* The Unhate Rally





Satirizing Ignorance and Fear (especially the Media's)

* Jung and Chaplin Spook Yale Mind/Brain Scholar

Halloween

 (View YouTube videos appended to Yale Daily News Mind/Brain article: link below.)

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/oct/29/von-lommel-talks-out-of-body/

* Surveillance of the Soul

Libresco: The wrong side of history

By Leah Libresco
The Yale Daily News
Monday, October 25, 2010
I don’t blame you if you got whiplash trying to follow this week’s fallout from U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillip issuing an injunction against the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. As of press time, the military is back to booting out gay recruits. Why? The Obama administration persuaded the Ninth Circuit Court to issue a temporary stay (pending review) of the original injunction, allowing the policy to continue.
This isn’t just the latest disappointment from a president who campaigned as a “fierce advocate” of gay rights. The President’s misguided defense of DADT is offering a terrible lesson in civics. Obama insists that although he is personally opposed to the policy, it would be inappropriate for DADT to be undone by judicial fiat. He also refuses to unilaterally halt DADT through a stop-loss solution implemented by executive order; yet, as his 65 past executive orders prove, he has no objection to this type of solution in other cases. Although both judicial and executive approaches to ending DADT are legal and constitutional options, Obama insists that there is something unseemly about a remedy that doesn’t come from the people’s duly elected representatives.
Obama is parroting the main talking point of the anti-gay rights movement: judges are stepping out of line and improperly imposing their will on Americans by ruling in favor of gay rights ahead of any shift in public opinion. This is the rallying cry (and often the only argument) of the pro-Proposition 8 advocates. Opponents of the DADT injunction and of court decisions expanding gay rights generally can correctly object to these tactics as undemocratic. But it’s absurd to call them anti-American.
Although over 75 percent of Americans do support the repeal of DADT, that fact is not what legitimizes the decision of the courts. The Constitution was never intended to be interpreted by poll. Judges are required to ignore the will of the people when that will runs counter to the dictates of our Constitution. This allows the judiciary to leapfrog public opinion and end abusive laws, even before they are publicly recognized as abusive. Judicial intervention can even help direct public discourse toward recognition of current abuses. The judicial branch’s isolation from public opinion is a feature, not a bug.
Praising the anti-democratic nature of the judiciary is far from disapproving of democracy. The disconnect between judges and citizens does not guarantee correct action, but it does ensure that the excesses and weaknesses of the judicial branch are different than the foibles of either the legislative or executive branch.
The life terms of federal judges help to ensure their independence from popular passions but also creates the problem of geriatric judges, many of whom do not regularly use online media yet wind up responsible for deciding cases that will set the standards for expectations of privacy on the Internet. Meanwhile, congresspeople are responsive to the concerns of citizens, but as costs of campaigns have soared, they may be even more responsive to large corporate donors.
Every branch is free to fight each of the others, as Congress began to do after the Supreme Court decision to strike down a wide range of campaign finance laws in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The fights ensure a certain level of small-c conservatism by slowing down the pace of change for controversial decisions. These types of fights are legitimate. But Obama is basing his resistance not in any opposition to DADT, but in a misunderstanding of jurisdiction with no grounding in constitutional law.
By perpetuating DADT and continuing to object to judicial solutions, Obama is placing himself on the wrong side of history — as well as the Constitution — when it comes to DADT and gay rights. If he doesn’t change his stance on gay rights and renounce his bad-as-Bush stance on detainee rights, torture and surveillance soon, I hope to see his administration as the target of many, sorely-needed injunctions from “activist” judges.
Leah Libresco is a senior in Jonathan Edwards College.
_________________________________
This entire argument is such a tangled web of hypocrisy. How can a country punish people for their most private thoughts? It seems so invasive and voyeuristic and unquantifiable.

If 49.5 % of someone's ideation is dominated by same gender fantasies, does that missing six tenths of one percent (.6%) make them eligible for the military?
And if the ideation were 50.1% does that .1% make them ineligible?
This kind of busybody hypothetical surveillance of the soul is a highly structured witch-hunt.
PK
Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 27, 2010 at 6:58 p.m.






Comments
If gays are allowed into the military and given permission to marry (or whatever is deemed equal legal treatment) will they be forced to utilize the facilities of the opposite sex while in public? I have never been comfortable with the idea of going to the local swimming pool or my hometown athletic club and having my finely sculpted legs and posterior being checked out by a gay guy. I think that advocates of gay rights should, in the interests of fairness and avoiding hypocrisy, ensure that such provisions are added to any pro-gay bills they champion for. After all, if society is recognizing their union with the same sex as something as normal as hetereosexual relations, shouldn't the same social norm of seperating ostensibly attracted parties (male and female) into different bathrooms or changing rooms be applied to them as well?
Posted by silliwin01 on October 25, 2010 at 4:10 a.m.

 no.


Posted by jnewsham on October 25, 2010 at 8:11 a.m.

Will gays then have to build their own roads like libertarians? Can anyone answer me that?!!! And, I mean, when I think about this nation's proud army out there in Iraq doing its all to direct private mercenary contractors to do stuff, I really only want the thought of men and women having sex, but not on the battlefield, because women shouldn't be there.
Posted by FreddyHoneychurch on October 25, 2010 at 9:07 a.m.

Really, the notion of gays serving in the military can be believably understood as having nothing to do with the gay rights movement, although the latter is appropriately advocating for it. It has to do with common decency. It's plausible that thousands of homosexuals over the past 200 years have already paid the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield. Continuing to dishonor them by administering a sexual litmus test is reprehensible -- and it also makes no sense, considering that some of the best armed forces in the world (Britain's, to name one) already let gays serve in the military.
Posted by pablum on October 25, 2010 at 9:24 a.m.

 Alexander the Great was gay, and he was awesome at military. How do Republicans account for that little factoid?
Posted by FreddyHoneychurch on October 25, 2010 at 9:30 a.m

"sorely-needed injunctions from “activist” judges."
I think that this line is key. Obama is a pragmatist who promised to lead by consensus. I'm pretty sure that he personally supports the repeal of DADT - he isn't an anti-gay troglodyte. This temporary stay may seem too cautious for liberals, but it is part of Obama's strategy, and DADT will eventually be repealed.
Posted by davenport12 on October 25, 2010 at 9:53 a.m.

 The DOJ is going to challenge any judicial rejection of executive policy. That's partly its role. The question is not whether it will, but how it will; in this case, probably half-heartedly. DADT won't last another year.
Posted by pablum on October 25, 2010 at 10:17 a.m.

 jnewsham, I am very sorry you are a hypocrite. I recommend taking many of the quality humanities courses here at Yale to cure your affliction.
Posted by silliwin01 on October 25, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.

 Continue DADT.
Remove women from combat zones.
2 sensible policies for our military.
Posted by RexMottram08 on October 25, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.

 @RexMottram08:
Take a look at this map:
map
(Countries in blue allow gays to serve. Countries in red don't.)
It seems like you enjoy strange company. Note that the IDF, probably one of the most effective and hardened military forces in the world, allows both gays and women to serve. In this case, your bigotry is a threat to national security and an offense to all of the gays and women who have already risked or sacrificed their lives for your country. You give new meaning to the expression "chickenhawk."
Posted by pablum on October 25, 2010 at 5:25 p.m.

I agree wholeheartedly that the judicial system is not beholden to the will of the people, and I think that the judicial system may be one of the most important barriers against the ignorant, ideological extremism which is on the rise in the Tea Party (for example, by upholding the constitutionality of health care reform). But Obama's justifications for holding out on DADT are much different from those of Prop 8 supporters--the main reason is that he wants to give the military time to complete its study of how to implement a repeal of DADT. This seems a reasonable compromise, given the importance of the military to our national security and the fact that we are still fighting two wars. I'm disappointed in how many liberals blast Republicans for refusing to compromise on anything, but then decry compromise whenever Democrats make minor concessions.
Posted by Undergrad on October 25, 2010 at 10:27 p.m.


pablum,
What is that supposed to prove? We should get along to get along? Follow the crowd? Cave to peer pressure? Worry about what Russia thinks?
Posted by RexMottram08 on October 26, 2010 at 8:38 a.m.

 @pablum:
You give new meaning to the expression "chickenhawk."
In 2008, 60% of active military members also opposed ending DADT. Or are they all "chickenhawks" as well?
Also, use of the word "chickenhawk" should be reserved for those who've actually served and earned the right to use that insult.
Posted by River Tam on October 26, 2010 at 12:16 p.m.

This entire argument is such a tangled web of hypocrisy. How can a country punish people for their most private thoughts? It seems so invasive and voyeuristic and unquantifiable.
If 49.5 % of someone's ideation is dominated by same gender fantasies, does that missing six tenths of one percent (.6%) make them eligible for the military?
And if the ideation were 50.1% does that .1% make them ineligible?
This kind of busybody hypothetical surveillance of the soul is a highly structured witch-hunt.


PK
Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 27, 2010 at 6:58 p.m.

* Autopsy TV: Eat, Drink. and Be Wary

Oprah with Dr. Oz,  her latest clone (after Dr. Phil). They are both smiling while holding omentums (stomach fat): one from an obese person, the other from a thin person.

Worry TV: The Modern Roman Circus

I watch the 5PM Dr. Oz Show a few times a week.  Because I am easily moulded, Dr. Oz has changed my diet and emptied my wallet: I now eat pumpkin seeds and sardines, drink pomegranite juice, chew white raisins, take Vitamin E, and devour as much cranberry sauce and cranberry juice as I can find, the latter two to keep my arteries sleek and unstickable, like teflon, staving off the dreaded heart attack or stroke.

In addition,  I find myself  (like much of his audience)  both horrified and fascinated by his autopsy mini-shows, in which he unveils BEFORE and AFTER dried body parts (brains, intestines, stomachs, lungs, etc.) and shows how disease (usually brought on by Oz's biggest target: OBESITY) has contorted and crippled otherwise perfectly healthy organs.

Notice, I said I watch this ghoulish display, at 5PM---the beginning of what USED TO BE America's dinner hour.  And I feel no repulsion. I charge right on to eat a full meal afterward, unphased by having vicariously eviscerated some poor, dead, human being.

What's worng with me?

Oh, and by the way, you know that artifact from the 1950's which I just mentioned: Dinner Hour?

Dr. Oz would replace that, and the other two daily meals, with SEVEN SMALLER MEALS A DAY.

Pass the pumpkin seeds and cranberry cocktail, please.

And a sardine.

_______

PS:

   For all his healthy living, Dr. Oz looks every bit his 49 years.  And, I suspect, that hair color isn't Nature's.

* Let Nature Pull the Plug

Editor

The Valley News (word count 330)

Dear Editor:

The words “End of Life Decisions” are not necessarily a euphemism for the famous "Death Panels" paraded before Americans during the health care legislation debate two years ago. But they are an invitation to darken the horizon.

I am particularly interested in the comments of DHMC physician, Dr. Ira Byock, on a PBS reported debate on "End of Life Care" at the National Press Club moderated by Judy Dentzer a year or so ago. (transcript and video available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/miller_04-26.html )

Here are his words:

"Well, we're not just rational at all as a society, as a culture. Avoidance of death is pervasive in our society. 'I don't want to think about it' really captures the American approach to dying.
And denial of death doesn't get easier as people get sicker. Sometimes, it gets more entrenched. You know, superstition is alive and well in America today. We don't even want to talk about it, as if, oh, don't talk about that, dad, as if talking about it will make it happen."

Superstition? Quite the contrary. It is transcendentalism.

It is rooted in the belief that you close off the potential for fulfillment and health by taking Nature by the neck like a chicken and squeezing a death-date out of Her or by forcing Nature into a dead-end corner.

The Universe is unfolding: Transcendentalism, not fatalism, is Ralph Waldo Emerson's prescription for the gloomy purveyors of death and doom from the Old World.

With all due respect to Dr. Byock, he is messing around with folks' religious beliefs when he says "superstition is alive and well in America today. We don't even want to talk about it, . . . as if talking about it will make it happen."

I suggest the good doctor not darken the horizon for people before it's time. Some folks believe negative thinking changes your body chemistry and is bad for your health.

First do no harm. (Primum non nocere)

Let Nature do the plug pulling.

Paul D. Keane










SUMMARY


NewsHour analyst Susan Dentzer, editor-in-chief of Health Affairs, moderated a Miller Center of Public Affairs debate on the ethics of rationing end-of-life health care after the issue gained prominence in the health care reform discussions. Here's an excerpt:


Transcript


GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight: a debate over end-of-life decisions. Should society engage in rationing costly health care when recovery is no longer an option?


That was the debate held at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs recently.


Arguing for rationing: Ira Byock, a doctor and director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Arguing against rationing: Ken Connor, chair of the Center for a Just Society and a lawyer in private practice. He represented former Governor Jeb Bush's defense of Terri's law, the legislation named for Terri Schiavo. And Marie Hilliard, director of bioethics and public policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, she is also a registered nurse.


The moderator was Susan Dentzer, editor in chief of health affairs and an analyst for the NewsHour.


SUSAN DENTZER: Some people have said we should dispense with the word rationing and just start to talk about rational care. Do you think we could ever agree, as a society, on what rational care is?


Art?


DR. ARTHUR CAPLAN, director, University Of Pennsylvania Center For Bioethics: Well, I would hope so. Let's take a look at what works. Let's understand rationally how to handle decision-making authority if you're not competent.


Can we set up an understanding that we don't want meddling in direct bedside care, that the beneficence of the doctor should be the ethic that we want to see? But we don't have much evidence right now about what works and what goes on in health care.


I would venture to say we don't even know what prices are. We don't know what we're paying for most of the time. Anybody who has looked at a hospital bill has been through an experiment in some kind of astrology.


DR. ARTHUR CAPLAN: There's no decoding it. No one knows what is going on.


So, could we get more rational than we are now? That would be very easy to achieve. Would that spare us rationing? I don't know. I don't think so, but I think it would help guide, again, the decisions that we're going to have -- the tougher decisions that are looming out there.


SUSAN DENTZER: Ira, you were perking up there.


DR. IRA BYOCK, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center: Well, we're not just rational at all as a society, as a culture. Avoidance of death is pervasive in our society. "I don't want to think about it" really captures the American approach to dying.


And denial of death doesn't get easier as people get sicker. Sometimes, it gets more entrenched. You know, superstition is alive and well in America today. We don't even want to talk about it, as if, oh, don't talk about that, dad, as if talking about it will make it happen.


So, we have to get over it. We're mortal. We're going to die. Let's get over it and start talking about how we can make the best use of the resources that we have available to them -- to us -- including the best medical care possible.


But we ought to do that as a moral society, with the stakeholders, the governmental stakeholders, the ethicists, the marketplace, the pharmaceutical companies. There's a moral, ethical bottom line that they have to us in, as a society, in deciding what makes sense.


But we need to do that with the full acknowledgment that we're mortal, and we need to make the best use of our resources for the time that we are given this gift of life.


MARIE HILLIARD, National Catholic Bioethics Center: We cannot do it all, but we have to make sure good education is done and decisions are made autonomously, with families, with physicians who are not made to feel uncomfortable in telling people that this is not going to be in their best interest. We think this treatment, this procedure really is not only not in your best interest, but might even be harmful.


It's hard for physicians to do that and health care providers to do that. But we have good programs that help physicians to learn those skills, to work with families.


KENNETH CONNOR, Center for a Just Society: You asked the question about rational care. I think that makes a lot of care.


The kinds of questions we ought to be asking, I think, is, is the procedure within the generally accepted standard of care? Is it -- is it necessary for the patient? Is it clinically appropriate? Is the cost reasonable compared to similar services?


These are the kinds of questions I think we ought to be asking. But we shouldn't relegate to the faceless bureaucrats the discretion to decide who lives and who dies, who gets treatment, who -- and who doesn't based on things like quality-adjusted life years or quality of life calculus, or functional capacity studies.


Old folks with dementia don't score well using quality of life calculus. People who are disabled don't -- don't score well using functional capacity studies. But their dignity is not diminished and their life is not worth any less than any other person. And we shouldn't have some bureaucrat in Washington deciding they don't have a life worth living, end of story, no more care.


GWEN IFILL: If you want to watch the entire debate, please check your local public television station listings.

* Extremities Aging, from Bottom to Top

I grow old. I grow old. I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot

Leopold Stokowski conducted into his 96th year, using only his famous Fantasia hands, never a baton.

* Mrs. Stowe's Sorrow Still Sounds on the Connecticut River, Hanover, N.H.

Ledyard Bridge over the Connecticut River, Hanover New Hampshire / Norwich, Vermont

The view south on the Connecticut River from the Ledyard Bridge

Eliza and her son  fleeing Trader Haley on the ice flows of the Ohio River  in Uncle Tom's Cabin





Harriet Beecher Stowe and Professor C.E. Stowe

 

 Scars on the Connecticut

At least once a week I cross the Ledyard Bridge over the Connecticut River, * leaving Vermont and traversing Hanover and the Dartmouth College campus. I never fail to think of Harriet Beecher Stowe's eldest son, 19, drowned in that river while swimming when a Dartmouth student in 1857, four years after the publication of his mother's internationally renowned abolitionist novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin.


Mrs. Stowe writes stirringly of motherhood in those pages (see link below), especially the agony of the slave, Cassy, who administered laudanum to her infant son (fathered by her "master') and rocked him to his death in her arms rather than allow him to grow up in slavery.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma97/riedy/welcome.html


Mrs. Stowe had lost an infant son to cholera in 1842, and one might not be irresponsible in inferring that that mother's grief made its way into the pages of her enormously influential anti-slavery novel.


Her grief transformed became a blessing for the world.
_____________________________



*Ironically, an island close to the Ledyard Bridge still bears the scars of slavery which Mrs. Stowe sought to heal.


GILMAN ISLAND ("NIGGER ISLAND") ("NICKER ISLAND") http://wikimapia.org/1656728/Gilman-Island


Gilman Island is the closest Connecticut River island to Hanover. The island lies along the east shore of the river south of Ledyard Bridge. The Ledyard Canoe Club built Titcomb Cabin on the island in 1952 after the new Wilder Dam (1947) raised this portion of the river by 15 feet and inundated club cabins on three other islands (Falcon). http://www.dartmouth.edu/~doc/naturalareas/gilmanisland/ Before the raising of the river, the island was correspondingly larger and may have been connected to the New Hampshire shore. Perhaps reflecting the marginality of the land, the island was known as "Nigger Island" and later "Nicker Island" (Falcon). The former name was still current in the 1940s, as the name of the Thayer School's model railroad of that time demonstrates: it was called "The Nigger Island and Pompanoosuc Railroad" (Dartmouth Alumni Magazine 32, no. 8 [May 1940], 40).

* Sculptures Comment on the Human, er, uh, Condition

Sculpture of Ex-Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, Comatose in Hospital Bed with Eyes Open

Sculpture of Pope John Paul II, Felled by Meteor

*The Non-Canaries (Tall and Tough Yankees) Who Raised Me

Defying gender expectations (circa 1940)



Hepburn

My Mother, Barbara Ward Keane, (5'10 1/2" tall)



Her sister, June Ward Stagg  (5'9 1/2" tall)

Their Aunt, Bertha Nugent Logan (5' 9" tall)

Aunt Bertha was taller than Uncle Walter and wore men's Carhartts (circa 1958). They raised Dobermans on their  25-acre farm with no electricity in Killingworth, Connecticut, until 1963 when she was 75 and he was 83.

My Grandmother (5'9 1/2/" tall) Alice Nugent Ward

Alice Nugent Ward as a young divorced, single parent, circa 1915, when divorce was considered a scandal (Edward VIII would be forced to abdicate over divorce in 1936).

Letter: Legitimizing the legitimate

The Yale Daily News


Thursday, October 21, 2010


Re: “Legitimizing the ridiculous” (Oct. 18): I’d like to address the necessity of “Relationships: Untitled”: sexual violence is an unfortunate reality that is relevant in any college environment. The movie wasn’t meant to incite man-hating, but instead generate conversation — and not necessarily agreement — on the subject of sexual relations at Yale. It made students think about the impact of their actions and forced men to confront realities (fair or not) about how they’re portrayed in the legal system. It opened up discussion between genders.
Additionally, I disagree that DKE’s message was not “a direct call for sexual violence.” While maybe not serious in intent, deliberately forcing pledges to enthusiastically chant scenes of sexual violence directly at the Yale community was completely contrived. This was not a spontaneous act but a planned initiation which tested men’s worthiness of acceptance into the fraternity. Because of it, all of the female community’s self-respect was made the brunt of a “joke” which many complain has been taken “too seriously.” But if there is pressure for women to be silenced when they’re being publicly degraded, how telling is that of the Yale community? Will women ever be able to stand up for themselves without being stereotyped as hypersensitive? How can we ever improve if we’re not willing to confront blatant injustice? It is precisely these kinds of differences in understanding that make “Relationships: Untitled” so essential for all incoming students.
Raquel Guarino
Oct. 20
The writer is a sophomore in Jonathan Edwards College.




 Comments


Women are socialized to believe (unfortunately) at a very early age, that if they do not speak softly and gently, they will be perceived as pushy, as martinets-----and they will scare off potential offspring-producers (males), i.e. they'll never get a consort.

It is subtle, it is insidious, it is cultural.

Now that the dust is settling, and I read that the DKE pledges' behavior was not because they were drunk or just plain stupid, but because they were following hazing orders---i.e. they were COERCED by male-bonding-pressure --- the whole thing becomes worse.
It is POSSIBLE ---just possible---that some of those pledges KNEW it was WRONG and didn't want to do it.
It is a double edged sword of violence, against the perpetrators as well as against the victims.


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 21, 2010 at 8:23 a.m.
_________________________________




 Women are socialized to believe (unfortunately) at a very early age, that if they do not speak softly and gently, they will be perceived as pushy, as martinets-----and they will scare off potential offspring-producers (males), i.e. they'll never get a consort.
Women learn that because it is often (although obviously not universally) true. Until you convince men to be attracted to a different sort of woman, you're not going to change this.
(And frankly, who are we to dictate what sort of women a man should be attracted to?)


Posted by Summer on October 21, 2010 at 10:37 a.m.
________________________________________


 Summer, if we'd followed your proposed logic throughout history, we'd still be stuck in corsets, or have our feet bound, or some such. We don't "dictate" what sort of women men should be attracted to: we change the types of women that are available to them in the first place.


Posted by schmecs on October 21, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
__________________________________


The phenomenon is pure biological determinism. Women's bodies say "make and raise babies". Only a foolish mother does not speak softly and gently to a cooing infant. Therefore soft and gentle speech is the province of baby makers and bay raisers. Tough and aggressive speech is the province of dynasty makers.
Guess which gender suits which behavior?
BTW: Before the advent of radio, 'finishing schools' taught women that their "ROLE" was to bring music into the home for children and consort, not only by singing and playing piano, but by cultivating a musical lilt to one's voice.
Canaries.






Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 21, 2010 at 10:51 a.m.


PS
I was raised by tough, tall (over 5'10") aggressive women (Katherine Hepburn types, without the money)
Any woman under 5'10" tall with a canary voice seems foreign ( even brittle) to me.
______________________________________________________
.
Yah for Moms and Raising little boys right!! I don't have a boy, but They seem nice!! If those little misguided boys out on the lawn had had good mommies they would have been studying their books instead of yelling!!



@I'm a small lady! Maybe I'm more like Peanut Brittle!

Posted by YaleMom on October 21, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.
_______________________________________


Hi YaleMom:


I'm getting to like you!
Take a look at the tall and tough non-canaries who raised me, at http://theantiyale.blogspot.com link text
PK


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 21, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.
____________________________________


 PS: Have been advised that YaleMom is an alias for a troller and I have been hoodwincked. So be it!


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 21, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
___________________________________


winked


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 21, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.
____________________________________


Sorry to bust your bubble Summer, but plenty of men out there are attracted to strong women. Whoever brainwashed you to think most men only like meek and mild little ladies was a sexist boor.


Posted by penny_lane on October 21, 2010 at 5:53 p.m.

* Tinsel Aristotle : Mimicking Mimicked Emotions

60 Years of Mimicking Mimicked Emotions

I have been debating my friend Ron Richo for more than four decades.  Here is  his comment about my post, Avert-your-face-book: Zuckerberg's Empty Trojan Horse. It raises the question:


Do our children IMITATE emotions they see IMITATED in the media, rather than experience those actual emotions first-hand, from the inside out?

Do they mimic emotions, from the outside in?

Are they trying to use Stanislavsky Method of Acting  on life, rather than on stage, with the huge obstacle that they have no emotional bank account from which to draw emotions in the first place?


To put it another way: Television, and video have brought a tinsel version of Aristotle's "pity and fear" catharsis into every living-room in America.  Have we purged ALL our emotions so often that we need to IMITATE EMOTIONS in order to feel anything at all?

Or is it that we are in the third generation of children so unweaned from the milk of television and film, that they don't know what actual milk really is when they taste it?

Is self-discovery impossible if there is no self, just an imitation of self?

After witnessing the murder of four college students in 1970, I experienced "free-floating anxiety,"which years later was given the name PTSD.

When I entered therapy, the FIRST question the therapist asked me was,
"When was the last time you felt frightened?"

I answered: "I have never felt frightened."

Definition of an Empty Self?

Ours may become a country not with a Commie under every bed, but with a therapist under every head.


PK




From Ron Richo:


"I can't go into great detail right now as I have to leave the house in half an hour but I will write more about it later. (I like that quote* from Melville... from the greatest novel ever written by the way). I think you're on the right track with that line of thinking.


I think most people have been deeply changed as beings by the thought-and-emotion- dictating of media. (Very similar to religion, don't you think?) I know I have because film has always been so important in my life.
Ironic to quote a pop song in talking about this but it capsulizes what I am talking about.


The lines are:


Adrift on an ocean of loneliness
my dreams likes nets were thrown
to catch the love that I'd heard of
in books and films and songs
Now there's a world of illusion and fantasy
in the place where the real world belongs.
[Farther On by Jackson Browne]


I think this (and religion) are why people are so disappointed and unhappy. My opinion of course."


RR
____________________________________________________________
*
" From beneath his slouched hat Ahab dropped a tear into the sea; '... Close! stand close to me, Starbuck; let me look into a human eye; it is better than to gaze into sea or sky . . .' "
Moby-Dick, Chapter 132

RR Replies:

RR Replies:

Good work on that piece. The whole idea is an interesting one certainly.

When I think of media that has real impact on us emotionally I think of films, TV, music (pop music especially) and to a lesser extent, books (not that books don't effect us emotionally. They do but in a much different way and books require some work on our part.)
I can't help but wonder how the emotional life of a person living say in the late 19th century might have differed from ours.
I don't, by the way, see this in a purely negative light of course. Some good can come of it as well. I, for example, learned a lot from the role models of my youth. So much of what I am today I owe to Claude Rains. How to speak, how to dress, to use a knife and fork and so on. Claude and Rex Harrison, Ronald Coleman (my namesake) and so many others were excellent teachers and role models.
Better than Freddie Kruegger anyway.



*Yale Promotes Center for King of Hellfire

Sado-masochistic Sermonizer Idealized

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jonathan-Edwards-Center/10150156838860107

My posts about the King of Hellfire appear BEFORE and AFTER  this Yale Daily News article on Yale fraternity hate-speech, and are signed in yellow text. I will let you do your own navigating on this one.

PK

"If these men were not out to hurt anyone, why did they chant "f--ing sluts" in a space where they knew that freshmen women would hear them? If they were not out to incite violence against women, why did they shout "no means yes"? Why were they saying any of these things at all? And why were they making a point to say them in public."

BECAUSE THEY'RE BOORS AND BORES. NO MORE COMPLICATED OR INSIDIOUS THAN THAT. HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED THAT MOST MEN ARE LED AROUND ON A LIBIDO? (even Henry Kissinger and Elliot Spitzer)

Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 16, 2010 at 6:04 p.m.




________________________________________________

" Let us not forget the lessons of Abu Ghraib, which are pertinent here. The torturers at Abu Ghraib were so wrapped up in a culture of hatred and violence that they had no idea how appalled the American public would be by their actions."

It continued with the equally evil if not improved sado-masochistic God of "Love" of the New Testament, who, in the Book of Revelation introduced the manifestly EVIL notion of ETERNAL DAMNATION IN HELLFIRE into the universe.


This Judeo/Christian God's most famous exponent is now being celebrated at Yale with a new Center carrying his name: Jonathan Edwards (Class of 1720). Read his blood-chilling and also certifiably wicked sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God".


Our MALE ancestors, taking these sado-masochistic lessons to heart, produced the torture of 83-year-old Giles Corey in Salem, Massachussetts in 1694. This torture was politely called "Pressing". Huge stones were put on top of him in an effort to extract information from him about the name of a townsperson who claimed the witchcraft alleged by teenage girls was fraudulent. Rather than divulge the name, he allowed his guts (not information) to be "pressed" out of him, saying but two words; "More weight".


Our charming recent ancestors created equally sado-masochistic tortures : My Lai, the burning with chemical warfare of innocent Asian women and children followed by their murder and interment in a roadside ditch; and most, recently, with the select-a-torture games at Abu Ghraib (as you note).


The problem is not misogyny; the problem is sado-masochistic patriarchal religions foisted on children in their formative years by cruel and dull-witted adults.


Better to build a center at Yale exposing the indecency-- -indeed the evil --- of these Judeo/Christian beliefs and their exponents, than to build a center to Jonathan Edwards, King of Hellfire.




Paul D. Keane
M. Div. '80




Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 16, 2010 at 6:59 p.m.






_______________________________________________


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jonathan-Edwards-Center/10150156838860107
NOTE: It is a new Digital Consortium which has been created to promote the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale which has existed since 1953.





Forney and Teicher: How our fraternity failed










 By Jordan Forney, Sam Teicher
Friday, October 15, 2010


At around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, many people heard loud chanting and singing in and around Old Campus. The chants came from members of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. The lyrics ranged from patriotic to crude to obscene. Too often, college students get carried away in revelry or tradition and ignore the significance of their words and actions. The widespread response to this event showed us that, for some people, our words had real and powerful meaning.


The brothers of DKE accept responsibility for what we did, and want to sincerely apologize to the Yale community. We were wrong. We were disrespectful, vulgar and inappropriate. More than that, we were insensitive of all women who have been victims of rape or sexual violence, especially those here at Yale. Rape is beyond serious – it is one of the worst things that any person can be subjected to. It is not a laughing matter, yet we joked about it.


The brothers of DKE were not out to hurt or target anyone, or to incite violence against women. And although we in no way condone rape, we realize that this kind of behavior exemplifies a casual attitude towards rape that sadly fosters an environment in which sexual harassment can be ignored or belittled.


Though our original statement sought mistakenly to defend the fraternity, we realize that many members of the Yale community are frustrated, appalled and offended by what was said. Many of you are angry with us. We understand why the Women’s Center called for campus-wide action immediately following the story of what transpired — something must be done to ensure that this behavior, whether intentional or in jest, is not simply brushed aside.


And that is why we are joining with the Women’s Center, Yale College Dean Mary Miller and Dean of Student Affairs Marichal Gentry in a discussion about sexual violence and how to create a safe and comfortable environment at Yale University. Actions like ours are unfortunately a recurring theme at college campuses all over the United States. But we hope that Yale can be a model of progressive cooperation and a safe place for women. We therefore hope that these unfortunate events serve as a teachable moment to facilitate and engage in positive and meaningful dialogue about sexual relations here at Yale. Let’s make this right.


Jordan Forney is a senior and Sam Teicher, a junior, both in Silliman College.


Comments


"Too often, college students get carried away in revelry or tradition and ignore the significance of their words and actions."
So this is your "tradition"? Chanting songs about rape for 150 years? Why would anyone join an institution with such ideas about "revelry and tradition"?
"The brothers of DKE were not out to hurt anyone" - no, they were just out to aggressively assert their power as a mob in freshmen's public space. And build up their pledges' sense of a group by singing about how macho it is to "fill dead women with your semen".


Posted by anotherY10 on October 15, 2010 at 9:11 a.m.
________________________________________________


"progressive cooperation" I'll pass.


Posted by RexMottram08 on October 15, 2010 at 9:26 a.m.
________________________________________________


And that is why we are joining with the Women’s Center, Yale College Dean Mary Miller and Dean of Student Affairs Marichal Gentry in a discussion about sexual violence and how to create a safe and comfortable environment at Yale University.
Here's a way to do it. Eliminate the Yale Women's Center, which tells women to empower themselves through sex but omits the biological fact that when push comes to shove, women are more sexually vulnerable than men. Ban the frats, which purport to teach manliness but instead revel in sophomoric degeneracy. Crack down on public drunkenness and out-of-control parties here at Yale and all those who enable it.
Alcohol is the number one factor in sexual violence at Yale, and it isn't even close. Alcohol reduces impulse control, impairs decision-making, incapacitates potential victims, and enables sexual predators. Frat parties. Modern Love. Safety Dance. Blackout. These are where bad decisions are made - and an unacceptable proportion of these bad decisions inevitably cross over into sexual violence.
It's an unfortunate prescription, but there you have it. A perpetually drunk population of emotionally-stunted young adults, a lack of adult supervision, and a safe sexual environment. You can only have two.


Posted by FailBoat on October 15, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.
___________________________________________


 I have never understood male bonding rituals such as "fraternities". They're so MINDLESS.


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 15, 2010 at 7:56 p.m
______________________________________________.


Part 1 of 2: There are way too many rhetorical moves in this "apology" that are designed to deflect responsibility for the hate-filled act carried out by DKE. We are told the lyrics were "patriotic" as a way of showing that the actions of these "brothers" couldn't be all that bad. The first paragraph blames "college students" for getting carried away in their revelries, dispersing the blame so that it is shared by an entire national culture rather than focusing on the fact that there were real, live, specific men who carried out these hateful acts.
Then we get this lovely move: "The widespread response to this event showed us that, for some people, our words had real and powerful meaning." Suddenly, these words don't have meaning for the entire Yale community, or all women who have been raped, or all people who have been raped, or all people who could potentially be affected by rape (which is, by the way, all people). Rather, these words only matter to "some people."
Forney and Teicher make a similar move in paragraph two, admitting responsibility for being insensitive to "all women who have been victims of rape or sexual violence." I'm glad these two young men and the others they speak for have realized and taken responsibility for their "insensitivity" to victims of rape. However, they also need to realize that their words don't just hurt those who have already been raped. They also affect all those people who are at risk of being raped, who know anyone who has been raped, and who live in a community where this kind of hate is being embraced. Their hate affects everyone, and they need to own up to that.
In the next paragraph, we get a defense of the supposed intentions behind the fraternity's hate speech: "The brothers of DKE were not out to hurt or target anyone, or to incite violence against women." I hope that this is true. I want to believe that this is true. When I consider what happened, however, these words sound like an empty apology, like the words of people saying what they're supposed to say in order to avoid further punishment. Let's remember what these "brothers" chanted as they marched through the spaces where first-year women should be able to feel safe: "My name is Jack. I'm a necrophiliac. I f--- dead women, and fill them with my semen. No means yes. Yes means anal..F--ing sluts." If these men were not out to hurt anyone, why did they chant "f--ing sluts" in a space where they knew that freshmen women would hear them? If they were not out to incite violence against women, why did they shout "no means yes"? Why were they saying any of these things at all? And why were they making a point to say them in public? Isn't the whole point of saying such hateful things in a public space to ensure that you have an audience? To ensure that those who are being threatened hear the threats?


Posted by prently on October 16, 2010 at 2:37 p.m
_________________________________________


Part 2 of 2: How could it be that the men of DKE "in no way condone rape" when they were chanting "no means yes"? Isn't that an explicit way of condoning rape? Of supporting it? The actions of the men of DKE do much more than "foster an environment in which sexual harassment can be ignored or belittled." Their actions publicly support sexual violence. And let us not forget what "sexual violence" entails by using a politically correct term that can mask the reality of what it signifies. The actions of the men of DKE support the violent forcing of a penis or other object into a vagina or other orifice. They support the physical domination of men over women. Yale cannot tolerate this sort of hatred, this sort of violence.
In the penultimate paragraph, we get a glimpse into the psychology behind this apology when Forney and Teicher realize that "many members of the Yale community are frustrated, appalled, and offended." This is the motivation for the apology: other people are angry. The fact that it took other people's anger to alert the men of DKE to the fact that what they did was abominable is telling. Let us not forget the lessons of Abu Ghraib, which are pertinent here. The torturers at Abu Ghraib were so wrapped up in a culture of hatred and violence that they had no idea how appalled the American public would be by their actions. It took the voices and perspectives of others to shake them out of their culture of hate and to see why their actions were unacceptable. Like the torturers at Abu Ghraib, the men of DKE were so wrapped up in their misogynistic culture that they were unable to predict how the greater community would react to statements like "I f--- dead women." This degree of misogyny is disturbing. Yale cannot tolerate it.
Forney and Teicher are right, however, in their final paragraph. Yale does need to have a discussion about sexual violence, and the university community must come together to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. And it would be wonderful if Yale were to become "a model of progressive cooperation and a safe place for women." However, the hate-filled actions of the men of the DKE cannot simply be glossed over by rhetorically transforming them into "a teachable moment." Their actions are a disgrace to Yale, and those of us at other schools are watching to see how the Yale administration handles this situation.
Traditionally, Yale has been held up as a model university, and I'd like to believe that the men of DKE are a few deviant bad apples. In order to hold Yale up as "a model of progressive cooperation," the men involved in these "unfortunate events" cannot merely be released with a slap on the wrist. Their hate speech and their misogyny does not belong at Yale. Yale has a responsibility to show that it will not tolerate hate speech. All of the men involved must be expelled.


Posted by prently on October 16, 2010 at 2:38 p.m.
_________________________________________


"If these men were not out to hurt anyone, why did they chant "f--ing sluts" in a space where they knew that freshmen women would hear them? If they were not out to incite violence against women, why did they shout "no means yes"? Why were they saying any of these things at all? And why were they making a point to say them in public."
BECAUSE THEY'RE BOORS AND BORES. NO MORE COMPLICATED OR INSIDIOUS THAN THAT. HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED THAT MOST MEN ARE LED AROUND ON A LIBIDO? (even Henry Kissinger and Elliot Spitzer)


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 16, 2010 at 6:04 p.m.
________________________________________________


 " Let us not forget the lessons of Abu Ghraib, which are pertinent here. The torturers at Abu Ghraib were so wrapped up in a culture of hatred and violence that they had no idea how appalled the American public would be by their actions."

This culture of "hatred and violence" began with the sado-masochistic Old Testament God of Wrath who in Deuteronomy ordered that "all Hittites and Canaanites be killed, every single one of them" (aka genocide).
It continued with the equally evil if not improved sado-masochistic God of "Love" of the New Testament, who, in the Book of Revelation introduced the manifestly EVIL notion of ETERNAL DAMNATION IN HELLFIRE into the universe.
This Judeo/Christian God's most famous exponent is now being celebrated at Yale with a new Center carrying his name: Jonathan Edwards (Class of 1720). Read his blood-chilling and also certifiably wicked sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God".
Our MALE ancestors, taking these sado-masochistic lessons to heart, produced the torture of 83-year-old Giles Corey in Salem, Massachussetts in 1694. This torture was politely called "Pressing". Huge stones were put on top of him in an effort to extract information from him about the name of a townsperson who claimed the witchcraft alleged by teenage girls was fraudulent. Rather than divulge the name, he allowed his guts (not information) to be "pressed" out of him, saying but two words; "More weight".

Our charming recent ancestors created equally sado-masochistic tortures : My Lai, the burning with chemical warfare of innocent Asian women and children followed by their murder and interment in a roadside ditch; and most, recently, with the select-a-torture games at Abu Ghraib (as you note).

The problem is not misogyny; the problem is sado-masochistic patriarchal religions foisted on children in their formative years by cruel and dull-witted adults.

Better to build a center at Yale exposing the indecency-- -indeed the evil --- of these Judeo/Christian beliefs and their exponents, than to build a center to Jonathan Edwards, King of Hellfire.


Paul D. Keane
M. Div. '80


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 16, 2010 at 6:59 p.m.
_______________________________________________

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jonathan-Edwards-Center/10150156838860107

NOTE: It is a new Digital Consortium which has been created to promote the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale which has existed since 1953.




Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 16, 2010 at 8:05 p.m.
______________________________________________




 Are you doing it?



Posted by grantttodd on October 16, 2010 at 9:26 p.m.
____________________________________________


Um. Yale div at its... best?


Whatever bond I had with The Yale Daily News posting board after two full years and the beginning of this third academic year of posts, ended suddenly with the last word of my final post: EXORCISM (9/21/10).
My "abilities" are better utilized elsewhere.
I may have stopped following The Yale Daily News, but I wish Yale, Yale students, and New Haven well.


Paul. D. Keane (M. Div. '80)
The Anti-Yale
Posted by PAUL D. KEANE at 11:30 PM Sunday, September 26, 2010 http://theantiyale.blogspot.com/2010/09/posting-bond.html




PS If you don't like my posting , skip it. No one forces your eyes past the first word except yourself and your own control-freak desire to be Super-monitor. Until your Yale/New Haven resume exceeds mine, kindly refrain from suggesting I am a New Haven transient who brings nothing to the table of
free speech. I consider these posts an EXORCISM.
Paul D, Keane
M.Div. '80
M.A. (Middelbury '97)
M.Ed. (Kent State '72)
B.A. (Ithaca College '68)
Diploma (Hamden High '63)
Ceremony (Sleeping Giant Jr. High '60)
High fives (Spring Glen Elementary '58)


Posted by Peachy Keane on October 16, 2010 at 9:53 p.m.
_______________________________________________


Peachy,


 You keep inviting me to leave. That only makes me want to stay longer. PS MT CARMEL Elementary (Spring Glenn was for the Upper Crust)


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 17, 2010 at 12:59 a.m.
_________________________________________________


Peachy,
This entry below to Prof3 is from the Sleeper article posting board but it applies to your not so subtle post above. Sorry not to satisfy your need to see me gone. You missed Michael J. Whalen Jr. High School which preceded the erection of Sleeping Gaint. Now both gone--which I am not, to your irritation and my delight.
PK


Prof3
To use a sports metaphor (probably incorrectly): Posting on the YDN board is like volleyball, or badminton, or tennis--- it's seeing how long you can keep a volley going. It's sport, intellectual sport, but sport nonethless (except when insecure posters become NASTY.) My understanding of sport (except for certain obsessives like Tiger Woods and Andre Agassi) is that it is supposed to be for FUN and RELAXATION and for FILLING THE EXISTENTIAL ABYSS. Unfortunately, as Arthur Miller warned us so presciently in Death of a Salesman in 1949, the American Dream turns EVERYTHING into competetion: "Willy Loman had a good dream, it's the only dream you can have ---to come out number one man." One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do. Welcome to the American three-dog nightmare.
PK


Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 17, 2010 at 1:16 a.m.
_______________________________________________


 No invitation. just hghlight of a man w/o integrity (aka a liar) Look forward to your inanities. always good for laff


Posted by Peachy Keane on October 17, 2010 at 1:21 p.m.
_______________________________________________


Peachy Keane:


I suggest that you be cautious about how you alter a person's writing; how you use their name, and how you refer to their character. Your current behavior may not be in your best interest.


PK
Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 17, 2010 at 2:57 p.m.
_______________________________________________


I read a blog commenting on these acts to the effect that it was simply a bunch of men humiliating themselves. He attributed the behavior to men acting powerless in a hazing ritual. Since I cannot get inside the head of a man, I would have to say that may be so. But if this is the case, it is only an expression of powerlessness only in relation to other men. It is an expression of violent power over women. The latter expression is more virulent issue here given the innate inequality, in most cases (speaking about the sheer differences between the sexes in physical size and strength), of the power structure between men and women.
Men who do not take rape, the threat of rape, or making light of rape seriously do so because they are coming from a position of PRIVILEGE. The only way men will be able to grasp the threat that is implicit in this behavior is to understand what it feels like to be victimized by somebody in a higher position of power. Think race theory and apply it to gender inequality. If you don’t understand, READ about it until you do.
Your disingenuous apology, issued only in response to the intensity of the trouble you brought upon yourselves, is an embarrassment and an affront to my human rights as well as my dignity. It will take a lot more than an apology and an appearance at a discussion group to make this right.


Posted by WoobieTuesday on October 17, 2010 at 4:36 p.m
________________________________________________


 [Page 1 of 2] I think that the acts perpetrated by the DKE frat and their pledges could be argued to fall under the First or Second Degree crime of bias, a Class C (or D, respectively) felony. See: [http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0276.htm][1]
According to Connecticut Senior Research Attorney, Christopher Reinhart, the elements of 2nd Degree Bias under Connecticut criminal law proscribe that:
A person commits the second degree crime if he acts maliciously and intends to intimidate or harass someone because of [her]...gender... if he threatens to either make physical contact (i.e., “no means yes”–’You say no to sex with me, I will make you have sex with me.’ That’s an EXPLICIT threat of physical contact) and the victim has reasonable cause to believe he will carry out the threat.
This means that the victim(s) of the threat must have reasonable cause to believe that the man or men chanting the threat will carry out the threat. The legal standard brought by the language of this legislation is that of the doctrine of reasonableness, or reasonable cause.
Is it reasonable for an 18-21 year old female (or any other person, for that matter–but these chants were specifically targeting an audience of Yale frosh women, i.e. “I f— dead WOMEN,” “f—ing SLUTS”) to feel threatened by a very likely drunken mob of more than 20 exuberant men marching in her immediate vicinity under cover of darkness and maliciously chanting about raping her?
These are men who are apparently willing to say and do ANY STUPID THING NECESSARY to please their frat "brothers". Tell me, why would a woman who has never before encountered these men, who has no basis upon which to form an opinion about their intention apart from the words and actions that she is viewing at that instant, think that they are willing to do anything BUT what they are saying??
I am not a Yale student. I did not witness the demonstration first hand. But as a woman all too aware of the inherent physical imbalance of power which generally exists between men and women, I feel thoroughly threatened by these acts. The words these men were chanting were quite purposeful and meaningful. They were meant to intimidate women.


Posted by WoobieTuesday on October 17, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.
________________________________________________


[Page 2 of 2] I say again what I have said before: Men who do not take rape, the threat of rape, or making light of rape seriously do so because they are coming from a position of PRIVILEGE. The only way men will be able to grasp the threat that is implicit in this behavior is to understand what it feels like to be victimized by somebody in a higher position of power. Think race theory and apply it to gender inequality. If you don’t understand, READ about it until you do.
Of course, as women we're not off the hook. But there is much more effect to be had when an enlightened man from the privileged group makes an effort to right wrongs, than from the underprivileged group which so often comes across as whining, bitching and complaining. What compounds the injury, in my opinion, is the lack of any discussion over these heinous acts. And, specifically, the lack of outrage in the majority of the male population. I, for one, am not content to limit my activism in response to these acts to posting on blogs or newspapers. I will press for prosecution of the responsible individuals. I will press for removal of the Yale DKE charter. I will press for expulsion of the DKE fraternity organizers of the pledge march and for suspension of the pledges. Count on it.


Posted by WoobieTuesday on October 17, 2010 at 6:19 p.m.
_____________________________________________


Your pretentious assumption that anyone should spend time reading a post so long it requires two separate comment boxes offends me.




Posted by YaleConservative on October 17, 2010 at 9 p.m
____________________________________________


 Yes, it's a lot to ask. I would imagine that is especially difficult for you, YaleConservative.


Posted by WoobieTuesday on October 17, 2010 at 9:08 p.m.
_____________________________________________


The YDN Posting Board is an intellectual buffet. Pick and choose what suits you. Look carefully for food that has begun to spoil. PK






Posted by The Anti-Yale on October 17, 2010 at 9:11 p.m.This culture of "hatred and violence" began with the sado-masochistic Old Testament God of Wrath who in Deuteronomy ordered that "all Hittites and Canaanites be killed, every single one of them" (aka genocide).