O'Reilly and Thomas in the news

The trashy gossip site Gawker reports:

A New York appeals court held last week that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s school-age children don’t want to live with him anymore, and should live exclusively with their mother, O’Reilly’s ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy.

The lengthy decision affirms the holding of a Nassau County Supreme Court justice last year that the children, now aged 13 and 17, should live full-time with their mother (the former couple had been splitting residential custody). ...

The preference of McPhilmy and O’Reilly’s 17-year-old daughter is not particularly difficult to guess: As we noted last year, she told a court-appointed forensic examiner that she witnessed O’Reilly drag her mother down a staircase by the neck.

A lot of people hate O'Reilly for his abrasive style, so they will be celebrating this.

I did not follow this. Apparently she left him 5 years ago to marry a cop.

It would be amusing if he took the red pill.

The NY Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Breaking a decade-long silence, Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday suddenly started asking questions from the Supreme Court bench. ...

Justice Thomas’s questions came in a minor case on domestic violence convictions and gun rights. He made a series of inquiries about whether misdemeanor convictions can permanently suspend a constitutional right.

With Justice Scalia dead (and having died under mysterious circumstances), Thomas is the only one left who clearly understands that a man should not lose his constitutional rights just because he is accused of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Corruption of Men's Rights

The manosphere blogs are not very influential, and they are split between several views. Feminist blogs are much bigger.

A prominent men's rights blog is A Voice for Men, where Dean Esmay writes:

So listen up, you fools in the RooshV circle: there is nothing but misery and death down the Return of Kings path. You have to be a complete idiot to follow any advice the RoK cultists give you. If Roosh or other Return of Kings writers tell you that the sky is blue, triple check it – they’re just that insane.

The Men’s Human Rights Movement has a long and strained relationship with so-called “red pill” sleazy sex gurus like Return of Kings publisher RooshV. Roosh and Return of Kings have never, ever been MRA as every honest person who’s done 5 minutes of due diligence knows. ...

So here’s the truth: Daryush “Roosh” Valizade has written for years about his past supposed adventures traveling the world to have one night stands with the psychologically dysfunctional, neurotic women he picks up in sleazy meat markets around the world. In many of his books, you find what are undeniably confessions of Roosh raping multiple women. In fact, the words “serial rapist” are not too harsh to describe Roosh, at least if his own published, public writings are to be believed. As with Roosh’s friend Matt Forney, also a confessed rapist by any sane standard, it’s often been unclear whether what they’re writing is just the poorly-written rape fantasy porn, or if it’s the real thing.

Why the vitriol?

It is true that Roosh and RoK rarely speak of men's rights. They mainly give advice and commentary on how men can become better men.

Sure, some of their articles are provocative or offensive. Eg, they give tips on avoiding undesirable or troublesome women.

But they are not rapists, and these accusations are irresponsible and libelous. Roosh and RoK only advocate consensual relationships.

The term "rape" does have an ever expanding definition, with some feminists saying that all PIV sex is rape. If so, then nearly all men are rapists.

I post this just to point out how the men's rights movement has degenerated. Men have instincts to become white knights and attack their fellow men in any conflict with women. So we have men's rights groups who are not actually pushing for men's rights.

A site titled "A Voice for Men" attacks men for being men. It does not speak for me, or any men I know.

Update: For more on the attack on Roosh V, see this Reason article or Heartiste.

Update: Here is another attack on Roosh:

I think he's such a hateful embarrassment to humanity that he's single-handedly keeping aliens from contacting us.

This is crazy stuff. Roosh runs an excellent web site.

Men are commonly hated if they are either (1) successful with women, or (2) unsuccessful with women. I think that some psychological forces are at work against anyone like him.

Massachusetts finds right to spank

Eugene Volokh reports:

Parents have a right to reasonably spank their children, says Massachusetts high court

Such a right has been recognized throughout American history, as a defense against a charge of battery (under criminal law or tort law). In this case, the state trial judge seemed to conclude no such right existed, at least in public, saying,

If you’re in public with your kids, it’s not appropriate to discipline in this fashion.

But yesterday, the Massachusetts high court unanimously reversed, in Commonwealth v. Dorvil, concluding that there was indeed a common-law right to spank:

[A] parent or guardian may not be subjected to criminal liability for the use of force against a minor child under the care and supervision of the parent or guardian, provided that (1) the force used against the minor child is reasonable; (2) the force is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct; and (3) the force used neither causes, nor creates a substantial risk of causing, physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks), gross degradation, or severe mental distress….

Part of why this dad was prosecuted was because he appeared to be angry. The incident was quite trivial, but many so-called experts say that discipline should not be done in anger.

As far as I know, there is no legal doctrine that you are certain rights as long as you are not angry.

If you spank in public, you are always subject to some jerk calling 911 just because he or she does not approve of spanking.

I am skeptical that observers or cops can even tell whether a parent is angry. Often a parent pretends to be angry as a way of impressing seriousness on the child.

People who are truly angry can make bad judgments, but the law should apply to what they do, not their emotional states.

Horror movie: woman becomes considerate wife

Hollywood seems to be caving into feminist demands, and swamping us with movies having women in lead roles. But this is not good enuf for the Left:

The fourth installment in the Jurassic Park franchise features hunky Chris Pratt, lots of people getting devoured by dinosaurs, and some backward sexual politics. ...

But Jurassic World is not good. In fact, it’s aggressively bad. ...

Yes, Jurassic World is not about corporate greed, anti-militarization, crass commerciality, disrupting the food chain, or dinos eating the shit out of people. No. It’s about a woman’s “evolution” from an icy-cold, selfish corporate shill into a considerate wife and mother.

This time I agree with yesterday's tweet:

I now no longer know if I'm being trolled, if people are in on the joke, if it's causing genuine anger, or if society is simply doomed.

Complaining about conservation law wherever the dinosaurs are seems to be a joke, but the above appears to be a straight political opinion from a leftist political site.

White woman pretends to be black

The Wash Post reports:

A controversy is raging over whether a prominent Washington state civil rights activist and Howard University graduate who claimed she was African American is actually white.

Rachel Dolezal, 37, is the president of the Spokane NAACP and has claimed to be the victim of a number of hate crimes. As questions were raised about the veracity of some of her reports this week, a white couple from Montana came forward to claim that Dolezal is their daughter.

This blew up because her white parents adopted some black kids, and he is suing her parents for custody of one of the black kids.

People are saying that if Bruce Jenner can change gender, then Dolezal can change race.

Okay, fine, but how does that make her the legal mom to her adopted black brother?

This case is weird. The authorities used to try to prevent white parents from adopting black kids. Maybe there were good reasons for that.

Sometimes I wonder if we are all being trolled by Jenner, trans-racialists, and others. Or as someone said in another context:

I now no longer know if I'm being trolled, if people are in on the joke, if it's causing genuine anger, or if society is simply doomed.

That context was a famous 77yo novelist posting a wisecrack about killing dinosaurs in the new Jurassic World movie:

So barbaric that this should still be allowed... No conservation laws in effect wherever this is?

This seems like an obvious joke to me. I am leaning towards our society being doomed.

I commented on another weird case of someone presenting as black female pro basketball player, but the case is weirder than I thought. Apparently she seems like a man to a lot of people.

A Democrat politician is trying to punish the USA women's soccer goalie over a very minor misdemeanor accusation:

Blumenthal called the federation’s approach to the Solo case “at best superficial and at worst dangerously neglectful and self-serving.”

Blumenthal urged U.S. Soccer to conduct a thorough investigation, including a comprehensive review of police reports and interviews of Solo’s half sister and nephew. He also said the federation should reconsider Solo’s place on the team, writing that it “sends exactly the wrong message” to start her in goal as boys and girls tune in to see their role models play in the World Cup.

Calling domestic violence a “horrific scourge,” Blumenthal wrote that it was “intolerable particularly for an athlete representing the United States of America on the global stage.”

She should be innocent until proven guilty. The case against Hope Solo was dismissed (but might be revived). It is just a misdemeanor. If the court finds her guilty, then she can be punished by whatever punishment the law allows. But I am pretty sure that the state penalties do not include being kicked off a soccer team.

Lesbian basketball wedding goes bad

Here is a celebrity lesbian wedding that did not work out so well. Usually I just except the ridiculous parts, but here I post the story in its entirety.

AP/NYTimes reports:

OKLAHOMA CITY — Brittney Griner filed for an annulment with Glory Johnson-Griner on Friday, a day after Johnson-Griner announced she's pregnant and a month after the two WNBA players married.

"Last Wednesday, Glory and I agreed to either legally separate, get divorced, or annul our marriage, Griner said in a statement. "I can confirm that today I filed for an annulment. In the week prior to the wedding, I attempted to postpone the wedding several times until I completed counseling, but I still went through with it. I now realize that was a mistake."

Johnson-Griner's sports marketing agent, D.J. Fisher, said in a statement that Johnson-Griner was unaware that Griner was filing and was "extremely hurt and blindsided."

"She loves Brittney and made a huge sacrifice to carry a child, put her career on hold, invest in their relationship and their future," Fisher said.

Griner, the 6-foot-8 Phoenix Mercury star, married Johnson-Griner on May 9, three weeks after they were arrested on domestic violence charges for a fight at their home in suburban Phoenix. Both players were suspended seven games after their arrests and Griner agreed to undergo 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling as part of a plea agreement.

Both players apologized and said they worked out their differences, saying they were happy about the marriage. Johnson-Griner, a two-time All-Star with the Tulsa Shock, announced on Instagram on Thursday that she was pregnant and would miss the WNBA season.

Fisher said Johnson-Griner was in it for the long haul.

"She knows how important marriage is, and made a lifetime commitment and decision to spend the rest of her life with Brittney," Fisher said.

Earlier Friday, a post on Johnson-Griner's Instagram account showed a photo of Griner and a message about seeing her again: "One day until I'm reunited with my Wife @brittneygriner ... This is about to be one CRAZY SUMMER!!!"

Her tune changed later in the day.

"She wishes to ask for privacy at this time as they work through these trials and tribulations," Fisher said. "She asks her fans for all their love, support and prayers during this trying time."

Johnson-Griner's player agent, Boris Lelchitski, said the Women's National Basketball Players Association was planning to file a grievance to appeal the suspensions for both players, but Griner backed out at the last second. Lelchitski said the deadline has now passed, and his client did not appeal.

"With what has happened lately, Glory has a lot more on her plate to worry about," Lelchitski wrote in a text message.

Johnson-Griner's suspension will not start until the 2016 season because she will not play this season.

Griner was the WNBA's defensive player of the year and helped the Mercury win the league championship last season.

The WNBA season started Friday night.

There are many things wrong here. How does a woman get to be 6-foot-8? Is she really a woman and is this really a sport?

Getting pregnant a month after the wedding is usually a cause for celebration. But not when the husband is a 6-foot-8 lesbian, I guess.

Not all domestic violence is the fault of men.

You used to be able to get an annulment if the marriage was never consummated. But what if the parties are physically incapable of consummating?

Usually marriage law provides for the husband being the presumed father. But who's the daddy here?

Someone should send this story to the US Supreme Court.

Yes, marriage has been redefined a couple of times. It was redefined when polygamy was outlawed, whenever that was. It was redefined by no-fault-divorce, by BIOTCh, and by formula child support. Also by abolishing penalties for adultery and illegitimacy. Now it is being redefined by pregnant pro basketball fighting lesbians, and maybe by whatever Bruce Call-Me-Caitly Jenner decides to marry next. He is essentially a neutered male, and I am guessing he will marry a neutered female.

I just wonder how far this is all going. I heard someone say that our society is on the brink of giving everyone dignity. I do not see it that way. Indulging mental illness is not giving dignity. I expect to be forced to accept wackier and wackier practices, while normal people are marginalized.

This moral panic will pass

Razib Khan writes:

…Kidnapping by strangers is wildly uncommon; in New York State, for instance, the Division of Criminal Justice Services announced that 20,309 children were reported missing statewide in 2011; exactly one of those children was confirmed abducted by a stranger. Most — 94 percent — were runaways, most of them teenagers. ...

Free range being what used to be called normal parenting as far back as the 1980s. Looking at the statistics above this is a clear case of moral panic. It will abate. Too many cultural forces, from overtaxed working mothers to libertarians and Christian parents’ rights sorts, object to the dominant ethos.

Khan was hired as a part-time opinion columnist for the NY Times, but then fired when some liberals complained that some of his articles on genetics were not quite politically correct.

I have read his columns off and on for years, and I have not seen anything as offensive as the NY Times columnist telling Christians that they must be forced to change their beliefs about what is sinful.

Speaking of moral panic and the NY Times, the paper pretends to correct earlier phony stories about a Rolling Stone hoax:

Rolling Stone magazine retracted its article about a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity after the release of a report on Sunday ...

No, there was no rape of any kind. A girl was catfishing a fellow student she wanted as a boyfriend.

“Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim,” Mr. Woods, the article’s editor, said in the report. ...

Ms. Erdely, Mr. Wenner said, “was willing to go too far in her effort to try and protect a victim of apparently a horrible crime. She dropped her journalistic training, scruples and rules and convinced Sean to do the same. There is this series of falling dominoes.”

No, Jackie was not a victim. The only victims were the students and fraternities who were falsely accused. Also:

Teresa A. Sullivan, the president of the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, issued a statement late Sunday.

“Rolling Stone’s story, ‘A Rape on Campus,’ did nothing to combat sexual violence, and it damaged serious efforts to address the issue. Irresponsible journalism unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.

Sullivan was a chief offender, as she punished the fraternity in spite of overwhelming evidence that nearly everything the article said about the fraternity was false. Erdely and Sullivan are not even apologizing to those they falsely accused.

Sailer is all over this story. These stories pretend that the problem was just that the details were not verified according to journalistic standards. No one wants to admit that the whole thing was a hoax. The accused rapist, Haven Monahan, does not even exist. The fraternity was not even having a party. Erdely and Sullivan are not being fired.

Instpundit comments:

One person who shouldn’t get off the hook here is UVA President Teresa Sullivan. She essentially found the fraternity guilty based on a story in a music tabloid. She could have told the University community that “we don’t convict people based on stories in the media,” that she was going to independently investigate the accusations, and that people named in tabloid stories should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in the American tradition. She did no such thing. She hastily imposed a group punishment on the entire Greek system, and pretty much stood by while angry crowds mobbed and vandalized the fraternity house. (Faculty members didn’t help by staging their own marches; they may want — especially now — to characterize those marches as “anti-rape” or “pro-woman,” but there’s no getting around the fact that they were perceived at the time, and probably meant, as targeting the accused. In this case, the falsely accused.) As I’ve said before, there’s no place in America today where the authorities are more likely to be found siding with (or at least enabling) a lynch mob than on a university campus, and that’s a disgrace. ...

“Sullivan, in her statement Sunday, made no apology to those fraternity members she treated as guilty without evidence.”

Also the Erdely and the Rolling Stone seem pretty adamant about not apologizing to the falsely accused. In spite of everything, Erdely still claims that something bad happened to Jackie that night.

This is disgusting. I am waiting for anyone in the major news media to say the obvious -- that this story was a hoax, that it was wildly implausible, that almost every checkable assertion turned out to be false, that the main perp turned out to be a fictional character invented to make another boy jealous, that Jackie is unlikely to have even ever set foot in the fraternity, and that nothing in this story shows any true evidence of a rape culture at UVa.

Update: This whole UVa story was manufactured by Jews who hate white Christians.

Update: Dr. Helen notes:

I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait. The campus left’s complete unwillingness to adjust their opinions of these cases to fit with the facts shows a thought process completely devoid of reason.

It got me thinking about the whole UVA case and the lies that the reporter so easily swallowed from “Jackie,” the woman who was supposedly raped. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the Rolling Stone Magazine article and the facts are being picked apart but that is not the real story. The real story is that liberal rags like the Rolling Stone mag, the liberal media, and liberal politicians in general are so used to getting away with lies, exaggeration, and twisting the facts to suit their agenda that they don’t even bother to conceal it anymore (if they ever did is perhaps debatable).

Yes, the Right focuses on facts and results, and the Left on feelings and intents.

NASCAR reverses itself

I blasted NASCAR for treating a man as guilty-until-proven-innocent, so I should credit them with reversing themselves after the man is proven innocent. AP reports:

Kurt Busch was cleared Wednesday to get back in his race car and attempt to rebuild a career that was halted two days before the Daytona 500 when NASCAR suspended him for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

''It's been torture sitting out of the car,'' Busch said in a conference call. He called the allegations against him ''a complete fabrication.''

''I never did anything of the things I was accused of,'' he added. ''I never wavered in this whole process because of the confidence in the truth.'' ...

He said he will replace his longtime nickname ''The Outlaw'' with his signature above the door of his car.

Busch remains on indefinite probation. ...

Last week, the Delaware attorney general declined to charge Busch for the incident with Driscoll - a move O'Donnell said ''removed a significant impediment'' to reinstatement. ...

Busch has also complied with NASCAR's reinstatement requirements, the terms of which have not been disclosed. O'Donnell said a health care expert recommended Busch's immediate return.

A comment says:

That's all well and good NASCAR BUT you still owe Kurt an apology for suspending him for nothing! Now make it right and let's move on

Another says:

He was evaluated by a health care expert (who advised his immediate return) why? Is his health a question? And she obtained a restraining order against him, when SHE came to his trailer and he has and wants nothing to do with her? I have followed this story since its inception and can see no reason why Busch was suspended in the first place. Yes he's a hot-head and has prior anger problems we all know about, but this thing with Driscoll is nothing more than "he said, she said" bullshite

Mattress girl is disturbed

Another high-profile rape allegation falls apart:

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

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

In Nungesser’s telling, not only was the entire sexual episode between him and Sulkowicz on Aug. 27, 2012 entirely consensual—the two had an off-and-on “friends with benefits” relationship that grew out of their joint participation in a freshmen-orientation program at Columbia—but Nungesser had the Facebook messages between the two to prove it. For two full months after the supposed assault, Sulkowicz was sending Nungesser friendly texts and Facebook postings expressing hope that the two of them could get together again.

Sulkowicz is the rich preppie daughter of a Jewish psychiatrist dad and Chinese psychiatrist mom. That is even worse than the Tiger Mom couple (Jewish law professor dad, Chinese law professor mom).

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

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

Debate on campus rape culture

In the interest of presenting both sides, here is a debate on campus sexual assault

with video

But Jessica Valenti, who offered her opposing perspective in a 20-minute presentation after McElroy’s, expressed frustration that some continue to question rape culture’s existence, adding that the debate leaves her “exhausted.”

The contrast between the tones of the two speakers was striking. McElroy was defensive from the outset, commencing her talk by explaining that she has personally experienced sexual violence, identifies as a feminist and would not tolerate any claims that she belittles survivors. But Valenti seemed calmer, with her first statement affirmed by light applause from the crowd.

Valenti highlighted several recent cases as evidence that American culture “gives rapists a social license to operate.” In one case, a lawyer described an 11-year-old victim of gang rape as a “spider” who lured men into raping her. ...

“How many of you came tonight knowing exactly who I am and thinking you know exactly what I’m going to say?” asked Wendy McElroy, research fellow at the Independent Institute, kicking off her 20-minute talk and setting a tense tone for a highly anticipated Janus Forum debate on sexual assault that filled around three-quarters of Salomon 101.

McElroy’s impending arrival on College Hill spawned controversy across campus. President Christina Paxson sent out a community-wide email Friday publicizing her personal disagreement with McElroy’s widely reported assertion that rape culture does not exist in the United States and cannot be used to explain individual incidents of sexual assault.

Of course McElroy was the sensible one, arguing for fairness.

Valenti's arguments were emotional and anecdotal, as if most women were being raped, when in fact the statistics
show a big decline.

She complained that a 2006 Nebraska judge did not allow the word "rape" by the accuser in a rape trial, because it is prejudicial. This is a revealing complaint. I have watched some trials, and from what I have seen, witnesses are not allowed to use the word "murder" in a murder trial, "robbery" in a robbery trial, etc. The jury is supposed to determine whether it was a murder or a robbery. Witnesses are just supposed to describe the facts, and not leap to conclusions about whether the facts made a crime. The witness might say "I saw the defendant stab him" or even "I saw the defendant kill him", but never "I saw the defendant murder him. Likewise, a witness should not be allowed to say "I saw a rape" if the legality of the sexual act is under dispute.

Her examples of the supposed "rape culture" are like this. Anecdotes that are completely stupid unless you believe in guilty-until-proven-innocent, and a woman should not be questioned or second-guessed.

Another anecdote was about the Steubenville High School rape case, and how not everyone recognized it as rape. Of course she did not explain what happened. A drunk girl allowed herself to be undressed and picked up, and some boy's fingertip entered her vagina. She did not realize it, but I guess a picture showed it. I think most of thw world would not call that rape (but perhaps some lesser offense).

Valenti also complained about people trivializing rape, such as "I got raped on my English exam." Huhh? She seems to be the one who is trivializing rape.

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.

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.

Exposing the false accuser

More info is out on Jacqueline Coakley, the accuser behind the UVa rape hoax:

Gotnews.com 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.

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.

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.

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.

Criminal due process

Criminal due process does sometimes work. The Ferguson cop was found innocent by the grand jury, even tho President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party did everything they could to encourage race riots.

A lot of people were hopeful in 2008 that electing a black President would improve race relations, raise the image of blacks, and address whatever legitimate grievances blacks have. But he has only spoken up on a handful of black issues, most notably the Harvard professor Gates who locked himself out of his house and refused to cooperate with the cop, Trayvon Martin who brutally beat up George Zimmerman and got shot, and Michael Brown who punched a cop, tried to take his gun away, and charged him in an apparent attempt to kill him. In each case, the black guy was 100% in the wrong and deserved what he got. And yet Obama blamed it on white racism in each case, and said that riots were "understandable". He has turned the Democrat Party into the hate-white-people party. Democrats get fewer and fewer white voters in every election.

Football player Ray Rice won his appeal. It was obvious that he was being punished for feminist whining about a video of him punching his girlfriend, and not for any grounds based on his contract. He still has to find a team to take him, tho.
javascript:;

USA Today reports:

In an interview with Dazed & Confused magazine, he says a woman raped him during his #IAMSORRY performance art installation in L.A. earlier this year.

One woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for ten minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me. ...There were hundreds of people in line when she walked out with disheveled hair and smudged lipstick.

Of course everyone is blaming the victim. Or alleged victim.

In other crime news:

Incensed that her boyfriend began eating their Thanksgiving dinner while she was asleep following a day of drinking, a Pennsylvania woman grabbed a knife and stabbed the man after chasing him around the dining room table, cops report.

Jack-Lyn Blake, 47, is locked up in the Luzerne County jail on an assortment of criminal charges, including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment, and making terroristic threats. ...

Two years ago, Indiana resident Taz Miller, 18, was arrested for stabbing his mother’s live-in boyfriend after discovering that the man had eaten all the leftover Thanksgiving turkey.

Question of Female Masochism

F. Roger Devlin writes The Question of Female Masochism:

We are attracted to qualities in the opposite sex which our own sex lacks. For many women, this means an attraction to male brutality. Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings, but this bears no relation to their behavior. What women say about men comes from their cerebral cortex; how they choose men depends upon their evolutionary more primitive limbic system. Even campus feminists choose arrogant jocks to “hook up” with, not male feminists in touch with their emotions. I have heard it suggested that the best reason not to strike a woman today is that you will never be able to get rid of her afterwards.

I am not sure what to make of this. If he is right, then most domestic violence is just human nature, and attempts to stop it are foolish.

Suppose millions of women are only happy with a husband or boyfriend who occasionally beats them. Then why would be have laws and policies to interfere with that?

Of course some women will say that "Fifty Shades" is just a fantasy, and they do not deserve to be put in the hospital. I am all in favor of mutually agreeable relationships. But under current law, a man can be prosecuted for domestic violence even if the wife is not injured and never makes a police complaint. See for example the San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi story.

California protects seductive trannies

California passes goofy laws all the time, and Gov. Brown just signed this one:

AB 2501, Bonilla. Voluntary manslaughter.

Existing law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. The crime of voluntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 6, or 11 years.

This bill would state that for purposes of determining sudden quarrel or heat of passion, the provocation was not objectively reasonable if it resulted from the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted nonforcible romantic or sexual advance towards the defendant, or if the defendant and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

How often does this happen? You meet what you think is a woman in a bar, take her home, begin sexual relations, and then discover she is really a man? And then you are so traumatized that you can never have a satisfactory sexual experience again? Or you fly into a rage and kill him/her?

I am guessing that this law might affect one case every ten years. It was passed just to show some symbolic respect for the LGBTQIA lobby.

Okay, fine, maybe trannies should have the sexual freedom to trick someone on a one-night stand. I don't care. I am wondering this obscure and outcast special interest group gets a law like this passed, and a million noncustodial dads cannot get a law giving them the right to see their kids.

Swedish women need a new word

Sweden is a feminist paradise, with lesbian divorce, 80% of kids born out of wedlock and no parental rights, and now the seek a Swedish word for their favorite activity:

The idea for the contest emerged after a member of RFSU - a national not-for-profit organization which aims to promote an "open, positive view of sex and relationship issues" - brought up the absence of a specific word for female masturbation in the Swedish language at a bi-annual meeting of the group in 2013.

"Rather than sit around amongst ourselves talking about it, we thought we would launch a nationwide competition," Kristina Ljungros, a spokeswoman for the association told The Local.

"We are trying to put sexuality on the agenda - the positive aspects, not just the negative ones like sexual abuse. We want to focus on the good parts, the lust".

"When it comes to masturbation, people mostly think about just men doing it and we don't think of it as common for women. If we don't have a word in the language, how can we even talk about it?" she argued.

They all speak English anyway, don't they?

Meanwhile, we are getting rid of English words:

ELON, N.C. – Elon University has dropped the term “freshman” from its vocabulary and replaced it with “first-year,” a move made official this fall and implemented in everything from its website to orientation workshops.

The change at the small, private liberal arts college in North Carolina was done to promote inclusivity, celebrate diversity, and ensure the campus did not promote sexist stereotypes or create a hostile and unsafe environment for female students, campus officials said in interviews with The College Fix. ...

“The term has often been felt to refer to the vulnerableness of young women in college for the first time,” Royster said. “Given the rates of sexual violence perpetrated against women on college campuses, it is useful to examine any use of a term that suggests that a group of people just entering college might be targets for such violence in any way.”

So some boy might rape a girl if she is called a freshman, but not if she is called a first-year student? This is nuts.