Just so no one will infer narcissism in their growing list of my foibles, I used the lower case of asknod in my title above. Of course, if you search far and wide, I doubt you will find I, personally, have ever used the capitalized version. With that as a preface, I continue.
Because I love humor, and due to my birthday being on the cusp of the Astrological sign of the Celestial “Fool” in April, I placed a humorous post on Face Place. Woe is me. I soon learned that my humor was unappreciated but worse-that I am an unrepentant, out-of-the-closet mysogynist-not to mention arrogant. I was willing to admit I’m rude, crude and socially unattractive-perhaps boorish occasionally. But arrogant? Arrruhhh?
I had the audacity to inject humor into the Supreme Court brouhaha. This brings up an important correlation to VA law in my mind. Far too frequently we are tarred and feathered by a doctor, therapist or Kumbaya counselor at one of those PTSD circle-jerks who write down ( or record) everything we say. I’ve had a few Vets say “Shoodoggies. I never said that .” only to find later that a doctor put the words in their mouth. You find this more frequently in Hepatitis C cases of old. Back in the day, the only way you could get HCV (or HBV for that matter), in the eyes of a medical professional, was to engage in some form of willful misconduct. If you didn’t confess your transgression outright, they felt obligated to insinuate it by reference. I have no idea how many lost on that point but I’m convinced it was in the thousands before medical knowledge set it aright.
Which brings us to a teenage boy who was drunk and assaulted a teenage girl… allegedly. No witnesses, no corroboration, no details or dates; nothing but a base insinuation of malfeasance at the eleventh hour and the 59th minute of an in-depth assessment of a man’s suitability for elective office and moral fibre. In law, this is called hearsay. Judge Judy frowns on it as do I. If you are to be accused, it behooves the accuser to face the accused and vice versa. Using anonymity to hide behind (when this first surfaced) is antithetical to democracy. Worse, as I pointed out in my humorous post, was the fact that the powers that be, in this case a Senator from California, sat on this information for months and sprang it only to delay the fait accompli of his nomination before the Judiciary Committee and a vote in the Senate. How well I remember the shoe firmly ensconced on the other foot when someone, in a rush to pass a statute, opined ” We have to pass it in order to find out what’s in it.”
We call this facet of law credibility. If you, Johnny Vet, filed for Hep C and cited dirty jetguns, you might have lost. But, if you then filed a NOD and began piling on additional risks such as haircuts with a straight razor from the blue juice jar behind the barber, reusing syringes on multiple recipients of inoculations or being exposed to the blood of others on the floor of the Huey while evacuating severely wounded 11 Bravos in the dustoff you flew in every day, you would begin to sound desperate. VA would poke big holes in your story and say you never reported to sick call that you got another’s blood on yourself. Of course, why would you? VA seems to think we regularly reported to sick call for a splinter or a hangnail. Internal consistency and continuity of your recollections would be assailed as incongruous and disjointed. I’ve had a DRO baldly state that no one could possibly remember what ship they served on 48 years ago. Maybe, but the DD 214 doesn’t forget.
The gist of my humor? I quote:
This just in from Senator Diane Feinstein. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was exposed as a bedwetter when he was 7 years old. He was also accused of sexually inappropriate behavior toward a fellow kindergartner with unwanted amorous advances. New York Times points to VP Mike Pence as the anonymous source. News and film at 6 and a tell-all interview with the Senator.
In light of the latest revelation (again unsubstantiated) that he waved Winky in front a young lady, again, the (in this case) inebriated, offended individual can’t even recall it herself-relying instead on someone else’s hearsay recollections. He may or may not have waved the organ. That is immaterial. What is material is substantiation of the accusation. If the folks present have no recollection of it, it’s safe to say there is a difference of opinion. All I would ask is whether the statute of limitations has expired or why the FBI would be asked to investigate a purported 36 year-old misdemeanor that did not cross a state line.
The reason I’m never going to run for a political office is CNN will reveal ten or eleven of my classmates and I jointly flashed a “bus moon” to the passersby in Leominster, Massachusetts on the way to Logan International whilst traveling on Thanksgiving vacation on 1968. I suppose there might have been a woman amidst the crowd so I would be ipso facto, a misogynist even back then.
In VA law, there is a heightened responsibility to assist the Veteran, to obtain all evidence possible to corroborate the alleged injury/disease and to give him the benefit of the doubt if the evidence is in equipoise. What would you do if the Veterans Law Judge said “I am denying the claim for HCV because all male Veterans are known to be consummate liars and scalawags by their very nature.”? Or, conversely, “I am denying this claim because the Veteran has not substantiated her claim that she was sexually attacked and raped.” Conclusions of law must be predicated on fact- but yes, sometimes on lay testimony alone such as a combat Vet. Never, in American jurisprudence, is it a given that a man is guilty merely because he is a man. That is like saying all men are white supremacists merely because they are white.
38 CFR §3.304(f)(5) now permits a woman Veteran a modicum of belief in her recitation of a sexual assault as does (f)(4) for PTSD claimants. While these changes to the regulation liberalize the requirements, they do not absolve you of presenting some evidence. Kahana v Shinseki held that absence of evidence is not negative evidence; so, too, the instant case. The candidate for investiture at the Supreme Court cannot produce evidence he is not guilty– ergo, he is.
Which brings us to the allegation I am less than pure as the driven snow for even suggesting that the dearth of evidence for the Supreme Court nomination is proof positive of my misogynistic bent. Oddly, the poster, Mrs. Karen Stern, has seen fit to inform me I am misogynistic and arrogant for nothing more than my off-color satire.
“A, many of your posts have a misogynistic twist. Stop that, please.”
“Arrogance is not a virtue, Alex.”
“You are lecturing the wrong person [about humor].
And the other gentleman (Don Shepherd) on the subject of believing women at Face(book) value”let’s give women there [sic] rightful say as there are more of them than men.”
I stand convicted on Face Place.
I do like a good joke and some of those I publish here are from you, my readers. That doesn’t condemn me of misogyny outright. I like to share. That’s why they have that button on In Your FaceBook, isn’t it? Hey, weren’t we taught early on in Kindergarten to share and share alike? If my humor offendeth thee, pluck it out.
I would think any one of you would have told me I was arrogant far earlier were it true. To date, the only one accusing me besides the Gang of Three on Face Magazine was that jackwad DRO in Jackson Mississippi (Terri Green) who admonished me to ”curb my arrogance, focus less on 38 CFR and more on the M 21 for legal cites”. Concurrently, if I appear misogynistic, please tell me what gave any of you the impression. I am amenable to bettering myself if only I know my deficiencies and shortcomings. I discussed it with Cupcake and she agrees I’m arrogant-but only toward VSOs. The rest of the time I stand convicted of Casper Milquetoastism. It’s hard to discern arrogance because one rarely sees his own forest for the trees.
Humor can be cruel only when aimed at those who refuse to see humor- i.e. a)they don’t agree so they’re offended; or b) the gods forbid, they’re too dense to get it. As one gal commented on that thread, “When 1 [sic] reverts to insults then they have lost the argument & there is no reason to continue.” Even though it appears the insinuation was directed toward me, I seconded the sentiments as I don’t think I insulted anyone. To me, it appeared more akin to “I Posted. I joked. I was insulted.” The only humor I derived from the post was a) how artfully Ms. Stern turned the discussion around to her own experiences personally; b) introducing the subjects of Russia and; c) segueing into how our not-so-illustrious President suddenly became inextricably intertwined with the diatribe.
In closing, I will henceforth strive to continue my base evil tendencies to include humor here and stick to VA law. Politics, apparently, are a dry hole (to some) for humor anyway.