Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Monday, January 2, 2017
Patricia Krenwinkel may be a domestic violence victim
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Latest on a parole hearing for Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California (all times local):
8:40 p.m.
Anthony DiMaria, the nephew of victim Thomas Jay Sebring, said a Los Angeles County prosecutor who attended the hearing told him that the parole officials want to research whether Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battery.
‘For this investigation to be initiated at this point is mind-boggling,” said DiMaria, who attended the hearing but left before a decision was postponed. “I don’t understand where we go from a murder, the killing of eight people (including Tate’s unborn child) to an intimate partner battery victim. It’s absurd….It seems like the world is turned upside down. How do you kill eight people and now you’re the victim?”
Jean Guccione, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, said prosecutors would not comment until the parole panel makes its recommendation after the investigation.
8:20 p.m.
After a daylong hearing, the panel from the California Board of Parole Hearings postponed a decision on whether to free Patricia Krenwinkel “because they felt information discussed at the hearing was cause for an investigation,” spokeswoman Vicky Waters said in an email.
The hearing will be continued once the investigation is concluded, she said
Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra Tate, said the parole officials told her the hearing was likely to be postponed about six months while they research to see if Krenwinkel meets the criteria for having battered women’s syndrome.
Krenwinkel’s attorney, Keith Wattley, did not immediately return telephone and email messages.
“She totally minimized her action and blamed everything on other people the whole hearing,” Tate said.
Tate said she didn’t buy the concept that Krenwinkel was a victim because she was free to leave at any time and participated in murders two nights in a row.
“We all have to be accountable for our actions. I don’t buy any of this stuff. She was there because she wanted to be there. Nobody held a gun to her head,” Tate said.
7:50 p.m.
A two-member parole panel has delayed making a decision on whether to release Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The decision to delay Thursday by the panel came after the 69-year-old Krenwinkel was previously denied parole 13 times, most recently in 2011.
Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people at the urging of Manson 47 years ago.
The hearing was held at the California Institution for Women, about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, where Krenwinkel is imprisoned.
She has a clean record behind bars, earned a bachelor’s degree and taught illiterate inmates to read.
Gov. Jerry Brown has the power to block the release of inmates if parole is granted. He previously stopped the parole of two other Manson followers.
__
10 a.m.
A parole hearing has started for Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The hearing Thursday comes 47 years after Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people, including grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.
The 69-year-old Krenwinkel has been denied parole 13 times since her conviction in the 1969 slayings.
Los Angeles County prosecutors say she carved the word “war” into Leno LaBianca’s stomach then wrote “Helter Skelter” in blood on the couple’s refrigerator.
Krenwinkel contended at her previous parole hearing in 2011 that she’s a changed woman.
She has a clean disciplinary record, earned a bachelor’s degree behind bars, taught reading to illiterate inmates and trained service dogs for disabled people.
Source
8:40 p.m.
Anthony DiMaria, the nephew of victim Thomas Jay Sebring, said a Los Angeles County prosecutor who attended the hearing told him that the parole officials want to research whether Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battery.
‘For this investigation to be initiated at this point is mind-boggling,” said DiMaria, who attended the hearing but left before a decision was postponed. “I don’t understand where we go from a murder, the killing of eight people (including Tate’s unborn child) to an intimate partner battery victim. It’s absurd….It seems like the world is turned upside down. How do you kill eight people and now you’re the victim?”
Jean Guccione, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, said prosecutors would not comment until the parole panel makes its recommendation after the investigation.
8:20 p.m.
After a daylong hearing, the panel from the California Board of Parole Hearings postponed a decision on whether to free Patricia Krenwinkel “because they felt information discussed at the hearing was cause for an investigation,” spokeswoman Vicky Waters said in an email.
The hearing will be continued once the investigation is concluded, she said
Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra Tate, said the parole officials told her the hearing was likely to be postponed about six months while they research to see if Krenwinkel meets the criteria for having battered women’s syndrome.
Krenwinkel’s attorney, Keith Wattley, did not immediately return telephone and email messages.
“She totally minimized her action and blamed everything on other people the whole hearing,” Tate said.
Tate said she didn’t buy the concept that Krenwinkel was a victim because she was free to leave at any time and participated in murders two nights in a row.
“We all have to be accountable for our actions. I don’t buy any of this stuff. She was there because she wanted to be there. Nobody held a gun to her head,” Tate said.
7:50 p.m.
A two-member parole panel has delayed making a decision on whether to release Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The decision to delay Thursday by the panel came after the 69-year-old Krenwinkel was previously denied parole 13 times, most recently in 2011.
Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people at the urging of Manson 47 years ago.
The hearing was held at the California Institution for Women, about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, where Krenwinkel is imprisoned.
She has a clean record behind bars, earned a bachelor’s degree and taught illiterate inmates to read.
Gov. Jerry Brown has the power to block the release of inmates if parole is granted. He previously stopped the parole of two other Manson followers.
__
10 a.m.
A parole hearing has started for Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The hearing Thursday comes 47 years after Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people, including grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.
The 69-year-old Krenwinkel has been denied parole 13 times since her conviction in the 1969 slayings.
Los Angeles County prosecutors say she carved the word “war” into Leno LaBianca’s stomach then wrote “Helter Skelter” in blood on the couple’s refrigerator.
Krenwinkel contended at her previous parole hearing in 2011 that she’s a changed woman.
She has a clean disciplinary record, earned a bachelor’s degree behind bars, taught reading to illiterate inmates and trained service dogs for disabled people.
Source
Monday, December 12, 2016
California rep pushes bill requiring rape charges to appear on college transcripts
According to MIC, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) has moved to push a law called the “Safe Transfer Act” that would make having been accused of rape during your time in college appear on your transcripts. Speier believes this will help to put a stop campus sexual assault.
“Universities and colleges are perfectly willing to include academic infractions like plagiarism on students’ records, yet students who have committed sexual assault can walk away from campus with a clean academic bill of health,” Speier said in a statement, BuzzFeed reported.
She said the discrepancy reveals that schools take plagiarism more seriously than they do sexual assault, a veritable epidemic on college campuses across the country.
“My bill will ensure that students who try to transfer schools to avoid the consequences of their violent acts will, at a minimum, face the same consequences as students who transfer because they’ve cheated on an exam,” Speier said.
However, laws like this — which have already been passed in states like New York and Virginia — have been known to punish both guilty and innocent alike. As Ashe Schow noted in her article at the Washington Examiner, the accused — usually men — are guilty until proven innocent.
And the narrative being pushed by activists has been one of black and white, good and evil. According to them, accusers, mostly women, always tell the absolute truth, and the accused, almost universally men, are awful even if proven innocent. That double-standard has led to policies that treat accused students as guilty-until-proven-innocent. These policies also have to carve out special provisions that ensure accusers are innocent of sexual assault even when both parties would have a reasonable claim.
With the passage of this law, that guilty verdict sans-verdict will follow a student around, even if he’s proven innocent.
Source
It looks like another misandrist that is trying to destroy the lives of young men on college and university campuses nationwide. Let's contact our Congressional Representative and the Speaker of the House and let them know to oppose this monstrosity. The more of us they hear from better.
“Universities and colleges are perfectly willing to include academic infractions like plagiarism on students’ records, yet students who have committed sexual assault can walk away from campus with a clean academic bill of health,” Speier said in a statement, BuzzFeed reported.
She said the discrepancy reveals that schools take plagiarism more seriously than they do sexual assault, a veritable epidemic on college campuses across the country.
“My bill will ensure that students who try to transfer schools to avoid the consequences of their violent acts will, at a minimum, face the same consequences as students who transfer because they’ve cheated on an exam,” Speier said.
However, laws like this — which have already been passed in states like New York and Virginia — have been known to punish both guilty and innocent alike. As Ashe Schow noted in her article at the Washington Examiner, the accused — usually men — are guilty until proven innocent.
And the narrative being pushed by activists has been one of black and white, good and evil. According to them, accusers, mostly women, always tell the absolute truth, and the accused, almost universally men, are awful even if proven innocent. That double-standard has led to policies that treat accused students as guilty-until-proven-innocent. These policies also have to carve out special provisions that ensure accusers are innocent of sexual assault even when both parties would have a reasonable claim.
With the passage of this law, that guilty verdict sans-verdict will follow a student around, even if he’s proven innocent.
Source
It looks like another misandrist that is trying to destroy the lives of young men on college and university campuses nationwide. Let's contact our Congressional Representative and the Speaker of the House and let them know to oppose this monstrosity. The more of us they hear from better.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Let's tell Donald Trump to dismantle Dear Colleague
I was at the Community Of The Wrongly Accused or COTWA and I was reading how Donald Trump is going to dismantle the Office of Civil Rights division of the Department Of Education. A lot of publications and organizations are bringing this to the forefront. Among them are Inside Higher Ed,Weekly Standard,Buzz Feed and Vox. This is a good thing if you are an MRA or you actually care about due process for the accused. I thank them for bring these issues to the forefront so the rest of country and planet can see what goes on at America's Universities and Colleges. Contacting Senators Lamar Alexander and James Lankford was a good idea. They are pressing on this with the tenacity of a pit bull. Congress has the power to yank the DOE's funding and with the Republicans running Congress that is a safe bet. Donald Trump has a Twitter account so let's contact him there and let him know what we think on this subject.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
My response to an article at the Huffington Post
This is my response to I Am Gay. I Will Not Be Tortured Again. The author brings up that he was persecuted by an anti-gay society. I am seeing a society that treats homosexual males better than heterosexual men. Gay males do not face false accusations of rape unlike their heterosexual brethren whom are basically condemned without a trial. The author of this article did not mention violence against gay males. There have been violent attacks against heterosexual men falsely accused of rape as well as threats of violence. If you don't believe me ask the Duke lacrosse boys. Also homosexuals of both genders are a protected group unlike the white heterosexual man who has been attacked from the Obama Whitehouse to a Democrat leftist Congress to a widely misandric society that view him as fair game. This society is held hostage by political correctness which is very political but not very correct. According to the Politically Correct (PC) beliefs gays of both genders,blacks,women and other groups other than heterosexual white males are beautiful creatures while heterosexual white males are the devils from hell. Gay males certainly didn't speak up for those heterosexual men being persecuted by rabid feminists,usually with no evidence to their guilt. The people at the Huffington Post are upset Trump won. That is understandable because we at the Men's Rights Blog would be upset if Hillary had won. Let's go with that,under a Hillary Clinton regime heterosexual men would be at the bottom of the totem pole and very marginalized. Somehow if Hillary had won and that scenario were to become a reality I would not expect gay males to lift a finger to stop it. They haven't before so don't look for them to do it now. You would have gloated over our loss so suck it.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Female Clinton Supporters Are Left Feeling Gutted
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — It was visceral. Women felt gutted, shocked, appalled, afraid. The prospect of celebrating the election of the nation’s first female president had been crushed by Donald J. Trump.
In this liberal enclave, where Mrs. Clinton won 89.2 percent of the vote, one of her strongest showings anywhere, Molly Hubner, 33, said she was having difficulty explaining the result to her 6-year-old daughter.
Pushing her young son in a stroller as she jogged down a leaf-covered sidewalk, Ms. Hubner said, “We had told her that he wouldn’t be a good president because he’s not very kind and just cares about himself.”
Women across the country who supported Mrs. Clinton are just starting to process their feelings about the long roller coaster ride that in their view ended in disaster.
The shock they feel that a man whom they describe as sexist, misogynistic and boorish was elected has overshadowed some of their grief about Mrs. Clinton’s loss. Like so many of the other rivals in his path, they say, the most famous woman in the world has been reduced to one more piece of collateral damage.
Really,are you aware of what Hillary had in store for men if she had won? Go Trump/Pence.
And these feelings have morphed into a genuine sense of foreboding.
“I woke up in a strange country,” said Jill Laurie Goodman, a lawyer who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. “I’m about Hillary’s age. I went to law school about the same time she did, coming out of the antiwar and civil rights movement.”
She had believed that society was moving forward, Ms. Goodman said. And yet, “I woke up yesterday feeling as if everything I thought 45 years ago was wrong, that I had just gotten it wrong.”
Yeah,basically. You are way off.
In Berkeley, Calif., Hope Friedman, a 62-year-old retired nurse, said she was also stunned by the result.
“I was a big Hillary supporter, but I am not in love with Hillary the way I was with Obama,” she said of the president. “My motivation for being active in the campaign was much more about being terrified of a guy that says and does the things that Trump has said and does.”
As she described her reaction to Mr. Trump’s victory, she wept.
We're going to give you lots grief,bitch. I suggest you get used to it real quick.
“It kind of felt like being punched in the stomach,” she said. “It feels like when you get a cancer diagnosis and you are sick to your stomach and you can’t believe it and your mind is spinning.”
Sally Waldron, 69, an adult educator here in Cambridge, finds that her sorrow is rooted more in the dread she feels about a man with attitudes like Mr. Trump’s becoming president than it is borne of Mrs. Clinton’s loss.
“Part of me thinks this should be about the first woman losing,” Ms. Waldron said as she watched her grandson play in a sandlot.
Do you know what Hillary had in store for your grandson? A school environment that is hostile to boys. That includes higher learning in colleges and universities. She would back any woman making an accusation against your grandson and deny him due process rights and the right to have a real judge and jury preside over his case not a bunch of college kids that may be friends with the accuser or are influenced by her.
“I would have loved if she was the first woman president, but that’s not where the disappointment is for me,” she said. “The disappointment is in the values that won and what it means for lots of people.”
Being a man won. Not being a mangina won. That is great.
Even in the more conservative South, Clinton supporters expressed the same kind of disappointment and dread.
“I’m horrified because I have two daughters,” Kelly Cobb, 40, said as she bought slices of cake near Emory University in Atlanta.
Ms. Cobb, a stay-at-home mother, said she believed that Mr. Trump had managed to define Mrs. Clinton in the public imagination as a criminal, and that he had benefited from gender stereotypes.
How often have women benefitted from gender stereotypes? A lot. They use false female nature to get out of responsibility (women are kind stereotype. Women are sweet stereotype.)Beneficial sexism helps women get rights without responsibilities. They have no problem with this type of sexism.
“I think there’s huge disdain for her because she’s a woman, but she’s also been in politics for a long time,” said Ms. Cobb, who also said she was uncertain what Mrs. Clinton’s defeat signaled for other women seeking office.
“I don’t know if it’s Hillary Clinton and who she is, but I have to think it does have something to do with the fact that she’s a woman,” she said. “People are just unaccepting of that and judge her to a much higher standard than they would a white male.”
Or we didn't want a misandrist in the White House. Did you think of that?
Women did not turn out for Mrs. Clinton in the numbers that her campaign expected, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. The electorate was 52 percent female, slightly lower than the normal 53 percent. She was strongly supported by white, college-educated women, black women and Latina women, but white, blue-collar women and white, non-college-educated women sided heavily with Mr. Trump.
Her failed bid raises the question about whether Mrs. Clinton’s experience will discourage other women. Did she break a barrier, or did she inadvertently reveal how high that barrier is?
Women began entering government in bigger numbers in the 1970s, but any rush has stalled. The number of women in Congress is about 19 percent. Research has shown that women are such a minority in government not because they are less likely to win — they are just as likely, over all — but because they are so much less likely to run in the first place.
Political scientists say this so-called ambition gap is because women are less likely to be encouraged or recruited to run, underestimate their own abilities, assume they need to be more qualified than men and view politics as sexist.
Now, Mrs. Clinton’s loss may lend credence to those doubts.
“Because there was general consensus on both sides of the aisle that she was the most qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever seen, and she lost, it reinforces the notion that maybe it’s not even enough to be twice as good to get half as far,” said Jennifer L. Lawless, professor of government at American University who studies gender and political ambition.
Caroline Elkins, 47, a professor of history at Harvard, said she was profoundly disappointed and could not separate the outcome from Mrs. Clinton’s gender.
“To think that gender wasn’t a factor would be ludicrous,” she said. “You’d be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified than Hillary Clinton, in my view, and yet she was scrutinized above and beyond any male candidate we’ve ever seen.”
You mean the same media that paints Trump as a racist,a rapist and an ogre. That mainstream media. The same media that covered for Hillary. In fact Donna Brazille emailed Hillary the questions they were going to ask in advance.
That Mrs. Clinton’s flaws were “thrown into a hyperbolic relief,” she said, suggests that being highly qualified for the job was not enough, that a woman still has to be “twice as good and half as threatening” as a man to succeed.
Then why did Trump have to work overtime to calm women down and not to let their fears get the best of them?
Ms. Friedman, the retired nurse in Berkeley, who made phone calls on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, was convinced that gender was a factor.
“I underestimated the level of misogyny in the country,” she said. “Which is surprising, because usually I see it where it’s not.” But during her calls, she was sometimes met with crude responses.
“I forget how much people hate women,” she said.
Could it be due to the misandry that comes from women at the expense of men. Could it be due to the special treatment women demand or they call you a misogynist.
Mary Jane Judy, 35, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., said Mrs. Clinton lost more because of herself than because she is a woman.
“I think the baggage with her as Hillary Clinton over the course of the years was just stuff that people couldn’t get past,” she said. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Anybody but Hillary.’”
In Belfast, Me., Anita Zeno, an innkeeper on the pristine Atlantic Coast, knew Mrs. Clinton had flaws. But when she voted, she felt a rush.
“I was surprised at how good it felt to be voting for a woman,” said Ms. Zeno, 70.
But on Thursday, as Ms. Zeno examined the shallots in a farm store and cafe, her eyes welled with tears at the very mention of Mrs. Clinton’s defeat. She was worried about the country, the fate of the Affordable Care Act and climate change.
There is no climate change. The Affordable Care Act is not so affordable.
And one more thing.
“At my age, it’s now likely I’ll never see a woman elected president,” Ms. Zeno said. “And that really mattered to me.”
Source
My rights matter to me and I don't want some misandrist taking them away.
In this liberal enclave, where Mrs. Clinton won 89.2 percent of the vote, one of her strongest showings anywhere, Molly Hubner, 33, said she was having difficulty explaining the result to her 6-year-old daughter.
Pushing her young son in a stroller as she jogged down a leaf-covered sidewalk, Ms. Hubner said, “We had told her that he wouldn’t be a good president because he’s not very kind and just cares about himself.”
Women across the country who supported Mrs. Clinton are just starting to process their feelings about the long roller coaster ride that in their view ended in disaster.
The shock they feel that a man whom they describe as sexist, misogynistic and boorish was elected has overshadowed some of their grief about Mrs. Clinton’s loss. Like so many of the other rivals in his path, they say, the most famous woman in the world has been reduced to one more piece of collateral damage.
Really,are you aware of what Hillary had in store for men if she had won? Go Trump/Pence.
And these feelings have morphed into a genuine sense of foreboding.
“I woke up in a strange country,” said Jill Laurie Goodman, a lawyer who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. “I’m about Hillary’s age. I went to law school about the same time she did, coming out of the antiwar and civil rights movement.”
She had believed that society was moving forward, Ms. Goodman said. And yet, “I woke up yesterday feeling as if everything I thought 45 years ago was wrong, that I had just gotten it wrong.”
Yeah,basically. You are way off.
In Berkeley, Calif., Hope Friedman, a 62-year-old retired nurse, said she was also stunned by the result.
“I was a big Hillary supporter, but I am not in love with Hillary the way I was with Obama,” she said of the president. “My motivation for being active in the campaign was much more about being terrified of a guy that says and does the things that Trump has said and does.”
As she described her reaction to Mr. Trump’s victory, she wept.
We're going to give you lots grief,bitch. I suggest you get used to it real quick.
“It kind of felt like being punched in the stomach,” she said. “It feels like when you get a cancer diagnosis and you are sick to your stomach and you can’t believe it and your mind is spinning.”
Sally Waldron, 69, an adult educator here in Cambridge, finds that her sorrow is rooted more in the dread she feels about a man with attitudes like Mr. Trump’s becoming president than it is borne of Mrs. Clinton’s loss.
“Part of me thinks this should be about the first woman losing,” Ms. Waldron said as she watched her grandson play in a sandlot.
Do you know what Hillary had in store for your grandson? A school environment that is hostile to boys. That includes higher learning in colleges and universities. She would back any woman making an accusation against your grandson and deny him due process rights and the right to have a real judge and jury preside over his case not a bunch of college kids that may be friends with the accuser or are influenced by her.
“I would have loved if she was the first woman president, but that’s not where the disappointment is for me,” she said. “The disappointment is in the values that won and what it means for lots of people.”
Being a man won. Not being a mangina won. That is great.
Even in the more conservative South, Clinton supporters expressed the same kind of disappointment and dread.
“I’m horrified because I have two daughters,” Kelly Cobb, 40, said as she bought slices of cake near Emory University in Atlanta.
Ms. Cobb, a stay-at-home mother, said she believed that Mr. Trump had managed to define Mrs. Clinton in the public imagination as a criminal, and that he had benefited from gender stereotypes.
How often have women benefitted from gender stereotypes? A lot. They use false female nature to get out of responsibility (women are kind stereotype. Women are sweet stereotype.)Beneficial sexism helps women get rights without responsibilities. They have no problem with this type of sexism.
“I think there’s huge disdain for her because she’s a woman, but she’s also been in politics for a long time,” said Ms. Cobb, who also said she was uncertain what Mrs. Clinton’s defeat signaled for other women seeking office.
“I don’t know if it’s Hillary Clinton and who she is, but I have to think it does have something to do with the fact that she’s a woman,” she said. “People are just unaccepting of that and judge her to a much higher standard than they would a white male.”
Or we didn't want a misandrist in the White House. Did you think of that?
Women did not turn out for Mrs. Clinton in the numbers that her campaign expected, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. The electorate was 52 percent female, slightly lower than the normal 53 percent. She was strongly supported by white, college-educated women, black women and Latina women, but white, blue-collar women and white, non-college-educated women sided heavily with Mr. Trump.
Her failed bid raises the question about whether Mrs. Clinton’s experience will discourage other women. Did she break a barrier, or did she inadvertently reveal how high that barrier is?
Women began entering government in bigger numbers in the 1970s, but any rush has stalled. The number of women in Congress is about 19 percent. Research has shown that women are such a minority in government not because they are less likely to win — they are just as likely, over all — but because they are so much less likely to run in the first place.
Political scientists say this so-called ambition gap is because women are less likely to be encouraged or recruited to run, underestimate their own abilities, assume they need to be more qualified than men and view politics as sexist.
Now, Mrs. Clinton’s loss may lend credence to those doubts.
“Because there was general consensus on both sides of the aisle that she was the most qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever seen, and she lost, it reinforces the notion that maybe it’s not even enough to be twice as good to get half as far,” said Jennifer L. Lawless, professor of government at American University who studies gender and political ambition.
Caroline Elkins, 47, a professor of history at Harvard, said she was profoundly disappointed and could not separate the outcome from Mrs. Clinton’s gender.
“To think that gender wasn’t a factor would be ludicrous,” she said. “You’d be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified than Hillary Clinton, in my view, and yet she was scrutinized above and beyond any male candidate we’ve ever seen.”
You mean the same media that paints Trump as a racist,a rapist and an ogre. That mainstream media. The same media that covered for Hillary. In fact Donna Brazille emailed Hillary the questions they were going to ask in advance.
That Mrs. Clinton’s flaws were “thrown into a hyperbolic relief,” she said, suggests that being highly qualified for the job was not enough, that a woman still has to be “twice as good and half as threatening” as a man to succeed.
Then why did Trump have to work overtime to calm women down and not to let their fears get the best of them?
Ms. Friedman, the retired nurse in Berkeley, who made phone calls on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, was convinced that gender was a factor.
“I underestimated the level of misogyny in the country,” she said. “Which is surprising, because usually I see it where it’s not.” But during her calls, she was sometimes met with crude responses.
“I forget how much people hate women,” she said.
Could it be due to the misandry that comes from women at the expense of men. Could it be due to the special treatment women demand or they call you a misogynist.
Mary Jane Judy, 35, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., said Mrs. Clinton lost more because of herself than because she is a woman.
“I think the baggage with her as Hillary Clinton over the course of the years was just stuff that people couldn’t get past,” she said. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Anybody but Hillary.’”
In Belfast, Me., Anita Zeno, an innkeeper on the pristine Atlantic Coast, knew Mrs. Clinton had flaws. But when she voted, she felt a rush.
“I was surprised at how good it felt to be voting for a woman,” said Ms. Zeno, 70.
But on Thursday, as Ms. Zeno examined the shallots in a farm store and cafe, her eyes welled with tears at the very mention of Mrs. Clinton’s defeat. She was worried about the country, the fate of the Affordable Care Act and climate change.
There is no climate change. The Affordable Care Act is not so affordable.
And one more thing.
“At my age, it’s now likely I’ll never see a woman elected president,” Ms. Zeno said. “And that really mattered to me.”
Source
My rights matter to me and I don't want some misandrist taking them away.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Mary N. Kellet wants immunity from her crimes
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Christopher Perry
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: cperry@prosecutorintegrity.org
ACLU, Defense Attorneys File Brief Challenging Immunity Protections for Investigative Misconduct by Former Prosecutor
WASHINGTON / November 4, 2016 – Three criminal justice organizations have filed an Amicus Curiae Brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the claim of a former prosecutor that she should enjoy absolute immunity for her misconduct that included tampering with exculpatory evidence in a sexual assault case. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maine Foundation, and the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed the Brief on October 5, 2016.
The case revolves around the actions of former prosecutor Mary Kellett during a 2007 trial of Vladek Filler, wrongfully accused of sexually assaulting his wife in the midst of a child custody dispute. Filler was eventually cleared or exonerated on all charges (1). He later sued Kellett alleging defamation and malicious prosecution.
Kellett advised three law enforcement officers to disregard subpoenas to disclose evidence to the defense attorney. More troubling, complainant Ligia Filler had admitted on tape that her rape allegations were her way of “fighting for the children.” This portion of the tape was edited out before it was handed over to the defense. Kellett “engaged in or supported and approved of, the tampering of evidence by selectively editing a videotaped interview and redacting the exculpatory portions of the recording that were given to the defense,” according to the Brief.
Ex-prosecutor Kellett previously admitted to these actions and was professionally sanctioned (2). The question now before the court is whether these unethical actions should be protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity.
Kellett’s actions are consistent with an investigative approach often referred to as “victim-centered.” This method instructs investigators to “start by believing” the accuser’s statements (3); to hand “control of the process back to the victim” and allow the complainant “to request certain investigative steps not be conducted”(4); and to assume that “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings.” (5)
A hearing on the case will be held this coming Monday, November 7, 2016 in Boston. The Brief is available online (6). The case has attracted national media attention (7).
Citations at Source site.
Contact: Christopher Perry
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: cperry@prosecutorintegrity.org
ACLU, Defense Attorneys File Brief Challenging Immunity Protections for Investigative Misconduct by Former Prosecutor
WASHINGTON / November 4, 2016 – Three criminal justice organizations have filed an Amicus Curiae Brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the claim of a former prosecutor that she should enjoy absolute immunity for her misconduct that included tampering with exculpatory evidence in a sexual assault case. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maine Foundation, and the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed the Brief on October 5, 2016.
The case revolves around the actions of former prosecutor Mary Kellett during a 2007 trial of Vladek Filler, wrongfully accused of sexually assaulting his wife in the midst of a child custody dispute. Filler was eventually cleared or exonerated on all charges (1). He later sued Kellett alleging defamation and malicious prosecution.
Kellett advised three law enforcement officers to disregard subpoenas to disclose evidence to the defense attorney. More troubling, complainant Ligia Filler had admitted on tape that her rape allegations were her way of “fighting for the children.” This portion of the tape was edited out before it was handed over to the defense. Kellett “engaged in or supported and approved of, the tampering of evidence by selectively editing a videotaped interview and redacting the exculpatory portions of the recording that were given to the defense,” according to the Brief.
Ex-prosecutor Kellett previously admitted to these actions and was professionally sanctioned (2). The question now before the court is whether these unethical actions should be protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity.
Kellett’s actions are consistent with an investigative approach often referred to as “victim-centered.” This method instructs investigators to “start by believing” the accuser’s statements (3); to hand “control of the process back to the victim” and allow the complainant “to request certain investigative steps not be conducted”(4); and to assume that “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings.” (5)
A hearing on the case will be held this coming Monday, November 7, 2016 in Boston. The Brief is available online (6). The case has attracted national media attention (7).
Citations at Source site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)