Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Holder wants to convict the innocent

I have often complained that people do not believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty anymore. An example is how the Obama administration has forced colleges, including Stanford, Harvard, and MIT.

Now US Attorney General Eric Holder wants national laws that make white males presumed guilty:
Holder told POLITICO that between now and his departure, probably in early March when the Senate is expected to confirm Loretta Lynch as his successor, he will call for a lower standard of proof for civil rights crimes. Such a change would make it easier for the federal government to bring charges in the case of a future Ferguson or Trayvon Martin.

“I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the standard of proof that has to be met before federal involvement is appropriate, and that’s something that I am going to be talking about before I leave office,” Holder, 64, said.

The attorney general’s comments appeared to be aimed partly at preparing the country for the possibility that no federal charges would be brought in the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., last summer. Holder said the inquiry would be completed when he left office, expected around the second week of March.

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that the Martin investigation had been closed, with “insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges” against George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch coordinator who shot the unarmed black teenager to death back in 2012.
It is very strange how Barack Obama, and news media run by ykw like the NY Times, have relentlessly attempted to racialize the Trayvon and Ferguson events. In both cases, the eyewitnesses, physical evidence, and everything else have proved that the shootings were 100% necessary and justified. The blacks who died were vicious murderous criminals who deserved to die. These were the kind of blacks who got lynched in the old South.

I am sure that there are cases of unjustified shootings. And yet Obama and the Democrat Party choose these cases to make an issue about, not the others. They are effectively saying:
We are the hate-white-males party. We stand with black thugs who try to murder white cops and hispanic neighborhood watchmen. And if you oppose the black thugs, then the feds will do everything to destroy you, whether you are guilty of anything or not.
Many people thought that electing Barack Obama would end a lot of racial antagonism in the USA. The result has been the opposite.

The feds could not make a case against the Wilson shooting, but it is creating other charges:
Blacks make up 67 percent of the population in Ferguson. But they make up 85 percent of people subject to vehicle stops and 93 percent of those arrested. ...

Blacks were 68 percent less likely to have cases dismissed by Ferguson municipal judges and disproportionately likely to be subject to arrest warrants. From October 2012 to October 2014, 96 percent of people arrested in traffic stops solely for an outstanding warrant were black.

Blacks accounted for 95 percent of jaywalking charges, 94 percent of failure-to-comply charges and 92 percent of all disturbing-the-peace charges.
Maybe the blacks are the one who are distubing the peace. They were certainly the ones rioting and burning buildings.

Supposedly this is the smoking gun:
The investigators found evidence of racist jokes being sent around by Ferguson police and court officials. One November 2008 email read in part that President Barack Obama wouldn't likely be President for long because "what black man holds a steady job for four years."

Another jokes that made the rounds on Ferguson government email in May 2011 said: "An African American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $3,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from. The hospital said: 'Crimestoppers.'"
Holding a racial stereotype could be explained by an irrational racial animus, or it could be explained by a reflection of reality. If the case goes to trial, the feds should have to prove whether the impressions of black crime are accurate or not.

There is also a private lawsuit against Ferguson:
They allege that the cities have created an unconstitutional modern-day debtors’ prison, putting impoverished people behind bars in overcrowded, unlawful and unsanitary conditions with walls streaked with dirt, mucus and feces. ...

The purpose of the tickets and jailings, the lawsuits suggest, has been largely financial: to raise revenue to keep these tiny St. Louis County municipalities afloat.
I am against debtors prison, so I might be against Ferguson on this issue. But I am skeptical that a debtors prison raises revenue, so these charges may be exaggerated.

Ferguson was 99% white in 1970. The current mostly-black population moved in during the last 25 years. If the city is really so racist, why are all the blacks moving in?

I trust how people vote with their feet, over how some race-baiting President desperately paints a picture to generate racial hostility. Maybe the peaceful law-abiding blacks in Ferguson like the way the cops are tough on the troublemakers.

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Indiana may allow baby boxes

A lot of people presume that new moms only want the best for their babies. So why do some of them abandon them in thw woods?

Indiana brings back a medieval custom of abandoning babies in baby boxes. This whole article is sick. There is no mention of dads.

AP reports:
On the outside, the metal box looks like an oversized bread container. But what's inside could save an abandoned newborn's life.

The box is actually a newborn incubator, or baby box, and it could be showing up soon at Indiana hospitals, fire stations, churches and selected nonprofits under legislation that would give mothers in crisis a way to surrender their children safely and anonymously.

Indiana could be the first state to allow use of the baby boxes on a broad scale to prevent dangerous abandonments of infants if the bill, which unanimously passed the House this week, clears the state Senate. Republican state Rep. Casey Cox and child-safety advocates say they're unaware of any other states that have considered the issue at the level Indiana has.

Cox says his bill is a natural progression of the "safe haven" laws that exist in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Those give parents a legal way to surrender newborns at hospitals, police stations and other facilities without fear of prosecution so long as the child hasn't been harmed.

Many children, however, never make it that far. Dawn Geras, president of the Save the Abandoned Babies Foundation in Chicago, said safe haven laws have resulted in more than 2,800 safe surrenders since 1999. But more than 1,400 other children have been found illegally abandoned, nearly two-thirds of whom died.

Cox said his proposal draws on a centuries-old concept to help "those children that are left in the woods, those children that are abandoned in dangerous places."

Baby boxes, known in some countries as baby hatches or angel cradles, originated in medieval times, when convents were equipped with revolving doors known as "foundling wheels." Unwanted infants were placed in compartments in the doors, which were then rotated to get the infant inside.

Hundreds of children have been surrendered in modern-day versions in place in Europe and Asia. The devices are even the subject of a new documentary titled "The Drop Box," which chronicles the efforts of a pastor in Seoul, South Korea, to address child abandonment. ...

Some baby hatches in China have been so overwhelmed by abandonments in recent years that local officials have restricted their use or closed them.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has called for a ban on the boxes in Europe and has urged countries to provide family planning and other support to address the root causes of abandonments, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Throssell. ...

The boxes also would include a silent alarm that mothers could activate themselves by pushing a button.

"We're giving her the power to do what's right," Kelsey said. "We're hoping that these girls know that once they push that button, their baby will be saved."
The article does mention "parents" surrendering a baby, but this is all about moms, not dads.

The mom and dad never jointly decide to abandon a baby. If they do not want the baby, they just give it up for adoption. Abandonment occurs when the mom wants to get rid of the baby without the dad's knowledge or approval.

The Democrat-feminist-Roe.v.Wade dogma is that a pregnant woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion, at her sole discretion, thru-out the 9 months pregnancy. And laws like the above give her the sole right to dispose of the baby after birth.

Reasonable people can disagree about these issues, and I am not sure what is best. I am just pointing out how extreme the current law is.

If the mom can disclaim responsibility for a baby, then the dad should be able to also. If the mom does not want the baby, the dad should have the option to take it before it is adopted. Why are we catering to the whims of moms who are likely baby-killers? Who ever thought that it was a good idea to give the moms 100% of the say over such matters, and the dads 0%? These baby boxes are an extreme form of indulging narcissistic crazy moms.

Monday, March 02, 2015

Chained wives hire rabbi for torture

NPR Radio complains about orthodox Jewish divorce law:
In Israel, religious law governs family matters.

For a Jewish divorce, an Orthodox rabbi oversees a ritual that begins with the husband placing a folded decree into the wife's cupped hands. But that paper can be hard to get, because the husband can refuse to grant the divorce.

A new Israeli film playing in the U.S. shows how patriarchal Jewish divorce laws can trap even secular women for years. ...

These rabbinical judges almost never watch movies. They study Jewish religious and legal texts — all day, most days. The texts guide their lives and their court decisions.
They would probably like these feminist rabbis:
The trial of Mendel Epstein, a New Jersey Rabbi and alleged ringleader of a kidnapping scheme designed to force husbands into granting their wives religious divorces, entered its second day in court in Trenton today.

Epstein, 69, was arrested in October 2013 for allegedly charging undercover FBI agents $60,000 to kidnap a man and coerce him into granting his wife a Judaic divorce decree.

Rabbis Arrested in Cases of Alleged Torture

Epstein and his son David, along with two other rabbis named in the federal complaint as Jay Goldstein and Binyamin Stimler, face federal charges of conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping. If found guilty, the men face a maximum penalty of 20 years to life in prison.

During Wednesday’s opening statement, prosecutors played a video of allegedly Epstein discussing a staged kidnapping with two undercover FBI agents, wherein he can be heard openly discussing the use of stun guns on men's genitalia.

"If it can get a bull that weighs five tons to move," the man on the video identified by the FBI as Epstein is heard telling the undercover agents, "you put it in certain parts of his body and in one minute the guy will know."

"Mendel Epstein talked about forcing compliance through the use of 'tough guys' who utilize electric cattle prods, karate, handcuffs and place plastic bags on the heads of husbands," said FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman shortly after Epstein's arrest.

Epstein's defense claims he was a "champion of women's rights" and employed "torture as term of art" in order to get a husband's "evil" recalcitrance to "leave his body." According to the strictest interpretation of ancient Jewish law, a religious divorce, referred to as a "get", can only be granted by a husband regardless of the circumstances that may have caused a marriage to break up. Without a "get", a religious Jewish woman cannot remarry or get on with her life and she becomes an ostracized member of the community called an “agunah” or a chained person. Convincing reluctant husbands to grant their wives divorces is a specialty among ultra-Orthodox rabbis.
The women can get civil divorces and remarriages, and only need the "get" for the approval of the Orthodox Jewish authorities.

A comment says this is not the whole story:

Many inaccuracies here. He was a thug for hire and made 100k a pop. of the 100+ men he tortured only 2 were actually refusing to divorce their wives. The rest were still going through custody disputes and he tortured the men to sign off everything to the wives. In fact he caused many problems (the Orthodox Jewish media has been on this for over a year). Also the article misrepresents Jewish Law on divorce, I know because I am in a Rabbinical College right now and have studied such laws. This guy was a thug for hire, not some champion of women's rights
Buried in some of these stories of "chained wives" is a crucial detail -- the wife ran off with the kids and she wants the husband to concede custody and child support rights. Here is the latest:
Rivky Stein, 25, testified at King's County Supreme Court in Brooklyn, New York, in a civil case against her estranged husband Yoel Weiss, 32. ...

'Whenever I refused anything from Yoel, he raped me, physically hurt me, verbally abused me and threatened me,' Ms Stein said. ...

The civil case, which began last month, will determine the custody of the couple's five-year-old son and daughter, four; child support payments; and alimony for Ms Stein.

Ms. Stein said that she wants the court to award her full custody of the children with supervised visitation with their father 'in a healthy way'. ...

In a separate matter, Ms Stein, who is an Orthodox Jew, continues to seek her get - a religious divorce which can only be granted with her husband's approval.

Ms Stein therefore lives as an 'agunah', a chained wife, unable to marry again in an Orthodox synagogue.

She told Daily Mail Online on Wednesday: 'He has continuously refused to give me a get. I don't know what I can do any more I have tried everything: Jewish court, Beis din rabbis and mediators but he refuses.

'He said he will never give me a Get, and that I will die old and alone.'

Brendan Lyle, CEO of divorce finance company BBL Churchill, is an expert in divorce cases and has met with Ms Stein and her rabbi.

He told Daily Mail Online: 'While the court can not force Mr Weiss to grant the Get, they do have several tools at their disposal to make him think twice if he doesn't provide Rivky with the get that she deserves.' ...

In court on Wednesday, she described the 'escape' from her marriage with her two children on July 2, 2012. ...

She testified that she had approached rabbis about the physical abuse by her husband, adding: 'I would ask them what I should do and if I had permission to call the police. They told me that I can’t. They wouldn’t give me permission to.'
So she kidnapped the kids and wants to be rewarded with child custody, support, and alimony, and with the judge to somehow pressure her husband for a religious blessing that she cannot get in Jewish court.

She has some outlandish allegations against him, but I have no way of assessing them.

Sunday, March 01, 2015

Juvenile judge tries to silence a critic

The Geauga County Ohio Republican Party Chairwoman criticized a juvenile court judge in a private email for being "narcissist and mentally ill. Also, that he is a chameleon who takes revenge on people who disagree with him." So what does the judge do when he gets wind of it? He holds her in contempt of court!

The judge defends himself:
“Nancy McArthur improperly interfered with an ongoing (juvenile court matter) by making factually false statements about the competency and legal proficiency of the juvenile court judge … to a known party in that case,” Grendell told the Maple Leaf on Monday.

“Ms. McArthur’s conduct jeopardizes sensitive judicial proceedings that involve protection of a (juvenile),” the judge said.

Grendell said he would not discuss juvenile cases in the media.

“However, the court also will not allow Nancy McArthur or anyone else with a personal political agenda to jeopardize child safety in Geauga County by undermining the credibility and integrity of the juvenile court and the court’s ability to administer justice and protect children in pending … cases,” he added.
There is more info here.

This judge is way way way out of line to try to silence someone's free speech to comment on a public official. He will lose, of coursee.

I post this because the judge would have to have been bullying people for many years in order to get this arrogant, and because he defends himself by claiming to protect children. Whenever I here someone talking about protecting children, it is nearly always a scheme to do the opposite.

Someone once said Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. No, I think that protecting children is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Moms complain, not dads

Samantha Rodman writes a Wash. Post op=ed:
One thing I have noticed as a clinical psychologist in private practice is that men are increasingly less able to voice negative feelings about parenting, even ones that are entirely understandable. Imagine being at a play date and hearing someone say, “God, I needed a drink all day today. The kids were behaving terribly, I couldn’t deal.” You’re picturing a mom, right?

However, what if the speaker is a dad? The question is moot because I have yet to hear a dad complain this openly and honestly about his kids, and this is not for lack of trying. Dads don’t even take the conversational bait. If asked to commiserate about parenting, the average mom breathes a sigh of relief and sits forward in her seat, but the average dad looks around like he’s on Candid Camera and gives a vague answer about having lots of fun sitting around watching dance class through a two way mirror for the 15th week in a row.
Here are some comments:
But if a woman is looking for someone to listen to her endless string of petty complaints and histrionics, she should go find another woman (or a group of women), whereupon she can emote and complain at length. Don't bother me (or any other man) with your endless issues, complaints, emotional tantrums and angst.

I'm a man. Men solve problems. Problems aren't solved by whining about them.

Men do a lot of things without whining. Most things actually. A lot of the jobs men have traditionally taken in order to support their families are really not a lot of fun, and they're tiring, and stressing, and sometimes dirty and/or dangerous. Yet men don't walk in the door after a full day of not-especially-pleasant work and commence to whining for the next hour and a half.

Men created civilization and all our modern conveniences. They did it to get the women to stop complaining. If they only knew.....
Yes, this is a difference between moms and dads. The moms are forever complaining about stupid stuff.

Speaking of parental complaints, here an Amazon official in an interview trying to give an example of why you will want drones delivering your packages:
GK: I have three kids, and once when my wife was on a business trip one of the little ones woke up in the middle of the night screaming for a pacifier, which I couldn’t find. I had a moment of panic. Do I wake up the other kids, load everyone into the car, and drive to a 24-hour pharmacy — if I can even find one? I got lucky and found the pacifier. But the better solution was for the pacifier to come to me. I imagine myself pulling out my phone, pushing a button, and 30 minutes later the pacifier shows up.
I do not think he is joking. His name is Gur Kimchi, and I have no idea what ethnicity that is, so maybe there is some weird cultural issue. Surely there is some better example for the utility of drones.

No one is going to order a drone delivery of a pacifier in the middle of the night. The kid will have screamed himself to sleep by the time the drone arrives. No one is going to wake up the kids to drive to a 24-hour pharmacy for a pacifier. Was this the first time his wife left him with the kids? Is this some kind of Uzbekistan humor?

Sometimes I hear stories like this, and I wonder how parents manage. Pacifiers are useful sometimes, but they are never necessary and are not even worth looking for in the middle of the night. Just go back to sleep and forget it. If that is a crisis, then he must have 20 crises a day.

It sounds like a comical plot line about some stupid Hollywood movie about incompetent dads, such as Moms' Night Out: Official Trailer. Or maybe Amazon is signaling
that is just some silly keep-up-with-Google research project that is never intended for commercial reality.

Here is a mom complaining about sleep, in an NPR interview:
GROSS: When somebody has a baby, they're always told you're not going to get any sleep for a long time. But you point out that some people truly can't deal with sleep deprivation, and that it is sleep deprivation. I mean, there's going to be a period of time when you're just getting a few hours of sleep a night, if you're lucky, and that for some people, that's fine. For some people, that's - you know, it's difficult, but for some people, it's just kind of impossible to handle.

SENIOR: ... I was like a banana boat. I mean, I was just terrible on no sleep. And I thought I wasn't going to be because I was a veteran insomniac. I mean, I was a very practiced insomniac. I prided myself on knowing how to conduct my affairs on two to three hours of sleep. But it turns out to be different because it's very stressful, interrupted sleep.
So she could conduct her affairs on 2-3 hours of sleep a night, but was a basket case with a kid because that was being interrupted.

Newborn babies typically sleep 15-18 hours a day. How could a new mom possibly be short on sleep? Again, I don't think that she is joking. Is she spending a lot of time looking for lost pacifiers? I don't get it.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Defining a libertarian

Law professor David Bernstein writes:
I doubt any two libertarians agree on the exact boundaries of libertarianism, but how’s this for a working definition:
“A libertarian is someone who generally opposes government interference with and regulation of civil society, even when the result of such government action would be to clamp down on things the individual in question personally dislikes, finds offensive, or morally disapproves of.”
Thus, for example, a libertarian who hates smoking opposes smoking bans in private restaurants, a libertarian who thinks homosexual sodomy is immoral nevertheless opposes sodomy laws, a libertarian who finds certain forms of “hate speech” offensive still opposes hate speech laws, a libertarian who believes in eating natural foods opposes bans or special taxes on processed foods, and a libertarian who thinks that all employers should pay a living wage nevertheless opposes living wage legislation. It doesn’t matter whether the libertarian holds these positions because he believes in natural rights, for utilitarian reasons, or because he thinks God wants us to live in a libertarian society.
I have had people tell me that they believe in parental rights, but when they disapprove of some parental behavior, then they want the govt to clamp down.

Likewise people will say that they are in favor of free speech, but when they are offended, they want a clamp down.

A right means that you can do what you want, regardless of disapproval. Of course there are some limits, as when something is objectively harmful. Your right to swing your fist ends at your neighbor's nose, for example.

It is distressing how few people today believe in parental rights. Here are some childhood vaccine law changes in the works, with most of them being Democrats trying to eliminate parental rights over the matter.

Much of the discussion is over the vaccine safety. Hardly anyone says that the vaccines are safe, but should not be required. In Europe, Japan, and other modern countries, parents voluntarily get vaccines for their kids without any legal requirement.

The current debate started when a foreign tourist spread measles at Disneyland. Most of those getting it were unvaccinated adults. Childhood vaccination of Americans has almost nothing to do with the outbreak. Nevertheless it is used as an excuse to deny parental rights.

Under California laws that allowed parents to opt-out very easily, about 97% of kids were vaccinated anyway. That is more than enuf for herd immunity, and it is not worthwhile to squeeze that last 3% into compliance. If you believe in freedom, then let people make their own decisions, even if you disagree.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Opposing opinions on shared parenting

Family psychologist John Rosemond writes a newspaper op-ed:
When considering the issue of custody, domestic court judges often regard two divorcing parents who are equally responsible as deserving of equal time with their kids. They rule, therefore, that the kids will spend 132 days a year with one parent and 133 days with the other but that custody during birthdays and holidays will alternate from year to year. That’s very nice and virtually guarantees that neither parent is going to be upset, that they are both going to feel as if the court treated them fairly. Indeed, that is consistent with what they tell me: it’s fair.

No, it’s not fair. These judges are ruling for the best interests of the parents but their best interests are not the issue. Concerning custody, the children’s best interests should rule.
This shows the parent-hating attitude of the family psychologist. The judge should only settle the dispute between the parents, and leave the parents the responsibility of the kids.

But this psychologist has the leftist hivemind mentality of giving judges and psychologists control over deciding the BIOTCh.
Part if not most of the problem is that in divorces that involve children, the kids are often regarded as prizes to be “won.” ... The norm is warfare in which the kids are both suicide bombers and disputed territories.

The proactive solution is the traditional arrangement where one parent has primary custody and the other has the kids every other weekend, a month or so during the summer, and on alternating birthdays and holidays.
If equally shared parenting were the law, then there would be no such war and prizes in the vast majority of the cases. The war is created by the idea that judges and psychologists should decide the BIOTCh.

Psychology professor Linda Nielsen replies that the research overwhelmingly favors share parenting anyway:
Last year, 110 international experts on child development, early childhood attachment and divorce reached a ground-breaking consensus -- shared parenting, including frequent overnighting with both parents for infants and toddlers, is in children’s best interests.

Too many mental health professionals and professors offer recommendations about parenting plans that are based on their personal beliefs -- not on empirical data. Indeed many of these professionals have never read the available research. Just as some poorly informed doctors offer outdated or harmful advice about medical treatments, there are professionals who offer advice to judges and mental health practitioners that is not research-based.

More troubling still, many of these speakers and writers convincingly present their opinions as if they were actually reporting empirical data – a disguise that is not only disingenuous but potentially harmful to children whose lives are affected by judges’ and mental health practitioners’ decisions regarding custody issues. In short, too many well intentioned judges and practitioners have been misled into accepting advice that is not based on empirical evidence.

Shared parenting is not about parents’ rights. It is about making the best choices for children -- decisions that are firmly grounded in research -- not on the personal opinions of parents, seminar speakers, mental health professionals or judges.
To me, the best arguments for shared parenting are those of freedom, personal autonomy, and maintaining the family as a basic unit of civilization. If you value those things, it is obvious that shared parenting is better. The alternatives involve involve a vast invasion of civil liberties and social order.

Of course the research favors shared parenting, and the judges and psychologists who say otherwise are following their prejudices.

I got this from the National Parents Organization blog, and it does a fine job, but it is not enuf.

Apparently no one accepts an argument on either side unless it is phrased in terms of child interests. This is like the inmates running the asylum. The parents should be in charge of the kids. End of story.

Our society has witnessed a vast deprivation of our civil liberties for the sake of leftoid control of the kids. The people have put up with it, without much debate.

The gun lobby has done a very good job of convincing the public, and then the political authorities, that gun possession is a matter of right. Yes, there are studies showing that guns make people safer in their homes and elsewhere, but the bigger argument is that having gun rights is an essential part of our freedom.

Why can't the dads convince anyone that parental custody and authority is a right, and an essential part of our freedom? We should not need these stupid social science studies. No man is free as long as some judge or psychologist is controlling the upbringing of his kids.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Homewrecker sues for sex discrimination

It used to be that homewreckers outcasts.

Ellen Pao is an overeducated (3 Ivy degrees) Chinese-American who is currently CEO of Reddit.

The NY Times reports:
Now, in a high-profile suit set to go to trial this week, a jury will pass judgment about whether one woman suffered discrimination. The proceedings could resonate widely: A guilty verdict will be billed as a sweeping indictment of the high-tech world, while a dismissal might supply ammunition to those who feel gender issues are being overplayed.

The accuser is Ellen Pao, who worked at one of the valley’s most prominent venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. At the center of the suit is John Doerr, a legendary investor who was Ms. Pao’s boss and, according to court papers, practically a father to her.
She had an affair with a married East-Indian-American, and broke it off when he refused to divorce his wife. Then she married and had a kid with one of richest African-Americans, whose hedge fund has since gone bankrupt and may have been a Ponzi scheme.

30 years ago, I think that most men and women would say that a firm ought to fire any woman who is poaching married men at work. Such women were known as homewreckers, and were especially despised by women. It would not have mattered if the man made flirtatious comments that contributed to her seducing him.

Now, I don't know. I no longer have a feel for whether a jury would consider this acceptable behavior. Yes, it is a feminist dogma that a woman has a right to be a sexual predator and seduce whomever she pleases, regardless of anyone marital or employer obligations, and if anyone objects, she has a right to sue for millions of dollars.

But will a jury of 12 buy into such nonsense? I have no idea. We will soon find out, I guess.

Even if she loses, there will be big pressure on the tech world. The LA Times reports Women are leaving the tech industry in droves. And the masculine culture is to blame, as Pao will also argue at her trial.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

The Alan Turing Movie stinks

I finally watched The Imitation Game, the movie that supposedly tells the true story of mathematician Alan Turing. The true story would have been a good movie, but this was about 90% fiction. The screenwriter Moore said:
When you use the language of 'fact checking' to talk about a film, I think you're sort of fundamentally misunderstanding how art works. You don't fact check Monet's 'Water Lilies'. That's not what water lilies look like, that's what the sensation of experiencing water lilies feel like. That's the goal of the piece.
I should remember that line, and use it the next time someone catches me in a factual error.

Here are the makers describing what the movie is about:
Nora Grossman: When we were first were developing this screenplay we were very concerned with making this NOT your traditional bio-pic - not a sort of Merchant-Ivory period piece - and that was a guiding factor when we were developing the project. This was a sort of gay rights movie but also a thriller, Turing was the father of computer science and a gay man - so we wanted to draw on all the facets of this life to appeal to modern audiences - as well as World War Two enthusiasts, computer theorists, gay advocates - all kinds of people. ...

Graham Moore: This was a film about love, not a film about sex - and Alan Turing's love for Christopher is fundamental to his life. Alan fell in love with Christopher Morcom when he was a teenager and it was the great love of his life - I don't think he ever fell in love again, really, and we wanted to show how fundamental that relationship was to him. I think Christopher the person and Christopher the machine are really the sort of second character in the movie.
Turing is portrayed as a gay hero or martyr, but they sure have a funny view of that role. He never actually has sexual relations with anyone. He is portrayed as an emotional cripple as a result of some childhood bullying and tragedy. His homosexuality only comes into play as he is blackmailed by a Soviet bible-quoting spy into betraying his country and rejecting his fiancee. And in leading to his suicide 10 years later after a policeman suspects him of being a spy. Most of this is fiction.

His death was probably an accident. Supposedly he ate a cyanide apple, but no one even tested the apple for cyanide. He died a year after he completed the punishment for having sex with a teenaged boy, so it is doubtful that the events were related.

Homosexuality is secondary to being an Aspie hero and martyr. Throughout the movie, Turing is portrayed as having a mental illness that causes him to have no friends, to have no sense of humor, to not cooperate with his co-workers, to alienate his superiors, and to do silly things like separate the peas and carrots on his lunch plate. His best friend is the machine that tries German crypto keys, and he is devastated when it is destroyed at the end of the war.

Again, most of this is false. This article says humor was a big part of him. This Wash. Post article gives a glimpse of why Turing was admired, none of which is in the movie accurately.

In the movie, Turing decides to let the Germans kill the brother of one his 5 co-workers who are doing all the decoding of German messages. In reality, England had thousands on the decoding project, but none had the authority to order military attacks.

There are many scenes mocking Turing as an aspie. For example, his co-workers say that they are going for lunch, and he does not understand that they are inviting him. Of course they did not say that they were inviting him, and it makes just as much sense to interpret the scene as showing his co-workers being poor communicators. But the movie is all about Turing, so he is the one being blamed for the poor communication.

In another scene, a young Turing complains people often mean something other than what they say. This is used as a reason for him to get interested in cryptography, but it is also an Asperger stereotype. That is, Turing is the type to say what he means and mean what he says. A lot of men are like that, but in Turing it is presented as a pathology.

Some people do claim that Turing had Asperger syndrome (high-functioning autism), based on this list of symptoms:
School report described him as "antisocial"
Only one friend at school
Unable to control younger boys at school or manage co-workers
No attempt to socialise with academic superiors
Interests in science, mathematics, chemistry, codes and ciphers, nature
Always ate an apple before bed
House was cluttered with whatever he was interested in at the time
Always put the cork back in the wine bottle at the end of a meal
Often worked through the night
Wrote about his work to people with no scientific background
Stiff gaze in photographs
Lack of eye contact
Awkward appearance
Characteristic response to presentation of new ideas (stabbed fingers and said "I see, I see")
High pitched voice
Misunderstood enrolment form for Home Guard
Over-analysed colleagues' approaches
Poor handwriting
Always got ink on his collar at school
Really? How can people regard this stuff as symptomatic of a serious mental disorder? Well, not everyone does, as Asperger was removed from the DSM-5.

I know this is just a movie, but Hollywood nearly always portrays mathematicians as insane, such as in A Beautiful Mind and Good Will Hunting. No one complains about it. If you do, the common response is that mathematicians really are crazy. Or point out that Hollywood stereotypes a lot of other groups also.

The TV and movie aspie traits seem to be based on Hollywood stereotypes, as opposed to diagnosable symptoms. The TV show The Big Bang Theory has a character Sheldon Cooper who is widely regarded as an aspie, even tho the producers deny that they had any such intent and he does not match the textbook symptoms. The movie Turing is like the TV Sheldon in that he arrogantly picks fights by claiming that he is smarter than everyone else, and is a pain to everyone around him. Real-life aspies are not nearly so confrontational.

These stereotypes are apparently firmly held. I once talked to a woman who confidently asserted that Sheldon would lose custody of any child in family court, and would deserve to lose it. When I asked her why, she got all emotional and said she could not explain it, but it is obvious.

Maybe she is right, as some deep prejudices are at work here. If nerds and scientists are really such bad parents, then it should be fairly easy for statistics to prove it. But there is no such evidence. Sheldon's obnoxious traits probably would irritate the judge, but that should not change a decision, if the system worked properly. If you want to see the emotional and illogical thinking of a non-scientist mom, check out this Free Range Kids post.

The average dopey woman or psychologist would probably say that Penny would be a better parent than Sheldon. If Penny marries Leonard and he takes charge of the relationship, then maybe she would be a good mom. Otherwise, she would be a nightmare.

This movie has been widely praised as deserving of Oscars, and as promoting the LGBTQIA cause. I do not think that it helps their cause. The movie took the story of a great man, and rewrote it as a story of a man ruined by homosexuality. Homosexuality leads him to betray his country, his fiancee, and himself. He would have been much happier if he married his fiancee.

The movie's real hatred is for mathematicians. Yes, it needed fact checking. Besides all the gross factual misrepresentations, this movie does not give the feel of Turing, his work, his personality, code-breaking, or any of that. His biggest idea of the movie is to use guesses about the messages to cut down on the key search. That is the most obvious idea of all. What were they doing for their first year of work, if not that?

The real Turing was a computer pioneer who had some brilliant ideas that are easily explained. The movie would have been much better if it explained what he really did, as opposed to inventing all these crazy stories about things that never happened.

The movie is expected to get the Oscar for best adapted screenplay. That means that the critics approve of turning a factual book into nonsense. I do not accept the argument that movies necessitate such fabrications. It also got nominations in the other big categories: best picture, best director, best actor, and best supporting actress.

I get judged by judges, psychologists, and social workers who probably get their prejudices from movies like this. Thanks, Hollywood. I wish you never made this rotten movie.

Update: This movie did indeed win Best Adapted Screenplay, as expected. Here is another rant about how bad it is:
The most disappointing thing about the Oscar-nominated film The Imitation Game can be summed up in the way that Alan Turing, the brilliant mathematician played by Benedict Cumberbatch, answers his boss, Commander Denniston, when Denniston asks him why he needs to build a machine to crack the Germans’ unbreakable code.

“It’s highly technical,” Turing says, dismissive. “You wouldn’t understand.”

Turing may as well have been speaking to the audience, not just his sneering commander, because for a movie about a technological pioneer making a technological breakthrough, The Imitation Game barely deals with technology at all.

Instead of an inventor, it shows a stereotype. Instead of a machine, it shows an obsession. And instead of inspiring us to follow in the footsteps of a person who shaped technology, the film inspires us only to get out of the way of the next genius who can.
That drew this comment:
The movie got four things right!

1. Alan Turing was gay.
2. He was briefly engaged to his coworker lady friend.
3. He worked on Enigma.
4. He died after the war.

Besides that it was a complete fiction. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was more historically accurate. ...
Sadly, the real story is way more interesting and moved much faster than the movie.
The true story would have been a much better movie.

Update: I did not watch the Oscars. Did it really have some gay guy prancing around in his underwear? And Moore, the Turing scriptwriter, whining about how he tried to commit suicide so he was like Turing? I am glad I did not watch it.

Update: Moore's Turing acceptance speech was so gay that he had to publicly deny that he was gay. Seems to me that he could have shown his liberal cred by saying that he was bisexual or a cross-dresser or something.

Update: Moore also has White House connections:
Moore’s mother is Susan Sher, who was Michelle Obama’s chief of staff and is now coordinating the push to have Obama’s presidential library located in Chicago. But their relationship is beyond professional – they’ve been friends for years.
Update: The gays and lesbians praised Moore, until he announced that he was not gay. They were offended that he would compare gays to bullied non-gays:
But it’s also important to note that being gay simply isn’t the same as being a “geek.” Moore may see them as comparable (and, though he has identified himself as straight, his affect may have opened him up to homophobic bullying), but the truth of the matter is that the social force behind anti-gay prejudice is far stronger and more pernicious than the animus against social outcasts.
So Moore looks and acts gay, but unless he is taking it in the rear end, his concerns do not count. These people are sick.

Likewise Patricia Arquette got heat for complaining about treatment of straight white women, while ignoring all the other groups.

Friday, February 20, 2015

Halfway to the Misandry Bubble

I cited The Misandry Bubble, a 2010 Futurist essay about what might happen by 2020. We are now halfway there.

If you want a contrary view, this feminist fact-check complains about a statement that women married at age 20, not too long ago. The feminist says that the median age was 20.3 in the 1960s and has not been below 20 since 1845.

Tell her that 20.3 rounds off to 20.

She also claims that no-fault divorce laws have not contributed to the divorce rate. I think that the point is that the states made divorce easy before going all the way with a no-fault law. Or maybe social acceptance of no-fault divorce preceded legal acceptance. I am too lazy to figure it out. Regardless, today it is socially and legally acceptable for anyone to unilaterally walk out of a marriage for any reason, and that was not true in the 1950s.
So, to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are:

a) No fault asset division and alimony, where the abandoned spouse has to pay if he earns more, even if he did not want a divorce, and even if he is a victim of abuse, cuckolding, or adultery. There are rare instances of high-earning women getting caught in this trap as well.
b) Women marrying after having 5 or more sexual partners, compared to just 0-1 previously. This makes it harder for the woman to form a pair bond with her husband.
c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
d) Child custody is almost never granted to the man, so he loses his children on a 'no fault' basis. ...

A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock." ...

For this reason, after lunatic 'feminists', these pedestalizing White Knights are the next most responsible party for the misandry in Western society today. ...

Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. ... Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. ...

The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizing immoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. ...

A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out a comfortable existence by working for two months out of the year. ...

'feminists' are leading average women into the abyss.
He calls it a bubble, so presumably this aspect of our society will become unsustainable and crash.

Feminists often complain of the "double standard" where women are held to higher moral standards than men. That analogy to keys and locks is particularly effective.

Five years ago, I might have disagreed with him about the prospect for a men's rights movement, and about his blame for White Knights. Now I think he is right.

Separately, Matt Forney writes 20 Signs That We’re Not Living In A Patriarchy.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

World’s Worst Mom on TV

I have praised Skenazy many times, as far back as 6 years ago. I am glad to see her get some favorable attention, such as this New Yorker article:
Free-Range Kids, a movement committed to rolling back the excesses of the helicopter-parent era. (From the group’s Web site: “Fighting the belief that our children are in constant danger from creeps, kidnapping, germs, grades, flashers, frustration, failure, baby snatchers, bugs, bullies, men, sleepovers and/or the perils of a non-organic grape.”) The movement was founded by Lenore Skenazy, a former columnist for the News and for the New York Sun, who achieved mommy-blog infamy when, seven years ago, she wrote a column about letting her nine-year-old son, armed with a map and a MetroCard, find his way home from Bloomingdale’s. Skenazy published a book and now has a reality show, “World’s Worst Mom,” on the Discovery Life Channel. In it, she swoops into the homes of overprotective parents and persuades them to let their offspring perform such retro tasks as riding city buses alone and setting up a lemonade stand. “The kids are thrilled,” she said the other day at her family’s apartment, in Jackson Heights, Queens. “And the parents are happy you’ve replaced their dystopian horror story with reality.” ...

“If you actually wanted your child to be kidnapped, how long would you have to keep him outside for him to be abducted by a stranger?” A week? She shook her head. “Seven hundred and fifty thousand years.”
She is just saying what should be obvious to anyone with any common sense or to anyone who looks at actual risk figures.

Most women would respond to her "750,000 years" with a dopey answer like "but what if it were your child?" Yes, my child should get the benefit of the facts also.

Either she is the only mom with common sense, or the only one with the guts to say the obvious, I'm not sure.

Here is from a leftist site:
There’s no sugar coating this folks, we need to stop being parenting wusses. Everyone (or every sane person) wants their children to grow up to be happy, successful, and able to care for themselves. But the efforts undertaken by parents’ to promote their children’s own welfare too often crosses the line into overprotecting and isolating their children. There’s also a severe risk that parent’s could end up instilling an unshakable sense of fear and paranoia in their children.

It’s gotten so bad that some parents are even promoting what they call “Free Range” children. Yes, granting your children what used to be “taken for granted” freedoms now has a chic label. ...

Worse yet, the American government is increasingly adopting the mantra of “nanny-state” in the most literal way. It has almost become criminal for parents to parent their kids, at least without adopting the approved over-parenting position pushed by social welfare services. ...

We’ll be raising kids that are terrified of the world and terrified of living independently. It’s time parent’s take back what’s theirs (their kids) and stand up for their own rights (basic parenting choices, in this case). I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be laws that protect children, but these laws need to be put in a rational and restrained context.
NPR Radio addressed free-range kids this morning:
A 10-year-old may be perfectly fine walking alone in one neighborhood, he says, but might not be safe in another with drug dealers on the corner.

"Parents who live in poverty are more likely to be helicopter parents." - John Myers, family law professor

"We hate to say that the people that live in those two communities ought to be treated differently because we would probably get into uncomfortable issues of socioeconomic status and ethnicity," he says. "But that's the reality in our country."
So I guess that they have to arrest whites to cover up the fact that they prefer to arrest blacks.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Is this tomorrow?

Here is a glimpse of the past:
In 1947, the Catechetical Guild Educational published Is This Tomorrow: America Under Communism, a propaganda comic classic about the impending Sovietification of America. ...

An estimated 4 million copies of Is This Tomorrow were distributed in the late 1940s. The book tells the story of a Red sleeper cell that takes over America after a nation-crippling drought. The saboteurs place agents in the media, foment racial unrest, take over Congress, brainwash schoolchildren, and rig elections.
You can now view the cover or read the comic book free.

Wikipedia says that this was a piece of early ultra-right-wing paranoid McCarthyist theocratic propaganda. Here is more such criticism. The full text is here and here, with a more neutral description here. It seems prophetic to me. Hard leftists, bleeding heart liberals, and useful idiots have been played just like in the comic book.

I remember being warned that a commie takeover would turn kids into rats on their parents, and indoctrinate kids that their allegiance is to the state, not the family. We did not have a commie takeover, but their lackeys have done a lot of damage.

Here is the local Santa Cruz cartoonist depiction (from Feb. 7) of Black Panther Lesbian Commie Fugitive Angela Davis speaking on M.L. King day to attack Israel and the Jews.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Dad served 19 years for a crime that never happened

Here is another horrible story from Buffalo NY of men falsely accused of a terrible crime, convicted, and imprisoned:
A week before Christmas in 1992, Buffalo police rounded up three suspects. They handcuffed a machine operator at Rich Products on Niagara Street, a chemist working his second job at a downtown hotel, and later a federal employee living near City Hall. ¶ The three were named in an appalling crime. Two 8-year-old girls, twin daughters of the machine operator, said their father raped them on three occasions during the previous year – when they were 6 and 7 – and the other defendants joined in the assaults. ¶ The girls said they had been tied to mattresses or chairs, then violated as their mouths were sealed with duct tape. Afterward, life would go on as normal. ¶ Prosecutors could offer no scientific proof and only dubious physical evidence of rape and molestation. But they had the girls’ statements. As the suspects fought the charges and rejected plea deals, prosecutors placed the sympathetic victims in front of the jury. The verdict: guilty on all counts. ¶ The years passed, and the three convicted sex offenders refused to back down. From prison cells they filed appeal after appeal. All were long shots. But the three insisted they were innocent. ¶ As it turns out, they were.

That’s not simply because appellate judges eventually agreed that the three had been poorly represented and deserved new trials. Nor is it because prosecutors never tried them again, nor because their indictments were sealed forever as the former inmates started new lives.

It’s because, as the twins now say, no crime occurred.

They are now 30 years old and working in Buffalo’s health care field. In legal papers, both say the allegations were never true.

The women state that when they were compliant children, the officials leaped to the wrong conclusions, and county prosecutors coached them through false testimony. Through numerous pretrial rehearsals, they were rewarded when they did well and admonished when they didn’t.

“The prosecutors would tell us what to say,” the women say in one of their affidavits. When they tried to retract the claims, either no one would listen or they were told bad things would happen, they said.

As children in an adult world, they could not stop the train rumbling toward convictions.
Why would anyone believe a story like this in the first place?

I have never heard of a father teaming up with two others to rape his own 7-year-old daughters. As far as I know, this never happens. Even invoking all of my worst prejudices against Nigerian immigrants, this goes against human nature, and it is bizarre that anyone would believe a story like this without physical evidence.

And yet cops, prosecutors, judge, jury, and appeals court all accepted the story. 19 years in prison. Our society really wants to believe these awful things, I guess. I think that this is the modern equivalent of Salem witch trials.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

First bisexual governor

The NY Times reports:
Gov. John Kitzhaber, long regarded as a wily survivor of Oregon politics, resigned Friday amid a spiraling crisis that included a criminal investigation of the role that his fiancée played in his administration and crumbling support from his Democratic Party colleagues.
Since when does a twice-married 68yo governor have a fiancee?
It was a steep and rapid fall for Mr. Kitzhaber, 67, a former emergency room doctor who won an unprecedented fourth term as governor in November. His resignation means that Kate Brown, the Oregon secretary of state and a fellow Democrat, will become governor, in accordance with the succession plan in the state Constitution.
She is a weirdo lesbian; see below.
Even during the recent election, Mr. Kitzhaber had been plagued by questions about his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, with whom he lives in the governor’s mansion, and whether she had violated ethics rules or criminal laws in advising him about clean energy issues while serving as a consultant on the topic. ...
So he was living in sin at the state governor's mansion. But that is not the scandal of course. The scandal is clean energy advice, whatever that is.
Ms. Brown, who practiced juvenile and family law before entering politics and then served in the state House and Senate, is regarded as a liberal — though that covers a wide range of positions in Oregon.

She is married to a man, but will be the nation’s first openly bisexual governor, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. She described her experience coming out as a bisexual in a survey on, saying, “I believe it was during my early 30s that I figured out who, or what, I am.”
What could be worse -- a Democrat bisexual family court lawyer. How is she bisexual and married to a man? Is she doing women on the side? Is she going to have girlfriends giving her clean energy advice while covering a wide range of positions in the governors mansion?
Mr. Kitzhaber ... becoming a signature presence for a generation of Oregonians — with an urban cowboy style of jeans, boots and a sport jacket with no tie that became a kind of personal brand.

The controversy surrounding Ms. Hayes began last fall when she confirmed a newspaper report that said she had married her third husband, an Ethiopian immigrant, for money in a sham marriage in 1997.
So his fiancee was married to an Ethiopian illegal immigrant!

I have not idea whether anyone is guilty of anything. My point here is only to note how much public marriage has disintegrated. It used to be that a governor would have to have a long-term stable marriage. The nepotism and ethics rules were probably written assuming a clear idea about who is a spouse or relative. They may not have anticipated that a governor would be banging a clean energy consultant in the governor's mansion.

Then there is the sham immigration marriage, and the woman claiming to be a bisexual married to a man. If she is just having sexual relations with her husband, I would call her a hetersexual, but no one wants to be normal anymore. What all these people have in common is a wholesale rejection of traditional marriage.

Here is the twisted view of the new governor, in her own words:
Essay by Kate Brown for Out and Elected in the USA

I believe it was during my early 30’s that I figured out who, or what, I am. But it wasn’t until it was written in the Oregonian newspaper that I was bisexual that I had to face the inevitable and let those around me know. Thus began my very public coming out as a bisexual:

  • Coming out to my parents – who flew in from Minnesota “to have a talk.” Their response – “It would be much easier for us if you were a lesbian.”  

  • Coming out to my gay friends – who called me half-queer. 

  • Coming out to my straight friends – who never thought I could make up my mind about anything anyway.

  • And, most frighteningly to me:

  • Coming out to my legislative colleagues. At the beginning of the next legislative session sitting in the House lounge, representative Bill Markham, who is over 70 years old, extremely conservative, and a legislator for more than 20 years comes to join me. Over lunch he looks up to say, “Read in the Oregonian a few months ago you were bisexual. Guess that means I still have a chance?!”

    Some days I feel like I have a foot in both worlds, yet never really belonging to either.

  • This would be too weird for most states, I think. I don't know that last remark was so frightening. If she tells the world she is bisexual, then it should not be surprising that she prompted a wise-crack flirtatious comment.

    The LGBTQIA folks like to use this line: "I figured out who, or what, I am." I haven't heard anyone say it about Bruce Jenner yet. Did he suddenly figure out who he has always been? I doubt it.

    Friday, February 13, 2015

    SPLC apologizes for attacking black guy

    I have attacked the SPLC as a leftist hate group before, but I did not know that they ever apologize for their name-calling:
    The Southern Poverty Law Center removed Dr. Ben Carson from its “extremist watch list” and apologized to the potential GOP 2016 presidential candidate.

    Carson was originally placed on the list because of what the SPLC called his “anti-LGBT” views. The list includes notorious neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
    I assume that they attacked Ben Carson because he is Republican, and then chickened out because he is black.

    Here is the original SPLC attack, and the apology.

    I am not sure what the difference is. The SPLC is still calling Carson a hater based on a list of political opinions, starting with marriage being between a man and a woman, and ending with him claiming that Hitler disarmed the populace while the SPLC says he only disarmed the Jews.

    I did not see Carson expressing any extremist views.

    I have given up on the Men's Rights Movement. The movement is attacked relentlessly by leftist name-calling, and you can only survive the attacks if you are a politically connected black.

    A Forbes video game reporter writes:
    There’s little that can be said about last night’s episode of Law & Order: SVU with a straight face.

    “Intimidation Game” is quite possibly the worst hour of cop drama I’ve ever watched. I’d say “worst hour of television ever” but that’s too bold a claim.

    As far as TV about video games go, however, this takes the cake. I’ve never felt so insulted after watching TV before, and not just me: the show manages to insult everybody, from the gamers it takes on to the police to women in video games and, perhaps worst of all, victims of actual sexual assault.
    The TV show portrays white male video games as sadistic women-haters who kidnap and torture women, just like their video games.

    This is supposedly loosely based on GamerGate, where there is some pushback from video games against feminists social justice warriors who want to reform the games. No one has been injured in real life, as far as I know.

    Update: Here is a big-shot law professor arguing that college leftist professors should be able to censor students:
    Critics complain that universities are treating adults like children. The problem is that universities have been treating children like adults. ...

    If students want to learn biology and art history in an environment where they needn’t worry about being offended or raped, why shouldn’t they?
    There is the leftoid mind at work. Just compare everything you don't like to rape, including political opinions expressed in a classroom.

    Thursday, February 12, 2015

    Mattress girl is disturbed

    Another high-profile rape allegation falls apart:
    Uh-oh: Emma Sulkowicz, the Columbia senior who’s been lugging a mattress around campus for months to protest her supposed rape by a classmate during their freshman year, is fast turning into another “Jackie,” the University of Virginia student whose claimed gang rape in a fraternity-house basement turned out to be a tall tale concocted by Jackie to get the romantic attention of a young man she had a crush on.

    Paul Nungesser, now a Columbia senior like Sulkowicz, she says conducted a brutal anal assault on her in her dorm room following a session of consensual sex—and whom she made a public campus pariah despite the fact that he had been cleared by a Columbia tribunal—finally told his side of the story, to libertarian journalist Cathy Young, writing for the Daily Beast.

    In Nungesser’s telling, not only was the entire sexual episode between him and Sulkowicz on Aug. 27, 2012 entirely consensual—the two had an off-and-on “friends with benefits” relationship that grew out of their joint participation in a freshmen-orientation program at Columbia—but Nungesser had the Facebook messages between the two to prove it. For two full months after the supposed assault, Sulkowicz was sending Nungesser friendly texts and Facebook postings expressing hope that the two of them could get together again.
    Sulkowicz is the rich preppie daughter of a Jewish psychiatrist dad and Chinese psychiatrist mom. That is even worse than the Tiger Mom couple (Jewish law professor dad, Chinese law professor mom).

    One lesson here is that if a boy dates three girls in college, he needs to make sure that they they never talk to each other. Nothing good will come of that.

    And save those texts and Facebook messages. Altho London police are being warned that "rapists are increasingly exploiting social media to cover their tracks". I think that they mean that innocent men are using social media evidence to prove their innocence.

    Wednesday, February 11, 2015

    Another leftist attack on men's rights

    I mentioned that Mother Jones has a hit piece on Warren Farrell and now the leftist BuzzFeed has one on Paul Elam, of A Voice For Men. He responds. BuzzFeed found an ex-wife or two with some nasty things to say about him.

    It was too long, and I didn't read much of it. What I read was minor and unverifiable. While AVFM is a leading men's rights site, the arguments were never based on the details of some marriage between 20yo kids decades ago. Who cares?

    The men's rights movement rarely gets any attention at all. Why this? When leftist sites like Mother Jones and BuzzFeed really hate a movement, they launch personal attacks, and make them as nasty as possible.

    Their readers do not function on reason and logic. They form political stances from emotional responses. If they can somehow trigger a negative emotional reaction to Farrell and Elam, then their typical liberal reader can dismiss whatever they have to say.

    Tuesday, February 10, 2015

    Alabama judge is right to defy federal judge

    I posted yesterday about the same-sex marriage case, and now the US Supreme Court is showing its hand:
    The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to step in and stop gay marriages from taking place in Alabama. The move sent the strongest signal to date that the justices are on the verge of legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Within hours of the high-court ruling, same-sex marriages began taking place in Alabama, despite an eleventh-hour show of defiance by the state's chief justice. ...

    The decision upholding the order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Alabama came just hours after the state's chief justice, Roy Moore — knowing that the nation's highest court was about to rule on the state's request for a stay — issued his own decree ordering state probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
    So it is pretty obvious that the US Supreme Court will force same-sex marriage.

    Moore's position is not so ridiculous. I don't know about Alabama law, but here is Here is California law:

    SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

    (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

    (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

    (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.
    So California (and probably Alabama) should be refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses unless and until some appellate court rules that the opposite-sex marriage law is unconstitutional. That has not happened in California or Alabama.

    But as I say, the fix is in. The USA does not believe in Rule of Law when it comes to marriage and family law.

    The Third World is at the other extreme:
    A Malaysian court on Tuesday upheld a sodomy conviction and a five-year prison sentence for Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the country’s opposition, in the culmination of a protracted legal battle entwined with a high-stakes struggle for political supremacy. ...

    This was the second prosecution of Mr. Anwar, 67, on charges of sodomy. He spent six years in prison after a conviction in a separate sodomy trial by a different accuser but was acquitted on appeal in 2004. ...

    Mr. Anwar’s defense team portrayed the current case as blatantly political. The accuser testified that two days before the sex allegedly occurred, he met with Mr. Anwar’s political rival, Najib Razak, who was deputy prime minister at the time and who has since become prime minister. It was not made clear in court how a clerk working for the opposition obtained a meeting with Mr. Najib, one of the country’s most powerful men.
    Occasionally I get comments saying parents should be arrested for stupidity. If so, Anwar should also be jailed for stupidity because it appears that he was set up, and could not resist the sodomy.

    Monday, February 09, 2015

    But what about the children?

    The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and the case the Sixth Circuit case where a 2-1 majority said that the issue is up to the legislature, and a woman dissenting judge wrote:
    The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise — that the question before us is “who should decide?” — and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. ...

    Readers ... must have said to themselves at various points in the majority opinion, “But what about the children?” I did, and I could not find the answer in the opinion. ...

    Although Michigan statutes allow married couples and single persons to adopt, those laws preclude unmarried couples from adopting each other’s children. ...

    Such findings led Brodzinsky to conclude that the gender of a parent is far less important than the quality of the parenting offered and that family processes and resources are far better predictors of child adjustment than the family structure. ...

    If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams.
    That's right, the dissenter accuses the majority of being too philosophical, too democratic, and ignoring the children!

    The kids are not really the kids of these Michigan lesbians, pictured below. They are kids that CPS took away from single moms, and paid the lesbians to raise as foster kids. The dissenting argument is mainly to say that the lesbians have improved the lives of the foster kids, and so should be rewarded with a marriage license and some tax benefits. The CPS files were withheld from the record, and we have no idea whether the mom would have done a better job, or whether the dad was available.

    The US Supreme Court will surely side with the gays and lesbians, but there is some doubt about the reasoning. If marriage law can be dismantled because some whiny feminist judge asks “But what about the children?”, then just about anything could be justified by some wacky appeal to the welfare of kids.

    Meanwhile, check out what happens to lesbian kids. TMZ reports:
    Rosie O'Donnell is making a clean break -- leaving her wife AND quitting "The View" ... all in one fell swoop.

    Rosie's rep confirmed she and Michelle Rounds are splitting after 2 and a half years of marriage. The couple adopted a baby girl together in 2013. ...

    ABC says it fully supports Rosie's decision to spend more time with her family, and adds she'll be coming back to "The 'View" from time to time.
    So she is leaving her second so-called wife to spend more time with her so-called family? She had a heart attack in 2012, and banned her first so-called wife from breastfeeding because she was jealous of their bonding sessions.

    The courts are going to mandate a drastic change to marriage law so that it will be easier for some wacko like Rosie O'Donnell to adopt a baby. No word on her life expectancy after that heart-attack, or how they terminated the fathers rights for that baby.

    These celebrity hamsters will say that just about anything is good for the kids:
    Divorce can be good for children because it helps teach them how to “struggle”, actress Kate Winslet has said in an interview.

    Winslet, 39, who has three children, told this week’s edition of Harper’s Bazaar UK magazine that she tried to turn negative experiences into positive ones and would not want to change anything in her personal life, such as her two divorces.

    “I think it’s very important to teach your children to struggle on some level,” she said.

    “I would honestly say that I wouldn’t change a thing. Even all the bad bits.

    “It doesn’t matter how ***** times have been, they all matter, because those things shape who you are. And if you don’t like who you are, well, then you’re ****** really, aren’t you?” ...

    Instead Winslet said she wanted to “keep my health and my sanity and be well fed and happy”. ...

    The Oscar-winning actress has a 14-year-old daughter from her first marriage, an 11-year-old son from her second and another young son from her current marriage to Ned RocknRoll, nephew of Sir Richard Branson.
    3 kids from 3 marriages, and now she is Mrs. RocknRoll.

    The reality TV shows have moved on to the celebrity trans-gendered Kardashian groupies. A liberal NY Times columnist writes:
    So, in my book, Bruce Jenner is now a gold medalist again. Come on, Wheaties. It’s time to put Jenner back on the box!
    He is now a liberal hero for having Gender identity disorder. He also just killed someone in a traffic accident. See pictures, and he appears to be growing breasts. The female hormones have already made him a bad driver. He has been married 3 times, with 2 kids from each, not counting Kim Kardashian who is busy showing off her naked butt again. If you do not know who these people are, you are lucky not to know. The world is going nuts.

    Sunday, February 08, 2015

    Anthrolpologists attack the American neontocracy

    Michael Erard writes a NY Times op-ed:
    “The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, Changelings,” by David F. Lancy, is an academic title — but it’s possibly the only book that new parents will ever need. ...

    Yet through factoids and analysis, he demonstrates something that American parents desperately need to hear: Children are raised in all sorts of ways, and they all turn out just fine.

    Children in Fiji, for example, are not allowed to address adults, or even make eye contact with them. In Gapun, an isolated village in Papua New Guinea, children are encouraged to hit dogs and chickens, and to raise knives at siblings. ...

    In the “pick when ripe” culture, babies and toddlers are largely ignored by adults, and may not be named until they’re weaned. They undergo what he calls a “village curriculum”: running errands, delivering messages and doing small-scale versions of adult tasks. Only later are they “picked,” or fully recognized as individuals. In contrast, in “pick when green” cultures, including our own, it’s never too early to socialize babies or recognize their personhood.

    Professor Lancy calls the American way of doing pick when green a “neontocracy,” in which adults provide services to relatively few children who are considered priceless, even though they’re useless. One senses him rolling his eyes at modern American parents, impelled to get down on the floor to play Legos with their kids.
    Anthropologist Jared Diamond also praises primitive tribal child-rearing in his recent book, The World Until Yesterday.

    I would not take this advice too seriously. Maybe those tribes live in such primitive conditions because they never teach their kids civilized behavior. But it does show that different child-rearing philosophies are possible.