the street. PLUS, let’s go back to #1. Everyone has a car. And as I am aging, going out and getting hammered isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. A lot of bars will let a Designated Driver drink non-alcoholic beverages at no cost, which in my circles, means there’s a fight to be the DD.  Getting home? No problem.

8. The job market might be cutthroat here, but at least there are options
Where? You are mostly as trapped here as you are anywhere. Why? Because no one is looking to take a pay cut… ever. Hate your industry and want to reinvent yourself? You can ABSOLUTELY do that here. But, at least in the short term, that’s going to mean taking a pay cut from whatever you’re doing now. If you have rent, or kids, or both, that’s not always possible.

9. The food just won’t taste as good
Such bullshit. Yes, there are a lot of great dining options here. All the famous chefs want to add NYC as a notch on their belts. But let’s again be honest. The average Joe (or Jane) can’t afford $500 on a dinner, on a regular basis. And even if we could, to think that there are not some really fantastic, exciting and delicious culinary offerings all over the country, all over the world is just closed-minded idiocy.

10. Zombies!
Um… yeah. Try walking through Times Square or Grand Central or Central Park or 5^th Ave or any host of areas and you will find that you have to weave your way through an obstacle course of zombies who are completely oblivious to anything other than their phone/tablet/gaming device.

With all that said, let someone come up with a list of 10 reasons to leave NYC and never return, and I will shred that list too. At the end of the day, NYC is like that boyfriend (or girlfriend) that you love and hate all at the same time. GOD, you want to break up, once and for all, and kick that bum to the curb. And just when you have your boots on and you’re ready to do it, something happens and you fall in love all over again. Ahhhh, New York City... where love and hate collide.

Scarier than Donald Trump

When Donald Trump first announced his intention to seek the nomination of the Republican party for the office of the President of the United States, I thought it was a joke. Who could actually take him as a serious candidate? Then, I had to step back and assess the situation. At that time, it was widely believed that Jeb Bush was the front runner for the nomination. There is still a little (although I can't believe HOW little) bit of stink on the Bush name due to George W.'s tenure as POTUS. I dismissed Trump as a distraction to benefit Jeb's campaign. I mean, in comparison to Trump, wouldn't Jeb be the more reasonable choice?

Then, the GOP turned into a straight up circus, with countless clowns tossing their big, red noses into the mix. And although the messages behind both individual and collective are clearly anti-Obama, it's more than that. The GOP as a whole looks and sounds like Hitler's Nazis. From the assertion that America can be “great again” if we slam the doors shut on refugees, and build walls to keep new immigrants out, and deporting immigrants already here (at least the ones we don't imprison); from quietly stripping away voting rights from the poor and the non-Caucasian segments of society to building our military invasion and occupation across the globe. This is a horrifying time.

And although my initial belief that Trump was meant to be a distraction to clear the way for Jeb was apparently wrong, he is a distraction that is quietly clearing the way for Ted Cruz. And this is more frightening than I think anyone realizes. Let's take a look at Ted Cruz:

• Staunchly anti-abortion. Though not the most extreme of the GOP hopefuls, Cruz at least believes that an abortion could be allowed in the event that the mother's life is at risk. I guess a woman, relegated back into dirty alleys and filthy hotel rooms being scraped out by whatever unsanitary tool is handy, I guess that doesn't equate to putting her life at risk.
• Despite his assertion that he's “pro-life”, Cruz is a big fan of capital punishment. He was actually quoted in Politico that he “believe(s) the death penalty is a recognition of the preciousness of human life.” Um....
• In line with his clear appreciation for the sanctity of life, Cruz is, of course, pro-gun and against anything that even sounds like gun control AND he wants to repeal Obamacare, stripping access to health insurance away from millions.

And honestly, that's not even the scariest part. Cruz is the candidate of hate and intolerance. He blames immigrants, minority groups and Muslims for everything he sees as “wrong” in America. Whereas we cannot label all gun owners as a lot of violent murders, yet Cruz has no problem whatsoever labeling all Syrian refugees and Muslims as terrorists. With everything that's going on in the world today, it's understandable that people are afraid. A true leader won't use people's fears against them. He would bring people together, unite us instead of tearing us apart and pitting us against each other. Instead of alienating us from one another, based on differences that in the grand scheme of things don't matter, a true leader will lead with courage.

Ted Cruz is the face of a monster. Be afraid, fellow Americans... be very afraid.

Greg Hardy... Even though it's right, it's wrong

Ever since the video of Ray Rice knocking out his then-fiance, followed quickly by Adrian Peterson and the discipline of his son, domestic violence has been a topic of conversation in the NFL. Ray Rice lost his career as a result of his actions and Peterson lost nearly a full season. Most recently, it's Greg Hardy.

Hardy's case is disturbing, to say the least. He was found guilty of assault and “communicating threats” but somehow he was able to set aside the conviction and opt for a trial jury. This after the victim courageously testified against her attacker, detailing the beating, the choking, the guns. Not surprisingly, and as it happens in too many cases of domestic abuse, she stopped cooperating with the prosecution and charges were dropped. Nonetheless, Hardy had to serve an NFL-imposed suspension.

During his suspension, he was signed to a new contract with the Dallas Cowboys. Many were openly critical of the move by Jerry Jones, but Jerry assured everyone that Hardy was deserving of a second chance, knew he had done wrong and had learned from his mistakes. Immediately upon his return to the Cowboys, following his suspension, he talked big about coming out “guns blazing” and making really creepy remarks about Tom Brady's wife. People everywhere, except Dallas, were outraged.

Now the photos of the woman he assaulted last year have been made public. People everywhere are even further outraged. Hardy's peers, across the league, are openly condemning him. On ESPN's “NFL Countdown” show that aired on November 8^th, reporter Wendi Nix went on the attack (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wendi-nix-greg-hardy_563f87ede4b0411d307161a3). One of the comments that she made really infuriated me, and it made me think about a lot of the commentary and rhetoric being thrown around by all the experts. The statement was that people didn't need to see the pictures to know what happened.

BULLSHIT. People are acting like Ray Rice and Greg Hardy are the first and second pro football players to ever hit their girlfriends. The conversation went on to say that Hardy should have had to earn the second chance he was given by the Cowboys. Show some regret, contrition. Show that he's changed his ways. BULLSHIT. Ray Rice did all the things that people say Hardy should have done in order to get a second chance. Where is Rice's second chance? He came out immediately very apologetic, taking full responsibility for his actions, pursuing anger management counseling, etc. It wasn't enough. But then again, he was approaching the end of his career, with his best days behind him. In comparison, Greg Hardy is 27 years old and in his prime. If Rice had a few good, dominating years on the field left in him, you'd see him in someone's uniform.

The truth of the matter is that the NFL is not outraged by the violence. If they were, incidents like Janay Rice and the cocktail waitress who had the snot kicked out of her by Hardy wouldn't have been needed in order to exact change. The only reason that the NFL is taking a hard stand against domestic violence is because the videos and the pictures were public, and it's the public who is demanding the outrage.

And so to all those who are acting so shocked and horrified at Greg Hardy and are sitting in judgment of him, I say this: Get off your high horse and stop being such hypocrites. Unless and until every person involved in the NFL, from coaches and owners and players to journalists and talking heads, current and former and future, unless and until a TRUE Zero Tolerance policy is embraced, you are a part of the problem.  

Obamacare... Next Steps

Obamacare transformed the landscape of the health insurance market for individuals. It also set standards for required/mandated services that all health plans (individual and group) must cover. The demand for full-coverage preventive care services is very women-centric and, to be honest, needs to be updated to include additional coverage for men's health services. In addition, the Unites States Preventive Services Task Force, the agency that sets the parameters for the preventive services that are covered, needs to consider additional variables. For example, for screening colonoscopies, the age parameters are set to allow beginning at age 50. However, African Americans are at a higher risk, and should be allowed to begin screening at age 45.

But simply making insurance more available to individuals is not enough. First and foremost, Obamacare is slang for the Affordable Care Act. Yet, for many, the individual plans are not affordable at all. A single person living in NYC, making $50,000 a year, does not qualify for a subsidy. He or she has to absorb the full cost of their health plan.

Looking at one of the bigger insurance carriers offering insurance in the NYC area (Empire BlueCross BlueShield), the cheapest plan offered has a monthly price tag of $435.20 per month, a deductible of $5,850.00 and an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,850.00 per year. What this means is that if you are single and need to actually use your insurance, you can expect to pay up to $12,072.40 for health services each year, with NO financial assistance. Over 20% of your gross salary. And if you're single in NYC, you can expect to lose at least 28% of your paycheck to taxes.

So... your $50,000 income feels more like $36,000, which means that $12,000 for insurance and healthcare services is actually more like 1/3 of your income. And you haven't paid a penny in rent, or utilities, or food or clothing or your Metrocard.

On top of that, Empire has many different network options, however all of their ACA plans are linked exclusively to their Pathways network. Pathways includes a fraction of the number of providers that their more robust PPO networks offer. The reimbursement to Pathways providers is so low that the majority of doctors and hospitals will not join. So I can't help but wonder why a plan that pays its providers so little AND has such a high deductible is also so ridiculously overpriced?

It's not just Empire though. Most insurance carriers have various network options for providers. Joining one network does not mean that the provider is in-network for all of their products. And for all carriers, those who are purchasing insurance off of the exchange (Obamacare plans), are stuck with very narrow networks of providers. And to make things even more difficult for consumers, ALL marketplace plans are either HMO plans or EPO plans, which means that there are NO out-of-network benefits.

And for those of us who are lucky enough to have employer-provided health insurance, we're not safe from these issues either. Insurance has always been divided into 3 groups: large group (50+), small group (2-50) and individual. Large groups are being redefined as groups of 100 enrollees or more. Small group is now considered 2-100 enrollees. Many of the small group plans offered are very similar to the individual plans, meaning no out-of-network benefits and the narrow networks.

It is my belief that as long as health insurance is part of the for-profit industry, HEALTH is not a major consideration, and we the consumers will always be on the losing end. Profits will continue to be the driving force and people will continue to be a second thought. There needs to be sweeping changes to the healthcare industry as a whole. Not just to insurance companies, but to pharmaceutical companies and to healthcare providers as well. Each carrier has ONE network. Either a doctor/hospital/provider is in or out. And reimbursement should be based on Medicare/Medicaid rates. It is ridiculous for the federal government to assign a fiduciary value to a service, yet allow providers to bill 20, 30 or more times that value to commercial insurers and to private pay patients. And we as consumers need to be more invested and involved in our WELLNESS rather than seeking out care only when we're sick. There has to be a concerted effort on all fronts, but we can fix this healthcare industry crisis.  

Get OUT

There was a time when sports reporting was a Man's world. Whether the athletes being covered were male or female, team sports or individuals, the reporters were men and the people running the video cameras were men. Back in those days, interviews were routinely conducted in the men's locker rooms as well as organized press conferences. Women athletes were interviewed exclusively in a press conference setting.

As women have made significant progress in the world of sports reporting (though we have a long way to go!), there has been ongoing controversy regarding women's presence in men's locker rooms. The men are in various degrees of undress, going to and coming from the showers, getting dressed. Some of the men purposely use varying degrees of their own nudity to try to intimidate, humiliate and otherwise harass women reporters. Sports Illustrated recently ran an in-depth article regarding the sexual harassment female reporters have to deal with on a daily basis (SI article). 

Following the Cincinnati Bengals game on 10/18/15, the NFL Network was interviewing a defensive player (Adam Jones) and "inadvertently" showed several players, naked. Teammate Andrew Whitworth is speaking out, saying 'You can’t judge us off who we will and won’t accept into our locker room and then say all these things we have to do, but then also put us in a situation where every single day I have to change clothes and be naked or not in front of media. It’s just not right. There’s no office, there’s no other situation in America where you have to do that. It’s dated, it’s old and it needs to change.' 

On the one hand, it's a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. After using the very tool that was so effective in marginalizing female reporters for so long, they are now claiming to be victims of their own creations. Be that as it may, Mr. Whitworth is right.

Can you imagine the outcry (rightly so) if reporters bombarded the locker room of the USA's female soccer team, or the locker room of a WNBA team? Asking questions as a dozen or so women walked around naked, or wrapped in a towel? It IS ridiculous. And a problem that is easily solved.

There is no reason for immediate, post-game locker room interviews. 99% of the questions asked in those interviews are stupid anyways. I mean really.... asking a player how he feels after blowing a lead and losing a game. Is anyone really surprised that he is upset? I mean, come on. 

There's really no reason that a press conference setting cannot be used to field any questions. Of course with "big team" sports, like football, it's ridiculous to think that +60 players and coaches would wait around for their turn, so have a separate receiving room that players and coaches walk through, after they've showered, to meet the press before leaving the arena. The star players, the ones who make the plays and the leaders of the team, they already give press conferences anyway. There really is no reason, whatsoever, to have reporters and cameras in the locker rooms of male or female athletes.

Another NBA Player Accused of Rape

We've all seen the headlines. Chicago Bulls superstar Derrick Rose is being accused by an ex-girlfriend of drugging her and in tandem with 2 friends, gang raping her. And there's public reaction, of course, in which people are jumping to Rose's defense because the alleged incident happened so long ago, and the woman is just a trick trying to get paid.The public reaction has me feeling some kind of way.

Let me say this:  I BELIEVE THIS WOMAN. I am choosing, going forward, to believe ALL women who report being assaulted. When the Bill Cosby scandal started coming to light, I questioned the motives of all of those women, waiting so long, etc. And look how that turned out. I myself have a history. How can I not believe these women? I was wrong to question them, and I have vowed not to make that same mistake. I believe her.

BUT... at the same time, women who are attacked, assaulted, raped... if we want to stop being called liars who are just after money, we have to stop going after money. This woman, who alleges that she was drugged and gang raped 2 years ago, is pursuing a civil case against Derrick Rose. She states she did not come forward at the time of the incident before because she was ashamed, embarrassed, and was afraid at how her conservative family might react. All very understandable. We as a society tend to not believe a victim when she accuses Joe Q. Public. When the accusation is leveled at a celebrity... she has to be a liar! And even when we acquiesce that an assault occurred, we blame the victim for her attack.

If I am being honest, though, where I have an issue is with her decision to pursue a civil suit (i.e., money) without filing criminal charges and pursuing a criminal case (i.e., justice). The statute of limitations for forcible rape, in California, is 6 years. Since the incident occurred 2 years ago, she’s well within the time frame to report and file. She says that a friend helped her escape Rose’s house, where he and his friends initially tried to assault her. This friend is a corroborating witness. I understand that rape cases, under the best of circumstances, are difficult to prosecute. But just because it’s hard, does that mean we don’t even try? My reaction would be different if she tried to pursue justice, was denied, and her only option is to proceed civilly. It's bypassing justice and going directly down the money path that makes me uneasy.

Instead, she’s filed a civil case against an NBA star with boatloads of money. When they reach an out-of-court settlement, she will have money and he will move on with his life. No criminal settlement on his part where, if he’s guilty, he will have a criminal record and most importantly, have to register as a sex offender. This will get swept under the rug as another whore who got paid for sex.

And on the opposite side of the issue... what if Rose really is innocent of these charges? What if she's a bitter ex who's trying to exact a little revenge for being dumped? What if she liked the lifestyle of being Rose's girlfriend and is trying to get a piece of that back? When Rose settles this suit, we will, as we always do, assume that the settlement is an admission of guilt.