Davis nationally known for murder and Communism

I mentioned that Angela Davis was speaking in Santa Cruz, along with other anti-American feminist scum. (If a US Senator can use that term, so can I.)

Here is how the local newspaper covered it:

Titled “Racism, Militarism, Poverty: From Ferguson to Palestine,” Davis’s talk drew connections between King’s work and uprisings today, in response to recent police killings of unarmed black men in Missouri and New York. ...

Davis, known nationally for her leadership in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s and her more recent work on abolishing the prison industrial complex, was selected to give the keynote speech at UCSC’s 31st annual convocation, in part due to her ties to campus.

No, that is not what she is known for.

Davis is mainly known for her murder trial. She was associated with the Black Panthers and she bought the guns that her boyfriend used to kill a judge, and was a fugitive for a few months. President Nixon called her a "dangerous terrorist". It was the OJ trial of the day, and she was somehow acquitted in a politicized trial.

The second thing she is known for is being a VP candidate on the American Communist Party ticket.

She is a black lesbian feminist. Her doctoral degree is a bogus degree from East Berlin.

Here are some letters to the editor:

Having Angela Davis speak was a waste of money

So, “political activist” Angela Davis, longtime member of the Communist Party USA and its Vice Presidential candidate in 1980 and 1984, supplier of the weapons used to murder Judge Harold Haley in August of 1970, 1979 recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize awarded to her in Moscow by the Soviet Union (during the height of the Cold War) and long-time feeder at the UCSC trough has been given $15,000 of our tax money to preach her anti-Semitic rhetoric in the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. Chancellor Blumenthal defends UCSC’s subsidy of Davis’ hate speech as an “opportunity for constructive debate on the merits of different viewpoints.” This is the same chancellor who could not figure out how to come up with $250,000 to help subsidize the far more academically worthy Shakespeare Santa Cruz. It is time the taxpayers of California got what they are paying for — an affordable university system capable of preparing our young people for productive careers.

Teaching them to hate their country, hate Jews and commit acts of terror should not be on the syllabus.

— David Emberson, Santa Cruz

Angela Davis’ speech highlights her bias

After attending Angela Davis’ lecture in honor of MLK Jr. I was disappointed with her speech. She said that American police from various cities have gone to Israel to learn how to fight terrorism and therefore Israel was to blame for police action in America against citizens of color. This example portrays Prof. Davis’ rabid bias against Israel. In her discussion of the recent fighting in Gaza, Prof.

Davies failed to mention how Hamas terrorizes its own civilians while firing hundreds of rockets at Israel. While she espoused the rights of women, there was no shred of criticism of Palestinian society which is repressive to women and gays and has no freedom of the press. Why does she support Palestine where there is no minimum age for girls to marry, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man, and “honor killings” of women is practiced. Singling Israel for criticism is Anti Semitic and contrary to MLK Jr’s support for Israel.

— Ilana Goldstein, Santa Cruz

Ethnic study almost never about cultural heritage

Apparently DeCinzo didn’t get the memo on ethnic studies, that any attempt to initiate a dialog on the failure of liberal education policies is always met with accusations of racism and the need for censorship. Rather than the self censoring that has been the result of political correctness and the fear of being called a racists, all subjects should be up for discussion. Ethnic study programs are almost never about cultural heritage, instead it is the liberal demonization of capitalism, white privilege and the self fulfilling prophesy that minorities can never prosper in a rigged free market, hence the need for socialism and forced equality. This is usually followed with the absurd premise that a school curriculum should be based on race. Instead of ethnic studies that divides up the student populations by race, color, religion and/or language, how about an emphasis on assimilation and the need for an informed electorate.

— Brad Goodwin, Santa Cruz

That last letter is about this cartoon:

The cartoon refers to this:

Under a new bill, California’s public high schools could be required to offer ethnic studies classes as part of an effort to build cultural understanding.

“This is a bill that’s going to take a lot of work,” said Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, who introduced the legislation last week. “Local efforts already show that it can be done in a significant way.”

Liberal philosopher law professor mind at work

Brian Leiter is a philosopher wannabe who became a law professor, and spreads his stupid liberal opinions on philosophy, politics, law, and ethics.

He writes:

The only exceptions to mandatory vaccination schemes should be for health reasons...

...but in crazy California you can get not only "religious" exemptions, but "philosophical" ones, not by having an argument, but simply by checking a box.  Perhaps if Child Protective Services started taking kids away from the idiot parents who don't vaccinate them, California would cease being the measles and whooping cough capitol of America -- and can polio be far behind?

I post this just to show the typical academic holier-than-thou Obama supporter mentality at work.

The main obstacle to eliminating polio was a Barack Obama decision. While he spent 6 months dithering about approval for a raid against Osama Bin Laden's compound, he approval a plan to use CIA spies to masquerade as polio vaccine workers to try to get a fingerprint or DNA sample from bin Laden. Once this got exposed, Afghans and Pakistanis think that polio vaccination is a CIA plot. 65 public health workers have been murdered as a result.

Leiter does not criticize Obama. He regularly posts name-calling rants against Republicans.

Californians used to be able to get out of vaccine requirements by something like "checking a box", but the law has recently made it more difficult. Vaccination rates are higher than reported, because some parents say that they are opting out only because they do not have the documentation for the vaccines received.

You would think that a law professor would advocate a change in the law, if he disagreed with it. Or at least find out what the law is before he comments on it. But no, he would rather use CPS to take kids away from parents in order to enforce a social policy.

He seems to have contempt for the idea of parents exercising their legal rights by just checking a box. If it is indeed a legal right, then why not just check a box?

Liberals hate parental rights.

The measles epidemic is grossly exaggerated. There are millions of cases all over Europe, Asia, and Africa. It was eliminated from the USA, and only comes back in from foreigners. The current outbreak is from foreign tourists at Disneyland. If vaccination is so important, then why don't we demand that foreign tourists show proof of vaccination?

Why does American law give more rights to foreigners than to Americans?

Here is the official California measles data: There have been 79 California cases, of which 52 are attributable to Disneyland. Most of the cases are adults who have no vaccination requirements. Stiffening vaccination requirements for school-aged American kids will have no effect on adults getting measles from foreigners at Disneyland.

Just look at that guy. Does he look like a guy who believes in individual rights? No, he cannot even hold his head up straight. He looks pathetic. He is a left-wing authoritarian who wants everyone to conform to his stupid beliefs. People like him disgust me.

Family court grapples with vaccine dispute

Here is a Michigan case where a judge was asked to resolve a vaccination disagreement:

Following the parties’ divorce, defendant Richard Kagen discovered that plaintiff Lenore Kagen had discontinued their children’s vaccinations several years earlier [long before the divorce]. The pair could not agree on whether the children’s vaccinations should be updated and brought their dispute before the Oakland Circuit Court.

The circuit court failed to describe the applicable burden of proof and made no consideration of any statutory best interest factor in deciding the matter as required by [precedent]. The court also abused its discretion in excluding from evidence government-issued statements about the safety, potential risks, and benefits of childhood vaccinations. We therefore vacate the circuit court’s June 27, 2013 opinion and order rejecting Mr. Kagen’s bid to vaccinate the children and remand for a continued hearing….

Mrs. Kagen asserted that she maintains religious objections to employing vaccinations that contain poisonous ingredients. She further contended that Mr. Kagen previously shared her concerns and joined her decision to forego further inoculations. Mr. Kagen, on the other hand, claimed that he was blindsided by his ex-wife’s religious reformation and was completely unaware of the cessation of vaccinations until five years later.

There are a couple of easy ways to resolve this. One would be to order the parents to follow the CDC recommendations. Another would be to order the parents to stick to what they did when they were married. Judges often do either of these, and claim it is the BIOTCh (best interest of the child).

A sneakier strategy is for the judge to tell the lawyers that if a parent objects to a scheduled vaccination, then he will reconsider whether that parent is deserving of child custody. The lawyer then persuades the parent to back off.

All of these are surely legally wrong. The state could require everyone to get the vaccinations, but no law says that the requirement is only effective on kids of divorced parents. And surely parents should be able to change their minds.

Examples like these are frequently given as showing the necessity of family court intervention when parents do not agree. How else to resolve the dispute, they say.

To me, it shows just the opposite. The US FDA and CDC spend many millions of dollars on data gathering, research, and expert opinions on vaccination. Even they cannot be sure what is best. So how can some judge possibly decide what is best?

He cannot. He will just show his prejudices.

Some will say that the judge is better even if he is arbitrary, because he is objective and neutral. But that is false, and even if it were true, the kid should reared by the parents, not the judge.

In my view, the dispute is completely unnecessary. Just let each parent do what he or she wants on their own time.

This case is about like two Jewish divorced parents fighting over one possibly letting the other eat bacon. Sometimes judges intervene on such cases also, and rule that because the couple agreed at one time to keep kosher, they can ordered to continue that because a consistent parenting policy is in the BIOTCh. But that would mean that no parent could change his mind.

Admittedly, my rule would say that the parents who like vaccination and bacon are going to get their way. Well, I don't think that a parent sharing custody should be able to tell the other parent what to do or not do, unless it is something objectively harmful. Vaccinations and bacon are well-accepted by the vast majority of the population, and are legal and safe.

Santa Cruz feminist commies at work

I mentioned activities by Santa Cruz feminist commies, and I happened to notice some criticism from the Left. One of them is using M.L. King to hate the Jews:

An upcoming civil rights talk by UC Santa Cruz emeritus professor Angela Davis has prompted division and outcry among local Jews due to Davis’ public support for boycotts of Israel. ... Davis is one of around a dozen UCSC community members who have publicly endorsed an academic boycott of Israel, which some consider a blacklisting of Jewish Israeli academics.

The other is now against free speech:

Bettina Aptheker, a professor of feminist studies at the University of California–Santa Cruz, recently wrote an essay commemorating the Berkeley Free Speech movement, in which she participated as a student in 1964. She now expressed a newfound skepticism in the merits of free speech. “Freedom of speech is a constitutional guarantee, but who gets to exercise it without the chilling restraints of censure depends very much on one’s location in the political and social cartography,” she wrote. “We [Free Speech movement] veterans … were too young and inexperienced in 1964 to know this, but we do now, and we speak with a new awareness, a new consciousness, and a new urgency that the wisdom of a true freedom is inexorably tied to who exercises power and for what ends.”

Of course these people are against free speech. Their evil ideas cannot survive in a open discussion of the issues.

NPR blames feds for child abuse

NPR Radio reports this morning:

Laws intended to protect children from abuse and neglect are not being properly enforced, and the federal government is to blame. That's according to a study by the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, which says children are suffering as a result.

This is left-wing NPR, so the whole purpose of the story is to trigger a feminine emotional response in favor of more government money and more power to official agencies to intervene in peoples' lives.

It does not matter if the facts show that child abuse is down and that CPS interventions do not do any good. As long as one child somewhere is suffering some abuse, then the do-gooders will advocate whatever useless action they can.

But there's broad agreement among those involved in child welfare that the system is in desperate need of repair, agencies are underfunded, and caseworkers are often overwhelmed.

No, there is no such agreement. From what I can see, the agencies have way too much money, and spend all their time investigating frivolous accusations.

Smith says state and local officials complain that they spend too much time filling out federal forms and trying to meet requirements that aren't necessarily best for kids.

Instead, he says, they want flexibility on how to spend federal funds so they can focus more on keeping families together, rather than on helping kids after they've been abused and removed from their homes.

Yeah, they always want more money, and no accountability.

Of all the NPR stories this morning, this was the only one to come preceded with a pre-story warning that it is unusually disturbing. Really? Is the typical NPR liberal commuting to work likely to run off the road at the thought of some social service agency not getting all the money it wants or having to fill out government forms?

Reader goes his own way

Since saying that the system cannot be reformed, I have attracted some MGTOW readers:

I make a ton of money. I have a high net worth. I'm not married. I don't have kids. If it weren't for feminism, the incredibly simple, care-free, easy life I live today might not have been possible. My estate is willed to men's charities.

Women have nothing to add to my life but the opportunity to have sex. Sex with most women bring (1) the chance of contracting an incurable STD, (2) the chance of a false rape claim (cause I'm not calling her the next day or next week), (3) the chance of an unwanted pregnancy, where 'my body my choice = your wallet', (4) the emasculating 'privilege' of living with a woman, (5) the pressure to get married and (6) giving a natural parasite the opportunity to transfer my wealth to themselves through divorce and/or other forms of civil suits.

Feminism helped men a lot more than it helped women. The only reason men are still getting screwed en masse is because all of media promotes a 1950s view in men's thought processes. Most of the messages sent to men in the media are still promoting white knight/captain save a hoe/gynocentric mentality (i.e., man up/get married). If you can somehow wake men up and remove the illusions, enchantments and false beliefs regarding women (i.e., teach them the true nature of women, hypergamy, etc), then you're going to have a lot more single, happy men.

All of the above is why the MGTOW mindset is so very beneficial for men. The MGTOW mindset undoes all of the false social programming that destroys men. MGTOW thinking frees men's minds.

I have come around to your view, but I do not agree completely.

We would be a lot better off if the mass media really promoted a 1950s view of the family. That was when the man was the responsible head of household, the wife was loyal, and the kids had respect. Feminists have succeed in reversing that from a good thing to a bad thing.

There are millions of American women over age 40 who would give anything for that 1950s family life, but they do not seem to realize how feminism has made that difficult. Some can still get what they want in one of the religions that still believes in marriage (Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox Judaism, Eastern religions).

I do agree about white knights. That is one area where the mass media pushes men to do foolish things.

Want proof that the system is anti-men? Read State tells Detroit man: Pay for child that isn't yours or go to jail! I posted this story before, and the man is still facing jail.

Michigan law must be really screwed up to let this happen. While this guy gets no relief, the Michigan lesbians pictured below got their case to the US Supreme Court. You can read more about them and the other couples in the same-sex marriage case here.

Feminist admits movement went too far

Nancy Gertner is a famous American feminist law professor and federal judge. She finally decided that her feminist policies had gone too far when she defended a man against a false rape accusation:

I took over the appeal. The brief my firm filed was what I described as a feminist brief: Just because the legal system has moved away from the view that all rape accusations are contrived does not mean it must move to the view that none are. This conviction was not just technically imperfect, I argued, it was a true injustice. I was successful. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed Paul’s conviction on a procedural error, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The prosecutor could have retried the case, but, thankfully, chose not to do so.

After decades of feminist advocacy (the case establishing the right to choose abortion in Massachusetts, the first introduction of Battered Woman Syndrome in a defense to a murder charge, and on and on), I was picketed by a women’s rights group when I spoke on a panel following the reversal of Paul’s case; I was a “so-called women’s rights attorney,” one sign announced, simply because I had represented a man accused of rape. When I explained why, including the fact that I believed he was innocent, a demonstrator yelled, “That is irrelevant!” The experience was chilling; to the picketers, a wrongful conviction and imprisonment simply did not matter. Paul would have been incarcerated, but for my firm’s advocacy and the appellate court’s independent review. Still, advocacy and appellate review could only go so far: Though the charges against Paul were dropped, he was expelled from the college he had been attending; he struggled to reapply years later and finally get his degree. Worse yet, he continues to suffer from the stigma of the accusation to this day, many, many decades later.

Here is discussion of another accusation:

I did an interview and talked about Bill Cosby. Obviously I’m disgusted with what’s going on, it’s horrible what’s happened to these women, it seems like he did it. That’s what it seems like. But obviously, no, I don’t want to believe it. The last reason I don’t want to believe it is because it will hurt my image of Bill Cosby. The first reason is women are getting drugged and raped. That’s awful. But what I said was, of course I don’t want to believe this, but there’s fucking 20 of them now. If there’s 20 accusations, that means there’s hundreds. It’s like when you see one cockroach in the house that means there’s a thousand in the walls. That’s what I said. So that sounds okay, right? What do you think people did with that?

WIL: Comedian compares rape accusers to cockroaches.

PATTON: Rape victims to cockroaches.

I am not sure of his point here, but look at the illogic of his reasoning. If 20 women are willing to publicly accuse Cosby of drugging and raping them, then there must be 100s more who had the same thing happen and are keeping their mouths shut. So Cosby did it.

I think the reverse. Assume that the evidence is such that either Cosby is innocent, or that he drugged and raped 100s of women. Which is more likely?

If just one of those supposed victims called 911, made a report, and was given a physical exam, then there would be objective evidence. Cosby's semen in the vagine, and rape drug in the blood. Then the cops get a search warrant, and find matching rape drugs in his house, and other evidence. Cosby would be a dead duck.

Not all women report rape. Maybe only a half or a third do, I have no idea. Maybe some were aspiring actresses who thought that Cosby could get them jobs. But I cannot believe that he drugged and raped 100s of women and none of them reported it.

That is part of why I doubt the Jerry Sandusky molestations. He supposedly molested dozens of kids, and no one ever reported. Even after Sandusky was being investigated, his supposed victims denied. They only made accusations after they lawyered up and the likelihood of millions of dollars from Penn State became available.

The latest feminist victory is to get more clothing on the London The Sun page 3 models. A rival newspaper offers discussion:

Is the Sun's scrapping of Page 3 topless models a victory for women?
The Sun has 'quietly' stopped publishing photos of bare-breasted women on Page 3. Our writers discuss how significant this is for women

Of course all the comments are from feminists who essentially say the same thing -- that showing pretty girls objectifies women and therefore must be censored. No one wants to say the obvious. My guess is that women look at those pictures as much as men do.

Anita Hill comes to Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz California is a magnet for leftist-feminist kooks trying to destroy America, and here is the latest:

Law professor Anita Hill, who vaulted into public prominence during the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is coming to Santa Cruz.

Hill has been booked to appear at UC Santa Cruz on Feb. 26 in an event co-sponsored by UCSC’s Institute for Humanities Research and Bookshop Santa Cruz. She will give a talk on racial and gender equality and will sign copies of her book “Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race and Finding a Home.”

In advance of Hill’s Feb. 26 appearance, the Nickelodeon in Santa Cruz will screen the documentary on Hill’s experiences titled “Anita: Speaking Truth to Power” Feb. 22 and 23.

For information on the free talk, visit ihr.ucsc.edu/event/anita-hill.

Yes, she vaulted into prominence as the Democrats' stooge for what Thomas called a "high-tech" lynching.

Bookshop Santa Cruz, the local leftist book story, announces:

UC Presidential Chair in Feminist Critical Race & Ethnic Studies is pleased to bring Anita Hill to UC Santa Cruz for a public talk on sexual harassment law, gender and race equality. After the talk Anita Hill will be signing copies of her book, Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding a Home. There will also be a public screening of the film “Anita: Speaking Truth to Power” at the Nickelodeon Theater in Santa Cruz.

Here is the UCSC Events Calendar:

In 1991, Judge Clarence Thomas’ Senate Confirmation hearing sparked nation wide conversations regarding gender representation, sexual harassment, and race. Hill, who testified about Thomas’ inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace when he served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education and Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill will explore the impact of the hearing, including the legal developments, and related issues of credibility, consent, agency, and the interplay of culture, race, class, gender, and sexuality.

No, she did not testify about Thomas’ inappropriate sexual behavior. She made a series of uncorroborated and unverified accusations of Thomas making a few flirtatious comments, all of which were denied by Thomas and other employees.

The impact of the hearings was startling. Most people did not believe her. But I heard from many women, both personally and in the news media, who said things like "I know that she is telling the truth, because I once had a coworker who said similar things."

I never heard a man say anything so stupid. It is like saying, "I know that the defendant is guilty of robbing the bank, because my local bank was robbed once." I hate to think about women like that serving on juries.

Here is a sampling of the sort of nonsense that you can expect from Hill, as quoted in the NY Times:

Professer Hill gave her retrospective view of the hearings in the arcane language of the academic doctrines currently fashionable in legal and literary criticism.

"Because I and my reality did not comport with what they accepted as their reality, I and my reality had to be reconstructed by the Senate committee members with assistance from the press and others," she said.

"In constructing an explanation for my marital status as single, I became unmarriageable or opposed to marriage, the fantasizing spinster or the man hater. An explanation of my career success had to be introduced which fit with their perceptions about the qualifications of people of color, women and the myth of the double advantage enjoyed by women of color.

"I thus became aloof, ambitious, an incompetent product of affirmative action and an ingrate who betrayed those who had worked to insure my success."

Among academic literary critics, there is no such thing as objective reality. There is just my reality, your reality, and other realities. So if her distorted worldview conceives some sexual harassment fantasies that become her reality, that is good enuf for her, and the law should respect her reality regardless of anyone else's reality.

You would think that this sort of nonsense would scare away students who want a real education, but the university is doing better than ever:

UC Santa Cruz received a record number of applications this fall, including significant increases from out-of-state residents and minorities.

Nearly 55,000 prospective undergraduates applied to attend UCSC in Fall 2015, an 11 percent increase from the previous year. The jump is the second highest among UC campuses, all of which received record numbers this fall.

They will have to take class from the sort of kooks who invited Hill.

So who is the "UC Presidential Chair" that invited her? There are two co-chairs, one of which is an inbred Jewish Commie. In you think I exaggerate, read the Wikipedia bio on Bettina Aptheker. She succeeds Angela Davis, a black Commie. Those are probably the two most famous Communists in the USA today.

Davis is retired, but she is coming back to town next week to speak:

Activist, author, and distinguished UC Santa Cruz professor emerita Angela Davis is this year's keynote speaker at the 2015 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Convocation in downtown Santa Cruz.

Davis is the author of nine books, including her most recent book of essays, The Meaning of Freedom.

The topic of her talk will be "Racism, Militarism, Poverty: From Ferguson to Palestine." The convocation begins at 7 p.m., Wednesday, January 28, at the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium. The event is free and open to the public. ...

One of the highest-profile faculty members at UC Santa Cruz, she was a professor in history of consciousness and feminist studies from 1991 to 2008, when she retired.

For many years she has been a highly outspoken organizer and activist. A determined critic of the United States prison system, she helped popularize the term "prison industrial complex." In her speeches, she often asks her audiences to think seriously about the possibility of a world without prison.

She almost served a long prison term herself, as she bought the gun that her boyfriend used to murder a judge.

There is a UC Santa Cruz Women’s Club, but it does not appear involved in this nonsense. Its main activity in putting on the 8th Annual Santa Cruz Chocolate Festival. That is surely a more worthwhile activity, even if it is going to make all the local girls fat.

Otherwise, this is a sleepy little beach town, where the big news is high tides for surfing, and the skunk mating season.

Argument gets to US Supreme Court

For 2 centuries, the federal courts have mostly refused to hear family court issues, with the excuse being some sort of domestic relations exception to the constitution that I never understood. Now there is a huge exception to the exception.

AP reports on the US Supreme Court agreeing to decide same-sex marriage:

One of the plaintiffs from Ohio, James Obergefell, said he was crying "tears of joy and sadness" after the court accepted his appeal. In 2013, Obergefell flew to Maryland with his dying partner, John Arthur, so they could marry before Arthur's death. The couple sued to force Ohio to list Arthur as married on his death certificate, which would allow the men to be buried next to each other. Arthur died 15 months ago.

"I can't wait to walk up those steps and have the Supreme Court understand that we're just like everyone else," Obergefell said.

Really? That was the winning issue?

This guy suffers from some sort of mental illness. His friend is dead. They are not just like everyone else.

He got his same-sex ceremony. So his lawsuit is just to make people understand something because of some trivial notation stamped on a death certificate? It is hard to imagine a more stupid reason for the Supreme Court to hear a case.

Maybe the fathers rights activists have been doing it all wrong. Instead of arguing substantive issues, maybe they would be better off with some pathetic man whining about the fine print on a death certificate.

Judge orders dad to take his kids to church

The London Telegraph reports:

A judge has ordered a father to take his children to Roman Catholic mass as part of a divorce settlement, even though he is not Catholic.

The man, who can only be identified as “Steve” because of reporting restrictions on the case, faces possible contempt of court and a jail sentence if he fails to go to church when he has custody of the children. ...

Court transcripts seen by The Telegraph show that Judge Orrell discussed his own Catholic faith during the course of the hearing into contact arrangements for Steve’s two sons.
Related Articles

The legal requirement to attend mass at Christmas applies only to Steve, who is not a Roman Catholic.

His ex-wife is Catholic but is not subject to the same conditions in the residence and contact order.

It reads: “If the children are with their father at Christmas he will undertake that they will attend the Christmas mass.”

Steve, a 51-year-old psychologist, said: “It’s all very bizarre. This aspect of the contact order was not requested by the other side in the case.

While such an order would have constitutional problems in the USA, more onerous orders get issued every day. And upheld on appeal, also.

I did have a psychologist quiz me and my kids on how Christmas was celebrated, and parenting plans got ordered against me and many others with all sorts of details that reflect the dubious prejudices of whoever was writing the orders. This British dad just has to spend one hour every other year taking his kids to church. He got off easy, by comparison.

These stories are useful for illustrating the point that the power of family court judges ought to be limited. I have round that, among the sort of folks who would vote for Barack Obama, they genuinely do not understand why it is bad for a (supposedly) neutral objective outside expert should not define a parenting plan to be binding on child rearing. When you get to the subject of religion, then even liberals can understand that someone can have a sincere and informed belief that still ought not to be forced on others.

Kids nabbed for a Saturday stroll

The Wash. Post reports:

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv let their children, 10 and six, walk home alone from a park a mile away from their house. Now, Montgomery County is investigating the couple for child neglect.

It was a one-mile walk home from a Silver Spring park on Georgia Avenue on a Saturday afternoon. But what the parents saw as a moment of independence for their 10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter, they say authorities viewed much differently.

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv say they are being investigated for neglect for the Dec. 20 trek — in a case they say reflects a clash of ideas about how safe the world is and whether parents are free to make their own choices about raising their children.

“We wouldn’t have let them do it if we didn’t think they were ready for it,” Danielle said.

She said her son and daughter have previously paired up for walks around the block, to a nearby 7-Eleven and to a library about three-quarters of a mile away. “They have proven they are responsible,” she said. “They’ve developed these skills.”

The Meitiv children outside the National Gallery in Washington this month. (Family photo)

The Meitivs say they believe in “free-range” parenting, a movement that has been a counterpoint to the hyper-vigilance of “helicopter” parenting, with the idea that children learn self-reliance by being allowed to progressively test limits, make choices and venture out in the world.

“The world is actually even safer than when I was a child, and I just want to give them the same freedom and independence that I had — basically an old-fashioned childhood,” she said. “I think it’s absolutely critical for their development — to learn responsibility, to experience the world, to gain confidence and competency.”

On Dec.?20, Alexander agreed to let the children, Rafi and Dvora, walk from Woodside Park to their home, a mile south, in an area the family says the children know well.

The children made it about halfway.

Police picked up the children near the Discovery building, the family said, after someone reported seeing them. ...

The Meitivs say that on Dec. 20, a CPS worker required Alexander to sign a safety plan pledging he would not leave his children unsupervised until the following Monday, when CPS would follow up. At first he refused, saying he needed to talk to a lawyer, his wife said, but changed his mind when he was told his children would be removed if he did not comply.

Following the holidays, the family said, CPS called again, saying the agency needed to inquire further and visit the family’s home. Danielle said she resisted.

“It seemed such a huge violation of privacy to examine my house because my kids were walking home,” she said.

This week, a CPS social worker showed up at her door, she said. She did not let him in. She said she was stunned to later learn from the principal that her children were interviewed at school.

The family has a meeting set for next week at CPS offices in Rockville.

“I think what CPS considered neglect, we felt was an essential part of growing up and maturing,” Alexander said. “We feel we’re being bullied into a point of view about child-rearing that we strongly disagree with.”

I have posted a bunch of stories like this. You can find more at the Free Range Kids blog and the Legally Kidnapped blog. They are both excellent.

CPS defenders will say that this is an isolated story; that no one was prosecuted; and that the authorities were being cautious.

The problems here run deep. We have a society of busybodies who like to call 911 for the most trivial matter. Because we have laws criminalizing failure to report in some cases, then it is impractical to admonish those who over-report. So behavior will be over-reported. When the cops show up, they are trained to look for crimes. If they don't see a crime and need to dispose of the matter somehow, the easiest thing is to call CPS. CPS consists of professional busybodies who like intervening in peoples' lives, and hate being criticized for ignoring a problem. So their inclination is to try to force some action. Since their favorite threat is to take the kids away and put them in foster care, it is easy for them to bully parents.

Normally parents have a right to be present when kids are interviewed by cops or other authorities. But if they send the kid to a public school, then liberal judges say that parental rights end at the schoolhouse door.

People commonly say that life is more dangerous now, because of kidnappers, perverts, guns, drugs, or whatever, but it is just not true. See the recent article:

The World Is Not Falling Apart
Never mind the headlines. We’ve never lived in such peaceful times.

Here are some comments:

I do not know about Maryland in specific, but I have an Aunt that is a Guardian Ad Litem for children in another state. As soon as CPS is involved, you as a parent are essentially fucked. You will be forever on a watch list an if _anything_ bad happens to your kids they will immediately get involved.

They have very broad powers to remove children after a report like this and even if discussing it with a lawyer would have brought them back same day, the CPS still could have taken the kids.

I suppose it does reinforce the lesson that authority should be mistrusted. ...

CPS needs to be disbanded. Nazis indeed.

The above story is not isolated. CPS bullies parents like this every day. It pays little regard to what is legal, or what is safe, or what is reasonable. I know this from personal experience.

CPS should be shut down. It does more harm than good.

Joe Paterno was not guilty

I defended Penn State early on, and argued that coach Joe Paterno was framed in the Jerry Sandusky scandal. This was a modern witch-hunt.

Since then, no Penn State officials have been found guilty of anything in court, and it looks less likely that they will be.

ESPN TV reports:

Penn State's football team is getting back 112 wins wiped out during the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal, and the late Joe Paterno has been restored as the winningest coach in major college football history.

The NCAA announced the new settlement with the school Friday, weeks before a scheduled trial on the legality of the 2012 consent decree it will replace. ...

The announcement follows the NCAA's decision last year to reinstate the school's full complement of football scholarships and let Penn State participate in postseason play, and it comes just days after a federal judge declined to rule on the consent decree's constitutionality. ...

The consent decree had also called for Penn State to provide $60 million to fight child abuse and combat its effects. The lawsuit scheduled for trial next month began as an effort by two state officials to enforce a state law that required the money to remain in Pennsylvania.

Under the settlement, the money will remain in Pennsylvania.

There is more at www.framingpaterno.com.

This case was scary because of how the public was so completely turned against Penn State. Even people I know, who seem otherwise intelligent on other issues, would adamantly argue that Penn State is guilty of something even while being unable to explain what it was guilty of.

Briefly, I say Paterno was innocent because he had very little knowledge of allegations against Sandusky, and what knowledge he did have was turned over to appropriate authorities. I say Penn State was innocent because it only had some evidence of inappropriate behavior, not criminal conduct. It turned the evidence over to police and kicked him off campus. Again, I do not see how Penn State could be expected to do more, when Sandusky was not even accused of committing a crime.

The evidence against Sandusky consisted entirely of uncorroborated recovered memories from people who were suing Penn State for millions of dollars. There were only a couple of complaints that predated the availability of million dollar Penn State payoffs. But those complaints were only about inappropriate conduct, and were changed to complaints about sex abuse after the payoffs became available.

The whole story fits the pattern of other recovered memory sex abuse scandals where false charges led to a lot of news media hysteria.

The gay marriage fix is in

The US Supreme Court hardly ever hears any family court issues. The last three presidents (Clinton, Bush, Obama) were all elected with promises to oppose same-sex marriage. California passed a popular initiative against same-sex marriage, and then amended its constitution to say the same thing. The courts approved the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples. Only one gay federal judge gave a different opinion, and the US Supreme Court said that his opinion had to be limited to the two couples in his court. And yet we have same-sex marriage in California.

And yet the US Supreme Court has agreed to decide this:

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether all 50 states must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. The court’s announcement made it likely that it would resolve one of the great civil rights questions of the age before its current term ends in June.

Nobody thinks that the liberal justices will pay any attention to the legal arguments. They will make a political decision. The conservative justices try to follow the Constitution, and there will be speculation about their votes.

It hardly matters. The fix is in. We will have same-sex marriage.

I don't want to argue the merits of this. It is a done deal. I just want to note that all this is happening without any public consensus that it is good idea, without an serious social science evidence that there are any public benefits, without even a large population using this (as marriageable gays and lesbians are less than 1% of the USA), and without any valid political process.

So how did LBGTQIA folks get this, while fathers cannot even get laws guaranteeing that they can see their kids?

I am not sure, but I see a couple of things. First, the gays and lesbians are the most nasty and vindictive of American political groups. If you cross them, they will do everything to destroy you.

Second, they made allies with people who want to destroy marriage for other reasons. A lot of feminists have complaints about marriage, and they support gays and lesbians while the gays and lesbians support feminism.

Third, ... well, I don't know. They did some crafty things, like bringing their big Prop 8 case before the only gay federal judge in the country. That is hard to do, as the judges are supposed to be assigned to cases randomly. Is that a coincidence? Maybe, but I suspect that there is a network of gays who can arrange things like this.

Are any of these methods applicable to the sort of family court reforms that I would like to see? I doubt it.

We live in a Kakistocracy

The Kakistocracy blog is fed up with the system, and writes:

I believe the time for measured debate on national topics has passed. There are many erudite books now decorating the tweed-jacket pipe-rooms of avuncular conservative theorists. And none as effective at convincing our opponents as a shovel to the face. But setting that means aside, there is no utility in good-faith debate with a side whose core principle is your destruction. The “middle ground” is a chasm. It is instead our duty to scathe, to ridicule, to scorn, and encourage the same in others. But perhaps foremost it is our duty to hate what is being done. A healthy virile hate. For those of you not yet so animated, I can assure its effects are invigorating. ...

So for those of you perturbed by our blossoming dystopia…All I am saying is give hate a chance.

The word kakistocracy is in the dictionary, to my surprise:

government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.

His issues are not my issues, but I can understand that he thinks that there is no good-faith debate with our government and corporate leaders who are selling out the nation.

He uses words like "Narrative" without definition. I guess it means that the mainstream media and elite leaders agree on a story about what happened or is happening, especially when that deviates from the facts or common sense. I hate to make this sound like a conspiracy theory, but the narrative in 2014 was gay marriage and Ferguson racist cops and a few other trivial issues, and nothing about the family court issues that affect millions of people.

CH uses the term hivemind, also without definition. This suggests a collective group-think, where no one is allowed to think for himself. To those with left-wing political views, it is particularly important to get everyone thinking the same as the group.

More on rearing the spoiled child

I previously posted info about Alfie Kohn's book on Myth of the Spoiled Child. He just had a lecture on the subject to a San Francisco Jewish group.

He says the best schools never give grades and the best parents never look at report cards. [at 38:15]

He makes a lot of other claims that are supposedly backed up by research.

He says that homework before high school does no good. [at 42:00] I can believe that. I found that elementary school teachers often goof off most of the day, and then try to use homework to get the parents to do the teachers. It would be better if the schools did more teaching, and less teaching.

I like to hear scientific research on parenting, but much of his opinion seems to be driven by left-wing politics. He accuses NY Times Democrat columnists of being social conservatives on the subject of education.

He disagrees [at 19:00] with teaching kids to be self-sufficient. He complains that this is a peculiar American cultural bias towards individualism, and is not shared elsewhere. Wanting self-sufficiency is more popular with men than women, with industrialized societies, with the Western world, and with professional classes.

In his leftist view, it is better to have everyone dependent on everyone else, so if your 30yo son is still living in your basement, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

After hearing his politics, I don't trust him when he says that the research shows that some practice is better. After all, maybe it is only better from his leftist view.

French magazine made other enemies

The French magazine Charlie Hebdo lampooned many targets, including what the French call "GPA", an acronym for "gestation for others". The magazine is left-wing, of course, as that is why Pres. Obama and many others have spoken up. France and other European countries have laws against freely speaking about other groups, and when right-wing groups complain about all the Mohammedan immigrants, they get prosecuted for hate speech.

France is very tolerant of all sorts of sexual practices, and even the President can have a mistress. But even this magazine says a kid should have a mom and a dad:

In his 1164 number of 8 October 2014, the weekly Charlie Hebdo shows a drawing of a Charb, the director of the publication, with this comment: "The GPA is two parents and a slave." Is this the beginning of an editorial change, the better an ideological revolution? ... "Behind the GPA is emerging eugenics."

The cartoon is a little racist, as the surrogate/slave is shown as black. I think that it is likely that there are more caucasian women carrying babies for non-caucasian couples, than non-caucasians carrying for caucasians.

This week's issue of Charlie Hebdo is going to feature Mohammed cartoons. This week's The Economist magazine has a story about the Mideast, and the map omits Israel.

There is a long history of Islam accepting images of Mohammad, so the cartoons are not really contrary to the religion. But there are Islamic clerics today who say that building a snowman is offensive to Islam.

I am all in favor of free speech, and it is very impressive that Paris got a million people marching for the cause, but how is it free speech when France's right-wing party was barred from national unity rally? A Dutch politician was put on trial for criticizing Islam.

This is free speech for left-wing, pro-immigration, pro-globalist publications, but not free speech for other views.

Update: Here is the new issue.
Not sure what it means. I guess that is supposed to be Mohammad with a tear. It is not clear who is being forgiven, Mohammedans or cartoonists. The phrase "Je suis Charlie" means either "I am Charlie" or "I follow Charlie". My guess is that they wanted to defiantly show Mohammad, while not saying anything offensive. The magazine was on the verge of bankruptcy, like most magazines today, and now it has a new life.

Marriage is a Feminist Institution

Most of the efforts to regulate family life come from left-wing feminist authoritarian types, while Christian conservatives usually believe in parental rights and family autonomy. But you can find bad ideas among Republicans and conservatives also. Dalrock explains:

Ballista74 shared a youtube video where Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family explains why marriage is important.  The title of the video is “Marriage is a Feminist Institution”, and the caption on youtube reads:

“Research shows marriage is what truly has done the most not only to level the playing field between the sexes, but to actually shift the balance of power in women’s favor.” Surprised? Watch this video!

The video is over an hour long, and the message of the lecture is that women are naturally moral while men are not, and therefore we need to put men under the leadership of women.  This is, Stanton claims, how God made us and how marriage should work.

Dalrock is a Christian red-pill blogger. That means that he is a practicing Christian, and he believes that Christianity and marriage are good for society, but he also follows the science of human nature, and squarely recognizes male-female differences.

Focus on the Family was founded by psychologist James Dobson. It is non-denominational, but obviously Christian-influenced in everything the did. Several years ago it had some sort of coup, and kicked Dobson out. Now its mission seems to have changed.

In Stanton’s view women’s sexual desires if left to express themselves naturally will automatically bring about both sexual morality and good men. Stanton offers up the example of the feral boys in Lord of the Flies. All those boys needed, Stanton explains, was one girl to set them straight:

It is like Lord of the Flies. I mean, I love that example, if you’re familiar with that story. There’s all these little boys, and they just turn into savages. ...

This isn’t just bad theology, it goes against what secular scientists observe as well. Women’s sexual/romantic desires aren’t divining rods leading the way to righteousness. Women left to their own devices will tend to fall for the rogue over the upright man, although they will rationalize to themselves that it is because the rogue would make a great father. In our post sexual revolution era women spend a decade or more picking the men they are attracted to before confining themselves (if only temporarily) in marriage. If Stanton’s view of female sexuality were correct, our current generation of young men would be the best mannered in history. But well mannered men isn’t what we have received with young women calling the shots. What we have instead is a generation of douchebags. If you want well mannered men, then make sure young men need to impress the woman’s father to be successful. If you want douchebags, leave the choice up to the daughter. ...

In stating this so openly Stanton gives us an excellent opportunity to discuss our sick modern Christian culture with our fellow Christians. These ideas slithered into Christian culture over decades, so we shouldn’t expect to overturn them quickly. But we should try wherever we can, as it is cruel to deceive young women by telling them they are morally superior, and cruel to families to inject subversion and strife into Christian marriage.

It is nearly impossible to escape these cultural changes.

This idea that women are more moral than men is pretty crazy. Eve was the one who talked to the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit in Genesis, not Adam. Women of low morals are doing more to harm the USA than anyone. It is rare that you ever even hear a woman express a moral opinion, except to parrot what someone has told her.

I am not trying to reform anyone anymore. I am just pointing out that it is not just the feminists who are working towards a matriarchy.

Here is the Catholic Cardinal of St. Louis Missouri in an interview:

Sadly, the Church has not effectively reacted to these destructive cultural forces; instead the Church has become too influenced by radical feminism and has largely ignored the serious needs of men. ... The Church becomes very feminized. ... The introduction of girl servers also led many boys to abandon altar service. ... The culture in which we live is bankrupt and young men, especially, recognize the brokenness of the culture. ... Fathers are essential to the family.

He was demoted last year for remarks like this. He is an old-school Catholic, and the feminists hate him.

Divorcing wives wants bigger boobs

London news:

For most couples caught up in a divorce the prospect of dividing the property or making arrangements for the children are more than enough to worry about.

But for surprising numbers of British couples one seemingly unlikely expense is being viewed as an essential part of the separation process - plastic surgery.

Divorce lawyers have noticed a marked increase in seperations involving significant expense on cosmetic surgery including cases where the wife spends a significant slice of the initial settlement on treatments such as liposuction and breast enhancements.

One such firm, JMW Solicitors, based in Manchester, says it now handles dozens of such cases every year.

The firm, which handles about 300 separations annually, calculates that between five and 10 per cent of its caseload over the last three years involved cosmetic surgery.

I don't know what the reasoning is here. Is she trying to become more competitive in the dating market? Is she trying to make her ex-husband jealous? Is she more interested in pleasing an imaginary boyfriend than her husband? Is she mad that her husband did not buy her that stuff during the marriage?

Your values are stupid

From yesterday's comics:



This WuMo cartoon is mocking the politician, but I am starting to side with the him. My values are right. The people who run our society have a whole set of ideas that are stupid. I am giving up trying to post rational argument. No rational argument will convince them.

I have posted arguments in favor of free speech, but do I need to explain why it is bad to allow the murder of a bunch of French cartoonists? I don't think so. Of course everyone is against murder, but what will they do about it? Two years ago, Pres. Barack Obama apologized to the Islamic world for a YouTube video, and had the maker arrested. He only favors free speech in the movies when his Hollywood campaign donors are asking.

No parenting method is scientifically proven

A local paper announces:

First 5 Santa Cruz County, which manages the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program, today announced that January 2015 has been proclaimed Positive Parenting Awareness Month by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. The proclamation notes that, while parenting is very rewarding and enjoyable, it can also be challenging and exhausting, and yet it is often the most important role an adult will play. Research shows that the quality of parenting is one of the most powerful predictors of children’s social-emotional health. Families come in many forms, and parenting is provided by parents, grandparents, family members and other caregivers. Positive parenting helps parents and caregivers develop warm, nurturing relationships with their children, become more confident as parents and ensure greater well-being for their families.

As noted in the proclamation, “in Santa Cruz County, families can take advantage of various positive parenting programs, such as the scientifically-proven Triple P – Positive Parenting Program, which is offered at low- or no-cost, in English and Spanish, by many local organizations and individuals, thanks to a partnership between First 5 Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (via the Mental Health Services Act) and the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department.”

No parenting method is scientifically proven. I am sure the County just copied some unverified claims when making this proclamation.

The positive parenting people are the kind to not keep score at a soccer game, because declaring everyone a winner will raise their self-esteem.

Maybe this organization helps people. I don't doubt that. I just object to claims that their methodology is scientific proven to be better. Some of it seems nutty to me.

More evidence of a feminist apocalypse

The London Daily Mail reports:

Maryland's first female Episcopal bishop exposed as hit-and-run driver 'who killed young father' two days after Christmas

Police say a female 58-year-old motorist smashed into custom bicycle maker Tom Palermo, 41, on Saturday afternoon in Baltimore
Bishop Heather E. Cook, who was elected to the no. 2 spot in the diocese in September, was named as the driver by the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland
Maryland records show Cook was arrested in 2010 after reportedly blowing 3X the legal driving limit when police found a bottle of whiskey in her car
Cook received 'probation before judgment' for a DUI charge but no charges were filed despite police having found a marijuana pipe in the car

I got this from the Thinking Housewife site, which notes "She isn’t even married to the man she is shacking up with."

She drove off with her windshield looking like that?!

Are there people who really want to attend church and hear a sermon from someone like her?

At least she is not a lesbian or polygamist giving shelter to an illegal alien abortionist. She just drives a lesbian car.

Update: A reader sends Kansas church to host Planned Parenthood abortion ‘celebration’. Feminism is not improving these churches.

Update: The NY Times reports that she be being charged:

Two days after Christmas, Thomas Palermo took advantage of a rare moment of free time to do what he loved most: ride his bike up a busy road popular with cyclists for its challenging hill and wide bike lanes, the afternoon sun warming his face. About the same time, the police say, an Episcopal bishop got into her car, her blood-alcohol level far above the legal limit, and drove toward him.

Not long after, Mr. Palermo, 41, lay dying in the street, killed, the police say, by the drunken, texting bishop with a history of driving while intoxicated who left the scene, returning only after nearly half an hour. On Friday, the state’s attorney for Baltimore City announced charges against Suffragan Bishop Heather Cook, one of the highest ranking officials in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, including criminal negligent manslaughter, driving while impaired and texting, and leaving the scene of an accident. ...

Ms. Mosby said Bishop Cook, 58, elected last year to the No. 2 position in the diocese despite having pleaded guilty to driving under the influence in 2010, was found to have a 0.22 blood-alcohol level when brought to the police station after she returned to the crash site. The legal limit in Maryland is 0.08.

Okay, but how did the church have such low standards in the first place?

Advice for the new year

Yesterday's newspaper advice is for the dad of a girl that the mom has alienated:

Ask Amy: My daughter won't speak to me. Should I cut off the college money? ...

DEAR SAD: Unethical parents who engage in a campaign of alienation set it up as a power play and they place their children in untenable circumstances.

I'm asking you to see this from your daughter's point of view. She is behaving as if she is afraid of having a relationship, and imagine how high-stakes this is for her -- if she is close to you, she risks losing her mother.

If you withdraw funds, you will be punishing your daughter for her mother's choices and confirming her lack of trust in you.

It's hero time. Rise to this difficult challenge not to give up on your daughter.

She will not even talk to him and she expects him to pay for her college?

She is in college, and she is a legal adult. She should understand that this is wrong. He is a chump to keep writing those checks.

Unfortunately, depending on the state, he may not have the right to cut off the money.

This "hero" advice is similar to what the manosphere calls white knight. The idea is that a man should do whatever he can to save/defend/rescue a damsel in distress, no matter how irresponsible her behavior is. I am coming around to the view that this is not such an admirable quality. By paying the money, he is turning his daughter into a spoiled brat.

One blog says, "Perhaps no archetype within the Manosphere is more reviled than the White Knight."

A left-wing site complains about some advice on Fox News:

‘Listen up ladies’: Fox News kicks off New Year with absurdly sexist advice for ‘catering to your man’

The hosts of Fox & Friends started the New Year on Thursday by telling women that they should “cater” to their man by stroking his ego, cooking him meals, and massaging his feet. ...

“Well, how about this one?” Doocy continued. “When he gets his ego stroked, he’ll be more inclined to love you more.”

“That’s true!” Earhardt exclaimed.

Watch the video. The advice comes from a guest, not the host Doocy, and no one says anything unreasonable.

Okay, this is a little sexist, but I am going to give some advice. If a woman wants to have a happy marriage, it is pretty simple. Most men are easy to please. All she has to do is to figure out what he really likes, and then be sure to do it the way he likes it. Maybe he likes his ego stroked. Maybe he likes his favorite sandwich. If she is not sure, she can just ask him, and he will say. If she does it right, it might take only a few minutes a day, and she will be hugely rewarded.

Women are not so easy to please. They rarely say (correctly) what they want, and sometimes they become whiny and bitchy and ungrateful no matter what you do for them.

But how is it that we have gotten to the point where such simple advice gets attacked as "absurdly sexist"? There is set of views, sometimes called liberal political correctness and various other names, that wants to deny human nature and practical ways of dealing with human differences.

The same site has a nasty feminist rant by Amanda Marcotte. It attacks an article by MIT professor. There is more explanation here and here.

The kerfuffle started when MIT's best teaching professor, an 80yo retired physicist with millions of YouTube hits, exchanged some emails with some allegedly inappropriately flirtatious remarks. The girl was watching his online videos, and complained about a tweet saying "queefing is yours". I don't even know what that means. The Obama administration put pressure on MIT to respond to complaints with zero tolerance. Since he was retired and not teaching on campus anymore, they revoked his "professor emeritus" title, banned him from the campus, and took down his physics teaching videos.

A young computer science professor Scott Aaronson posted some comments on his blog that taking down the videos only hurts the millions of future physics students, including girls, who want to learn physics for free. The videos are great, and have no offensive remarks. He explained that he had typical Jewish liberal Democrat views, and supported feminists 97%, but this was going too far. Most commenters agreed, until a Jewish feminist Amy started posting scatter-brained comments about how she was sexually harassed a few times and Aaronson was supporting the patriarchal rape culture by defending the physics videos.

Aaronson reiterated his feminist credentials. He read the feminist literature, supported abortion rights, and abhors sexism so much that he would be okay with jailing those with sexist views and giving life sentences for rape. But he was a shy nerdy guy who went to college at age 15 and was afraid to ask a girl out on a date until he was 25. By the time he overcame his shyness, MIT had sent him to sexual harassment seminars where he was intimidated to never make a forward comment. His frustration sent him to psychiatrists and others, none of whom offered him any help. He is now happily married to a fellow academic he met in Israel and has a baby, but no thanks to our anti-male-nerd culture.

Aaronson probably thought that baring his soul would earn him some sympathy, but he was wrong. The more he said, the more he was attacked by feminists. For example, Amy attacked him for wanting life sentences for rapists. She explained that she has had a lot of sexual experiences with different men, and some qualify as rape according to modern feminist definitions. However sometimes the sex was good, so she would not want those guys to be imprisoned.

Most of all, he was attacked for beta male entitlement. Several feminists explained, altho not exactly in these words, that they like being sexually harassed by alpha males, but not by beta males. They are disgusted by Aaronson's attitude that social mores should have allowed him to think that he should have been able to ask a girl for a date. That is for alpha males, and not for shy nerdy losers in the sexual marketplace like him.

I guess Aaronson was lucky to somehow find a wife who was not infected with American feminism. Good for him.

You probably think that I am exaggerating or making this up. Just read the pages at the above links. In many ways it is worse.

Our society is FUBAR. I cannot rationally deal with crap anymore, and I am going to quit posting it. If you cannot see that this is wrong, I cannot explain it to you.

Aaronson thinks he is a feminist, but that has several definitions. CH defines:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

That does seem to describe the feminists who attack Aaronson.

When Aaronson was a 16yo in college, a brother or mentor or counselor or frat buddy or someone should have taken him aside and explained the red pill to him. And then demonstrated it, because he would not have believed it. He still does not believe it. His only problem here is that our society has lied to him about male-female relations all of his life. And that feminists despise him for what he is.

Update: Vox Day responds:

What Scott Aaronson said got discovered by feminists, and they tarred and feathered him for it. Despite his clear language to the contrary, he’s accused of everything from being a MRA to being a misogynist just because of his Jewish faith. Despite his attempts to explain himself over and over again, people on Twitter are saying that female MIT students should be afraid to take his classes.

Never give feminists an inch. Don't agree with them, don't tolerate them, show them no mercy whatsoever. Feminism is a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-reason, anti-science ideology that destroys literally everything it touches and everyone who embraces it. Reject it and its adherents the way you would reject someone offering you plutonium on their bare hands; to accept it is to begin to die a slow and painful death.

The problem isn't merely that feminists are ugly and hateful, or that their ideology is incoherent and deluded, but that by mere toleration of them, through mere intellectual contact with it, you are permitting your life to be infected and degraded. We've seen this in the Christian churches, which in their attempts to tame the feminist cancer and turn it into a pet, have been mortally stricken.

Reject all of it. Reject their appeals to equality. Reject their pretense to intellectual standing. And most of all, personally reject all of those who subscribe to it in any way, shape, or form. Any man who calls himself a feminist is ideologically transgender and mentally unstable.

NJ family court gag order

Here is a NJ free speech case in family court:

Plaintiff Paul Nichols is a reporter for the Bergen County Dispatch who brings a First Amendment challenge to a gag order … issued by Judge Nancy Sivilli in Myronova v. Malhan, a divorce and custody suit pending in the family division of the Essex County Superior Court. Nichols wishes to interview one of the parties in Myronova v. Malhan, but is unable to because the Gag Order restrains all parties to the litigation from discussing any aspect of the divorce proceedings.

It is pending, but UCLA expert E. Volokh says:

I sympathize with the desire to shield children from hearing their parents publicly criticize each other, and more broadly from hearing public discussion of what to them is often a serious tragedy. But I don’t think that this is reason enough to suppress litigants’ speech about what they see as the injustices in the process. If citizens are to evaluate government officials’ performance — here, the performance of judges — as well as the performance of the family court system as a whole, they need to be able to hear specific details about alleged abuses. And litigants are often the only ones who are in a position to convey such details.

Someone might say that this blog should be shut down, because my kids would be better off not hearing about a parental dispute.

I agree with Professor Volokh, but I would go further. My personal opinion is that most of the embarrassing family court stuff should never be admitted into evidence in the first place.

If parents had a right to the joint custody of their kids, then judges would always decide in favor of equally shared child custody unless a parent were proved unfit. That rarely happens in family court. Instead the judge decides based on the Best Interest Of The Child (BIOTCh), and that means that any character assassination, gossip, innuendo, or bogus scare story can be used to influence the judge. He is allowed to apply whatever personal prejudices he has. That is what fills the court with embarrassing nonsense that sometimes leaves a parent begging for a gag order.

In my case, I did not put any personal info online that the court did not already put on the public record. The court file does have 100s of pages of just that should never have been relevant to our case. But I did not put it there, and I cannot effectively respond to the public accusations against me unless I say what the accusations are.

The system cannot be reformed

I started this blog just to vent, and maintained it for 2 reasons: (1) to publicly defend myself against false accusations in public court, and (2) to protest the family court and support a movement to reform it.

I no longer think that the system can be reformed. That is what I learned in 2014.

The reasons are long and complex. I once thought that if people knew how the family court and CPS work, then they would recognize the gross deprivations of basic rights, and obvious harm to kids. But I have posted the most outrageous stories, and found that many people do not necessarily agree with me. Support for political reform has not materialized.

The political trend is to make things worse. The leading candidate for President in 2016 is Hillary Clinton, and she is known for being a feminist First Lady and writing a 1996 anti-parents-rights manifesto.

Maybe someday we will have a French Revolution, but I will be escaping to another country if that happens. The family court and CPS officials are all scum, and deserve to burn in Hell. I cannot think of a single one who is worth saving.

I noted last year:

The men's rights movement seems to have split between the reformers and the drop-outs. The reformers want to change family law to give a better shake to fathers, and use political action, persuasion, social science research, etc.

The drop-outs sometimes use the phrase Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). The idea is that if marriage is a lousy deal for men, then the simplest solution is to just not get married.

Henry Laasanen describes the split slightly differently, and says that the manosphere is divided between the traditionalists, equalists, and individualists. So the reformers could seek a return to the traditional family or an egalitarian society, and the individualists go their own way.

I am no longer a reformer, and more of a MGTOW:

Men/Man Going Their Own Way.

MGTOW is basically the statement of self-ownership and saying that only you have the right to decide what your goals in life should be.

It is saying that, as a man I will not surrender my will to the social expectations of women and society, because both have become hostile against masculinity.

If my previous postings have not convinced you that the system is hopeless screwed, then I doubt that I can convince you.