Manosphere Madness

I've never really understood the whole manosphere movement. To me it is bizarre that anyone would be attracted to it. It is like being attracted to idiocy. Of course, I view people who support Trump the same way. But people are attracted to both. Why? Wired has a pretty good article -- The ‘Manosphere’ Isn’t a Movement. It’s a Multibillion-Dollar Grievance Industry.

Many young men are driven to resentment and are financially exploited as influencers sell them classes, pills, and the illusion of clout, a new report reveals.

In “The Grift Economy: How Young Men Are Being Sold Fake Belonging and Fake Wealth Online,” researchers from the digital safety organization Reset Tech and the nonprofit Equimundo map how men are “algorithmically routed into paid communities, unregulated supplements, crypto schemes, and high-ticket ‘coaching’ programs,” which together make up a “multibillion-dollar industry.”

“‘Masculinity’ has become a commercial category that is constructed, curated, and financially incentivized online,” write the authors of the 153-page report.

First, men encounter aspirational self-help content when looking up advice on dating, fitness, or finance. Bad actors then exploit their areas of vulnerability by offering a misleading, grievance-based narrative to explain their frustrations. The paper cites, for example, a verified “business” account on X that used real economic data to falsely claim that the high rate of youth unemployment is only affecting men.

So maybe I get it a little. The attraction of the manosphere is the same attraction that drives women to dieting sites, cnspiracy theorists to ant-vaxing sites, Israelis to anti-Palestinian sites, Palestinians to anti-Israeli sites, and on and on. To be clear it is idiocy but sadly humans are all at least partially idiots and there is always someone who will exploit that to gain money and power. Exactly like family court. 

The Cost Of Hostile Divorces

One consequence of our often inequitable and corrupt family law system is the enduring health cost of a hostile divorce.  No surprise here - I only wish litigants and lawyers who commit unethical and criminal acts during the divorce process would realize upfront the impact of their actions. 

Ending a marriage is often a stressful experience, but the level of hostility between partners can have a lasting impact on their physical and mental well-being. A recent study published in the British Journal of Health Psychology tracked individuals over a ten-year period, revealing that those who experience high-conflict divorces frequently use more medical services both before and after their split. By tracking healthcare patterns, this research suggests that relationship dissolution is not just an isolated event but an extended process that begins taking a toll on health long before the marriage officially ends.

Matt Grant

Well this is interesting. Matt Grant is running for Congress in Missouri and, it seems, is at least partially running on a platform of reducing corruption in family court. 

Children are too often caught in a system that protects insiders instead of kids. Matt will champion the CHILD Protection Act — Corruption Hiding Inside Legal Dockets — and push federal oversight that ties Title IV-D grant money to states that keep their family courts clean.

Just the fact that a candidate, who is also a lawyer, is talking about institutional corruption within the family law system is huge. One small step. 

Will The Take Brothers Be Extradited?

The infamous Tate brothers have been indited in the UK and by law the United States should extradite them. Currently, it appears the Trump Administration will, supposedly, maybe, actually do so. Yeah. 

The Tate brothers, who are dual UK and USA citizens, are huge Trump fans No surprise there. Extraditions can take years. Certainly it will not happen before the midterms and maybe not even before Trump leaves office. 

My prediction: If the republicans have a solid win in the mid-terms, Trump will kill the extrication. If Democrats win, Trump will pardon them just before he leaves office. Time will tell. 

Pick Your Own Judge

Beneath the Black Robe: Bias, Corruption, and the Case for Choosing Judges is an interesting proposal by Richard W. Morris to reduce the level of bias and corruption in the legal system by allowing each litigant  to choose a judge and then those two judges chose a third so that the case is heard by a three judge panel. 

Suppose each party selects one judge. Those two judges select a third to preside. Three independent minds are less likely than one to be overcome by bias, incompetence, or corruption. Better still, litigants gain confidence in a system they helped shape rather than one imposed upon them.

Judges who repeatedly demonstrate poor judgment, bias, or inefficiency would simply stop being selected.

Although I think this would greatly improve justice and equity within the legal system, I suspect the cost as well as institutional resistance would block it from ever being implemented. Well maybe not ever but not for some time. 

The good news is at least corruption and bias is being viewed as a problem although I think Morris underestimates its true extent. 

Richard W. Morris, as an aside, and an interesting bio:

Richard W. Morris, a retired lawyer licensed in the United States Supreme Court, two U.S. states (Arizona and California) and the United Kingdom of England and Wales, a member of Mensa, and a former teacher and adjunct professor in economics. He holds the academic degrees of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (B.S.) with a major in economics, Juris Doctor (J.D.), and Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration (Ph.D.). During his half-century in aviation (airline transport pilot, flight and ground instructor licenses), he flew as pilot-in-command (captain) in some 40 countries on four continents.

Prosecutorial Corruption Masking As Discretion

When I presented extremely strong evidence of fraud upon the court by my ex-wife's attorney to the John Choi's Ramsey County Attorney's office, the reply I got was that lawyers can only commit fraud if they are under oath. Which is ridiculously false. So false the response constituted the crime of obstruction of justice. Yet, like most of the crimes committed by attorneys, such infractions rarely result in punishment. 

It is probably no surprise that the Trump Administration has openly used prosecutorial discretion to act corruptly. Surprisingly, however,  a judge has pushed back on them. 

A U.S. judge ordered the Justice Department on Friday to justify its decision to drop criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, declining to rule immediately on Adani's lawyers' request ‌to dismiss the case.

Brooklyn-based U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said federal prosecutors' May 18 announcement that they would no longer ‌pursue the case, which charged Adani with securities fraud and wire fraud stemming from an alleged bribery scheme, did not sufficiently explain their decision.

I hope such actions bring to light issues of corruption and crime within the justice system. I doubt they will but there is always hope. 

Government Corruption

According to a Brennan Center survey conducted in late April and early May, people know government corruption is a problem. 

The results are striking. More than 9 in 10 voters believe corruption is a big problem across politics and government. Large majorities view corruption as endemic and deeply embedded in government institutions, from the Supreme Court to Congress to the presidency. They are dejected about the fact that scandals continuously go without consequences and shocking revelations fail to produce reform. 

 Margins are overwhelming among Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

What will it take to make real change? Probably a centrist movement whose focus is to solve problems. Unfortunately. people seem to be gravitating to the extremes not the center. Furthermore, corruption seems to only concern people when it is the opposite end of the political spectrum from where they are.