Teacher Sex Scandal Blackmail

Posted on | January 25, 2017 | 2 Comments

Texas teacher Thao Doan allegedly paid $28,000 to her victim, his mother says.

A bizarre school sex scandal in Texas includes claims of blackmail:

Dallas ISD police say a middle school teacher was being blackmailed by a teenage student she was sleeping with.
Court documents show Thao “Sandy” Doan paid about $28,000 to the student after he threatened to tell police.
Doan taught math at Raul Quintanilla Senior Middle School in West Oak Cliff. She was arrested last Friday.
The mother of the teen says she tracked the source of some suspicious text messages to a teacher, who she had met many times at school events and who taught her son math when he was in the eighth grade last year.
The mom reported the texts to the school, which called Dallas ISD police and removed the teacher from class the same day.
Nidia wanted to speak about her son as long as FOX4 didn’t use her last name.
“This really changed my son,” she said. “This really turned my son into another person that he wasn’t.”
Nidia says text messages, also quoted in court documents, tipped her off to her son’s alleged blackmail of a teacher. She’d later learn the teacher is accused of having sex with her son when he was 14 years old.
“At times, he started getting into drugs, drinking, leaving the house. And he would probably get money and just leave the whole weekend,” Nidia said. . . .
A search warrant affidavit added Doan confirmed the student received an image of her exposing her breasts and that the two engaged in explicit texting. She also told police she began receiving demands for cash in exchange for the student’s silence beginning last New Year’s Day.
Police say Doan withdrew money from her bank and took out payday loans to the tune of an estimated $28,000.

America’s public education system is a criminal enterprise.

(Hat-tip: Kirby McCain on Twitter.)

Category: Crime, Education, Texas

Petroleum Is Good, Liberals Are Crazy

Posted on | January 24, 2017 | 2 Comments

For eight years, President Obama did everything in his power to punish the people who produce the fuel that makes capitalism work. It took Donald Trump just two days to turn that around:

Trump signed executive orders that will make it easier for TransCanada to construct the Keystone XL pipeline and for Energy Transfer Partners to build the final uncompleted portion of the Dakota Access pipeline.
The Keystone XL would bring oil from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing pipeline to bring the crude to Illinois. Former President Barack Obama refused to approve the cross-border project, saying the environmental review was not adequate in light of its route through the Sandhills ecosystem in Nebraska. . . .
Obama also backed a delay to completion of the Dakota Access pipeline, which would bring oil from North Dakota to Illinois. . . .
In December, the Army Corp of Engineers said it would deny Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners the easement it needs to complete the final stretch of the $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline. Jo-Ellen Darcy, United States assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, said the best path forward was to explore alternative routes for the pipeline, something Energy Transfer Partners says it will not do.
Tribe members and protesters have been camped out for months in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, in opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline.

Americans love petroleum. We love the internal combustion engine. We love fast cars and big trucks. Environmental activists . . . not so much.

Q. How many hippies does it take to pave five miles of highway?
A. Only one, if you spread him real thin.

Dirty hippies don’t like Donald Trump for some reason.

Category: Donald Trump, Environmentalism

Because Sluts Should Be Ashamed

Posted on | January 24, 2017 | 1 Comment

Great minds think alike and, at the very moment I was tsk-tsking over Meghan Murphy’s sad fate, Zaklog the Great was posting this video:

Now, one of my pet peeves is video bloggers (“vloggers”) who post splendid rants but fail to provide transcripts for those us who would like to be able to quote what they say. As if he could read my mind, Zaklog the Great had a transcript ready when I asked for one:

I’d like to talk a little bit today about slut-shaming. There’s a real problem with it these days. We simply do not have nearly enough.
Let’s spell out exactly what the phrase “slut-shaming” means, shall we? It means criticizing a woman for promiscuous sexual behavior. Why, exactly, is this bad? Oh . . . I see. It’s unfair! Men do not get treated the same. Well, you’re kind of right. Men are not held to account for our sexual behavior nearly enough. This is unfair. I don’t know if I would say unjust because “fair” is a loose word, easy to sling around. “Just” . . . is a bit more hard-edged, however.
But, if you have an important rule that is not being enforced even-handedly, the sane decision is not to abolish the rule for everyone, but to enforce the rule for those who have been getting off light. We need more slut-shaming for men.
But don’t get me wrong. This is not just about men. There is also a dreadful dearth of slut-shaming for women these days.
You may object, however, that these rules against sexual promiscuity are not important, that, in fact, they are silly, and outdated, and passé. To that, I have a few replies. First, how’s that gonorrhea infection treating you? Did they get to it before it rendered you permanently sterile? Second, yes, these rules are important, and even more so for women than for men.
You see, and I know this is unfair, women tend to bear the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior more heavily than men do. First, we have to establish some basic facts. Sex, you see, is how we get more people, who, in common practice, start out as babies. Now, there are all kinds of fantastic things that can be said about babies, but two drawbacks cannot be debated: Babies are expensive and babies are time-consuming.
Why do I bring this up? Well, if two people are having casual sex and a baby results, who generally ends up responsible for it? That’s right, the woman. Even if she manages to get child support from the father, which is a doubtful proposition in that situation, that is still a large burden for one person.
So, in purely practical terms, women tend to bear more of the costs of promiscuous sex. But that’s not all. You see, and I hate to break this to those of you who’ve been listening to feminists, but women and men are not the same. Women and men do not react to sexual intimacy the same way. And years of playing genital-tag leave different marks on women than they do on men.
There was a study a few years ago that showed that the odds of a woman being happy in her marriage go down as her number of lifetime sexual partners goes up. It also showed no such pattern among men. Is this unfair? Yes. It’s also reality. Sorry.
You put these two important facts together and it looks like enforcing societal rules against sexual promiscuity is even more important for women than for men. These rules protect women far more than they do men.
Now, societies have basically two options for enforcing their various rules: ostracism or force, mockery or the barrel of a gun. I, personally, think ostracism would be by far the preferable option here. Perhaps you disagree.
So yeah. Slut-shaming. We could really use more. Now go out and do your part!

Exactly right. Why does shame exist, anyway? Because if people were not shamed for doing bad things, they might do bad things all the time, like posting video rants and not providing a transcript. Shame on vloggers who do that — and praise to Zaklog the Great!

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 01.24.17

Posted on | January 24, 2017 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 01.24.17

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Obama State Dept. Flunky Marie Harf Hired By…Fox News?
Twitchy: Senior Secret Service Officer In Hot Water Over Facebook Post
Louder With Crowder: Hypocrisy Exposed! Crowder Crashes #WomensMarch As Undercover Transgender!

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Is It Okay To Punch A Nazi?
American Thinker: Chronicles Of Self-Destruction
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s First Full Presidential Day Work News
Bring The HEAT: The Strange Case Of Lieutenant Commander Lin
Da Tech Guy: Baldilocks – Post-Inauguration Short Takes, also, John Ruberry – Why Is Chicago So Corrupt?
Don Surber: “Citizens Impeachment! Citizens Impeachment” /Gomer Pyle, also, West Virginia Almost Abortion Free
Dustbury: I Think She Wears A Small
Hogewash: Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign
Jammie Wearing Fools: Failing NY Tabloid Attacks Tom Brady For Friendship With Donald Trump
Joe For America: No More Spanish! White House Announces English-Only Website
JustOneMinute: Waves In The Pacific
Power Line: Burn, Baby, Burn?, also, Governor Dayton Collapses
Shark Tank: Obama’s Last-Minute Gift Of $221 Million To The Palestinian Authority
Shot In The Dark: Dear “Feminist” Bobblehead
STUMP: Actuaries On Social Security – Schobel On Reforms, Myers On History, And Foster On Medicare/ACA
The Geller Report: Anti-Trump Protester Lights Girl’s Hair On Fire (Video), also, HuffPo Attacks Trump For Vow To Fight “Radical Islamic Terrorism”
The Jawa Report: Banned From YouTube – Boobies, Not Banned From JihadTube – Death To America
The Political Hat: Tweens And Sharia Law
This Ain’t Hell: Veronica Dale Hahn Stole $400K From VA, also, Old Enough To Know Better
War Is Boring: A Professor Claimed Video Games Make People Better Shooters – Then His Study Got Retracted
Weasel Zippers: Sharia Supporting Womens’ March Organizer Encourages Lawbreaking By Creating Sanctuaries For Illegals, also, Trump Asks FBI Director Comey To Stay On
Megan McArdle: The Democrats’ Rise Is Far From Inevitable
Mark Steyn: When The March Is Over

Today’s Digital Deals
Shop Handmade – The Wedding Store

Category: Linkagery

Hook-Up Culture: ‘Since I Started Having Sex With Men, Back in, Like, 1997’

Posted on | January 24, 2017 | 4 Comments

“Hookup culture has been alive and kicking since I started having sex with men back in, like, 1997. And I didn’t even have a Hotmail account then.”
— Meghan Murphy, Aug. 10, 2015

Did you ever hear of the “Three-Date Rule”? When I was a teenage hoodlum, the cynical view was that if you weren’t, uh, becoming intimate by the third date, you were wasting your time. Back in the Disco Age — before AIDS, and before MADD had forced the national drinking age up to 21 — there was no shortage of casual female companionship, so why should a guy bother with all that ridiculous slow-motion “relationship” stuff? If you’ve seen Dazed and Confused or Fast Times at Ridgemont High, you get some idea of what a reckless time that was.

Many of my readers, of course, are themselves old enough to have direct memories of that era and they can tell their own tales of how it was when, as Bob Seger sang, we were all workin’ on our night moves.

Really, there ought to be a T-shirt, “I Survived the ’70s,” and it’s easy to pretend that was all harmless fun, but there were too many who didn’t survive, or who sustained such damage as to permanently wreck their lives. Looking back, I’m reminded of what General Sherman told an audience in Ohio about 15 years after the Civil War: “There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell.”

Having learned my lessons the hard way, I was eager to make sure my kids didn’t repeat my mistakes. There is nothing to be learned, nor anything to be proven, by a repetition of the errors of the past. Movies may make the ’70s look like “all glory,” but it was all hell. This brings me back around to the old Three-Date Rule. Once you discarded all constraints of morality or social respectability, as teenage hoodlums do, what was all that “relationship” stuff about anyway? The whole point of a devil-may-care Bad Boy attitude was to convey a message: “Hey, you wanna party?”

This was a yes-or-no question, you see. No need to play games. Better to be up-front and direct about it, instead of wasting time. Oh, sure, there was necessarily some aspect of romance involved, but we knew we were all just a bunch of young sinners, and why pretend otherwise?

Who was it that told me about the Three-Date Rule? I’ve forgotten, and it doesn’t matter, because it was just standard operating procedure. No teenage hoodlum was going to waste weeks or months going through a lot of slow-motion romance when there were so many disco dollies who were ready to get down, get down, get down tonight, baby.

Baby, baby, let’s get together.
Honey, honey, me and you.
And do the things, oh, do the things
That we like to do.
Oh, do a little dance, make a little love,
Get down tonight, get down tonight.
Do a little dance, make a little love,
Get down tonight, get down tonight.

So much for the 1970s, then, and all of that was preamble to discussing Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy’s column about online dating:

Now, speaking only from personal experience, I am not a fan of online dating. When I was single a couple of years ago, everyone was on OkCupid and told me I had to do it because that’s just how people dated nowadays. I tried it for maybe a month, found it super annoying and time-consuming, realized there was no way in hell I was going to go on a date with some stranger from the internet, and went back to my regular life meeting men through friends of friends, at parties, bars, and in my neighbourhood, and lived to tell the tale. . . .
I do not believe either that “hookup culture” is new, directly connected to online dating, or that it has caused The Young People to eschew commitment and relationships completely.
In fact, I think all the hookup culture fearmongering is part of the problem, in that it convinces women they will be SINGLE FOREVER DUN DUN DUNNNN because today’s modern man just wants to f–k and has no interest in committed relationships. Hookup culture has been alive and kicking since I started having sex with men back in, like, 1997. And I didn’t even have a Hotmail account then. Hooking up was just what you did on the weekend and, quite honestly, as a young woman, I really didn’t care about being in a relationship. It wasn’t a priority for me at all. I’ve been both single and in relationships, on and off, for all of my adult life and there is very little that has changed since I was 17.

Read the rest of that if you want, but I just want to make three points:

Online dating is for losers, as I’ve said before;
Not only has the game not changed since 1997, but it has’t really changed since 1977, because sin is still sin;
and
If you’re still “dating” when you’re 35, you have lost the game.

Point #3 is where we confront the sad truth about Meghan Murphy’s “feminism.” Is she being honest when she says she “really didn’t care about being in a relationship” when she was young? Did she never have any romantic dreams of a happily-ever-after ending? Wedding bells, etc.? If so, she was a very unusual young woman, even by feminist standards.

Even the most cynical Bad Boy has to recognize that his hedonism is not harmless recreation. Bad Girls have their romantic dreams, too, and there is a limit to how many heartbreaks anyone can endure.

Smart girls never play that game. One useful term popularized by the pickup artist (PUA) community is sexual market value (SMV) and the smart girl realizes she doesn’t increase her SMV by, uh, becoming intimate on a casual basis. Furthermore, the smart girl recognizes that youth is a crucial factor in her SMV. There’s no point complaining about unfair double-standards here. We are describing how things are in real life, rather than theorizing an alternative universe of “social justice.” So when we read about Meghan Murphy in her mid-30s “meeting men through friends of friends, at parties, bars, and in my neighbourhood,” we are apt to shake our heads in pity. Oh, “as a young woman, I really didn’t care about being in a relationship,” she says, but what does she have now? Nothing but fading memories of her youth, looking toward a future that probably involves a tiny apartment and lots of cats.

It’s a death trap.
It’s a suicide rap.
We gotta get out while we’re young,
`Cause tramps like us,
Baby, we were born to run.

Yeah, smart girls never get into that game, but if somehow they do, they’re smart enough to get our while they’re young. Sing it, Bruce.

Say what you will, kids — the music was just better back then.

Category: Sex Trouble

The Dialectic of Feminist Failure

Posted on | January 24, 2017 | Comments Off on The Dialectic of Feminist Failure

Friedrich Engels and the original German edition of ‘The Origin of the Family.’

One of the most predictable insults that liberals direct at their critics is “ignorance.” Liberals consider themselves intellectually superior, and so the fact that you disagree with them is interpreted as proof of your inferiority. Never does a liberal consider the possibility that his antagonist has examined the arguments for liberalism and rejected them.

No, it is only ignorant prejudice that can explain the conservative’s opposition, the liberal believes. Convinced that they are both intellectually and morally superior to others, liberals think of themselves as qualified to tutor the rest of us, as if we are simple-minded children.

Limo torched in DC protests
belongs to Muslim immigrant,
may cost $70,000 in damages
— Washington Examiner

When we see headlines like that, we are entitled to ask, where is the evidence that liberals are superior to everyone else? The radical mob that burned that limo were convinced they were striking a blow against Trump’s right-wing agenda. After all, what could more perfectly symbolize “facism” than this luxurious Lincoln limo? But the owner is named Muhammad Ashraf, and the driver was Luis Villarroel. Exactly how did torching this car advance the “progressive” cause?

Well, how dare you ask such a question, you ignorant bigot!

It’s the same with feminism. No matter how well-educated you may be, if you disagree with feminists they will accuse you of ignorance. You’re just a dimwitted subhuman sexist pig, if you don’t support their agenda, and no amount of facts or logic can ever convince feminists otherwise:

How much feminist theory have you read? Probably less than I have. You’d have to be a Ph.D. in Women’s Studies to have read as many volumes of this stuff as I’ve plowed through since I started the Sex Trouble project in 2014. You want to talk Judith Butler and Monique Wittig? Mary Daly and Gerda Lerner? I’m thoroughly prepared. And yet at the end of the day, I return to a basic fact: Men and women are different, in ways that are socially significant.
You know who recognized this? Friedrich Engels. Karl Marx’s colleague and co-author of the Communist Manifesto, Engels in 1884 wrote a very important book, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which is still worth reading today. Despite his anti-capitalist bias (or perhaps, because of this bias), his foray into anthropology forced Engels to confront the inescapable fact that women’s work as mothers is irreplaceable. . . .

Read the rest at The Patriarch Tree. Not only have I read more feminist theory than has the average feminist, but I’ve also read more Marxism than has the average Marxist. Being accused of ignorance by the kind of fools who voted for Hillary Clinton is a compliment, really.

Feminism in 3 Easy Steps:
1. Angry slogans.
2. Lose election.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat. pic.twitter.com/07SS2jxzTO

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) January 23, 2017

UPDATE: Gotta quote Ace here:

A caste with pretenses of being superior does not actually become superior until the lower castes affirm the superiority of that caste by conceding to them the immunities and privileges they assert.

Brilliant. I have no problem conceding the superiority of someone like Ace, who obviously is several IQ points smarter than me. What I can’t stand is being lectured by some dimwit Gender Studies major like Jessica Valenti who (a) is nearly 20 years younger than me, and (b) could have titled her memoir My Pathetic Record of Bad Decisions: Why Only a Stupid Whore Would Make Such an Embarrassing Mess of Her Life.

Category: Abortion, Democrats, Donald Trump, Sex Trouble

Because She Doesn’t Like Blondes? @ahzimm Attacks @taylorswift13

Posted on | January 23, 2017 | Comments Off on Because She Doesn’t Like Blondes? @ahzimm Attacks @taylorswift13

When was the last time I paid attention to Taylor Swift? Almost a year ago, when those lesbian rumors were swirling around:

Every feminist on Tumblr is certain that Taylor is dating lesbian supermodel Karlie Kloss. As a Neutral Objective Journalist, of course, I’d have to see video proof before I’d believe that bizarre rumor, but if Cara Delevingne can be gay, everybody is gay, and in 2016, any self-respecting feminist would be embarrassed to admit she is heterosexual.

Just tabloid gossip, they said, but who knows, huh? Anyway, I went back to ignoring Taylor Swift and then today I saw this:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Is this just some kind of cheap traffic-trolling trick? “Hey, let me throw a major celebrity under the feminist bus and see if I can’t get about 10,000 Facebook shares.”

The writer, Amy Zimmerman, is a recent graduate of Columbia University, so maybe she’s desperate to prove her traffic-generating prowess to her editors at The Daily Beast. Also — and there’s probably no delicate or politically correct way to say this — Amy Zimmerman is a swarthy Jew who seems obsessed with Taylor Swift’s gentile blondeness. This is not irrelevant to the content of Zimmerman’s attack:

As a pretty white girl who has written songs that rely heavily on fiddles, Swift undoubtedly counts a healthy handful of Trump supports among her fan base. In fact, the so-called alt-right has crowned Swift as the Aryan prom queen of their burgeoning neo-Nazi movement. The Daily Stormer—deemed a “neo-Nazi website” by The Southern Poverty Law Center—has published articles like “Taylor Swift, Avatar of European Imperialism,” “Aryan Goddess Taylor Swift: Nazi Avatar of the White European People,” and “Aryan Goddess Taylor Swift accused of Racism for Behaving Like an Ape in a Music Video.” Andrew Anglin, the site’s white supremacist founder, explained that, “Taylor Swift is a pure Aryan goddess, like something out of classical Greek poetry.” . . .
If you’re not overtly on board with the resistance, then you’re tacitly chill with being proclaimed an Aryan goddess. If you refuse to denounce your “alt-right” supporters, you risk alienating all of your queer, trans, black, Latino, undocumented, Muslim, and indigenous fans. Taylor Swift’s patriotic one-pieces might transition well to Donald Trump’s America, but her penchant for opting out of the political discourse is already passé.

WHOA!

Is it Taylor Swift’s fault she’s got neo-Nazi fanboys?

Or rather, is it Taylor Swift’s fault she’s a blue-eyed blonde?

These two phenomena are related, you see. The neo-Nazis like Taylor Swift for her blondeness, and it’s her blondness (“a pretty white girl”) that makes Taylor Swift suspect in the paranoid mind of Amy Zimmerman. Therefore, Taylor Swift must get “on board with the resistance,” or else she will stand accused of being pro-Nazi.

By the way, what’s with this “resistance” rhetoric? Ed Morrissey:

In a self-governing republic with established democratic processes, there is no honorable role for “resistance.” What are they “resisting,” especially before the new administration even takes office? Free and fair elections — the kind that this particular group hadn’t lost in twelve years. They only believe in elections when it gives them access to power.
Rather than take on the honorable and difficult task of the opposition party and rebuild themselves for future success, some on the Left have decided that they’re victims of oppression. To excuse that and their actions that have followed, they now wrap themselves in the mantle of the free French in World War II, or perhaps more relevantly, those few and brave dissidents in actual dictatorial regimes like Cuba. That’s not only ridiculous, it’s an insult to those who have had to fight true oppression and who had self-governance stripped from their hands, to the extent they had it at all. . . .
The “resistance” styles itself as anti-fascist, but they are the fascists. They don’t like the outcome of the election, and now they want to seize power by force and intimidation.

Yes, and here’s my hunch about Amy Zimmerman’s attack on Taylor Swift: It’s all about playing victim. She attacks Taylor Swift, poking at the “Aryan goddess” angle, and then waits for a deluge of anti-Semitic comments that she can then cite as “proof” that Taylor Swift’s fans are all a bunch of Trump-supporting neo-Nazis. All she needs is a couple of online death threats, and then she can do the Anita Sarkeesian/Zoe Quinn courageous victim-of-misogyny martyr trip — she’ll be giving TED talks and signing a book contract within a matter of weeks.

This kind of stuff has become tediously predictable. Feminists have become so accustomed to having everything their own way that any dissent is automatically condemned as “hate” or, as in the case of Taylor Swift, a feminist is condemned because she’s not feminist enough to satisfy the demands of some recent Columbia grad at the Daily Beast.

Feminism in 3 Easy Steps:
1. Angry slogans.
2. Lose election.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat. pic.twitter.com/07SS2jxzTO

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) January 23, 2017