Katie Mac took time off from her busy schedule preaching hate and venom at Harvard to step out on the town. She looks both sexy and elegant.
I wonder if she had the ability to freely choose her own clothing in a world ruled by the patriarchy?
Thursday
All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman - Catherine Mackinnon
Katie Mac took time off from her busy schedule preaching hate and venom at Harvard to step out on the town. She looks both sexy and elegant.
I wonder if she had the ability to freely choose her own clothing in a world ruled by the patriarchy?
Friday
Law Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU and His Sidekick Professor Erin Murphy Have Decided to Radically Change The Way America Conducts Its Sex Life by Inventing New Sex Crimes and Hard Time Prison Sentences
"Most people just aren’t very talkative during the delicate tango that precedes sex, and the re-education required to make them more forthcoming would be a very big project. Nor are people unerringly good at decoding sexual signals. If they were, we wouldn’t have romantic comedies. “If there’s no social consensus about what the lines are,” says Nancy Gertner, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School and a retired judge, then affirmative consent “has no business being in the criminal law."
- New York Times
"They do not intend to make sexual intercourse impossible to construe as an innocent act. But this would be the consequence of their draft. Any act of sex in which permission is not repeatedly requested and granted would put at least one of the parties, usually men, in legal jeopardy. Absent the repeated "May I…?" and affirmative responses, any woman could later have her partner locked up over unexpressed mental reservations. Men could make the same accusations. No one who opposes this legal change argues that consent is unnecessary. But the "yes means yes" standard is so stringent that it would criminalize millions of Americans overnight unless no one reports them."
- Washington Examiner
"My primary concern is with the drafting of the substantive crimes... this revised Model Penal Code, at least if the draft continues in its present form, is likely to be famous for its dramatic expansion in the criminalization of sexual activity, including codification in the revised MPC of a number of new sexual crimes that have not previously been recognized by any jurisdiction... This proposal appears based on the view of the Reporters (Schulhofer and Murphy) set forth in the second paragraph of their introductory note that the criminal law "must often be called upon to help shape social norms by communicating effectively the conditions under which commonplace or seemingly innocuous behavior can be unacceptably abusive or dangerous." I believe any attempt to criminalize "common place" or "seemingly innocuous" behavior in order to "shape social norms" needs to be examined carefully by the ALI membership."
- Laird Kirkpatrick, Professor of Law, GMU
At every stage of every physical relationship, the “perpetrator” is at risk with no safe harbor of any type. If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” (Discussion Draft No. 2, Substantive Material, at 54) to initiate a kiss, the initiator is still at risk because the accuser can always counter by asserting, “I didn’t say you could kiss me that way.” If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” and did the kiss the right way, the initiator is still at risk with the next identical kiss because, “I didn’t say you could kiss me twice.” The draft acknowledges that its standard “requires the fact finder to focus on the existence of consent regarding each of the disputed sex acts.” Id. and Section 213.0(3).
- ALI Members and Advisers In Opposition to The Model Penal Code
 |
| The Masters and Johnson of NYU Law? |
Might we say that cold legal wolves have been put in charge of the post-coitus hen house? Well, if human beings with anxiety-free sex lives are the hens, then Professor Stephen J. Schuldofer and Professor Erin Murphy might well be the wolves. But not according to their marketing webpage at NYU that summarizes their activities in a very positive light for all Americans to see:
"Schulhofer is also working with Professor Murphy to revise the sexual assault provisions of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Model Penal Code, written more than 50 years ago, to meet a more modern understanding of sexual behavior and transgression."
A more modern understanding of sexual behavior? So Schulhofer and Murphy are law professors at NYU who BTW just happen to be experts on human sexual behavior? Like a modern day Masters and Johnson? Who are they kidding? It's funny but I can't discover any proof of that claim. And while we're at it, do these NYU law professors have sex at all? And why do I ask? I'm just wondering if they have actually road tested their proposed draconian affirmative-consent laws on themselves in order to test for all the potential points in an act of sex whereby the sex can be transmogrified immediately into an act of transgression punishable by their new laws. In other words, with any act of sex, does not a potential sex crime lay in wait behind every turn? It does. Let's hear what law professor and human sexual behavior expert Erin Murphy has to say:
“We’re trying to really break apart the different ways in which unwanted sex occurs, and match that with the level of punishment,” Murphy says.
 |
| Working For An Old Testament God? |
So how to determine what actually constitutes "affirmative consent" in Erin's mind so we won't default to acts of sex "unwanted" in Erin's mind and therefore go straight from Erin's mind to her thoughtful solution of years in a prison cell and all the benefits that accompany that including sex offender registration, ruined life, unemployment, etc. And let's make no mistake. We are talking about locking up potentially tens of thousands of people (most likely 99% men), married or no, who are normally law abiding good people, but who under Professor Schulhofer and Professor Murphy's new sex-crime laws perhaps have made the one life destroying mistake of not obtaining the correct form of "affirmative consent" at some point in the process leading to intercourse--whether or not intercourse was actually achieved.
And if you don't think that is bad enough, hold on to your seat. The life destroying mistake could be made without any intent of intercourse from the onset. What the common folk see as an innocent touch of almost any kind is fraught with jeopardy. Murphy attempts to play this down when she says, "“There is a caricature that consent must be equated to a verbal yes, but of course we know that much sexual intimacy happens without people saying a word, with just gestures and removal of clothing and other welcoming behaviors.”
 |
| Which One Is Committing the Sex Crime? |
By the way, dear reader, is Professor Erin Murphy saying above that a state of "sexual intimacy" precludes the need for continuous acts of stage-based affirmative consent during the sex act? No, she isn't. There is the catch folks. And btw, is this really all about protecting victims from transgressors or is it about the bestowing the incredible power of no-fault-no-proof-necessary accusation that will flow like a mighty man-slamming torrent? What rapture and bliss. A nation filled with tens if not hundreds of thousands flinging accusations with wild abandon! Accusations of all kinds, under a myriad of circumstances, some of them carefully pondered for weeks or months. Professor Erin's new penal code practically enshrines the "false positive." Imagine a man on his knees begging his date or wife or girlfriend not to turn him in, or make a false accusation that will surely ruin him.
What about blackmail while we're at it? Far fetched? Really? Any more so than the reality of this hateful penal code in the first place? According to sensible opponents in the American Law Institute who disagree strongly with Professor Erin, they present this horror show example that her new penal code would bring about as sure as the sun sets in the west:
"Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B's hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint."By the way, Professor Erin, in this ever changing world of women becoming more sexually aggressive, did you know studies show that even males are now reporting unwanted sexual advances in ever increasing numbers? So, um, sure you want to keep pushing your new penal code? Suppose your sister or one of your friends ended up on the wrong side of prison steel due to your efforts? Your ridiculously inclusive definitions that criminalize “touching” and shifting burdens of proof to the accused will have catastrophic consequences in this country. Another thing, have you ever read studies of sexual intimacy, well here a number of them. Please read and reconsider your punitive whiplashes. We don't need armed men with guns and handcuffs to reshape the social norms on your behalf.
Btw, can you prove, Erin, that you weren't breaking your own proposed code last night? Will your relationship(s) be immune to your new penal code? We both know the answer to that, don't we, dear? Because we all know that sex will suck when a man has to get permission for every move we WANT HIM TO MAKE in order to cancel any ambiguity because he can't read our minds every second.
"His proposals for a radically different approach hold the promise of genuine respect and effective protection for the sexual autonomy of both women and men. It is an ambitious yet sensible vision, committed to allowing willing partners to seek consensual relationships, while fully protecting each person’s right to refuse sexual encounters that are not genuinely desired."
- "Unwanted Sex - The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law"
by Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer
Ambitious yet sensible vision... That's funny. Because I always thought I already possessed the right to refuse sexual encounters not desired. Now I realize I couldn't have had that right until granted to me by Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU... But wait a minute, he actually hasn't granted it to me yet, but he wants to. He so wants to grant me the right he believes I don't already have that he'll write and promote to the American Law Institute his own salvo of new sex crime laws that will positively slam into prison for five years or more any male "sex offender" who dared not get my "affirmative consent" before reaching for my hand or even patting me on the shoulder--even if sex wasn't intended.
So will I press charges against this hypothetical John Doe in the sex crime-ridden land of Professor Stephen Schulhofer's new America if I get a chance, or won't I? So many choices, and plenty of time for me to consider it. Maybe John could pay me not to accuse?... No, I'd rather he do some time. Course, if John does pay me that is just further proof of his guilt. I get the money and he still hangs. And if the local prison is too full, we might have to consider a lesser charge. Hell, at least list him on a sex offender registry and make him do a few thousand hours of community service. Perhaps the county mental facility could house him for a year or two. That'll teach the bastard for violating my sexual autonomy by kissing me on the forehead that day after my father died!
Does the above sound absurd? Yes. But unbelievable in the new America refinished by the stripper and polish of Stephen and Erin's new penal code? Not at all. These crusaders of NYU Law are on a mission. They wish to revolutionize the sexual mores of American culture. Maybe they should even have their own televison show: NYU LAW - The Affirmative Consent Unit.
Btw, here is info and a video of our two sex crime fighters speaking thoughtfully about their new penal code without giving specifics as to what "sex crimes," according to their viewpoint, should trigger lengthy prison terms. Naturally, they completely avoid the thorny issues noted above, glossing it all over with summary statements, and with good reason:
www.ali.org/projects/show/sexual-assault-and-related-offenses/
Delineating "Yes" :Stephen Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are revising the Model Penal Code on sexual assault www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/ali-penal-code-sexual-assault
More about Stephen:
Stephen Schulhofer on Law Enforcement | NYU Law ...
blogs.law.nyu.edu/.../stephen-schulh...
Photo of Stephen Schulhofer After 9/11, Stephen Schulhofer, Robert B. McKay Professor of Law, wondered how rules for international electronic surveillance ...
New York University School of Law
Stephen Schulhofer at New York University School of Law ...
www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid...
Rating and reviews for Professor Stephen Schulhofer from New York UniversitySchool of Law New York, NY United States.
RateMyProfessors.com
Stephen J. Schulhofer - Wiki Law School
www.wikilawschool.net/wiki/Stephen_J._Schulhofer
Aug 19, 2012 - Stephen J. Schulhofer. S Schulhofer NYU.jpg. Title(s), Robert B. McKay Professor of Law. Law school, New York University School of Law.The Challenge of Defining Rape - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/.../being-clear-about-rape.html
Oct 11, 2014 - Stephen J. Schulhofer, a New York University law professor, said many states still require proof of physical aggression, though a growing ...
The New York Times
[PDF]Miranda's Practical Effect - Columbia Law School
www2.law.columbia.edu/.../law.../Schulofer_Articl...
University Law Review; Stephen J. Schulhofer;. I. Empirical Estimates .... Among ordinary citizens and law enforcement professionals alike, a two-fold perception.
Columbia Law School
Interviews - Stephen Schulhofer | The Plea | FRONTLINE ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/.../schulhofer.html
Jun 17, 2004 - Stephen Schulhofer is a professor of law at New York UniversitySchool of Law. In this interview, he explains why he believes that from every ...
PBS
THE WORLD OF SEX ACCORDING TO SCHULHOFER:
Section 213.4 of His Model Penal Code for Sexual Assault and Subsequent Discussion of The Real Act of Sex vs. The Schulhofer View of Sex as an Act of Perpetual AggressionLogic flaws and unrealistic sex scenarios leading to a mistaken view of how the majority of people engage in sex and how they should be punished until they do it correctly.
 |
| Healthy Sex is Not an Act of Ceaseless Predation |
He notes "the harm of unwanted sexual imposition" and sees the potential of it everywhere he looks, and during every phase and level of the sex act. He states, "The harm of unwanted sexual imposition greatly exceeds any harm entailed in having to make arguable awkward efforts to clarify the situation..." Unwanted Sexual Imposition (USI). Let's keep in mind that Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU appears to believe that USI is ubiquitous in normal sexual relations between women and men and his remedy is punishment for all. BTW, we're not treated to an explanation of "harm" since specificity might require proof of "harm" in the form of studies or statistics. In truth, there are no studies that show "harm" in his newly invented scenarios of USI, only harm from authentic sexual assault.
Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU next acknowledges that the "sexually aggressive partner" (whoever that may be at any given point in time during the encounter) must cease the sex act (if need be, time and time again) and attempt to ascertain whether or not, for example, a hand in a certain place on his or her partner's body will be acceptable to the partner who presumably, at that moment, might not be displaying the signs of "affirmative consent" (as yet defined) thus leading to Schulhofer's trigger of sudden USI. Going further, he states "a person may consent to one form of sexual intimacy and yet decline others, and engaging in one type of intimacy should not necessarily be treated as permission to engage in others." This is where we wonder whether or not this man has ever engaged in what the rest of us regard as normal sex. Has he?
Schulhofer time and time again equates normal sexual play with "attack" or the potential of "attack." He notes "the harm of unwanted sexual imposition" and sees the potential of it everywhere he looks, and during every phase and level of the sex act.Going even further (and this is where it gets even more scary), Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU demands that each "new act of intimacy" (which he fails to define) cannot be carried out without threat of his Schulhofer Trigger (immediate or delayed accusation, arrest and prosecution) unless and until "the sexually more aggressive party ensures that each new act is welcome and desired."
Only just before that statement he made clear that verbal assent was not necessary, so how is the "sexually aggressive party" (not defining what he means precisely by this--which makes you wonder what kind of sex Schulhofer has accomplished if he thinks this makes any sense) to obtain and/or verify consent or assent, and in such a manner so as not to pull the Schulhofer Trigger? Schulhofer won't tell us.
 |
| My God, Stephen, I forgot to get consent for that kiss! |
This is too abstract. At least list a few examples of the conduct in question. Moving from caressing the breast to the nipple perhaps? Moving the lips from the neck to the shoulder? What are we talking about, Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU? And what about this "conduct" thing? Does he rule out sexual sounds (moans, groans ahhhs, etc) and spoken words of desire and/or gratification as legal consent? Does he rule out sexual body response as affirmative consent? No. He is just quiet on the subject. He purposely leaves it to the imagination of his so-called aggressor to juggle the potentials and proceed with a risk of a ruined life hanging over his or her head.
Not very fair is it? Actually, on the most basic level, his penal code would potentially make all sex utterly joyless and unsatisfactory. And is that what he really wants? Is that what he and others who support him really want?
Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU could at least give us a long list of behaviors that might be considered as offering the kind of satisfactory affirmative consent that would disallow prosecution and jail time. But he can't. Why? We know why. For every sexual behavior he might list, his own sex-hating law logic could effectively negate them all. All behaviors, in Professor Schulhofer's mind, are attended by a "there might be a circumstance in which" and "this presumed consent does not necessarily signal further consent" and so forth. We can clearly see that there is not a single behavior a human being could make that would signal a definitive act of affirmative and irreversible consent according to Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU.
It's an interesting and dark look into Schulhofer's psyche to discover he views normal sex in such negative and frightening terms. It sounds as if his version, or vision, of sex has involved just the sort of anxiety and borderline terror he guards against with such zealotry in his model penal code.Schulhofer then adds, "... when a complainant's behavior has been passive--neither expressly inviting nor rebuking the defendant's sexual advances, that behavior cannot be considered sufficient to show affirmative permission." So how precisely does the partner, in order to not invite victimhood and the Schulhofer Trigger of doom, "expressly invite" the other partner to engage in any particular subset of sexual act during the process of the ongoing sexual act? And since the "sexual aggressor" can vary or actually oscillate from A to B and back again, who is doing the inviting at what point and who is seeking permission? In a normal sexual step-by-step build, the roles Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU sees as so distinct are in reality not distinct at all, but in continuous flux.
But what the heck. He'll just leave it to the prosecutors to work out!
Again, what kind of sex did he have or has he experienced that enables these sex crime scenarios? Did he watch violent porn videos? Lifetime Channel? In reality, there does not have to be an "aggressor" much less an "attack" or "abuse." It's an interesting and dark look into Schulhofer's psyche to discover he views normal sex in such negative and frightening terms. It sounds as if his version, or vision, of sex has involved just the sort of anxiety and borderline terror he guards against with such zealotry in his model penal code.
Thursday
Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies
Authors: Daphne Patai, Noretta Koertge
Feminists have often called Women's Studies the "academic arm of the women's movement." But Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge charge that the attempt to make Women's Studies serve a political agenda has led to deeply problematic results: dubious scholarship, pedagogical practices that resemble indoctrination more than education, and the alienation of countless potential supporters.
In this new and expanded edition of their controversial 1994 book, the authors update their analysis of what's gone wrong with Women's Studies programs. Original chapters feature interviews with professors, students, and staffers who invested much time and effort in Women's Studies, and new chapters look primarily at documents recently generated from within Women's Studies itself. Through critiques of actual program mission statements, course descriptions, newsletters, and e-mail lists devoted to feminist pedagogy and Women's Studies, and, not least, the writings of well-known feminist scholars, Patai and Koertge provide a detailed and devastating examination of the routine practices found in feminist teaching and research.
In this new and expanded edition of their controversial 1994 book, the authors update their analysis of what's gone wrong with Women's Studies programs. Original chapters feature interviews with professors, students, and staffers who invested much time and effort in Women's Studies, and new chapters look primarily at documents recently generated from within Women's Studies itself. Through critiques of actual program mission statements, course descriptions, newsletters, and e-mail lists devoted to feminist pedagogy and Women's Studies, and, not least, the writings of well-known feminist scholars, Patai and Koertge provide a detailed and devastating examination of the routine practices found in feminist teaching and research.
BUY THIS BOOK! One of the many sources that prove the man-blaming haters are harming the real feminism.
Wednesday
No Matter What Zerlina Maxwell of the Washington Post Says, Men Have Rights Too
 |
| Zerlina's Finest Hour as She Stands Up for Morality |
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 during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in courts; it’s a moral one...
I find the above shocking. What happened to rights of the accused? Due process? Why does the United States bother to insist on such civilized behavior. Well, people like Zerlina Maxwell are the answer. If she had her way ... OMG! It's shocking to me that the Post allows this kind of rights-trampling diatribe disguised as intelligent commentary. But she's popular, an attorney, an ardent feminist. And make no mistake. The arrow points in one direction, people, from the tip of Zerlina's finger to every man in this country: YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. UVA, and everyone else, should be MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DENY RIGHTS TO THE ACCUSED IF THE ACCUSER IS A WOMAN.
Zerlina appears to be creating her own form of feminist hip-shooting morality, a kangaroo court of her own legal reality wherein any female accuser must be believed or the "costs" will be high. In her article, she argues that regardless of circumstances, female accusers must always be believed from the onset no matter how wrong-headed or outrageous their claims, and let's face it, the Jackie UVA rape claim was outrageous by anyone's standard. As of the date of this posting, lives and organizations and a proud school have been smeared by the media, and Zerlina is perfectly at peace with that? It doesn't matter to her whether or not the media makes a lynching circus out of UVA or anyone else in the near future? It doesn't matter to Zerlina how her philosophical take on smearing and lies will encourage more smearing and lies? After all, if you just point the finger and open your mouth to do as much damage as you can, you MUST be believed in Zerlina's world because "wrongly disbelieving a survivor" (a woman) outweigh the costs of wrongly bludgeoning men and institutions and anyone else who might seek to question an accuser's validity at any particular time.
Zerlina Maxwell should have lived in the Salem witch trial era. She would have loved it. Everyone believed the witch accuser without question. The women just pointed and shrieked, fell on the floor, rolled around and screamed like hyenas. And nothing stopped them. No courts, no common sense, no one to stop rushes to judgment, and best of all, a pile of victims getting bigger and bigger with no one to raise a red flag (until the rich people were accused). In a backdoor way, Zerlina Maxwell is arguing for the rights of the media to slash and burn also without waiting for the facts to come in--which is what they do anyway. Look at UVA, it's all there.
Zerlina's world.
UVA took the accuser's word for it, obviously, and began punishing the frats and making sweeping statements before the truth came out. Wasn't that good enough for Zerlina? And doesn't it all remind you of Duke University and their damning of the lacrosse boys who turned out to be completely and overwhelmingly innocent? Another rush to judgment, another huge mistake.
Zerlina's utopian paradise.
No one "wrongly disbelieved" Jackie. They behaved as if her claim had validity and the press did also before the facts were in. The costs are tremendous if you are at the vengeful end of the stick. What have been the costs to this Jackie? We don't even know who she is, and this also points out the extreme danger of feminists making ever louder arguments for allowing anonymous accusations. That is giving accusers far, far too much power.
Tuesday
Why is Ruchika Tulshyan Making Jill Abramson Into a Feminist Martyr?
NO real thought process needed. No complications or unknowns. Judge All-Men-Suck has boomed her gavel. Those damnable penises are at it again! Emotional participation in the agony of the victim has never been more accessible, desired, or self-righteous. We are all infused with the rape of justice. Thank you so much, Ruchika. As women, we all needed that fix. Or did we?
But wait, we have ever greater proof of Ruchika's contention. Her supporting evidence is neatly presented in her Forbes article:
"Auletta’s post suggests that Abramson confronted “the top brass” about her alleged pay gap, which irked them. He says this fed into the Times’ narrative of her “pushy” personality. That word – loaded and undeniably gendered – speaks to the deeper issues women face when they demand anything."
Let's move on. In reading and mulling over our mediagenic darling's
version of reality on the matter of Abramson's firing, it becomes increasingly
difficult to draw a line between sheer ignorance and media feminist ambition.
Perhaps she simply desires to belong to the right club, and what better way to
demonstrate allegiance than by capitalizing on the opportunity presented by
Abramson's misfortune?
But let's be wiser, just for a minute, if possible. Let's do the real life math, one more like algebra, a math that reveals life to be complex, full of nuances, unknowns, politics and social relationships that graph up and down depending on the day and environment. A world of Good Jill, Bad Jill, as revealed in the now famous Newsweek article.
It takes maturity to understand
that life isn't always black and white, especially in a high-powered executive
office culture where Type A egos do battle on a daily basis. Opinions, tempers,
and shifting alliances can rule or ruin the day. And it takes experience and a
mature viewpoint to understand this. If only such rationality could rule the
media piranha and counteract the smell of blood. If only … Unfortunately
though,
for all concerned, there exists a new generation of feminist media type
who is hungry, narcissistic, and looking to make waves, hoping for
that shot at MSNBC or CNN, and when such types see a potential feminist
martyr in
the making and a chance to fault the patriarchy,
you
better get out of their way or they and their friends will smear you all
the
way to a social media hell of condemnation you never imagined possible.
Just
ask feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers who receives hate mail any time she is courageous enough to challenge blatantly false statements issued by the AAUW, e.g., regarding the alleged wage gap between men and
women.
But let's be wiser, just for a minute, if possible. Let's do the real life math, one more like algebra, a math that reveals life to be complex, full of nuances, unknowns, politics and social relationships that graph up and down depending on the day and environment. A world of Good Jill, Bad Jill, as revealed in the now famous Newsweek article.
Just as the AAUW ignores its own study data to keep the victim fires burning hot (rather than rejoice in the victories of working women everywhere), so do media feminists like Ruchika Tulshyan, and Melissa Silverstein of Forbes (who sees the "tremendous context" in the Abramson firing), conveniently ignore the unknowns and nuances in the Jill Abramson case. They also ignore the simple fact that the more women are hired, the more will be fired. It's been happening to men for a long time. Given their strident and indignant tenor though, you might be led to believe that only men deserve to be fired. Women in leadership positions should never be subjected to such a terror. Perhaps we need to new law.
So where is the truth? If a fair minded, rational human being reads an in-depth article on Jill Abramson, they will quickly see that an application of life algebra makes more sense that Ruchika‘s predictable, first grade arithmetic. Looking back for a moment at the downturn of a woman even more famous than Jill, recall that we all saw Hillary Clinton lose to Obama, and in the aftermath of that loss, many of us we were forced to listen to certain feminist media types on CNN and elsewhere blaming "male media sexists" for her defeat, especially because they so often referred to her as "Hillary." Like snakes on the plane, the sexists had infiltrated, conspired and crashed Hillary to the earth. It was never Hillary's fault, or the fault of any female staffer. It was those damnable worms of patriarchy! Those Moby media Dicks deserving the wrath of scores of feminist Ahabs. Wasn't it obvious? Didn’t they force Hillary to voice her shocking and obvious lie about being shot at in Bosnia? Weren’t they manipulating her every stumble on the campaign trail?
But we all know that our former hero’s defeat wasn’t that simple. Hillary made choices, wrong ones, and her Bosnia backpeddaling on late night talk shows didn’t help her case. Regardless, scapegoating men when convenient and politically expedient, whether for Hillary’s missteps or Abramson’s firing, is at minimum a very bad habit that allows us, as women, to avoid any responsibility, while at the same time teaching young women to suspect a lurking man perp around every corner (and to take up their own habit of dodging responsibility).
Like Hillary Clinton, Jill Abramson is responsible for her own fate, despite all the hearsay, lies, and gossip to the contrary designed to reduce her to a feminist victim. And why did the final blow strike? We will never know. We weren’t there, were we? Could it have been a titanic battle with the NYT hierarchy over employee appointments? Staff firings? Her attorney snooping around? A loss of trust? A characteristic Abramson “assertive” tactic thrown like a hand grenade in the board room? A phony claim of discrimination begun by a subordinate and “leaked” to the press? All of the above? None of the above?
Again, we’ll never know for sure. Perhaps one day Jill herself will come clean and tell us, thereby dispelling her bogus new martyrdom created by the likes of Ruchika Tulshyan and Melissa Silverstein for their own gain.
Sunday
Redux of Obama Praising Reagan on Camera
Every time I tell someone about this video they don't believe me. It's OLD news, but here you go. Obama praising Ronald Reagan.
No surprise now, is it?
Will the "liberals" still excusing Obama please wake up and smell the drone fumes now?
Will the "liberals" still excusing Obama please wake up and smell the drone fumes now?
Monday
Dianne Feinstein: Verizon Court Order
It is "lawful," yes, because the law is such a good excuse. Feinstein was always a showman, and this shows everyone her true colors. Well golly gee, it's just a renewal, and we've been doing it for seven years. And as if Chambliss really knows what metadata is. What a bumbling goof!
Donald Trump Attacks Snowden Over NSA Leak
My question: when will someone blow the whistle on Trump? Oh, I forgot. We all know he's an asshole already. And Snowden is a grand stander? Give us all a break! The mega pot calling the little kettle black. Sorry for the Fox News link here, but I could not help it.
Friday
Obama Defends Phone Data Collection
From Huffington Post:
The terrorist thing is an excuse, plain and simple. They're using 911 as an excuse to jump through the window and inspect our lives and engage in political retaliations. It's so obvious, and it's indefensible.
MSNBC is defending his BS every day. It has become the White House equivalent of Fox News, I swear to God!
Obama portrayed the programs as a trade-off between security and civil liberties. "I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society," he said.What's wrong with this picture? Even a child would know that any terrorist would simply interact like they did in the old days before cell phones and Internet. It's easy. Look at partisan actions in WW II, for example.
He also expressed his displeasure that the domestic spying programs' existence was leaked to the press. "I don't welcome leaks," he said. "There's a reason these programs are classified."
The president's full-throated defense of the programs, albeit with the qualification that he welcomes debate, is unlikely to quell the outrage over the revelations. Obama ran as an antidote to Bush's policies in 2008, but the reports reveal that he has continued many of them, leading to concerns over the reach of the national security state.
Obama went on to defend those who operated the programs as "professionals."
The terrorist thing is an excuse, plain and simple. They're using 911 as an excuse to jump through the window and inspect our lives and engage in political retaliations. It's so obvious, and it's indefensible.
MSNBC is defending his BS every day. It has become the White House equivalent of Fox News, I swear to God!
Monday
Miami Cops Choke Black Teen for Staring???
I just saw this on Salon.Com: Micami cops trying to justify choking some young black guy for "dehumanizing stares"? What are we talking about here? He was charged with disorderly conduct (which is debatable) given the circumstances, and once he "resisted" arrest by the bullying cops they do what bullying cops do best: attack and choke. Anyone who resists their bullying and racism is "resisting arrest" and charged with a felony.
If the youth were actually engaged in the commission of a real crime and he resisted the efforts of police to stop him and/or place him under arrest, that is one thing, but this incident begs for a hearing.
If the youth were actually engaged in the commission of a real crime and he resisted the efforts of police to stop him and/or place him under arrest, that is one thing, but this incident begs for a hearing.
Wednesday
Pentagon Creating New Enemies "On The Fly"
Shades of bombing Cambodia! The Pentagon is on a mission to create a new drone fleet and expand attacks to other countries. No surprise there. The evil genius consists of killing people until they actually become terrorists, thus assuring an unending supply of enemies and increased validation for ever expanding military budgets of one type or another.
From the L.A. Times in February:
From the L.A. Times in February:
In the long run, a more important question may be whether the drone strikes, which have killed more than 3,000 people, are creating more enemies for the United States than they are eliminating.
Scholars who have studied the political effects of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have argued that even well-targeted raids often claim innocent victims, and the result is a backlash against the U.S. Likewise, Hayden and retired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, have warned that too many drone attacks — in Pakistan, for example, where the CIA uses "signature strikes" against suspected militants without identifying them individually — can be a bad thing.
"What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world," McChrystal told the Reuters news agency last month. "The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."
During a hearing that lasted more than three hours, only one senator asked about that critical issue — a senior Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.
"If you looked at a map back in 2001, you would see that Al Qaeda was mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if you look at a map today, you would see Al Qaeda in all sorts of countries," Collins said. "If the cancer of Al Qaeda is metastasizing, do we need a new treatment?"
Michael Neff and Algonkian Writer Conferences Score a Hit With Antagonistic Force on Author Salon
My friend, Michael Neff of Algonkian Writer Conferences, asked me to post one of my favorite articles by him on the subject of great fiction writing and I chose this one from Author Salon:
______________________________
Links:
The 50 Greatest Villains Comment by Barbara Kyle
Antagonists are often the most memorable characters
in literature, without whom many of the best selling novels of all time
would simply cease to exist, their supporting beams cut away, the shell
of remaining "story" quietly imploding to ignominy and self-publication
... And consider the impact on a scene, any scene, as soon as the
author moves the particular chess piece of antagonist onto the page. The
mere presence of a Javert from "Les Misérables," Assef from "The Kite
Runner," or even Marilla from "Anne of Green Gables," immediately
energizes the environment. The narrative and dialogue literally crackle
and groan with antagonist.
- Michael Neff
What chances do you as a writer have of getting your novel manuscript, regardless of genre, commercially published if the story and narrative therein fail to meet reader demands for sufficient suspense, character concern, and conflict? Answer: none. But what major factor makes for a quiet or dull manuscript brimming with insipid characters and a story that cascades from chapter to chapter with tens of thousands of words, all of them combining irresistibly to produce an audible thudding sound in the mind, rather like a fist hitting a side of cold beef?
Such a dearth of Élan vital in narrative and story frequently results from the unwillingness of the writer to create a suitable antagonist who stirs and spices the plot hash. And let's make it clear what we're talking about. By "antagonist" we specifically refer to an actual fictional character, an embodiment of certain traits and motivations who plays a significant role in catalyzing and energizing plot line(s), or at bare minimum, in assisting to evolve the protagonist's character arc (and by default the story itself) by igniting complication(s) the protagonist, and possibly other characters, must face and solve (or fail to solve).
Writers new to the fiction game often shy away from creating an effective antagonist.
If you are an editor, you see this time and time again. But why? Is it
because they can't accept that a certain percentage of cruel and selfish
humans are a reality of life? Is it because they live in an American
bubble surrounded only by circumstances that reinforce their Rockwellian
naivety? Do they not watch Bill Moyers, or Sixty Minutes, or even a
shred of film footage from the latest repressions of the downtrodden by
tyrannical government forces? Or is it because they don't understand the
requirements of good dramatic fiction (no good guy without a bad
guy, folks)? Or some combo thereof? Whatever. Though you would think
after watching hundreds of films (even comedies) and reading God knows
how many novels they might catch on. And this doesn't mean they have to
reinvent the black hat cowboy. We're talking about prime movers of
social conflict and supreme irritation that come in wide variety of
forms, from relatively mild to pure evil.
Antagonists are often the most memorable characters in literature, without whom many of the best selling novels of all time would simply cease to exist, their supporting beams cut away, the shell of remaining "story" quietly imploding to ignominy and self-publication. And what drives these antagonists? Whether revenge, zealotry, ruthless ambition, hubris or just plain jealousy, the overall effect on the narrative and plot in general is identical, i.e., a dramatic condition of complication (related to plot) and concern (related to character) infuses the story.
True drama demands they exist. Imagine ANTIGONE without the dictator to stir her into plot. And consider the impact on a scene, any scene, as soon as the author moves the particular chess piece of an antagonist onto the page. The mere presence of a Javert from Les Misérables, Assef from The Kite Runner, or even Marilla from Anne of Green Gables, immediately energizes the environment. The narrative and dialogue literally crackle and groan with antagonist.
Below we see five antagonists from very different novels--all multimillion sellers (and successful films)--also noting their vital roles in the development of the story. Consider them ranked from sufficiently annoying to real pricks.
First, but not worst, we have Marilla Cuthbert from ANNE OF GREEN GABLES.
Author Lucy Maud Montgomery intended for Marilla to be a source of
tension and obstacle for Anne, not a plot-swinging major like the four
mentioned below. You might call her, an "antagonistic force" or
temporary antagonist, remaining an irritant long enough to provide verve
to the story and suitable growth arc to the protagonist.
Marilla begins as a woman with the personality of a falling guillotine. Only a barely perceptible sense of humor shows itself. Marilla’s state of being clashes markedly with Anne’s romanticism and imagination. She scolds and criticizes Anne, and like Javert of Les Misérables, is equally harsh on herself. Even when she finds herself agreeing with Anne's brazen thoughts, she rebukes herself, and whenever she feels a fleeting rush of affection, she quickly suffocates it. Later, she changes, but she played her role long enough to help keep the reader on the page while at the same time provoking the evolution of Anne's character.
And what decent discussion of antagonists in literature fails to comment on the role of Tom Buchanan in THE GREAT GATSBY? Tom falls fourth on the intensity list. He doesn't qualify as a dangerous zealot or a vengeful junkyard-zilla, but without Tom's endearing personality, Fitzgerald's novel of love and loss falls to pieces.
Playing
in a love triangle that includes his wife, Daisy, and Jay Gatsby, the
wealthy Buchanan displays himself time and time again as an arrogant and
bullying schmuck, enough that by the time Fitzgerald needs us to cheer
for Jay, and desire freedom for Daisy, we are more than ready to do so.
In comparison to Buchanan, Jay Gatsby, despite his faults, appears like a
Lancelot, while Daisy, despite her shallowness, becomes the distressed
damsel. If Buchanan did not exist, or if Fitzgerald had depicted him as a
decent fellow, the faults of Jay and Daisy would have burned in high
relief, and as readers, our sympathy for them would be zero.
Fitzgerald's only chance would have been to render them both irrevocably
detestable, as Emile Zola did for his murderous couple in THERESE RAQUIN--so
much so that as a reader you turn the page in hopes they will both soon
be wearing prison orange (or whatever color of rag they wore in those
days).
Next comes the infamous Javert of LES MISERABLES
by Victor Hugo. Unlike the first two antagonists, Javert's primary flaw
might be defined as dogged zealotry, and at times, he behaves as hard
on himself as on others. After the character Valjean, a victim of
mistaken identity, appears in court and loses both his business and his
position in Montreuil-sur-mer, he escapes long enough to hide his
fortune. He spends more time in prison, working aboard a ship.
Eventually he escapes again and retrieves the character Cosette from the
evil Thenardiers. Then begins a decade of hiding, moving from place to
place, always staying just ahead of the implacable Javert. Will Valjean
save the farm and live to tell the story? Are we not concerned enough
for brave Valjean that we want to know?
Regardless, no Javert equals far less misery, and what else? ... No story.
A close second to Assef below, for reasons of sheer despicableness, is good ole boy Bobby Ewell of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
by Harper Lee. Shunned by the entire town, and terribly embittered,
Ewell’s raison d'etre consists of being antagonistic towards every
living thing. As Atticus Finch does his best to defend Tom, the rancor
and hatefulness exhibited by Ewell at the trial manipulates the emotions
and fears of those present, raising the heat on Tom to lynch mob
intensity. Ewell is determined to see Tom hang, and following the trial,
Mr. 666 stokes up his inner dragon for yet another bellow. He seeks
revenge on those who desired a fair trial for Tom, and doing harm to
Scout and Jem seems like a great way to destroy Atticus.
Without Bob Ewell, would you have ever heard of Harper Lee?
Rising like a bad moon to the bottom of the list is the human monster known as Assef, antagonist from THE KITE RUNNER
by Khaled Hosseini, a novel that has sold millions of copies in dozens
of languages. A vicious and bigoted childhood acquaintance of the
likable characters, Amir and Hassan, he torments them whenever the mood
strikes, but devolves to subhuman status upon attacking and raping
Hassan. And at such time the Taliban gain control of Afghanistan, he
gravitates to their culture, thus placing himself in a position to
indefinitely torture others he considers inferior. As a brutal cherry on
the sociopath milkshake, Assef turns the character Sohrab into his sex
toy, and Amir must defeat Assef to bring Sohrab home.
Assef certainly doesn't possess the globe-spanning ambitions of Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter, but what if you handed this Muslim megalodon a magic wand? Power equals opportunity equals "enthusiasms" as Al Capone might say.
Bottom line here: writers of manuscript-length fiction must create and deploy a suitable antagonist, allowing them catalyze the plot line and throw obstacles in the way of the protagonist and other characters, or at least become an "antagonistic force" of some type, like Marilla Cuthbert, a source of tension and character development. Or perhaps, you need maximum verve in the novel and wish to create characters who assume the roles of both a Marilla and a Bob. Whatever you do though, plan to make them an integral part of the story, or rather, allow them room they need to define the story.
- Michael Neff of Algonkian Writer Conferences
______________________________
A SMART DOSE OF ANTAGONISTIC FORCE
Antagonists Who Light The Drama and Transform Writing Into Great LiteratureLinks:
The 50 Greatest Villains Comment by Barbara Kyle
Antagonists are often the most memorable characters
in literature, without whom many of the best selling novels of all time
would simply cease to exist, their supporting beams cut away, the shell
of remaining "story" quietly imploding to ignominy and self-publication
... And consider the impact on a scene, any scene, as soon as the
author moves the particular chess piece of antagonist onto the page. The
mere presence of a Javert from "Les Misérables," Assef from "The Kite
Runner," or even Marilla from "Anne of Green Gables," immediately
energizes the environment. The narrative and dialogue literally crackle
and groan with antagonist. - Michael Neff
What chances do you as a writer have of getting your novel manuscript, regardless of genre, commercially published if the story and narrative therein fail to meet reader demands for sufficient suspense, character concern, and conflict? Answer: none. But what major factor makes for a quiet or dull manuscript brimming with insipid characters and a story that cascades from chapter to chapter with tens of thousands of words, all of them combining irresistibly to produce an audible thudding sound in the mind, rather like a fist hitting a side of cold beef?
Such a dearth of Élan vital in narrative and story frequently results from the unwillingness of the writer to create a suitable antagonist who stirs and spices the plot hash. And let's make it clear what we're talking about. By "antagonist" we specifically refer to an actual fictional character, an embodiment of certain traits and motivations who plays a significant role in catalyzing and energizing plot line(s), or at bare minimum, in assisting to evolve the protagonist's character arc (and by default the story itself) by igniting complication(s) the protagonist, and possibly other characters, must face and solve (or fail to solve).
Writers new to the fiction game often shy away from creating an effective antagonist.
If you are an editor, you see this time and time again. But why? Is it
because they can't accept that a certain percentage of cruel and selfish
humans are a reality of life? Is it because they live in an American
bubble surrounded only by circumstances that reinforce their Rockwellian
naivety? Do they not watch Bill Moyers, or Sixty Minutes, or even a
shred of film footage from the latest repressions of the downtrodden by
tyrannical government forces? Or is it because they don't understand the
requirements of good dramatic fiction (no good guy without a bad
guy, folks)? Or some combo thereof? Whatever. Though you would think
after watching hundreds of films (even comedies) and reading God knows
how many novels they might catch on. And this doesn't mean they have to
reinvent the black hat cowboy. We're talking about prime movers of
social conflict and supreme irritation that come in wide variety of
forms, from relatively mild to pure evil.
Antagonists are often the most memorable characters in literature, without whom many of the best selling novels of all time would simply cease to exist, their supporting beams cut away, the shell of remaining "story" quietly imploding to ignominy and self-publication. And what drives these antagonists? Whether revenge, zealotry, ruthless ambition, hubris or just plain jealousy, the overall effect on the narrative and plot in general is identical, i.e., a dramatic condition of complication (related to plot) and concern (related to character) infuses the story.
True drama demands they exist. Imagine ANTIGONE without the dictator to stir her into plot. And consider the impact on a scene, any scene, as soon as the author moves the particular chess piece of an antagonist onto the page. The mere presence of a Javert from Les Misérables, Assef from The Kite Runner, or even Marilla from Anne of Green Gables, immediately energizes the environment. The narrative and dialogue literally crackle and groan with antagonist.
Below we see five antagonists from very different novels--all multimillion sellers (and successful films)--also noting their vital roles in the development of the story. Consider them ranked from sufficiently annoying to real pricks.
First, but not worst, we have Marilla Cuthbert from ANNE OF GREEN GABLES.
Author Lucy Maud Montgomery intended for Marilla to be a source of
tension and obstacle for Anne, not a plot-swinging major like the four
mentioned below. You might call her, an "antagonistic force" or
temporary antagonist, remaining an irritant long enough to provide verve
to the story and suitable growth arc to the protagonist.
Marilla begins as a woman with the personality of a falling guillotine. Only a barely perceptible sense of humor shows itself. Marilla’s state of being clashes markedly with Anne’s romanticism and imagination. She scolds and criticizes Anne, and like Javert of Les Misérables, is equally harsh on herself. Even when she finds herself agreeing with Anne's brazen thoughts, she rebukes herself, and whenever she feels a fleeting rush of affection, she quickly suffocates it. Later, she changes, but she played her role long enough to help keep the reader on the page while at the same time provoking the evolution of Anne's character.
And what decent discussion of antagonists in literature fails to comment on the role of Tom Buchanan in THE GREAT GATSBY? Tom falls fourth on the intensity list. He doesn't qualify as a dangerous zealot or a vengeful junkyard-zilla, but without Tom's endearing personality, Fitzgerald's novel of love and loss falls to pieces.
Playing
in a love triangle that includes his wife, Daisy, and Jay Gatsby, the
wealthy Buchanan displays himself time and time again as an arrogant and
bullying schmuck, enough that by the time Fitzgerald needs us to cheer
for Jay, and desire freedom for Daisy, we are more than ready to do so.
In comparison to Buchanan, Jay Gatsby, despite his faults, appears like a
Lancelot, while Daisy, despite her shallowness, becomes the distressed
damsel. If Buchanan did not exist, or if Fitzgerald had depicted him as a
decent fellow, the faults of Jay and Daisy would have burned in high
relief, and as readers, our sympathy for them would be zero.
Fitzgerald's only chance would have been to render them both irrevocably
detestable, as Emile Zola did for his murderous couple in THERESE RAQUIN--so
much so that as a reader you turn the page in hopes they will both soon
be wearing prison orange (or whatever color of rag they wore in those
days).
Next comes the infamous Javert of LES MISERABLES
by Victor Hugo. Unlike the first two antagonists, Javert's primary flaw
might be defined as dogged zealotry, and at times, he behaves as hard
on himself as on others. After the character Valjean, a victim of
mistaken identity, appears in court and loses both his business and his
position in Montreuil-sur-mer, he escapes long enough to hide his
fortune. He spends more time in prison, working aboard a ship.
Eventually he escapes again and retrieves the character Cosette from the
evil Thenardiers. Then begins a decade of hiding, moving from place to
place, always staying just ahead of the implacable Javert. Will Valjean
save the farm and live to tell the story? Are we not concerned enough
for brave Valjean that we want to know?
Regardless, no Javert equals far less misery, and what else? ... No story.
A close second to Assef below, for reasons of sheer despicableness, is good ole boy Bobby Ewell of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
by Harper Lee. Shunned by the entire town, and terribly embittered,
Ewell’s raison d'etre consists of being antagonistic towards every
living thing. As Atticus Finch does his best to defend Tom, the rancor
and hatefulness exhibited by Ewell at the trial manipulates the emotions
and fears of those present, raising the heat on Tom to lynch mob
intensity. Ewell is determined to see Tom hang, and following the trial,
Mr. 666 stokes up his inner dragon for yet another bellow. He seeks
revenge on those who desired a fair trial for Tom, and doing harm to
Scout and Jem seems like a great way to destroy Atticus.
Without Bob Ewell, would you have ever heard of Harper Lee?
Rising like a bad moon to the bottom of the list is the human monster known as Assef, antagonist from THE KITE RUNNER
by Khaled Hosseini, a novel that has sold millions of copies in dozens
of languages. A vicious and bigoted childhood acquaintance of the
likable characters, Amir and Hassan, he torments them whenever the mood
strikes, but devolves to subhuman status upon attacking and raping
Hassan. And at such time the Taliban gain control of Afghanistan, he
gravitates to their culture, thus placing himself in a position to
indefinitely torture others he considers inferior. As a brutal cherry on
the sociopath milkshake, Assef turns the character Sohrab into his sex
toy, and Amir must defeat Assef to bring Sohrab home.
Assef certainly doesn't possess the globe-spanning ambitions of Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter, but what if you handed this Muslim megalodon a magic wand? Power equals opportunity equals "enthusiasms" as Al Capone might say.
Bottom line here: writers of manuscript-length fiction must create and deploy a suitable antagonist, allowing them catalyze the plot line and throw obstacles in the way of the protagonist and other characters, or at least become an "antagonistic force" of some type, like Marilla Cuthbert, a source of tension and character development. Or perhaps, you need maximum verve in the novel and wish to create characters who assume the roles of both a Marilla and a Bob. Whatever you do though, plan to make them an integral part of the story, or rather, allow them room they need to define the story.
- Michael Neff of Algonkian Writer Conferences
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)