Friday, December 19, 2014

Father spiked baby like a football

AP reports:
At least 760 children died of abuse or neglect in the U.S. in a six-year span in plain view of child protection authorities — many of them beaten, starved or left alone to drown while agencies had good reason to know they were in danger, the Associated Press has found.

To determine that number, the AP canvassed the 50 states, the District of Columbia and branches of the military — circumventing a system that does a terrible job of accounting for child deaths. Many states struggled to provide numbers. Michigan had 22 kids who died from abuse or neglect from fiscal year 2009 through 2013 (2008 was missing).

Most of the 760 children whose cases were compiled by the AP were under the age of 4. They lost their lives even as authorities were investigating their families or providing some form of protective services because of previous instances of neglect or violence or other troubles in the home.

Take Mattisyn Blaz, a 2-month-old Montana girl who died when her father spiked her “like a football,” in the words of a prosecutor.
What? CPS agents let a man spike a baby like a football? That's outrageous!

No, use some common sense. You are being manipulated. I very much doubt that the dad spiked his baby like a football. But even if he did, how was CPS supposed to predict and prevent it?

My local newspaper had this on page 3 yesterday, with the above picture and this caption:
A small urn containing the ashes of Mattisyn Blaz is displayed on a bookshelf in front of a photo of the infant girl in the home of Jennifer Blaz, 34, in Butte, Mont.
More manipulation.

This is supposed to be a neutral AP news story, but here is what the story advocates:
Also, insufficient training for those who answer child abuse hotlines leads to reports being misclassified, sometimes with deadly consequences; a lack of a comprehensive national child welfare database allows some abusers to avoid detection by moving to different states; and a policy that promotes keeping families intact can play a major role in the number of deaths.
In other words, the AP reporter wants an Orwellian nanny state where anonymous busybodies report on everything you do, the feds track it all in massive databases, and CPS busts up families at every opportunity.

All this because your emotions are being manipulated into thinking that a spiked baby is preventable.

We live in a society that is very free and open in many ways. I can download porn, smoke dope, and live as a parasite in the Obama welfare state. But once some liberal do-gooder announces that I have to forgo all my rights for the sake of the children, everyone just rolls over and concedes. The AP reporters and editors probably do not even realize that there is another side to the issue.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Another Slate attack on men

AVFM attacks Hanna Rosin on Slate.
The perception that family law is unfair to fathers is not exactly true. ...

“There’s a real perception—even women share it—that courts are unfair to fathers,” says Ira Ellman, a custody expert at Arizona State University. But in fact the great revolution in family court over the past 40 years or so has been the movement away from the presumption that mothers should be the main, or even sole, caretakers for their children. Individual cases like Patric’s may raise novel legal issues, but on the whole, courts are fair to men, particularly men who can afford a decent lawyer. ...

According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5.
I posted about the Patric case, as he is the Lost Boys actor who lost rights over a test tube baby. He is not a great example of fathers rights.

A better example is that moms are still getting sole child custody 45% of the time.

I have posted on Hanna "End of Men" Rosin before. She is a typical Jewish feminist social justice warrior (SJW) that dominates sites like Slate.

I hope someone is keeping track of these man-haters. One suggestion is to embarrass the UVa rape hoax promoters:
Roosh lists 15 people who used the UVA article to push a false narrative
We should also keep track of those who promoted riots in Ferguson Missouri, like President Barack Obama and his supporters.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Sweden has feminist policies

I mentioned Sweden as a feminist paradise, and it even pretentds to have a feminist foreign policy:
In the interim, Wallström will remain at the Foreign Ministry, with her feminist vision for Sweden’s ventures abroad intact. By empowering women, the argument goes, there are better chances of snuffing out wars before they start and of ending them in more equitable ways. However, it is less clear what such a feminist foreign policy has to say about the old-school power politics that Putin has helped resuscitate in the past year.

During a recent debate in the Swedish parliament, Wallström said that her feminist approach is based on the American political scientist Joseph Nye’s concept of “smart power.” “The tools of foreign policy can, in varying degrees, be hard as well as soft. The situation at hand determines this,” Wallström said. “The half of the population that so far has been almost systematically excluded and forgotten — namely, women — will now be included.”

Asked how she believes a feminist foreign policy will help end Russian aggression, Wallström suggested it would be useful to review women’s participation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and to look at what it does to address the problems women face — a statement exactly as vague as it sounds.

Meanwhile, Putin delivered another swaggering address on Thursday. “The policy of containment was not invented yesterday. It has been carried out against our country for many years, always, for decades, if not centuries,” he said at his annual state-of-the-nation address. “In short, whenever someone thinks that Russia has become too strong or independent, these tools are quickly put into use.”

The newfound emphasis on feminism abroad has been remarkably absent in the Swedish response to the recent submarine incursion in Stockholm. When Göranson, flanked by Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist, presented evidence at a November press conference of illicit underwater activity in the Stockholm archipelago, there was no talk of gender perspectives or feminist approaches to territorial breaches. (While the Swedish military maintains that it does not have the evidence to conclusively identify the submarine’s nationality, it was all but certainly a Russian boat.)
In the USA, the only group I know who are unapologetically standing up to the feminists are the video gamers:
The cost to Gawker Media of its ridicule and viciousness toward video gamers was "seven figures" in lost advertising revenue, according to the company's head of advertising, Andrew Gorenstein. In addition, founder Nick Denton has stepped down as president and editorial director Joel Johnson has been removed from his post and will probably leave the company, reports Capital New York.

"Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we’ve known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission," Gawker writer Sam Biddle tweeted in October, sparking a firestorm of outrage which solidified into a sustained letter-writing campaign to Gawker's advertisers, which continues today, against the bullying of marginalised groups by mainstream media outlets.

A number of advertisers, including Adobe and Mercedes-Benz, distanced themselves from Gawker after receiving communications from GamerGate supporters. It is not known how much GamerGate, a consumer revolt advocating better ethics in video game journalism and rejecting feminist critiques of video games, may have cost other publishers.
Wikipedia has a long article on the Gamergate controversy.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Parents still ordered to pay for college

I posted about the Divorced parents have to pay college tuition. Now there is an update:
THE 21-year-old student suing her estranged parents for university fees was back in court this week claiming they should be held in contempt because they refuse to pay.

Caitlyn Ricci filed a motion on Monday arguing that her parents, Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey, violated a judge’s previous decision by failing to pay her $US16,000 ($19,200) tuition at Temple University, Philadelphia.

Ricci’s father said he has no intention of paying until his daughter reconnects with the New Jersey family. Ricci hasn’t spoken with her parents for two years.

“That’s fine. They can hold me in contempt of court. They can do whatever they want,” Mr Ricci told US TV station WPVI-TV. “I’m not going to pay. I’m not going to give them any money until my daughter has a relationship with me and we start to heal our family.”
Here is the dad's story (also here):
Most nights before I fall asleep, I have tears in my eyes thinking about the difficulty my family is going through. My daughter is suing her mother and me for $16,000 towards college tuition, and a judge has ruled in her favor. My daughter moved out, and I only ever see her in court. It’s certainly not what I wanted for my family.

Every day I wake up and miss my daughter. I miss talking to her, seeing her, asking her about her day, and being involved in her life. I understand that after she was kicked out of her Disney internship, a program she participated in to help prepare for college, she was upset and angry at the rules her mother and I set for her. She was kicked out of the program for underage drinking, and so we had to set boundaries. That included chores, a curfew, and summer classes. When Caitlyn left our home in February 2013, to go to her grandparents, we thought we’d let her go for a couple days and then she would come home. When we called her grandparents to ask that they send her home, they said, “No, she can stay here as long as she wants.” That’s when we knew we had problems.
There is a mindset that says that college is such a good thing that it is worth any cost, and parents should make any sacrifice for the good of the kids, and therefore should do whatever it takes to pay for college. This view is very destructive. There are decent alternatives. The girl can get college loans, she can attend a cheap community college, she can work to support herself, and she can reconcile with her parents.

Here is another attack on parents:
A tattooed-up Brooklyn middle school teacher with a criminal record left her three kids home alone so she could get ink — and then went on a whiskey-drinking binge at a Lower East Side bar until Thursday morning, according to police sources and social media.

Laura Aguero, 35, who works at M.S. 88 in Park Slope, and her husband, Alfredo Bobe,41, allegedly left their 4,5, and 12 year old kids by themselves while she got tatted up at Inborn Tattoo in the Lower East Side on Wednesday night, according to police sources and posts on Facebook.

“I’m getting tatted on ludlow (Inborn) so I’ll stop by to have a drink!!! Xoxo!” she wrote on Local 138 bar’s “Whiskey Wednesday” event page at 10:32 p.m.on Wednesday. ...

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said, “While this alleged behavior is not school-related, it is unacceptable. Ms. Aguero Dupla has been reassigned away from any classroom, and will not be in contact with students.
Sounds wacky to me, but I guess tattoos and whiskey make for a good time for others.

But now it is criminal:
However, he didn't have his keys, so he punched out a glass panel on the front door.

The shattering glass woke up neighbors who called 911, the New York Daily News reports.

Police arrived to Aguero pacing outside the building while Bobe was inside the apartment.

The couple was arrested for after police learned the kids had been left home alone for hours, according to WPIX-TV.

Aguero-Dupla was charged with three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, while Bobe was charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child.
I assume the "three counts" is for the 3 kids. But millions of parents think that it is perfectly fine for a 12yo child to babysit 4yo and 5yo kids. Who was endangered? Maybe you think that a middle-school teacher should not have an evening of tattoos and whiskey, and I might even agree with that, but we have a society where that is legal and acceptable.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Bad advice on managing joint custody

I sometimes post bad advice that women commonly get, and here is another example. This mom has joint custody, and needs a man to be in charge of her child-rearing. Either the ex-husband or the boyfriend would be an improvement. But the columnist Amy advises neither, and to rely on some stranger instead. Furthermore, she suggests undermining the joint custody.
DEAR AMY: I am divorced and have two young children. Their father and I share equal custody. I have had a boyfriend for a year. He has a young child of his own and we all live together as a blended family. This man is kind, sensitive, supportive and loving, everything my ex-husband was not.

There’s one problem. My kids tend to act up a lot and I’m not sure why. His child NEVER acts up. She’s helpful, listens, is easygoing, etc. My kids are the exact opposite!

This past year, my boyfriend has really been working with my kids on discipline and setting good examples, and so have I. I am an easygoing person but their dad is not. I think they get this trait from him. I don’t really know what goes on when they’re with him. When they come back to us, I feel like we’re going backward. My daughter (age 10) doesn’t act her age. She whines like a 3-year-old, is unhelpful around the house and with her younger brother, etc.

Now my boyfriend is showing hostility toward ME because of their behavior. I honestly do my best at disciplining them, but because his child is “perfect” he does not understand. I know I’m trying but he doesn’t see that. What should I do? -- Challenged Mom

DEAR MOM: You should take your kids’ behavior not as a sign that they are “bad,” but that they are very stressed. Your daughter’s regression does not mean that she is immature, but having trouble coping.

You should establish consistent routines, make sure they get plenty of healthy food and sleep, and treat them with firm, unflappable, loving kindness. Their routine of switching households is extremely challenging (could you do it?). You, not your boyfriend, should be the primary disciplinarian. Let him teach you how.

Your whole crew could benefit from some professional mentoring. The kids need to see your family as a “team,” with good days and bad days, but always on the same side.

Most important, your daughter should get some private counseling with a child therapist. Because you are not willing/able to communicate with her father, you should make sure she is safe and well cared for when she is in his household. Her behavior could be a red flag that there is a serious problem.
Note that the mom does not actually say that she cannot communicate with her ex-husband. Amy just assumes that, as well as assuming that the ex-husband is a problem.

Talking to a counselor is just crazy. Why is Amy being paid to give advice, if she is just going to tell everyone to go get advice from someone else?

The kids are not necessarily over-stressed. Maybe they are not stressed enuf.

You would think that advice-givers would encourage steps to make joint custody work. For example, this mom could ask her ex-husband to take charge of the child discipline, and promise to back him up when the kids are with her. But Amy does the opposite, and suggests that there is something wrong with the his care, and that the mom should interfere with him.

Yes, it is possible that the behavior differences are largely genetic. There seem to be some genes for bad behavior. If so, it is foolish to try to blame food or sleep or the joint custody.

I post nonsense like this just to illustrate the bad advice that women commonly get.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Old Iowa man charged with raping his wife

The states have been pressured to change their rape laws so that a man can be charged with a felony for raping his wife. These laws are usually justified from extreme feminist views, or anecdotes about a violent attack after a long separation. But I assumed that a women would have to complain for there to be a prosecution. Not so.

Here is the prosecution:
The Iowa Attorney General’s office says [Henry] Rayhons had intercourse with his wife when she lacked the mental capacity to consent because she had Alzheimer’s. She died on Aug. 8, four days short of her 79th birthday, of complications from the disease. One week later, Rayhons, 78, was arrested. He pleaded not guilty….

By many accounts, Henry and Donna Rayhons were deeply in love. Both their families embraced their marriage. The case has produced no evidence thus far that the couple’s love faded, that Donna failed to recognize her husband or that she asked that he not touch her, said Rayhons’ son Dale Rayhons, a paramedic and the family’s unofficial spokesman.

Based on evidence generated so far, state prosecutors are likely to portray Rayhons as a sex-hungry man who took advantage of a sweet, confused woman who didn’t know what month it was, forgot how to eat a hamburger and lost track of her room.
These prosecutors are sick. The lawmakers also. Whatever went on between this couple is none of anyone's business.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

NFL Personal Conduct Policy

It used to be that Rule of Law meant that punishable offenses were defined in writing, and that you were within your rights to do something if not explicitly illegal. And you had no obligation to rat out your fellow citizen.

Feminist gripes about domestic violence have gotten to the National Football League.

The NFL announced a new Personal Conduct Policy (pdf)
It applies

(a) to pretty much everyone touching the hem of the NFL’s garment: ...

(b) to pretty much all conduct 24/7, whether job-related or not:
“If the league finds that you have engaged in any of the following conduct, you will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, ...

Disorderly conduct;

Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and

Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

and (c) whether or not such activity is lawful or unlawful: ...

Oh, and everyone subject to the policy (a category that includes secretaries in team offices, drivers of team buses, trainers, team statisticians, employees in the NFL Human Resources Department, . . .) has to “to promptly report any matter that comes to their attention (through, for example, victim or witness reports, law enforcement, media reports) that may constitute a violation of this Policy . . . [and] [f]ailure to report an incident will be grounds for disciplinary action.”
This is crazy. Don't we already have a legal system for dealing with crimes?

This is obviously written to allow maximum arbitrariness in NFL bowing to feminist demands and punishing players.

The weird thing about this policy is that, for all its lawyerly thoroughly, there is no exception for football play on the field. It has banned "physical violence". How do you play football without physical violence? This football policy has banned blocks and tackles.

You cannot cave into crazy demands like this. The feminist will just make more. There is no pleasing them. There are feminists who demand monthly paid menstrual leave, with guarantees of no slowdown in career advancement.

Steve Sailer is getting to the bottom of the UVa frat house gang rape story. Jackie's friends not only doubted her rape story, they doubted it before it even happened as she seemed to be going out on a date with a fictitious person. It appears that she invented the guy in oder to make a friend jealous. They only humored her in the same way that they might humor a friend who claimed to be abducted by space aliens. The smashed glass table story may have been taken from the movie Gone Girl, where a broken glass table is both a sign of a crime and a sign that the crime was faked.

Britain has anti-social behavior orders where judges can take away rights for otherwise lawful things. The Manifesto Club sticks up for everyday rights.

Friday, December 12, 2014

More stupid zero tolerance

MIT has been a leader in putting college lectures freely online, and now it has bizarrely overreacted to a minor complaint. MIT announces:
MIT is cutting ties with retired professor Walter Lewin after determining that the physicist, whose lectures had made him a beloved teacher and minor Internet star, had sexually harassed at least one student online.

The woman was taking one of Lewin’s classes on edX, the online learning platform started by Harvard and MIT. ...

MIT has revoked his title as professor emeritus, Provost Martin A. Schmidt PhD ’88 said.

MIT is also removing Lewin’s lecture videos and other course materials from edX and MIT OpenCourseWare indefinitely, “in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior.”

Schmidt said that MIT’s actions were “part of a process of a complete separation from Walter,” though he also said those actions were “probably the extent of it” given that Lewin had retired.

“Given Dr. Lewin’s long career on our campus and contributions as an educator, taking this step is painful,” Schmidt wrote to MIT’s faculty. ...

Lewin joined MIT in 1966 and became a full professor in 1974. In the decades that followed he collected award after award for his undergraduate teaching.

Through OpenCourseWare and YouTube, Lewin’s lectures and physics demonstrations have reached millions.

“Professor Lewin delivers his lectures with the panache of Julia Child bringing French cooking to amateurs and the zany theatricality of YouTube’s greatest hits,” The New York Times wrote in 2007. “With his wiry grayish-brown hair, his tortoiseshell glasses and his intensity, Professor Lewin is the iconic brilliant scientist … he is at once larger than life and totally accessible.”

Lewin went on to star in viral videos of him drawing dotted lines on blackboards and swinging on steel balls suspended from the ceiling.

And then in 2013, Lewin helped launch online versions of his classes on edX. Among those who enrolled: the woman who would lodge the sexual harassment complaint this past October.
This is so stupid, I don't know where to start. The man is 78 years old, and he is only accused of making an inappropriate remark online. For that, the university is trying to destroy 40 years of loyal service, and millions of viewers learning physics from his videos.

The comments are overwhelmingly negative. For example:
I can still read Mein Kampf and The Little Red Book. So for Prof Lewin works to have been banned, he must have done something worse than mass murder. In the name of equality, let us hear his words no more. Zero tolerance!!!
I wonder if MIT was influenced by a fear of an adverse ruling from the Obama administration. The MIT over-reaction is so bizarre that it seems likely that Lewin had enemies who are just using this complaint to sabotage him for other reasons, or maybe MIT has Title IX problems with the Obama administration, and is trying to impress the leftist feminist Obama bureaucrats and avoid charges in other cases.

I note that Lewin appears to be from a Dutch Jewish family, as he had relatives die in Auschwitz. In other campus scandals I have recently posted about, feminist Jewish liberals seem to be at war against genteel southern blond fraternity boys.

To give you an idea how college cave in to leftist agitators, read this:
The president of prestigious Smith College is red-faced and apologetic Tuesday for telling students on the Northampton, Mass., campus that "all lives matter."

Kathleen McCartney wrote the phrase in the subject line of an e-mail to students at the school, whose alumni include feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, former First Lady Nancy Reagan and celebrity chef Julia Child. McCartney was attempting to show support for students protesting racially charged grand jury decisions in which police in Missouri and New York were not charged in the deaths of unarmed black men.

Protesters have adopted several slogans in connection with the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, including "Black Lives Matter." McCartney's more inclusive version of the refrain was seen as an affront that diminished the focus on black lives and racism, according to emails obtained by

“We are united in our insistence that all lives matter,” read the e-mail,in which she made clear she was strongly behind the protests, writing that the grand jury decisions had “led to a shared fury… We gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest.” ...

Some who follow campus issues say that the idea of apologizing for saying “all lives matter” shows political correctness is out of control.
My guess is that Obama administration pressure induced MIT to do this. Yes, Democrat leftist feminist bureaucrats now intervene in petty student complaints, as shown by their letter to Princeton.

Update: See Lewin's last lecture to get an idea of how popular he was.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Incapable of distinguishing criminal behavior

The Free Range Kids blogger has been called the worlds worst mom, but sometimes I think that she is the only one with any common sense. Now she warns:
The so-called “Cinderella Law” working its way through Parliament may sound as if it is going to rescue ragamuffins stuck in their own little corner in their own little chair. But in fact, by expanding the definition of child cruelty to include emotional, psychological or even intangible harm, it holds the threat of criminalizing any of us who think  our kids can handle more than the state (or some tsk-tsk’ing agent) believes they can.
I prefiously warned England to get Cinderella Law and Britain makes emotional cruelty a crime.

Now she refers to a British essay:
There is little doubt that the ominously titled Serious Crime Bill, currently working its way through parliament, will significantly expand the definition of the offence of child cruelty. It may be nicknamed the Cinderella Law, but it will criminalise behaviour falling far short of anything experienced by Cinderella. Clause 65 of the bill, in particular, will make two changes to the offence of child cruelty.

First, it will enable prosecutions to be brought where a child, although not physically harmed, has been harmed in other ways. Any form of emotional, psychological or intangible harm could be caught by this new definition of ill-treatment: ‘physical or otherwise’. This reform will overturn a House of Lords decision from 1980 that confined the offence of child cruelty to cases involving a child’s physical needs. This specifically excluded other aspects of harm, such as a parental failure to meet moral, educational, spiritual or emotional needs. That the government’s proposal now includes such forms of intangible harm will mean that children and their many one-eyed advocates in the child-protection industry will find it all too easy to bring normal incidents of parenting within the scope of the criminal law.

Secondly, clause 65 will also remove the examples that currently illustrate the severity of an injury necessary for its infliction to be regarded criminal. So, since 1933, ‘injury to health’ has ‘includ[ed] injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body’. These examples have ensured that one-off incidents of bruising, for example, would not be treated as child cruelty. Clause 65 will sweep away all the examples and replace them with the expansive and all-encompassing words ‘whether of a physical or psychological nature’. In other words, any form of injury to health, whether of a physical or psychological nature, will potentially fall within the scope of the criminal law.

The effect these two changes will have on the policing of parents by criminal-law enforcement agencies should not be underestimated. ...

Under the current law, a number of parents have already fallen foul of child-protection officials who, having lost all sense of perspective, have used criminal law to prosecute parents whose behaviour fell a long way short of anything that warrants a ‘criminal’ tag.
I am afraid that the trend in the USA is in the same direction, and there is not the political will to stop it. CPS has little interest in distinguishing criminal from non-criminal behavior, and there is no complaint that is too trivial for it to investigate.

Here is the latest example of over-aggressive CPS action:
Later that afternoon, Langwell decided to check out and go home. Langwell said the baby was breastfeeding well and was healthy, and she preferred to take her home early "AMA" (against medical advice) so they could all get some sleep. When she left, a member of the hospital's staff called and reported her to the county's child welfare agency. ...

According to the child welfare agency's report, a hospital staff member described Langwell as "hostile" and suggested that her behavior was "consistent with someone with substance abuse issues." (According to a representative from the county's child welfare department, the majority of the cases they see are neglect cases, and most of those are related to substance abuse.) ...

A child welfare agent came to the house the next day to check on the baby. The home had a security fence, and Langwell and Hodek did not hear the knocking at the gate, which was some distance from the front of the house. The agent called the police. When Langwell eventually appeared at the security gate, she saw two police officers and the welfare agent, who told her that the hospital had alerted the agency when she checked out early. Langwell refused to let the police and welfare agent inside the house but brought the baby out so they could see that she was OK. The agent noted in her report that the baby had good coloring. Langwell submitted to an on-the-spot drug test, but according to the report, the test was inconclusive, because her saliva sample was too thick ­— "which may have had something to do with the fact that I had just given birth and it was 110 degrees," Langwell says bitterly.

The agent returned later that day with a warrant to take the baby — just to the hospital for a full exam, Langwell and Hodek initially thought. ...

A child welfare agent came to the house the next day to check on the baby. The home had a security fence, and Langwell and Hodek did not hear the knocking at the gate, which was some distance from the front of the house. The agent called the police. When Langwell eventually appeared at the security gate, she saw two police officers and the welfare agent, who told her that the hospital had alerted the agency when she checked out early. Langwell refused to let the police and welfare agent inside the house but brought the baby out so they could see that she was OK. The agent noted in her report that the baby had good coloring. Langwell submitted to an on-the-spot drug test, but according to the report, the test was inconclusive, because her saliva sample was too thick ­— "which may have had something to do with the fact that I had just given birth and it was 110 degrees," Langwell says bitterly.

The agent returned later that day with a warrant to take the baby — just to the hospital for a full exam, Langwell and Hodek initially thought. ...

"The Juvenile Court upholds approximately 98 percent of our actions to remove children from their homes based on evidence presented," Pettet says, meaning that in about 2 percent of the cases where a removal has occurred, the judge will return the child to the home of a parent.
We have objective, cheap, and accurate drug tests, so no one should be falsely accused of drug use.

I mentioned that I was suspicious of all the Bill Cosby fan-girls who claim that they got date-rape drugs decades ago. Here is a study from a couple of years ago:
SUSPECTED victims of drink spiking are more likely to be suffering from drugs and alcohol they have willingly consumed, according to Australian research.

Of 100 suspected drink-spiking cases reviewed in a West Australian study, none were found to involve being slipped a sedative or illicit drug.

What emerged instead was a concerning picture of excess alcohol and illegal drug use by people – usually young women – at the centre of these drink-spiking claims.

“The public’s perception that it’s a guy putting a sedative drug into a woman’s drink, at a pub or a club, we just didn’t find that at all,” Dr Mark Little, a clinical toxicologist at the Royal Perth Hospital, said.

“As a community, we have a bigger problem with illicit drug use and alcohol binge drinking than we do with drink spiking.”
I am coming around to the view that unless the woman goes straight to the police within 2 hours and has a medical exam, then her allegations are likely to be mostly false.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Date-rape drugging sheltered from DSM-5

When women make a rape accusation days, weeks, or even years afterwards, they always get the question about why they did not report it earlier, or why witnesses say that she was a willing participant. Sometimes the answer is that the rapist must have used a date-rape drug!

The NY Times reports:
He had money, charisma, movie star looks and no apparent reason to drug his sexual partners. But he did it anyway, according to multiple accusers, who remember little except losing consciousness and waking up partly dressed and molested.

That case — of Andrew Luster, a cosmetics heir convicted in 2003 in Ventura County, Calif., of raping three women after dosing them with a date-rape drug — is distinct from comedian Bill Cosby’s. Women have accused Mr. Cosby of drugging and raping them over a period of decades; he has denied the allegations and not been charged.

Yet the stories the men’s accusers tell raise an overarching question: Why would someone who has seemingly easy access to consensual sex resort to drugging?
So there is a question for the dopey psychologist experts.

Maybe it is like space alien abduction. Abductees often tell similar stories, and claimed that they were programmed or drugged to forget the details of what happened.

Freud got into trouble with feminists for claiming that women's stories of sex abuse were made-up fantasies. So the shrink don't dare say that anymore. So they blame it on the accused:
One of those motives is obvious: simple opportunism, the reason men have spiked women’s drinks (or less commonly, women men’s) since the dawn of cocktail hour. Another is coercion; the perpetrator is aroused by domination, forcing his (or rarely, her) sexual will on the target.

“This is common enough that we debated whether to include it as a diagnosis in the D.S.M. 5,” psychiatrists’ influential diagnostic manual, said Dr. Michael First, a Columbia psychiatrist who edited it. But the idea was shelved, in part because of concerns that doing so would give rapists added recourse in legal cases, he said.

A third and far less common motive is a rare kind of “paraphilia"— an unusual sexual preference that becomes compulsive. “In this case, it’s a preference for unresponsive partners,” Dr. Cantor said.
The DSM-5 is the official book of psychiatric disorders. It has a pretense of being scientific, but as the editor just admitted, they made their decisions based on social justice political opinions, rather than on scientific merit.

My readers will not be too surprised at bad criteria being used for the DSM-5. I have posted many stories about dubious disorders and how the committee is politicized. Sometimes they loosen criteria in order to make state funding more readily available, and sometimes they tighten criteria in order to avoid stigma.

Probably their most famous decisions were to make homosexuality a disorder, and then when closeted gay psychiatrists infiltrated the committee to eliminate the disorder. The decision was ultimately made as a political vote of the membership, and not based on any scientific evidence. You can listen to a pro-gay NPR version of the story.

But I am surprised that the DSM-5 come right out and admit that they excluded a disorder in an attempt to manipulate the legal system to convict more defendants.

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Exposing the false accuser

More info is out on Jacqueline Coakley, the accuser behind the UVa rape hoax: has obtained the rape obsessed Pinterest account of the 20-year-old girl at the center of the University of Virginia rape hoax.

We can also confirm that Jackie Coakley has misled other students at both her high school and her college about her past sexual relations with men.

Coakley’s social media postings (below) reveal a woman obsessed with rape and well aware of the political consequences of rape allegations.
The mainstream media does not name rape victims, but there is every reason to name false accusers. Jezebel says it is irresponsible to name Coakley.

I do not want to put all the blame on her. The world is full of crazy mixed-up bitches without a firm grip on reality. I place much greater blame on those in higher positions of responsibility.

Sabrina Rubin Erdely deserves much more blame for writing the phony story, but she is also just another crazy feminist who apparently has been lurid stories of false accusations for years. Why has no one called her on it before?

More blames goes to the supposedly reputable publishers, like the Rolling Stone and Wash. Post, who put their reputations behind this story. And they still refuse to come clean, and call this the hoax that it is. In spite of all the evidence that the story was a hoax, a Wash. Post columnist writes:
We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it ...
President Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and much of the mainstream news media are dedicated to creating racial and sexual animosity. They get their votes by convincing non-whites that Republicans hate them, and convincing single women that there is a war on women. To do that they create hoaxes.

Why was the whole nation preoccupied by an obscure Ferguson Missouri police shooting? Michael Brown was a thug, robber, and attempted murderer of the worst sort. His death is not a tragedy as the world is very much better off with him no longer able to commit violent crimes against people. The evidence confirmed the officer's self-defense story.

And yet Obama and the Democrats have done everything they can to incite blacks to riot over this. The Democrats gave the (false) impression that white racist cops pick on blacks for no reason, and shoot them in the back in front of a dozen witnesses. Obama continues to this day to imply that the Ferguson police were the criminals.

Likewise, Obama and the Democrat news media are constantly telling us that American society has some sort of rape culture where Republicans and other evil-doers approve of rape. So we have all these stories like the UVa frat party rape, the Bill Cosby raping with date-rape drugs, Lena Dunham being raped by the campus conservative, colleges being disciplined for not acting more aggressively on rape complaints, etc.

There is no merit to any of this nonsense. Rape is on a long term decline, like other violent crimes. Most of these college stories are just slutty girls who get drunk and have some regrets the next morning. The big majority of the black-white crime is blacks attacking whites, not whites attacking blacks.

Another facet to the battle is the GamerGate controversy. Gamers want to play computer video games without interference from the social justice warriors who want change to suit their leftist politics.

A lot of people thought that electing Barack Obama in 2008 was going to bring a new era in improved race relations and bipartisan government. Just the opposite has happened. He has refused to work with the Republicans, and has engaged in the most hateful and divisive tactics of any President in my lifetime. He has turned the Democrats into the hate-white-Christian-men party.

Monday, December 08, 2014

The hysteria of modern witch trials

A law firm blog accuses:
Before a writer for Rolling Stone ever made the mistake of believing an alleged gang-rape story told by a student named "Jackie," she bought an alleged multiple-rape story told by a former altar boy named "Billy." ...

The writer of the story in question, Rolling Stone contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely, is from Philadelphia. Before she bought Jackie's story, she fell for a story told by a former altar boy dubbed "Billy Doe" by a grand jury.

In Rolling Stone, it seems rape is bigger than rock. On Sept. 15, 2011, Erderly wrote a story for Rolling Stone that accepted as gospel Billy Doe's fantastic claims about being passed around as a rape victim among two priests and a school teacher. [The Catholic Church's Secret Sex-Crime Files.] In Erdely's defense, she, like many other members of the media, made the mistake of relying on an intellectually dishonest grand jury report containing more than 20 factual errors.

Attention Rolling Stone: if you think the factual discrepancies in Jackie's story are "deeply unsettling," wait till you read all the factual discrepancies in Billy's story, documented for the past two years on this blog. Sadly, the stakes here are a lot higher than in Virginia, where none of the alleged attackers have even been outed. In Philly, three priests and a school teacher wound up going to jail over Billy's story, which has since unraveled. One of those priests died in prison last month after he spent his last hours handcuffed to a hospital bed while suffering from untreated coronary disease.
Yes, a couple of priests were convicted by jury trials, but that does not convince me.

The Austin Texas newspaper just reported:
Austin day care owners Dan and Fran Keller spent more than 22 years in prison after three young children accused them of dismembering babies, torturing pets, desecrating corpses, videotaping orgies and serving blood-laced Kool-Aid in satanic rituals so ghastly, their names became synonymous with evil.

It was the early 1990s, when a cottage industry of therapists, authors and investigators argued convincingly — and, in hindsight, absurdly — that a national network of secretive cults was preying upon day care children for sex and other horrors.

Despite a vigorous investigation in the Keller case, at least four law enforcement agencies found no proof of satanic activity. Even so, Travis County prosecutors presented enough other evidence to convict the Kellers of sexually assaulting a 3-year-old girl in their care. Both were sentenced to 48-year prison terms.

Prison, Fran Keller said, was “true hell” for two people convicted of child sex crimes.

“We were bullied and assaulted pretty much the entire time,” she told the American-Statesman. “Other inmates, they’d scream at you while assaulting you, yelling, ‘You want to do this to children? Well, we’ll do it to you.’”

Denied parole three times, the Kellers won early release last year when the criminal case against them collapsed. The only physical evidence of sexual assault was found to be a mistake…
Oscar O'Reilly argues The Bill Cosby Rape Scandal Is Just Another Example Of Modern Hysteria, and compares to the Salem witch trials.

This Rolling Stone story was an outright hoax. No fraternity party took place on the alleged date. The fraternity did not have any members who worked as a lifeguard, as alleged. It does not even have new member initiations that time of year. The article says wildly implausible things like: "One flung a bottle at Jackie that broke on the side of her face, leaving a blood-red bruise around her eye."

A beer bottle hit her face and the bottle broke, leaving only a bruise?! Is that even physically possible?

The NY Times reports:
Even the magazine’s apology seemed to backfire. The note to readers initially said that Rolling Stone’s trust in Jackie was “misplaced” — which some read as criticizing Jackie and undermining her story. This weekend, as it faced further criticism for that characterization, it quietly changed the note to say that it was “mistaken in honoring Jackie’s request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account.” It also said, “These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie.”
So RS is refusing to admit that the story is false. There is no retraction and no apology, except to say that more fact-checking should have been done.

The feminists at NPR radio are still arguing for Jackie's allegations:
Emily, first we should say you know the victim, the woman identified as Jackie. She told you this story when you were with a campus support group. Now, Rolling Stone has said that their trust in her was misplaced. And I'm quoting there. Do you doubt her story?

EMILY RENDA: No, I don't. I think that there are some larger complexities at play here. There's a lot of good research, you know, citing Dr. David Lisak and Dr. Rebecca Campbell that suggest that traumatic memories are stored differently in the brain. And so as a result, they're brought out by the brain different as well. So through none of this process have I ever disbelieved Jackie. Have I believed that details may change shape over time because of the nature of trauma? Absolutely.

MARTIN: Have you spoken to her - Jackie - since the news broke?

RENDA: I have. You know, I never feel entirely comfortable speaking on somebody else's behalf. But I'll say that this is very overwhelming. And I know that even just personally as a survivor, I knew that when people questioned me, that was pretty traumatic. And so I can't imagine what it's like to have the national news media outlet that you trusted for months, who attempted to convince you to stay in the story on multiple occasions, all of a sudden turn its back on you and kind of take the entire country down a road of doubting you. That's got to be incredibly traumatic.
So somehow we are supposed to still believe Jackie, even tho her story is contradicted to all the ascertainable facts.

The obvious inference here is that feminist women are unable to communicate on a factual level. They just give emotional responses and arguments, and do not even understand that truth is based on facts and that many facts can be objectively verified. Not all women suffer from this problem, as the YouTube channel Factual Feminist is able to give a fact-based discussion of some controversial issues. But that is the exception.

Update: This article summarizes evidence that the main factual claims of the Rolling Stone article have been proved incorrect, and concludes:
The wildly poetic moralizing by Sabrina Erdely is based on feminist fantasies about how “rape culture” permeates universities across the country, and has no basis in reality whatsoever. The hysterical fight against this imaginary “rape culture” is a desperate attempt by a dying feminist movement to regain relevance in a world that hasn’t needed their activism in decades.

Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone are not just grossly negligent and wildly incorrect in their reporting, they must be pursued by relentless litigation for libel and defamation of character for the institutions and individuals involved in this story.

After reading the claims made by Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone, and reviewing the evidence, can their continued existence in a media capacity be tolerated?
No, there will be no libel and defamation lawsuits because the legal system makes those suits impossible to win, because anyone suing would suffer worse adverse publicity as the feminist press would gang up on him, and because dumb female jurors are unlikely to understand the facts.

It is telling that Rolling Stone is unwilling to even stick to a statement that Jackie misled them. And the magazine has not admitted that it published a hoax.

Update: Lena Dunham's memoir alleges that she was raped by the campus conservative, and her publisher now suggests that was also a hoax, as it pays off the likely suspect. Sick, sick, sick.

Sunday, December 07, 2014

Divorce rate up or down?

Economist Justin Wolfers writes in the NY Times:
The divorce rate has been falling for more than three decades. That fact is not news, but it still surprises a lot of people. ...

By this measure, the divorce rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per thousand people in 1981, before falling to 4.7 in 1990, and it has since fallen further to 3.6 in 2011, the most recent year for which data are available. Of course, the marriage rate has also fallen over this period. But even measuring divorces relative to the population that could plausibly get divorced — the number of people who are married — shows that divorce peaked in 1979, and has fallen by about 24 percent since.
Others dispute this:
The number of demographers who believe that overall divorce risk has declined is small. Other than Stevenson and Wolfers, we identified only Heaton (2002) and Ivers and Stevenson (2010). The consensus of most demographers, as Schoen and Canudas-Romo (2006) put it, “it is premature to believe that the probability of divorce has begun to decline.” You are entitled to argue that ACS is wrong and SIPP is right. Nevertheless, I think you should acknowledge that the decline of divorce narrative is a minority viewpoint among professional demographers.
I don't know who is right. It sure seems as if we have a lot more broken homes, but I often do not know whether the parents were ever married in the first place.

Whether the divorce rate is going up or down, it is clear that fewer Americans are married today, and fewer are having kids. We are being repopulated by immigrants from Third World countries.

I quoted Wolfers last year on how the US Supreme Court and other laws have promoted divorce by redefining marriage. He has his own peculiar marriage to another economist.

Saturday, December 06, 2014

UVa rape story is a hoax

I posted yesterday:
The Rolling Stone and Washington Post are going down as using hoax newspapers to promote a political ideology. The National Enquirer has higher standards.
Now these publications are half-way backing down.

Wash. Post:
Several key aspects of the account of a gang rape offered by a University of Virginia student in Rolling Stone magazine have been cast into doubt, including the date of the alleged attack and details about an alleged attacker, according to interviews and a statement from the magazine backing away from the article.

The U-Va. fraternity chapter where the alleged attack on a student named Jackie was said to have occurred in September 2012 released a statement Friday afternoon denying that such an assault took place in its house. Phi Kappa Psi said it has been working with police to determine whether the account of a brutal rape at a party there was true. The fraternity members say that several important elements of the allegations were false.

A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are sex assault awareness advocates at U-Va., said they believe something traumatic happened to her, but they also have come to doubt her account. They said details have changed over time, and they have not been able to verify key points of the story in recent days. A name of an alleged attacker that Jackie provided to them for the first time this week, for example, turned out to be similar to the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.
Rolling Stone:
In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.
This is not quite a retraction or an apology, but a good start. Maybe now they should print Jackie's full name and picture.

Or maybe Jackie is just some pitiful immature lunatic who took one Women's Studies class too many. The real culprits are the leftist news media, Democrat politicians, and Obama administration who perpetrated the idea of a college rape culture.

I notice that none of the article on this UVa rape hoax, such as in the NY Times, give any credit to people like Steve Sailer who helped expose it. You get the impression that Rolling Stone and Wash. Post decided on their own to correct errors. Not much chance of that.

HBO TV girls star Lena Dunham is perpetrating her own rape hoax:
A media investigation into the allegations of rape featured in Lena Dunham's recently-released memoir has refuted the claims of sexual assault made by the Girls creator.

The writer, actor and director dedicates a chapter of her book, Not That Kind Of Girl - for which she received a reported $3.7 million advance - to a boy she met at Oberlin College in Ohio identified as 'Barry', who she alleges raped her one night after a party. ...

Dunham's description of Barry is similarly explicit, explaining him as a 'mustachioed campus Republican' with a 'mustache that rode the line between ironic Williamsburg fashion and big buck hunter', who hosted a radio show called Real Talk With Jimbo, worked in the library stacking shelves and 'wore purple cowboy boots'.

She also said that he once punched a girl 'in the boob' at a party and, following a consensual sexual encounter, another girl woke to find blood spattered all over the wall 'like a crime scene'.

Furthermore Dunham does not state that 'Barry' is a pseudonym, as she does with other names that appear in her book.

An investigation by John Nolte from Breitbart News undertaken at the Oberlin campus, which was published Thursday, concluded that the 'Barry' Dunham describes is a 'ghost', and that no such person appeared to exist at the college during the years she studied there.
The author of the Rolling Stone rape hoax story is a A Left-Wing Jew With A History Of Christian-Bashing. Ditto for Lena Dunham.

There is an obvious ideological component to these hoaxes, along with Ferguson Missouri police, Duke Lacrosse, etc.

Even leftist feminist Jezebel admits:
This is really, really bad. It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave's doubts about the story and called them "idiots" for picking apart Jackie's account, I was dead fucking wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize. It means that my conviction that Sabrina Rubin Erdely had fact-checked her story in ways that were not visible to the public was also wrong. It's bad, bad, bad all around.
The problem here is not just bad journalism. We have social justice warriors who are out to change the culture:
she'd initially been intimidated by UVA's aura of preppy success, where throngs of toned, tanned and overwhelmingly blond students fanned across a landscape of neoclassical brick buildings, hurrying to classes, clubs, sports, internships, part-time jobs, volunteer work and parties; Jackie's orientation leader had warned her that UVA students' schedules were so packed that "no one has time to date – people just hook up."
To them, fraternities represent a white Christian sexist establishment culture that they hate. There is also a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude among the SJWs.

Consider the Rolling Stone excuse that they could not contact the alleged perps because it would annoy them or spur retaliation. What did they think that publishing the article would do? The excuse makes no sense, unless you adopt some sort of victim mentality that says that the woman's story must always be believed.

This should have been fishy:
Magazine writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely knew she wanted to write about sexual assaults at an elite university. What she didn’t know was which university.

So, for six weeks starting in June, Erdely interviewed students from across the country. She talked to people at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and her alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania. None of those schools felt quite right. But one did: the University of Virginia, a public school, Southern and genteel, brimming with what Erdely calls “super-smart kids” and steeped in the legacy of its founder, Thomas Jefferson.
. In other words, she wanted to target a stereotype with her accusations.

Friday, December 05, 2014

Media defending the UVa frat rape hoax story

I posted skepticism about the UVa frat gang rape story, and now others are openly calling it a hoax. But the mainstream feminist media is defending the story, even if it turns out to be false.

Rebecca Traister writes in the New Republic:
The dismantling of Erdely’s story — both by anti-feminist agonistes and by those genuinely dismayed by possible journalistic error — would mean that Jackie’s story of being beaten and raped by seven fraternity brothers will be dismissed, and that the reading public will be permitted to slip back into the comforting conviction that stories like Jackie’s aren’t real, that rapes like that don’t happen, that our system works, and that, of course, bitches lie.
That's right. If it turns out, as is likely, that Jackie and Erdely perpetrated a hoax, then the story will be dismissed.

Yes, rapes like that do not happen. That is why I was skeptical. Yes, bitches lie. That is why it is plausible that this story is a hoax.

Just look at how she wants us to believe the story, even if it is false!

The NY Times reports:
But some have also raised questions about the article. Its writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, has faced criticism because she has acknowledged in interviews that she did not contact or interview the men accused of the rape. News organizations, seeking to be fair, usually seek comment from those suspected of criminal conduct.

In an interview Tuesday, Ms. Erdely said that she stood by her reporting.

“I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better,” she said. “I am also not interested in diverting the conversation away from the point of the piece itself.”
Yes, it could have been done better. She could have contacted the accused men, and could have looked for evidence verifying Jackie's story.

But notice her response: exposing her hoax is a diversion from the point of the story!
The subject of the article, who was identified by only her first name, had requested that her assailants not be contacted, and Rolling Stone decided that her situation was too delicate to risk going against her wishes, according to people familiar with the reporting process who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
This is laughable. The Rolling Stone and Washington Post are going down as using hoax newspapers to promote a political ideology. The National Enquirer has higher standards.

I am reminded of an interview I once read of the director of a movie about the life story of a leftist activist. He was asked several questions of the form "Let me ask about the scene where ... did that really happen?" Each time, the director said no. Finally, the director said something like: "I don't know what you are trying to get at here. I decided at the outset that we were not going to let the facts get in the way of telling this man's story."

This attitude appears common in Hollywood, as shown by recent biographies of scientists Stephen Hawking and Alan Turing. Those big-budget movies got rave reviews on everything except the facts.

I would think that true rape victims would lead the charge in favor of honest reporting. But then I would think that black people would not align themselves with a 100% guilty thug like Michael Brown of Ferguson Missouri. (It appears that they now have a better example to protest, in the Death of Eric Garner.) As it is, I am inclined to believe that sensationalized rape stories are probably false as the mainstream media are happy with one side of the story.

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Jewish Marxist tranny dies

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but this one is way too freaky.

Here is an obituary of a feminist hero:
Leslie Feinberg, who identified as an anti-racist white, working-class, secular Jewish, transgender, lesbian, female, revolutionary communist, died on Nov. 15. She succumbed to complications from multiple tick-borne co-infections, including Lyme disease, babeisiosis and protomyxzoa rheumatica, after decades of illness.

She died at home in Syracuse, N.Y., with her partner and spouse of 22 years, Minnie Bruce Pratt, at her side. Her last words were: “Hasten the revolution! Remember me as a revolutionary communist.”

Feinberg was the first theorist to advance a Marxist concept of “transgender liberation,” and her work impacted popular culture, academic research and political organizing.

Her historical and theoretical writing has been widely anthologized and taught in the U.S. and international academic circles. Her impact on mass culture was primarily through her 1993 first novel, “Stone Butch Blues,” widely considered in and outside the U.S. as a groundbreaking work about the complexities of gender. Sold by the hundreds of thousands and also passed from hand-to-hand inside prisons, the novel has been translated into Chinese, Dutch, German, Italian, Slovenian, Turkish and Hebrew. Her earnings from the Hebrew edition go to ASWAT, Palestinian Gay Women. ...

She preferred to use the pronouns she/zie and her/hir for herself, ...

She moved out of a biological family hostile to her sexuality and gender expression, and to the end of her life carried legal documents that made clear they were not her family. ...

From 2004 to 2008, Feinberg’s writing on the links between socialism and LGBT history, “Lavender & Red,” ran as a 120-part series in Workers World. Her most recent book, “Rainbow Solidarity in Defense of Cuba,” was an edited selection of that series. (

Feinberg authored two other nonfiction books, “Transgender Warriors: Making History” and “Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue,” as well as a second novel, “Drag King Dreams.” ...

She attributed her catastrophic health crisis to “bigotry, prejudice and lack of science” ...

Feinberg’s spouse, Minnie Bruce Pratt, an activist and poet, is the author of “Crime Against Nature” about loss of custody of her sons as a lesbian mother. Feinberg and Pratt met in 1992 when Feinberg presented a slideshow on her transgender research in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the local Workers World branch. ...

Feinberg stressed that state authorities had no right to assign who were or were not her loved ones, but rather that she would define her chosen family, citing Marx who said that the exchange value of love is — love.
Pratt is a professor at Syracuse University, and sounds just as kooky.

My guess is that he/she/ze died of AIDS. The Lyme infection is just a cover story. Probably extremely disturbed psychologically, as she has repudiated her family, sex, race, religion, nation, and everything else.

I suppose I should stick up for Pratt losing custody of her kids, but did those kids really want Feinberg as a step-father? That would be a nightmare.

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Connecticut reconsiders prior restraint

I mentioned this free speech case, and it has a rushed appeal:
The state Supreme Court will consider arguments about a judge's rare ruling barring the Connecticut Law Tribune from publishing a story about a child protection case.

The state's highest court's decision came as lawyers in the case argued Monday about the prior restraint during an emergency hearing in Superior Court called Friday by Judge Stephen Frazzini. Frazzini's ruling, issued Nov. 24, has prompted harsh criticism from free-speech advocates but applause from those who argue that privacy issues in child protection cases trump First Amendment rights.
This case has gotten other publicity outside legal circles, and the court is very likely to allow publication. I do not see how the order can be upheld under US Supreme Court precedents, like the Pentagon Papers case.

But the issue is not going away.
In juvenile cases in Connecticut, judges have the discretion to allow only certain participants from attending court proceedings. State law says the court "may, for the child's safety and protection and for good cause shown, prohibit any person or representative of any agency, entity or association, including a representative of the news media, who is present in court from further disclosing any information that would identify the child, the custodian or caretaker of the child or the members of the child's family" involved in the hearing.

"This is a child protection case," Dembo said, adding that the matter went beyond the question of custody of the three children involved in the case. "Let me say that again. Child protection," he said.

Reversing or modifying the ruling could embolden the court to end the presumption of child confidentiality, he said. Dembo said while he favored a "robust press," he said he felt "proud" last week when Frazzini granted his request.
My guess is that the court will allow the newspaper to publish its story, but the juvenile courts will be more aggressive about keeping reporters out of court in the first place.

Compared to the rest of the world, we have very liberal free speech and free press law in the USA, except for one area: child porn. On that issue, protection of the child has convinced everyone that very draconian censorship laws are necessary. Parents have even been prosecuted for taking pictures of their own kids in the bathtub. The question of whether such child protections can be extended to other areas has not be so fully litigated. In this CT case, it may be just a routine divorce with over-dramatized child-care accusations, and the court secrecy actions are really to protect the adults.

Update: (Dec. 12) CT supreme court overruled the order.

Tuesday, December 02, 2014

MSNBC: kids belong to whole communities

I just found this April 2013 Yahoo story:
Last week, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry appeared in a promotional video for the network where she argued that we have to "break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents" and recognize that "kids belong to whole communities."

The ad was greeted with alarm on the right. Glenn Beck said it seemed "so far beyond what we have ever thought as a nation, it is remarkable," while Rush Limbaugh noted "the nuclear family has always been under attack by communists, leftists."

Sarah Palin called the MSNBC ad was "unflippingbelievable."

First, Harris-Perry responded with a simple tweet: Matthew 5:44.

The verse according to the New International Version of the Bible is: "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Melissa Harris-Perry responds:
My inbox began filling with hateful, personal attacks on Monday, apparently as a result of conservative reactions to a recent “Lean Forward” advertisement now airing on msnbc, which you can view above. What I thought was an uncontroversial comment on my desire for Americans to see children as everyone’s responsibility has created a bit of a tempest in the right’s teapot. Allow me to double down.

One thing is for sure: I have no intention of apologizing for saying that our children, all of our children, are part of more than our households, they are part of our communities and deserve to have the care, attention, resources, respect and opportunities of those communities.
The Christian Post responds:
Mike Riggs posted the video and a transcript at Reason with the title, "Is This the Creepiest Show Promo MSNBC Has Ever Run?"

"The hubris in this video is amazing," Shane Vander Hart wrote at Caffeinated Thoughts. "While my child is not 'my property,' my wife and I are the ones who are responsible before God to raise, clothe, feed, educate, and most importantly train up to follow Christ. My child is not part of 'the collective.'"

Joy Pullman, at American Enterprise Institute's Values & Capitalism Project, argued that, besides being inconsistent with what the U.S. Supreme Court has said about parental rights, the commercial is also inconsistent with biblical teaching.

"The Christian tradition teaches that children do, indeed, belong to their families, and not to 'whole communities,'" Pullman wrote. "My favorite of many examples of this is Ephesians 6:4: 'Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.' That word translated 'discipline' here actually has a massive meaning. In Greek, it's paideia, which actually means every single thing that goes into a child's upbringing and education and encircles the child into maturity – body, mind and soul."
Hillary Clinton wrote a 1996 book titled It Takes a Village, where she also argued that kids belong to the village.

More than ever, the American Left is a war against parents.

This is the same MSNBC that spent that last 3 months telling that we should vote Democrat because racist white cops are shooting innocent blacks in back, like in Ferguson Missouri. Pres. Barack Obama, AG Holder, and the Democrat Missouri governor seemed to do everything they could to encourage race riots there. Even tho the facts support the cop's story, Obama still implies that white racist cops are at fault. I am disgusted with all of them.

I wish I could say that the Republican will rescue us from the Obama Democrats. The voters rejected Obama policies in the last election, and the Republicans have an opportunity to undo some of the damage. I doubt that they will do much, but at least they are not as bad as the Democrats.

Monday, December 01, 2014

Another campus rape scare story

CNN reports:
The University of Virginia is suspending all fraternities and associated parties until January 9 following a Rolling Stone magazine article that described a student's account of being gang raped and her frustration at trying to bring her alleged attackers to accountability.

"The wrongs described in Rolling Stone are appalling and have caused all of us to re-examine our responsibility to this community," school President Teresa A. Sullivan wrote in a statement to the university community. "Rape is an abhorrent crime that has no place in the world, let alone on the campuses and grounds of our nation's colleges and universities."
Joeyjoejoe is skeptical:
Without reading the blog, or the entire article, I question the veracity of the incident as well. It is not a he said-she said rape: it is not a rape involving alcohol: it is not a date rape. It is, allegedly, a rape in which the woman, sober, goes upstairs with her date, who then turns her over to 7 fraternity brothers who beat and rape her for three hours (and apparently push her through a glass table?). At the conclusion of the ordeal (at 11 pm that same night), the girl is on the street, bumps into three of her friends (two male and one female, I believe), who recommend she not report it - in particular, because the male friends want to pledge fraternities in the future!

Shortly thereafter, the girl goes to the crisis center on campus, and the director there doesn’t recommend she go to the police, but rather outlines her options (report to police, file a complaint with the crisis center, don’t do anything, etc).

This all happened two years ago, and at one site I read, the alleged perpetrators are all graduated and no longer on campus.

There are so many obvious questions to ask about this incident. But one not so obvious question: if the incident is true, why isn’t the director of the crisis center immediately out of a job? Why is noone (the police, the university, even the fraternity system) treating this like the crime it is purported to be-in other words, why isn’t a police investigation being opened right now? In other words, why aren’t the people involved acting as if they believe it?

It is almost as if everyone involved knows its not true, and they are all trying to treat it as seriously as they have to without taking it seriously at all. And by everyone, I mean the local police, the fraternity system, the president of the University, the crisis center at the university. The response is so out of kilter to what the purported incident is (not merely by those who would conceivably want to ‘cover up’ the crime-even by those who would want to expose or solve the crime), there is obviously something else going on.
There are more skeptics on Reddit.

Comparisons are being made to the Duke lacrosse case. That was a huge national story, even tho it was wildly implausible and the accused had iron-clad alibis. Tests showed that the accuser had the semen of five different men in her, but none matched the DNA of the lacrosse team.

I would think that genuine victims of rape, domestic violence, and racist police abuse would lead the criticism of these phony stories, but they do not. The feminists and social justice warriors seem unconcerned with the facts.

The story from Barack Obama and his supporters was that a racist white cop in Ferguson Missouri confronted a black boy on the street for no reason, racially abused him in front of dozens of witnesses in the middle of the day, and then shot him in the back when he surrendered. Wildly implausible story, and contradicted by three autopsies and a lot of other evidence.

Obvious lesson: Blacks, feminists, Obama supporters, and SJWs have no credibility as they will complain the loudest about hoaxes that they are perpetrating.

Update: One famous black guy has wised up:
Why Charles Barkley supports the Ferguson grand jury decision

Former NBA star Charles Barkley called Ferguson looters 'scumbags' and said that 'key forensic evidence, and several black witnesses that supported Officer Darren Wilson’s story.'

Former NBA star Charles Barkley recently called Ferguson looters "scumbags," praised police officers who work in black neighborhoods, and said he supports the decision made by the grand jury not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the Michael Brown shooting.

During an interview on 97.5 The Fanatic in Philadelphia on Tuesday, the day after the Ferguson decision was announced, host Mike Missanelli asked Barkley about it and why "black America" doesn't trust the ruling.

His response surprised some listeners.

"The true story came out from the grand jury testimony," Barkley said, adding that he was made aware of "key forensic evidence, and several black witnesses that supported Officer Darren Wilson’s story..." He continued, "I can’t believe anything I hear on television anymore. And, that’s why I don’t like talking about race issues with the media anymore, because they (the media) love this stuff, and lead people to jump to conclusions. The media shouldn’t do that. They never do that when black people kill each other. "

He also called those who rioted after the decision was announced "scumbags," and said "There is no excuse for people to be out there burning down people's businesses, burning down police cars."

And in a marked departure from other prominent black leaders who have questioned tactics used by officers and, in some cases, accused officers of racial profiling and outright racism, Barkley supported police officers, especially those who work in black neighborhoods.
Update: Here is Richard Bradley skepticism about the UVa Rolling story, and response to the predictable Jezebel attack.

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Bill Cosby is innocent

I regularly argument that men should be innocent until proven guilty, especially when there is a frenzy of decades-old dubious accusations from people seeking financial settlements.

Brendan O’Neill writes in the UK :
Whatever you think of Cosby – I remember even as a kid I thought The Cosby Show was pants [is this some British jargon? -George] – this media-led public criminalisation of someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime should chill you. Because the fact is, Cosby is innocent of rape. Just as you are. Just as I am. At least until such a time as someone does the very hard job of proving beyond reasonable doubt that he did rape someone. There’s a phrase for this, I think. How does it go? Ah, yes: ‘A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty.’

The speed with which Cosby has gone from being the uncle of modern America to the scum of the world wide web has been terrifying. As a CNN headline summed it up: ‘From TV dad to accused sexual predator.’ That’s basically what has happened to Cosby’s reputation in the space of two weeks.

Many of the pundits rushing to demote Cosby to devil have used the phrase ‘no smoke without fire’, now that 16 women have made similar allegations. This might seem commonsensical, but it is also antithetical to what we used to know as justice. As historical incidents everywhere from Salem in the seventeenth century to Shieldfield in the 1990s show, lots of accusations do not mean guilt can be inferred, and can actually mean the opposite. ... In short, often there is smoke without fire, especially in a climate of ‘frenzy’; a climate of fear; a climate that longs for a monster; a climate like Salem, where accusations also spread like wildfire; a climate like that currently surrounding Cosby. ...

Well, I have news for these twenty-first-century Salemites: Bill Cosby, we must presume, is innocent. And given that the passing of the statute of limitations means he’s very unlikely to be brought to court to face his accusers, he will remain innocent. I’m sorry if that gets in the way of your search for a demon to yell about, but that’s life: liberty and justice are more important than your weird psychological need for evil.
The clincher for me was the accusation that he used a date-rape drug against his victims. While such drugs do exist, their usage by sexual predators is almost entirely a myth. I do not think that there has ever been a case of someone like Bill Cosby using it. If he had, and one of his victims made a prompt complaint and got a urine test, then he would be behind bars.

The fact is that women often consent to sexual relations and have regrets the next morning. They tell themselves stories to excuse themselves, and sometimes they even believe their own BS.

Update: If you are wondering about motives, Bill Cosby is worth $400M.