The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

California’s #RapeCulture: Monster Gets Early Prison Release, Kidnaps Girl, 16

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 38 Comments

This is what happens when you elect Democrats:

A man on probation as a “non-violent offender” under California’s prison realignment program has been charged with kidnapping, raping, and torturing a 16-year-old girl in South Los Angeles, and detectives suspect he may be connected to three other recent murders. Robert L. Ranson, 30, was arrested in late March after the girl escaped from a U-Haul van in an alley near Imperial Highway and New Hampshire Ave., according to police and booking records. The girl was covered in gasoline and said her attacker, later identified as Ranson, had tied her hands and taped her mouth, and was trying to light her on fire when she ran away, naked.

Ranson is also a suspect in three murders. You may ask: “How is this psychopath a ‘non-violent offender’?” Here’s your answer:

According to state prison officials Ranson was released from prison in Susanville in June, 2013 and returned to Los Angeles for supervision by probation officials. He was considered a non-violent offender because his most recent prison term was for possession of a firearm by a felon. Ranson had previously served time for two carjackings and an assault with a firearm, prison officials said.

So, despite convictions for serious violent crimes, including carjacking, Ranson was classified as “non-violent” under a system where only your most recent conviction is considered relevant. And possession of a firearm by a felon? That’s “non-violent.”

There are layers of irony here. At Occidental College, radical feminist Professor Caroline Heldman is stoking “rape culture” paranoia, but the same left-wing mentality supports Gov. Jerry Brown and his early-release program for “non-violent” offenders.

It’s only about a half-hour drive from South L.A., where this poor 16-year-old girl escaped Robert Ranson, to the campus of Occidental College, where rich girls scream about “rape culture.” Whatever any girl at Occidental has suffered, I’m reasonably sure none of them have been kidnapped, tied up, tortured and covered with gasoline by a psycho convict who tried to light them on fire.

If Jerry Brown’s “non-violent offenders” ever started preying on rich girls — like those spoiled-brat feminists at Occidental, where tuition is $46,952 a year — maybe California Democrats would care.

 

Category: California, Crime

FMJRA 2.0: Shout

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around?

Shocking: Brandeis Feminist Faculty Led Petition Against Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Kook Nation: Crazy Lady Who Threw Shoe at Hillary Clinton Is Crazy

The Imperfections of Victimhood

This Is Not The Time To Go Wobbly On #ObamaCare: Abort It With The Prejudice Of All Stone-Hearted Feminists Combined

Ersatz Children

Professor Herf Gets It Right

Bundy Wins Ranch Standoff

Sex Roles: ‘Me Tarzan, You Jane’

Found scribbled on the back of a 1040X

Jew-Hater Kills Jews

Teachers Gone Wild!

Police: Woman Killed Six of Her Own Babies, Hid Bodies in Garage

How Many Women Did Suspected Serial Killer Felix Vail Murder?

The Homeless Menace: Police Say Four Women Murdered by Sex Offenders

Anti-Israel Extremist @MaxBlumenthal Cited by Overland Park Jew-Killer

Oh, Noes! @AmandaMarcotte Needs New Theory to Explain Secular Misogynists

RNC Sues IRS for Stonewalling

Apartheid in New York City

Police: Florida Teacher Told Boy’s Mother ‘No Regrets’ for Sex With Student, 17

Silly Ex-SECDEF Thinks He Has The Right To A Coherent Tax System

Confetti Bomber: Kooky Art Student Arrested After Boston Marathon

How @ClaireShipman Ironically Proves Phyllis Schlafly Right About the ‘Pay Gap’

‘Repeated Requests for Phillips to Stop Masturbating and Ejaculating on Her’

For Which He Cannot Be Forgiven

New York Times: Not Fit to Line the Cage of Any Self-Respecting Parakeet

MSNBC’s War on Women: Why Has Network Abandoned Wendy Davis?

IRS Scandal: Smoking Gun?

In The Mailbox, 04.17.14

Gay Movie Director Drugged, Raped Teenage Boy in 1999, Lawsuit Alleges

British Jury Acquits Lesbian, 40, Who Had Drunk Sex With Girl, 15

Arianna Huffington’s Lesbian Daughter Recovers From Cocaine Habit

Self-Awareness, @AmandaMarcotte? Irony? Some Logical Coherence, Perhaps?

Hollywood Pedophilia Scandal: Did Democrats Know About Gay Donors?

Top  linkers this week:

  1. Batshit Crazy News (25)
  2. Regular Right Guy (22)
  3. DaleyGator (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially those of you who linked over the last fortnight when I was too busy in the tax mines (or Minnesota) to deal with the FMJRA.


Category: FMJRA Award

Lawyer for ‘Patriarchy’ Pervert Says Accuser ‘Is Just After a Paycheck’

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 34 Comments

Doug Phillips and his wife Beall (left); Lourdes Torres (right)

The Doug Phillips sex scandal has reached a new low, now that the disgraced homeschooling leader and “biblical patriarchy” advocate has unleashed his lawyer to smear Phillips’ accuser Lourdes Torres-Manteufel as a dishonest money-grubber:

Long time home schooling leader and former Boerne church official Doug Phillips is fighting back today against allegations raised by his former nanny that he ‘groomed her to be his sex object.’
“This more seems like an attempt to kill a Christian movement than it does just as an attack against Doug Phillips,” Jason Jakob, who is Phillips’ attorney, tells 1200 WOAI’s Michael Board. . . .
“Mr. Phillips was gone all the time with vision Forum ministries,” he says. “He is not a pastor who would be with her on a daily basis.”
Jakob says Torres “is just after a paycheck.”

This attack on Torres is part of a pattern with Phillips: He claims that criticism of his actions are attacks on Christian belief, and threatens legal action against his critics. You can read how Phillips had his attorney send a disillusioned church member a letter threatening legal action for slander, libel and blackmail in 2006. I also strongly urge you to go read this article at World Magazine — be sure to read all four pages — which describes how Phillips threatened legal action against Peter Bradrick, Jordan Muela, and Bob Renaud, three Christian colleagues who attempted to hold him accountable.

That article points out that Phillips did not threaten Rev. Joe Morecraft, another pastor who sought to hold him accountable, for which I suggest a simple and obvious explanation: He wouldn’t dare.

People who know Rev. Morecraft will tell you he is a mighty man of God, one of the most respected Calvinist preachers in America. Doug Phillips could not possibly win a showdown with Morecraft. So the silence of Phillips in that regard is quite telling: Doug Phillips is a bully, who only picks fights with people he views as vulnerable. This fits with the narrative of Phillips’ behavior alleged in Lourdes Torres-Manteufel’s lawsuit, and in the telling of the scandal by other informed sources.

It is by no means surprising that these “other informed sources” are critics of the “patriarchy”/”quiverfull” doctrines that Phillips advocated, even though one might discern that (a) there are other advocates of the same doctrine who have not been stained by scandal, and (b) Phillips’ alleged behavior is similar to sexual abuse cases involving many other offenders, including lesbian hockey coach Heidi Ferber. Good luck blaming that scandal on “biblical patriarchy” doctrine.

What did Phillips (allegedly) do? You can read the sordid details: “Douglas Phillips used Ms. Torres . . . as a personal sex object. . . . Douglas Phillips repeatedly groped, rubbed, and touched Ms. Torres’s crotch, breasts, and other areas of her body; rubbed his penis on her; masturbated on her; forced her to watch him masturbate on her; and ejaculated upon her,” et cetera.

The question that arises is, “How did Phillips convince her to tolerate this?” And the answer is rather simple: He groomed her, he took advantage of his leadership status to impress her, he isolated her in a situation where she was vulnerable to his influence and, perhaps worst of all, he strung her along with a false promise of marriage. Here we will quote “other informed sources”:

Doug told Victim they were soul mates. He told her he loved her and had promised they’d eventually get married and have children together. During these years, the relationship with Victim ebbed and flowed. Doug worked very hard at keeping prospective courters away from his victim. Victim also affirmed her affections towards Phillips.

You see? If the “biblical patriarchy” movement is to survive this scandal, young Christian ladies need to be warned to avoid any man who speaks this “soul mate” language, especially any married man who tries to justify an adulterous relationship with such language.

What should outrage Christians — especially homeschooling adherents of “patriarchy” and “quiverfull” doctrines — is how this married man allegedly manipulated this girl, discouraging potential suitors, so as to keep her romantically available for himself.

This beautiful young woman, who might have long since married and had children of her own, was instead (allegedly) kept in a condition of romantic limbo because of Phillips’ sinful and deceptive manipulation, so that she only married this month at age 29.

Never mind whether Lourdes Torres “affirmed her affections toward Phillips.” There’s an old country song about that:

It wasn’t God who made honky-tonk angels,
As you wrote in the words of your song.
Too many times married men think they’re still single.
That has caused many a good girl to go wrong.

Sure, it takes two to tango, and if Lourdes Torres developed some kind of crush on Doug Phillips, she wouldn’t be the first “good girl” to make herself vulnerable by admiring a married man. However, Doug Phillips was a grown-up, a married father in a position of authority and influence and, rather than avoiding this temptation, he seems to have become pathologically obsessed with the girl.

What the Doug Phillips scandal has done is to expose all Christian conservative traditionalists to renewed accusations that their doctrines of marriage and family life are aimed at wrongfully oppressing and exploiting women. As someone who has been fighting against feminist propaganda on almost a daily basis lately, I take this kind of embarrassment quite personally  The one thing a Christian conservative leader should never do is give Amanda Marcotte an excuse to gloat.

Not only is Marcotte gloating over Phillips’ downfall, but she’s even trying to drag the Duggar family down with him:

Amanda Marcotte just couldn’t resist a dirty jab at the Duggars.
In her scathing article at the Daily Beast [Thursday], the feminist blogger predicted the end of the Duggar Dynasty.
The popular TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” follows the semi-chaotic, but strangely normal and splendidly wholesome lives of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their nineteen children. Their oldest son is married and has three children of his own; one daughter is engaged and another has a serious boyfriend. . . .
[T]hey aren’t the women-hating, female-abusing psychos Marcotte presents them as.
Her accusations stem from the shameful fall from grace of Doug Phillips, the leader of Vision Forum ministries. . . .
Marcotte’s accusations that somehow this means the end of the Duggars is simply ridiculous. Yes, the Duggars were part of the ministry and have ties to the homeschooling movement Phillips led, but that doesn’t mean the Duggars themselves abused women or had affairs.
In fact, Jim Bob’s and Michelle’s marriage appears tender and loving. Marcotte’s attempt to stamp Phillip’s indiscretions on nineteen other people has no merit.

You can read the whole thing by The American Spectator‘s Natalie deMacedo. It is an incorrect and perverse distortion of biblical teaching to claim that Christianity teaches women should be weak, helpless and dependent creatures. The biblical concept of sexual complementarity certainly leads to a vision of  cooperation, rather than competition, between the sexes — a vision at odds with the power-oriented radical egalitarian doctrines of feminism.

However, it is an error to have a legalistic (and, we might even say, idolatrous) attitude about sex roles, so that what should be a voluntary cooperation in the spirit of Christ instead becomes a burdensome compliance with a rigid set of rules. And quite honestly, when I see a Christian man who seems to be constantly lecturing about male “headship” and wifely “submission,” I suspect his motives to be rooted in a fearful sense of personal inadequacy.

“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her . . . She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. . . . She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. . . . Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.”
— Proverbs 31:10-30 (KJV)





 

 


 

Category: Family, Feminism, Marriage, Religion, Scandal, Sex

Cherokee Princess Fauxcohantas

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 43 Comments

In her new book, Elizabeth Warren blames the controversy over her fake Cherokee ancestry on “some blogger,” and since William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection was particularly merciless in exposing her lies, he’s giving credit where credit is due:

In fact, Warren has no one to blame but herself for her false claim to be Cherokee. Read Elizabeth Warren Wiki, and these posts responding to the claims in her book:

Warren will be launching a nationwide book tour.  Someone who wants to meet Warren is Twila Barnes.
Barnes is the Cherokee Genealogist whose groundbreaking genealogical research exposed the falsehood to Warren’s claims.  Barnes and her team of Cherokee genealogists traced Warren’s family lines back to the early 1800s and documented that Warren’s family not only was not Cherokee or other Native American, but also that they never lived as such:

Barnes also debunked much of the “family lore” used by Warren to justify claiming Native American status.  One of my favorites was Barnes’ discovery that Warren’s maternal great grandfather, on the supposedly Cherokee bloodline, was featured in the local newspaper in 1906 as being white and having shot an Indian. And also Barnes’ discovery that Warren’s parents’ wedding was joyously announced in the local newspaper, which would contradict Warren’s claim that her parents had to elope because her father’s family would not tolerate their son marrying an Indian.

 See, here’s the thing: With a huge national fundraising effort, Warren could get herself elected to the Senate in Massachusetts in 2012, but her larger ambitions — her admirers want her to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination in 2016 — require that this controversy disappear. It won’t disappear, because the facts are at odds with Warren’s version of the story.

The fact is that Elizabeth Warren has zero Native American ancestry. She lied about her ancestry — and even invented stories about her parents’ marriage — in order to justify “checking the box” on forms to qualify for affirmative action consideration.

Elizabeth Warren is a liar and a Democrat, but I repeat myself.

 

 

Category: Democrats

Hollywood Pedophilia Scandal: Did Democrats Know About Gay Donors?

Posted on | April 18, 2014 | 75 Comments

After Thursday’s report about director Bryan Singer, I got an e-mail tip from a reader that led to this American Spectator article:

Allegations that a film director raped a teenage boy could impact fundraising for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, whose close ties to Hollywood’s gay community are potentially implicated in the scandal.
Bryan Singer, the openly gay director best known for the X-Men series of action films, has been accused in a lawsuit filed by a 31-year-old man who says he was 17 when Singer forcibly sodomized him in 1999. The plaintiff in that lawsuit, former model and actor Michael F. Egan III, describes attending Hollywood parties that “were typically sordid and featured sexual contact between adult males and the many teenage boys who were present for the parties.” According to the lawsuit, Singer attended the gay sex parties at the estate of Marc Collins-Rector, an entertainment entrepreneur who subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple crimes involving underage boys, and is now a registered sex offender.
“Since 2006 Bryan Singer has contributed at least $87,620 to Democratic candidates and committees,” the Daily Caller reported. “In 2006 and 2007 Singer contributed a combined total of $6,500 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets. In 2011 and 2012 Singer contributed a combined $61,600 to the Democratic National Committee.”
Singer has also hosted notoriously raucous gay parties at the home of film director Roland Emmerich, the London Daily Mail reported. In a 2011 interview with the Advocate, a leading gay publication, Emmerich described how Singer invited hundreds of “twinks” — slang for very young gay men — to the annual pool parties at Emmerich’s Hollywood estate. The paper highlighted a photo showing scores of men frolicking in Emmerich’s swimming pool.
It was at Emmerich’s estate in June 2007 that Hillary Clinton attended an “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) fundraiser event” for her Democrat presidential campaign. A description of the event: “The Senator first greeted the VIP guests in the upper section of the estate and then moved on to the pool area to address the approximately 250 supporters who have gathered to meet the former First Lady. Hillary Clinton’s main topic that night was the discrimination of gays and lesbians and their (mostly lost) rights, which she is fighting to restore.” That account described Emmerich’s estate: “The lush gardens and the unique building made a perfect backdrop for the presidential candidate and the many guests seemed to enjoy the privilege of setting foot on this private property.”
No one has accused Emmerich of involvement in the sexual misconduct alleged against Singer in Egan’s lawsuit, and an attorney for Singer dismissed Egan’s allegations as “without merit … absurd and defamatory.” However, Egan and his attorney Jeff Herman have suggested there was a larger network of gay pedophiles surrounding Collins-Rector, who Egan said repeatedly threatened him: “We control Hollywood and we will eliminate you.”

 The evidence here is all over the Internet in plain sight. It doesn’t take fancy “investigative journalism” to assemble the pieces:

Now, am I saying that every gay person in Hollywood is a pedophile, or that Democrats endorse the kind of activities alleged in Michael Egan’s lawsuit? Nothing of the kind.

What I am saying is that the Democrat Party has been collecting money to advance an agenda, and that some of the people providing that money are alleged to have an agenda of butt-raping teenage boys.

Even tonight, BuzzFeed’s Hunter Schwartz has reported an interesting fact: When three young men sued Collins-Rector in 2000, one of the plaintiffs was Alexander Burton, an actor who has appeared in exactly one movie: X-Men, directed by Bryan Singer.

Maybe that’s just a coincidence. And maybe not.

 

Category: Democrats, Gays, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood, Scandal

Self-Awareness, @AmandaMarcotte? Irony? Some Logical Coherence, Perhaps?

Posted on | April 18, 2014 | 129 Comments

Amanda Marcotte is one of the most wicked people in America today. Her bloodthirsty enthusiasm for abortion is such that she does not hesitate to imagine aborting her own hypothetical offspring:

“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me
want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails,
I am totally having an abortion.”

What kind of deformed personality could write such thing? The same kind of deformed personality who could become a campaign blogger for Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards — hired, evidently, on the recommendation of Edwards’ wife — then get unceremoniously dumped after her controversial record becomes an issue. And then, when it is exposed that the candidate who hired and dumped her was a shameless adulterer, well . . . crickets chirping.

Zero recognition on Marcotte’s part that her “progressive” values made her the dupe of a hypocritical charlatan. No second thoughts are possible, because her career as a Professional Feminist is so important to her that the slightest flinch — any mere overt hint of uncertainty about her commitment to The Sacred Progressive Cause — would impair the status and prestige she has striven so hard to attain.

Years of humiliating herself on behalf of The Cause have extinguished whatever spark of conscience Amanda Marcotte may ever have possessed and her career of public self-degradation seems, also, to have made her blind to her own contradictions. So it is that we find the bloodthirsty abortion fanatic pretending to have moral qualms about the death of a fictional TV character:

That is the genius of this episode [Sunday’s episode of the HBO series Game of Thrones]. It serves up one example after another for you to judge of people sadistically enjoying the pain and suffering of others, and right when you’re in a full snit of self-righteousness, it puts you in a position to do exactly what you just spent the last hour judging others over.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face that it’s different, because Joffrey’s death is an objectively good thing, especially for the kingdom. But you’ll recall that Ned Stark advised his sons at the beginning of the series about the importance of not taking killing lightly. This, George R.R. Martin is arguing, is what war does to people: It makes them callous and petty and revenge-minded, which is why peace never lasts and violence begets more violence. Last night’s episode was a firm reminder of the fundamentally pacifist nature of the series.

Or, perhaps, “a firm reminder” of the ultimately amoral worldview that informs Game of Thrones. Not long ago, my friend Ali Akbar stayed a week at our house, during which I became temporarily addicted to Game of Thrones. I’d heard all the buzz about the series, but the professional necessity of having cable TV — not only to watch the news, but also because high-speed Internet service is part of the cable package — does not justify paying for HBO. Ali, however, has the “HBO Go” package, so that he could download all the episodes, and I watched the first two seasons in the span of a week.

The infamous “Red Wedding” scene that wiped out the Stark clan (except for Ned’s bastard son) was pretty much all the evidence you needed that there is really no “moral to the story.” One might argue that it is realistic to see the noble and courageous perish at the hands of the depraved and sadistic, but if the author had in mind some didactic purpose, the lesson taught is a very bad one.

Grant that Game of Thrones is eminently watchable, that the character development and plot twists are fascinating. Grant all this, and I still say the series is a poisoned confection, an invitation to the kind of puerile paganism that one might find among adolescent “goths” attending a Renaissance Fair or science-fiction convention.

A certain tolerance of moral ambiguity is necessary to film criticism, which is one reason why most evangelical Christian writing on the subject is so wretched. If your idea of film criticism is to count the cuss words and recoil in horror at any overt expression of sexuality, you should consider another line of work. It’s one thing to advocate wholesome, uplifting, family entertainment; it’s another thing to be permanently indignant that all movies are not wholesome, uplifting, family entertainment. For example, why wouldn’t pro-lifers embrace The Terminator as one of the most pro-life movies of all time?

The whole point of the story is that Sarah Connor, an otherwise unremarkable young woman from Los Angeles, must survive because she is destined to give birth to the future hero John Connor. And (spoiler alert) she becomes pregnant with John because of the time-traveling future soldier who has returned to the 1980s to save her. Spare me the Church Lady sermon about unmarried sex — how can a Christian possibly miss the pro-life theme here?

Well, we have wandered far afield from the topic of Amanda Marcotte’s tone-deaf reaction to the death of Evil King Joffrey. The point of that digression, however, is that effective criticism must be able to perceive in a dramatic work themes that are embedded in the subtext. Marcotte says she has read the books on which Game of Thrones is based, and if what she sees as most important is a pacifist message, I’ll take her word for it that this is the authorial purpose — and ultimately, a bad lesson.

Yes, war is a terrible thing that everyone should strive to avoid. However, as history as amply demonstrated, the pursuit of peace at any price — a cowardly refusal to risk war on behalf of principle — can lead to awful consequences. “Peace through strength” is not merely a slogan, but the only way that war can be deterred. But contra Marcotte, I think the author of Game of Thrones sees this.

One notices in Game of Thrones echoes of Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli, both insightful scholars of statecraft. And there is, certainly, a sort of moral framework evident: Characters who become obsessed with revenge ultimately destroy themselves. Yet weakness toward an enemy — a failure to utterly destroy a rival, and also to destroy any of his allies who might avenge him — always exposes a character to sudden and unexpected destruction. So a viewer can extract useful lessons from Game of Thrones, even while acknowledging that (a) it’s chiefly enjoyable as escapist fantasy entertainment, and (b) the series is ultimately a moral cesspool, where all the characters are fundamentally bad people in one way or another.

Here I think of film noir, my favorite movie genre.

You can’t be one of those League of Christian Decency types and a film noir fan, because the protagonist is invariably a deeply flawed man — “Oh, no, Mildred! He’s smoking a cigarette!” — who finds himself in a moral dilemma, usually involving a Woman of Questionable Virtue. The protagonist in film noir finds himself in a position where there are no “good” options, where survival requires him to do things that are unethical or illegal, because his own weakness or stupidity has led him into a situation where he is hopelessly trapped by evil.

Game of Thrones could be seen as a kind of medieval film noir, I suppose, but that’s about the best you could say for it, and Amanda Marcotte’s reading of King Joffrey’s death as a moral indictment of the viewer’s hypocrisy is . . . well, it’s weird:

The audience at home is made to endure Joffrey’s ugly and mean-spirited play where a bunch of little people do a comical re-enactment of the War of the Five Kings. Joffrey and his supporters chortle horribly at the deaths of their enemies for many long minutes, many more minutes than you would ever have to endure in most TV shows. After awhile, you start to squirm and actually feel the discomfort of Tyrion, Sansa, and the Tyrells at this unseemly display of pleasure in the deaths of [their] enemies. You can’t wait for it to end. It’s really terrible, all this gloating over death.
A few minutes later, half the people who were squirming over Joffrey’s unseemly pleasure in the deaths of his enemies are running to Twitter to celebrate Joffrey’s pathetic and painful death.

One can only view this criticism as evidence that Marcotte is one of those whose conscience has been seared with a hot iron. Can’t she see Joffrey’s death as a fate that he brought upon himself through his own sadistic cruelty? I haven’t seen the episode in question, so I don’t know if I would be gleefully cheering Joffrey’s death, but no one could dispute that the world of Game of Thrones would have been better off if Joffrey had been killed much sooner. But Marcotte’s reading of the “discomfort” at  the way Joffrey & Co. relish the deaths of their enemies seems to miss the fundamental question: Who has done wrong to whom?

In what sense has Joffrey ever been a victim of wrongdoing? Hasn’t Joffrey been a reliable perpetrator of wrongdoing? Why then should anyone wonder that we would be uncomfortable at watching him “chortle horribly” at the re-enactment of his wrongs? And why should we feel guilt at our enjoyment of seeing Joffrey finally receive the kind of violent death he has inflicted on so many good and innocent people?

We need not be surprised, however, by Amanda Marcotte’s inability to make obvious moral distinctions, her blindness to the difference between sadism and justice. Marcotte’s lack of moral insight begins with herself: How can such a murderously fanatical advocate of abortion be expected to discern Good from Evil?

It never even occurs to Amanda Marcotte that there is anything ironic in her position. “Then again, I could see how she could be in simpatico with an 18 year old psychopath.” Indeed, indeed.

 

 

Category: Abortion, Culture

Arianna Huffington’s Lesbian Daughter Recovers From Cocaine Habit

Posted on | April 18, 2014 | 28 Comments

A couple years ago, Christina Huffington was hospitalized with respiratory problems after she went on a cocaine binge at Yale. She’d been addicted to coke since she was 16. She was also bulimic.

Now everything is OK, because she’s 24 years old and has a job as an editor at — you’ll never guess — the Huffington Post.

Also, she’s dating Sophie Watts, a film producer: “Christina and Sophie have been dating for a while, they’re very happy.”

 

Category: Celebrities, Huffington Post

British Jury Acquits Lesbian, 40, Who Had Drunk Sex With Girl, 15

Posted on | April 17, 2014 | 20 Comments

The legal age of consent in England is 16, and if you tell a jury you didn’t know your partner’s age, you may go scot-free:

A female radio DJ who had sex with a 15-year-old girl after plying her with vodka has walked free from court because she did not know the teenager’s real age.
Emma Stanfield, 40, said she thought the girl was 16 and only found out her true age the morning after the night they spent together at her Oxford apartment.
The prosecution claimed that Ms Stanfield knew the girl was underage and then ‘recklessly’ pursued her, leaving her 29 missed calls and more than 100 Facebook messages in the days that followed.
However, the jury instead believed the emotional DJ’s account and she was acquitted of three counts of sexual activity with a child and one of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
Ms Stanfield met the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, on the afternoon of May 28 last year.
The DJ had stayed over at a friend’s house following a night out drinking in Oxford on May 27.
Her friend had left to go to work the following morning, leaving Ms Stanfield alone in the house with her friend’s 16-year-old daughter.
The jury heard Ms Stanfield and the young girl began drinking vodka and shared a kiss.
That girl then said she was not attracted to women but said her bisexual best friend was coming over soon.
Soon after [the bisexual best friend] arrived, Ms Stanfield gave the girl vodka and straddled her on the sofa with her top off, kissing her.
The DJ claimed she thought the bisexual girl was also aged 16 years, but prosecutors said both girls had made her aware that she was only 15 at the time.
Ms Stanfield said the girl was ‘very keen’ after they had kissed and fondled on the sofa.
She then left to present her 4-7pm radio show on community radio station OX105FM.
She returned to the house after 7pm and the girl asked to go back to her flat in Chapel Street, Oxford, where they had sex that night. . . .
Ms Stanfield said in her evidence: ‘We got up — it was quite early — and she said ‘there’s something I need to tell you.’
‘She told me her real age. She told me she had lied and she was really 15.’ . . .
In the days that followed, Ms Stanfield sent the girl more than 100 Facebook messages, including asking her if she enjoyed oral sex.
‘I really like you, I want you to know that and I would like you to be my girlfriend,’ she wrote.
The jury at Oxford Crown Court took just over 90 minutes to return their verdicts after the three-day trial.
As the verdicts were read out, Ms Stanfield gave a huge sigh of relief and said ‘thank you’ to the jury.

So, if you’re a 40-year-old lesbian giving vodka to a 15-year-old girl, having sex with her, asking her to be your girlfriend — perfectly OK in England, as long as you say you thought she was 16.

Of course, if Emma Stansfield had made a video of her teen lesbian vodka sex romp and put it on the Internet, you could go to federal prison for watching it. Meanwhile, in New Jersey:

A teenage boy sent nude pictures and sexually explicit videos of his ex-girlfriend to another girl, police said.
Now both the sender and the recipient are charged with distributing child pornography, authorities said.
A 16-year-old West Orange boy and a 16-year-old Little Falls girl were each charged with distributing child pornography under the state’s endangering the welfare of children statute, said Sgt. James Briggs of the Little Falls police.
The West Orange boy allegedly texted eight nude pictures of a 17-year-old Woodland Park girl to the Little Falls female, Briggs said. The Little Falls girl then showed the pictures to numerous other juveniles — and may have posted them to a social media site, police allege.
The Woodland Park girl is the ex-girlfriend of the West Orange boy, Briggs confirmed. Both teenage girls are students at Passaic Valley High School, the sergeant added.
The Little Falls girl also allegedly sent other videos and pictures of underage teenagers engaged in sexual acts to other local juveniles, Briggs said.

If you keep track of stories like this, you may have observed a noticeable drift in one direction. And it’s not a good direction.

One can foresee a time — in a few years, maybe — when basically every teenager will have a nude selfie online somewhere. The amateur teen porn stuff will just flood onto the Internet, so much of it that law enforcement will be powerless to stop it.

Once it becomes pervasive, we’ll see op-ed columnists in the New York Times telling us it’s not so bad that your 10th-grader has got an iPhone full of his classmates’ naked pictures and sex videos.

This Is Just How Kids Are in the 21st Century, the experts will say, and there will be tut-tutting about “old-fashioned” parents who object to their children’s nude photos being shared around via text-messages and email. It’s not difficult to imagine a Youth Liberation movement arguing for liberalization of child-pornography laws to create loopholes that will in effect legalize pornography created by kids themselves. And once it’s legal to log on and watch live streaming video of high school orgies . . .

The Road to Hell is paved with “rights.”

 

Category: Crime, Gays, Great Britain, Sex
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin