» Culture

PJM Lifestyle

Christian Persecution Is a Resurrected Form of Antisemitism

Sunday, April 19th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Paula,

I found your piece to be very timely based on the thoughts coming from my Christian friends regarding the growing persecution of the Christian church abroad and at home. One comment I received regarding a recent Tatler post acknowledges what many of my friends have already expressed:

Ms. Goldberg,
I have heard the expression “Sunday comes after Saturday,” which as I understand is the answer in the Muslim Middle East to why they persecute Jews so much and persecute Christians less. This is confirmed by your article. Once all the Jews have left, they will come after the Christians.
–Andrew W.

When we Jews hear your shock we respond with all-too familiar nods, as you are beginning to understand what we have experienced for thousands of years. I would like to reach out to you to highlight an essential concept you and my Christian friends have missed in the important discussion of how to fight back against persecution, so that you may be better equipped to handle what is already coming your way.

You cite Peter (Hebrew name Kefa) who was a Jew who wrote to a primarily Jewish audience (1:1 “exiles of the Dispersion” – i.e. the Diaspora of 70 A.D. that followed the destruction of the second Temple, or even the descendants of the first diaspora – Jews lived everywhere in that area in ancient times) who, joined with gentile counterparts, believed in a Jewish Messiah. These were outcasts because they were adherents to Jewish culture in a Roman (pagan) world. From that perspective I’d encourage all Christians to think along the lines of understanding the Biblical persecution which they reference as a contemporary form of antisemitism.

I agree with David Goldman (Spengler) that Christians aer an off-shoot of the Jewish faith, “gentiles to be inducted into Israel.” This is a historical, cultural identification at its most basic level. Without Torah you wouldn’t have the concept of Messiah; without the Jewish people you wouldn’t have a Messiah in which to believe. Therefore, if you choose to follow your Jewish faith you will be subjected to Jewish problems, the antisemitism of which Kefa writes being one of them.

Welcome to the tribe!

This Jewish fact, as detailed fully in your scriptures, explains why Christians have wrestled with meshing their gentile identity and their Jewish faith for thousands of years. Biblical-era antisemitic persecution morphed into Church-era theological discussions about the “replacement” of Israel and the “death” of the law, that is, Torah. This in turn, justified further antisemitic persecution as theologically motivated as the radical Islamic persecution of which you write. As a result, gentiles find themselves wrestling between the safety of a gentile, secular identity and a Biblical, Jewish faith. Identify with the former and you risk denying your God. Identify with the latter and you will be persecuted on this earth in one way or another. 

I am truly sorry for my Christian friends who are only waking up to the reality of what antisemitism means on a personal level.

Paula, while you are hopeful, I have witnessed and experienced far too much to believe that the threat of beheading is left to foreign shores. We say every Passover that in each generation, a Pharaoh rises up to annihilate us. As the letter you cite indicates, the Devil is everywhere on the prowl.

Do not be willing to submit yourselves to “bullying” knowing that your brothers and sisters an ocean away are suffering far worse. Rather, take this bit of advice from a former Co-Director of a Holocaust-Genocide resource center: Use your spiritual beliefs to motivate practical action in addressing all forms of evil so that none of them can take root. 

Sincerely,

Susan

Read bullet | Comments »

The Best New York Cinema is Indie Cinema

Friday, April 17th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

In terms of New York while Mr. Wargas named many good box office hits, he left out the entire genre of independent, low-budget cinema that screams New York in ways big directors and big dollars cannot. Case in point: Crossing Delancey, my soul’s addiction that requires yearly viewing.

The almost Yiddishkeit story of a Jewish girl who shook off her Lower East Side roots for the promises of the elite literati, only to find herself falling in love with a Pickle Man from the old side of the tracks, Crossing Delancey is like the city itself. It is spiritually rooted in the past, firmly grounded in the present, ever-questioning the future. It is both literal and visceral, practical and mystical. It is the pursuit of love in person, place, and idea altogether inseparable.

Joan Micklin Silver directed the film produced by its star, Amy Irving. The shout-out to the Guerilla Girls was a snide flip of the finger at the grotesque bias against women in the film industry. Jennifer Westfeldt owes her career in part to these trailblazers of Working Girl-era film feminism.

Infused with the neshama, the spiritual nature inherent to the female sex, Crossing Delancey asks of its protagonist and its audience, “Who are you?” That is the question every immigrant, visitor and newborn has and will hear when arriving on her stinking golden shores. “Who are you and what are you doing here?” It is brutal, incisive and promises the gift of Divine truth if answered honestly. Crossing Delancey captures the idea of New York, the gateway to the goldena medina, the promised land where anyone, immigrant and indie filmmaker alike, can make their dreams come true.

Read bullet | Comments »

Is YouTube a ‘Garbage Can,’ as Jerry Seinfeld Says?

Friday, April 17th, 2015 - by Robert Wargas

shutterstock_154236329

Jerry Seinfeld recently called YouTube “a giant garbage can [...] for user-generated content.”

I can’t fault him for saying this. In this narcissistic age, YouTube is just one of the many receptacles of vanity available to the demos.

That said, Seinfeld’s comment is ultimately inaccurate. I think it’s useful to think of YouTube not as a garbage can but as a flea market. Flea markets are full of junk whose owners think it worthwhile enough to attempt to sell to the general public. Most of the stuff is worth only a quick glance and a shrug or a scoff. But there are also little treasures to be found—things that are available quite literally nowhere else on the planet.

Consider all the things you’ve searched for, and found, on YouTube. Now consider where else you would have been able to find them absent YouTube. Nowhere. Well, perhaps somewhere, but not without onerous searching, waiting, and probably paying.

Old debates? Documentaries? Tutorials on fly fishing? Old episodes of Miami Vice? That boxing match from 1992? That cartoon you watched as a kid? Winston Churchill speeches? Phil Collins singing at Live Aid? You found it all on YouTube.

Now play the same game, but with the Internet in general. I’ll wait….

*****

image illustration via shutterstock / 

Read bullet | 12 Comments »

Why Do All Men’s Colognes Smell the Same?

Thursday, April 16th, 2015 - by Robert Wargas

shutterstock_69789853

I used to be a cologne fanatic — I bought a lot of them — until a few years ago when I suddenly admitted to myself, after perhaps a few years’ worth of denial, that all men’s colognes were starting to smell the same. I got bored and stopped buying them.

Has anyone noticed this? There is no genuine variety. Somewhere around the Acqua Di Gio era, all manufacturers began top-loading their fragrances with overpowering citrus and other potent “fresh” scents. We’ve reached the point where there’s very little to distinguish between what a teenager douses himself with when he wants to pick up girls at Mike the quarterback’s keg party and what an adult wears to a wedding or romantic date. Must we all smell like we’re in the middle of Abercrombie & Fitch?

****

image illustration via shutterstock /  

Read bullet | 30 Comments »

A&E’s Neighbors With Benefits Pulled After 2 Episodes: Has Our Morality Grown Back?

Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 - by Rhonda Robinson

In case you missed it, A&E launched a new series titled Neighbors With Benefits on March 22. The reality show about a neighborhood of spouse-swapping couples only aired two of its scheduled nine seasons before getting the ax.

Maybe A&E is starting to get it. The reason for the success of the hit Duck Dynasty is not that it is a counterculture freak show. The family’s appeal lies as much in their wholesome family-centered lifestyle as it does in their non-conforming looks and disregard for a politically correct culture.

Neighbors With Benefits presented a totally opposite lifestyle. It suggested that living by a canine code of sexual conduct is actually good for a marriage.

Could this cancelation be an indicator that America’s taste for perversion has finally induced nausea?

Read bullet | 16 Comments »

Why the Government Nannies May Be Right When It Comes to Eating Meat

Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Like my PJ colleague Liz Shield, I dislike government nannies of any kind. Yet, I can’t help but be pleased with the latest recommendation from the Feds: “A dietary pattern that is higher in plant(s) … and lower in animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact.” And it has nothing to do with the quantity of methane in cow farts.

The reality is that a plant-based diet is better for your health. Note, I did not say vegan, nor vegetarian. “Plant-based” is a style of diet that puts plants before meat and any other processed product you’d put into your body. Mediterranean diets proffering fish, poultry and other lean meats are highly plant based and continue to prove to be one of the best diets for optimal health. And we aren’t just talking physical health, either. Mental health is hugely impacted by the quantity and quality of vitamins and minerals we take in on a daily basis. Both psychological studies and personal experience testify to the fact that kids and adults who eat veggies are happier, healthier, and less likely to be drugged on behavioral medications. What’s going to be a richer, diverse source of nutrients, a dinner that is 75% greens or 75% processed cow parts?

Yet, we cringe at the idea of public school kids being fed salad for lunch. Salad isn’t a bad thing, having the government tell us what we can and can’t eat is a bad thing. In our resistance to government interference, we risk missing the greater point: What we eat matters. Studies come and go and the factors that go into these studies, especially from a funding and lobbying point of view, are never adequately addressed. Surely this latest line is a political one meant to motivate environmentalist legislation above all else. But that doesn’t turn the grain of truth, the reality that a plant-based diet is good for you, into a lie. If anything, it abuses the truth for a political point. That abuse, not the recommendation to eat plants, is the sin in the conversation.

Read bullet | 33 Comments »

Is a Sick Child an Asset to a Bankrupt State?

Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 - by Rhonda Robinson

YouTube Preview Image

When I try to grasp what Michelle and Isaiah Rider’s life has become over the past year I think of nightmares so horrible you make a conscious effort to wake yourself up. Tragically, there is no waking up from this. On March 11, an Illinois judge plunged this small family of two deeper into the dark world of Illinois’ Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

Riders

Michelle and Isaiah Rider. Photo curtesty of Michelle Rider

Michelle and Isaiah are now living in what seems like a strange, alternate world where the freedoms they once believed they had don’t exist. Now they are captive to a system that tears apart families and devours children. The two entered this real-life Twilight Zone when they traveled to Illinois for Isaiah’s much-needed surgery.

Due to a rare neurological condition, painful tumors developed along Isaiah’s nerves. Although Michelle and Isaiah are both residents of Missouri, it was decided, together with their doctor, to travel to Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago for the surgery. When complications set in, as they often did for Isaiah, the hospital was ill-equipped to diagnose or relieve his suffering. Michelle, a registered nurse by profession, believed it was her right and responsibility as his mother to have her son transferred to a hospital that had successfully treated him in the past.

The hospital administration did not see it that way.

Instead of complying, two social workers and the director of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) led Michelle into a small room. There she was stripped of her hospital band and parental rights. After informing the distraught mother they were charging her with “medical child abuse” (also known as Munchausen by proxy), they waited for her to stop sobbing and escorted her out of the hospital.

While in the ICU, Isaiah was forcibly separated from his mother far beyond the customary 48 hours. He was not allowed to see or hear from his mother for 24 days. He was then dumped in a foster home.

That was over a year ago. You can catch up on their story in more detail herehere and at The Blaze.

Since then a lot has happened. While Isaiah was recovering from his ordeal in foster care, his mother told PJ Lifestyle that her son was raped at gunpoint. Although Isaiah reported the assault, the crime was not fully investigated. Instead, his case is showing all the earmarks of a coverup.

Isaiah has continued to suffer from the same complications of his condition. Most recently, his mother told PJ Lifestyle that Isaiah was diagnosed with a lesion on his brain. For the last three months, his family has tried in vain to get medical help. However, the state of Illinois must approve every aspect of his care — and they are neglectfully slow.

Isaiah’s condition has not changed but has instead worsened outside of his mother’s care.

This is significant because according to CriticalCareNurse Vol 30, No. 6, DECEMBER 2010

Both the diagnosis and the cure for the victim of MSbP [Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy] is complete separation from the perpetrator, a total parentectomy.

Is there more to this story? That is a distinct possibility.

“There must be more to the story,” is the first and natural response to a story like this. It’s a defense mechanism. There is a tendency to think that the government and the agencies we give authority to are just. We need to believe that a “service” intended to protect children does just that.

The problem with this false sense of security lies in the idea that government institutions are inherently good. Since these are made up of human beings, we also assume that people are trustworthy and moral by nature.

On what do we base this assumption?

This is not a biblical principle, nor is it one the Founding Fathers believed. They saw the vices of government and men and attempted to put checks and balances in place. Although they knew and understood corrupted power, it’s doubtful they could fathom our republic so infected with cultural Marxism that it would become incapable of recognizing rudimentary parental rights.

What if the system is not good? What if men and women steeped in their selfish desires use their power for their gain? Then there certainly would be more to this story.

The state of Illinois has refused to loosen its grip on this boy.

Consider this: Isaiah reported he was raped at gunpoint while in foster care. His pleas for help have gone virtually ignored. He has pleaded to go home. He was not allowed into a courtroom where his fate was being decided.

What does a bankrupt state, riddled with corruption, have to gain by holding on to a young man with chronic medical needs?

Let’s look at the roots of all evil. When looking for a motive, follow the money trail. A child is a valuable commodity in a morally bankrupt culture. Michelle Rider said she noticed a notation on Isaiah’s transfer papers, which stated he is Title IV-E eligible:

“Funding is awarded by formula as an open-ended entitlement grant and is contingent upon an approved title IV-E plan to administer or supervise the administration of the program… Funds are available for monthly maintenance payments for the daily care and supervision of eligible children; administrative costs to manage the program; training of staff and foster care providers; recruitment of foster parents and costs related to the design, implementation and operation of a state-wide data collection system.” Children’s Bureau

The incentive and motive are surely there for the agency. What about the individuals involved? What could they possibly have to gain that would justify robbing this or any other family of their most elementary human needs — their parental rights?

Stay on that money trail. It leads deeper and deeper into the lowest bowels of a very sick culture.

YouTube Preview Image

*********

Photo Credit Shutterstock: LeviQ

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

Does a Podcast Have to be About Sex to be Feminist?

Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Salon’s resident feminist Jenny Kutner chronicled her top 7 feminist podcasts that are “way sexier than Serial“. A spin-off of This American LifeSerial is a non-fiction podcast that harkens back to the golden era of radio, sourcing material from old headlines to generate serial tales of true life criminal investigations. It’s as remarkable as any other product of the entertainment industry in that it’s managed to put a slight twist on a tried and true endeavor. But feminist? Not particularly. And neither are Kutner’s alternatives.

Sexy, yes. Six out of the seven essentially discuss only sex. The seventh, Crybabies, is a podcast hosted by two women who get weepy. A lot. As in “let’s listen to this Adele song and cry”. It’s strange that a contemporary feminist would cite a crying female podcast as a feminist totem given all that angry bra-burning for which they’re supposedly famous. Isn’t crying contradictory to their anti-biology trend?

In any case, why does a podcast have to be about sex in order to be considered feminist? Are buzz words like “frank and funny” or “deep and interesting” enough to justify discussions about orgasms, phone sex and drag queens as being feminist? What’s the alternative for women looking to embrace their empowerment outside the bedroom?

Read bullet | Comments »

The Latest 20-Something Feminist Fashion Trend: Fifty Shades of Gray…Hair?

Monday, April 6th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

It really is as strange as it sounds.

While pop artists like Katy Perry and Selena Gomez tween themselves down to look like hypersexual pre-pubescents, models in their twenties are dying their locks gray in an embrace of the “granny hair” trend sweeping the runway. Being inspired by older models strutting the catwalk with natural gray hair is admirable, but are these bright young things searching for a relevance lacking in their own generation? Actress Carole Lombard once commented:

With age there comes a richness that’s divine. Age takes on a beauty everyone can’t see, perhaps. But I see it … I don’t know of anything in the world more beautiful, more fascinating than a woman ripe with years, rich and lush as velvet with experience, her humor as tangy and flavorous as sunriped fruit. If women wouldn’t get so self-conscious about getting old, they wouldn’t get old mentally, and then they wouldn’t be old at all, only wise and simply divine. I LOVE the idea of getting old.

Or is this just another sad pop attempt to sexualize the previously tame image of a woman’s senior years? Is it still “defiant feminism” when you’re simply playing sexy masquerade? Even creepier still, is this another sign of feminism’s narcissistic embrace of a nihilistic mentality?

Read bullet | 19 Comments »

Is It Time Women Start Apologizing for Being Feminists?

Friday, April 3rd, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

With her song “Sorry Babe, You’re a Feminist” comedian and songwriter Katie Goodman reacts to the onslaught of millennial celebrities who refuse to take on the title of “feminist” with reasons ranging from the practical (“like voting, like driving?”) to the politically stereotypical rants about online conservatives (perhaps she has yet to encounter Christina “Factual Feminist” Hoff Sommers via AEI?) and obnoxious commentary about math being “hard.”

Where’s her line about being sexually subservient like Queen Bey, going on a local Slut Walk, or falsely accusing a male college student of rape? What about the needs of women in the Islamic and third worlds? She mentions education, but never bothers to acknowledge the anti-feminist mentalities that lead to generations of women growing up ignorant, sexually mutilated, or forced into marriages or sex slavery.

After hearing her rhyming rant of a tune, would you want to call yourself a feminist, or is Goodman merely personifying the many reasons why women are turning away from the feminist movement today?

Read bullet | Comments »

Rich Woman Sentenced to 20 Years for Cheap Abortion

Friday, April 3rd, 2015 - by Rhonda Robinson

shutterstock_90130183

Pervi Patel, an Indiana woman, was sentenced Monday to 20 years in prison for not having a proper abortion.

According to the Chicago Tribune Patel opted for the convenience of abortifacient drugs from China, rather than seeking the assistance of a doctor. When the infant was born premature and still alive, the new mother left him on the floor to die, and then threw the baby in a trash can.

Judge Elizabeth Hurley took a moment to scold Patel for her actions at sentencing.

“You, Miss Patel, are an educated woman of considerable means. If you wished to terminate your pregnancy safely and legally, you could have done so,” Hurley said. “You planned a course of action and took matters into your hands and chose not to go to a doctor.”

Apparently, Miss Patel will be serving time in prison, not for killing her baby–but for doing it on the cheap.

*********
Photo Credit: Shutterstock, Gunter Nezhoda

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Woman Trades Baby Wishes for Open Marriage

Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Robin Rinaldi wanted children more than anything. Instead of pursuing the journey of motherhood, she wound up experiencing what is being dubbed “feminist enlightenment” through sexual exploration, chronicled in her new book The Wild Oats Project:

When she was in her mid-30s and engaged to be married to a man several years older, Rinaldi, the author of a new book called “The Wild Oats Project,” entered premarital counseling with a quack named George. Rinaldi wanted kids, and her future husband did not.

…In fact, he had a vasectomy. And so Rinaldi decided that if she couldn’t have children, at least she should get to have a lot of sex with a lot of different men and women — and men and women together.

Yes, the logic escapes me, too — and I read the whole book. It seems to have something to do with the fact that both having children and having promiscuous sex are expressions of her “femininity.” Regardless, her husband apparently felt so guilty (or spineless) that he agreed to “open” their marriage for a year.

…Trying to suppress maternal desires in an effort to seem enlightened has the potential for disaster — as Rinaldi quickly learned.

Rinaldi’s conclusion: “I learned I didn’t need a man or a child in order to experience true womanhood.” Apparently she needed several men … and other women, for that matter. Which leads to the question, why did she “seethe” when she learned of friends’ pregnancies and dedicate her book to Ruby, the daughter she never had?

Is feminism still a movement focused on women’s equality, or has it become a narcissistic cult proffering temporal ego-satisfying sex in exchange for the eternal fulfillment of motherhood?

Read bullet | 11 Comments »

Fooled Again: Why Do So Many American Converts to Islam Learn to Hate Their Home?

Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 - by Robert Spencer

 Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 6.20.32 AM

Spc. Hasan Edmonds, a Muslim member of the U.S. Army National Guard, was arrested last Wednesday at Chicago’s Midway Airport. He had been planning to join the Islamic State. His cousin, Jonas “Yunus” Edmonds, was arrested as well. They had allegedly been plotting a jihad attack against a U.S. military facility – making Hasan Edmonds the latest in a long line of people who convert to Islam and then turn traitor.

Is it just a coincidence that so many converts to Islam come to regard the country in which they were born and raised, the land of the families and forefathers, as an enemy? Or is there some connection?

Hasan Edmonds clearly believed that his new religion required a shift of his allegiance. “I am already in the American kafir [infidel] army,” he told an informant in January, “and now I wish only to serve in the army of Allah alongside my true brothers.”

He also expressed the desire to carry out a jihad attack in the U.S. – something on the scale of January’s jihad murders in Paris at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine and the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket: “Honestly,” said Edmonds, “we would love to do something like the brother in Paris did” – that is, commit mass murder among people he had once considered his countrymen, and whom he had, as a National Guard member, sworn to protect

Edmonds thus joins other American converts to Islam who have turned traitor, including Sgt. Hasan Akbar, an American engineer from the 101st Airborne Division, who murdered Captain Christopher Scott Seifert, Major Gregory Stone, and wounded fifteen others in a grenade and small-arms attack in northern Kuwait on March 22, 2003. As he committed his murders, he yelled:

You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.

Yet Akbar was not Iraqi or Kuwaiti. He was an American from Los Angeles. But when he became a Muslim, any allegiance he may have had to America was gone. Likewise al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn and the Marin County Mujahid, John Walker Lindh, both of whom converted to Islam and ended up waging war against the country of their birth, on behalf of its enemies.

It isn’t just converts, either. A Muslim woman named Aqsa Mahmood is suspected of recruiting young women to join her in the Islamic State as “jihadi brides.” The BBC identified her in a February report as a “Scottish woman,” which means that she made her way from the land of her birth to join up with a group that has declared war upon Great Britain and the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Despite the BBC’s ready identifier of her nationality, however, it is extremely unlikely that Aqsa Mahmood considers herself a Scot in any way other than geographically. She almost certainly grew up in a Muslim area and was taught Islamic values, including the idea that one’s allegiance to Islam transcends all other allegiances, and that one is a member of the international Muslim community, the umma, before being anything else. Those ideas go along with distaste that the “best of people” (Qur’an 3:110) should have for the jahiliyya, the society of the “most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6) — unbelievers.

Simply by going to the Islamic State, Aqsa Mahmood showed that she clearly rejects a great deal of what most Scots would consider essential to what it means to be a Scot.

Yet for the BBC, she is as Scottish as William Wallace and Mary Queen of Scots — reflecting a key dogma of the Left: that sociocultural values are the same everywhere, and thus it is only geography that makes for nationality. Move a Russian to Poland, and presto, his children will be Polish.

The Western intelligentsia believes that if Aqsa Mahmood’s parents move to Scotland, and Aqsa is born there, Aqsa will grow up Scottish, with Scottish values — and that if she doesn’t, it is the fault of Scottish authorities, who declined to allow him to assimilate because of their racism. The idea that Aqsa’s parents (despite their protestations in reports about her activity) and other Muslims in Scotland might have had no interest in assimilating is not allowed to be discussed.

Meanwhile, if a group of Scots moved to Syria and established a small enclave, a Little Scotland within Syria, and had children born in Syria, would their children be considered Syrians, open and shut, without question? Would the BBC refer to them as Syrians, as in “a Syrian man, Alexander Burns”?

And will there be an honest discussion in the mainstream media about the relationship between Muslims’ allegiance to Islam and loyalty to the non-Muslim states in which they reside? Inconceivable – and that means that Aqsa Mahmood and Hasan Edmonds will not be the last Muslims to turn against their country, any more than they were the first.

*****

image illustrations via shutterstock / 

Read bullet | 26 Comments »

Are Stay-at-Home Moms Making a Difference in Their Kids’ Lives? New Study Says No

Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 - by Rhonda Robinson

YouTube Preview Image

 ”Does the amount of time children spend with their mothers matter for children’s developmental outcome?” The answer, according to researchers, is an emphatic no.

Under the microscope of this new study is what the researchers termed “intensive mothering” and its impact primarily on children ages 3-11:

Indeed, this ideology of intensive mothering –the belief that the proper development of children requires mothers lavishing large amounts of time and energy on offspring (Hays, 1996)— is pervasive in American culture, is central to the spirited debates over whether maternal employment harms children (Bianchi, 2000), and is embodied in the “Mommy Wars,” an alleged dispute between homemaker and employed mothers in which the former are said to accuse the latter of being selfish and harming children by being away from home too often (Hays, 1996). Journal of Marriage and Family

The study measured the quantity of time mothers spent with their children and compared that with the desired outcomes of academic achievement, behavior, and emotional well-being. The study concluded that “ideology of intensive mothering” (defined as lavishing large quantities of time on one’s offspring) not only had no bearing on the stated desired outcome, but in some cases was considered detrimental.

Researchers told the Washington Post their findings should relieve a lot of guilt for working parents. The study states cases deemed harmful were with children spending their time with emotionally drained mothers. It’s important to note that these were not just stay-at-home moms, but women who felt stressed, guilt-ridden and sleep-deprived.

Imagine that.

It wouldn’t surprise me if many, if not most of the mothers in the study are “helicopter” parents.

Mothering young children is intensive. It evolves over time. The desired outcome can’t be measured by academic success or the mental stability of an adolescent.

The deposit slips invested in a child’s life by a good mother are most accurately tallied when life is done.

*********

Photo credit, Shutterstock, Frank Fennema

Read bullet | 65 Comments »

Is Successful Feminism Capitalist Feminism?

Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Dame Stephanie “Steve” Shirley, while a wife and a mother of a special needs child, pioneered an all-female staffed software company in England in the 1960s. Fascinated by technology, she also had a head for business. Possessing an interest in employing working mothers, her staff were able to work from home in a variety of capacities, including as coders and programmers. A self-made millionaire, Shirley turned many of her employees into millionaires as well by opening stock options to them at a time when that was a relatively unheard of benefit. 

Adopting the nickname “Steve” in order to get her foot in the door with male clients, she employed “extraordinary energy, self-belief and determination” in a pre-second wave feminist era. Shirley didn’t wait for bras to be burned or Gloria Steinem to appear in her bunny suit before taking charge. In fact, the UK’s Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, a direct result of the second wave feminist backlash, required that Shirley hire more men into what she was proud to make a nearly all-female company.

This pioneering businesswoman’s story flies in the face of second wave feminist tropes regarding female business owners, women in the workplace, equal pay and women in STEM. Which demands the question: If feminism seeks to be an empowering voice for women, what can it learn from the ideologies, like capitalism, that it chooses to berate or ignore?

Read bullet | Comments »

Why Jewish Women Scare Lena Dunham (and the Rest of Hollywood)

Monday, March 30th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Jewish women are fierce. We carry many arrows in our quiver including love for life, command of the situation, determined opinions, and freedom of expression. We are not lithe and unfettered. We do not “go with the flow.” We don’t wait until we are on our deathbeds to express our emotions, resolve hurt feelings, or pursue our passions.

Ultra-Orthodox men pray thanks to God that they were not created a woman. This is only because they don’t have ovaries enough to take on our mantle.We are mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, prophetesses, administrators, investors, and the greatest security blanket men will ever know. But perhaps what shocks these religious men the most is that we regret none of it. This is why they need to hide behind sheets to protect themselves from their own animal lust for us, that is precisely how powerful we are. 

Thank God we are women; someone has to be in charge of this mess. And that is precisely why we are the objects of fear and scorn. Because what you cannot control, you try to contain and what you cannot contain you either love or hate with reckless abandon.

Hence, Jewish women are constantly the brunt of jokes in the entertainment world. Whether it’s yet another good Jewish boy succumbing to shiksappeal or Lena Dunham berating her Jewish boyfriend’s mother, Hebrew women just can’t win.  Our intellect becomes neurosis, our love becomes smothering, our agility becomes goofiness, our sexiness our comedy. In Freudian terms we are the mother from which no man can escape. In pop culture terms we’re the JAP, Jewish American Princess, to whom guilty Jewish men are obligated to commit in misery forever. When God commanded circumcision we’re the ones who didn’t stand in the way and now we’re doomed to forever pay the price for our holy allegiance.

But, don’t be fooled for one second into thinking we’re slaves. Dunham blames her boyfriend’s failings on his mother’s supposed cultural weaknesses:

…he comes from a culture in which mothers focus every ounce of their attention on their offspring and don’t acknowledge their own need for independence as women. They are sucked dry by their children, who ultimately leave them as soon as they find suitable mates. …As a result of this dynamic, he expects to be waited on hand and foot by the women in his life, and anything less than that makes him whiny and distant.

She offers the asinine complaint of feminism, the pagan belief that a woman cannot ever be truly independent because she is umbilically tethered to fostering life. It is a bizarre notion, one that makes no sense if we’re talking power and authority. A child cannot survive without its mother. Said mother not only nurtures and carries life within her body, she is the primary influence on that child from the moment they are born until the day they die. For better or worse, a mother’s relationship with her child has the greatest impact on their social, emotional and character development. Dunham acknowledges this concept in the negative only because she rejects her own womb as a burden instead of the greatest source of a woman’s power on earth.

Statistically Jewish women enjoy having children. Stereotypically, we have lovingly been dubbed “smothers.” Weaklings like Dunham who reject their womb power find humor in these stereotypes because their own egos are a poor substitute for the authority intrinsic to motherhood. They must constantly jab under the guise of humor in order to recharge their power source. Real women thrive on building up the ones they love. Lost women who have surrendered their biological power to political leadership are left seeking to offend. In the end, it is their only reward.

So if you ever wonder why feminists are stereotyped as bitter hags, look no further than the angst-ridden humor of Lena Dunham, feminism’s pop goddess who has sacrificed her wedding on the altar of gay marriage, her womb on the altar of Planned Parenthood. She has not chosen life, therefore death becomes her.

Read bullet | 19 Comments »

Are We Enslaved by Politics This Passover?

Sunday, March 29th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Recently I engaged in an interesting Twitter conversation on the ability to confirm a religion’s biblical veracity. My editor, David Swindle, had been approached by Mormons a few days prior and was seeking out further explanation to understand how the Book of Mormon confirmed or contradicted the Word of God. The gentleman he engaged could not answer his question, so I stepped in with Deuteronomy 18:17-22: The Spirit of God does not contradict the Word of God. That is the test of any faith, religion, or spiritual leader claiming to represent the God of the Bible. God is One, He cannot contradict Himself. If a person claims to speak for God, their words better match His, plain and simple.

This concept has been tailored over time in Judaism due to the horrors of diasporas, invasions, and Temple destructions. The scholarly culture that began codifying the oral law that would become the Talmud eventually proclaimed themselves the inheritors of the gift of prophetic interpretation. In a bureaucratic coup, these ancestors of today’s rabbis took command of the prophetic role from God’s hands. Hence, today’s Judaism is informed by the concepts that the biblical manifestation of the prophet died with the second Temple, and the Talmud (Rabbinic oral law) is the equivalent of the Torah, leaving religious authority within the realm of the rabbis.

Yet, Torah teaches us that all human beings fail and that spiritual leaders schooled in this truth are held to a higher standard of behavior, because of their willful acknowledgement of and commitment to this truth. Knowing this, we are to be even more vigilant when it comes to scrutinizing our teachers and their teachings. That doesn’t mean, however, that we are free to judge each other in the process. Being human, we are far too susceptible to getting caught up in the cult of leader-worship, leaving us vulnerable to criticism when our leader fails.

Take, for example, the Forward’s Jay Michaelson questioning why adherents of disgraced Rabbi Barry Freundel didn’t come forward with their suspicions sooner:

How can some of our community’s leading (if self-appointed) cultural sages lionize and valorize someone who, in fact, they didn’t really know that well? …I also wonder what criteria we use to evaluate our spiritual leaders when a serial sex offender can sneak past them. …There are questions that should have been asked, suspicions that should have been raised. But the self-reinforcing loops of elite power — X likes him, X is powerful, therefore I should like him — blinded those entrusted to keep watch.

One of Freundel’s converts, Bethany Mandel, treats Michaelson’s observation as a criticism of her own ability to judge Freundel’s character, while illustrating that as a convert she was the one being judged in turn:

To be clear, Freundel had a great deal of power over us, but while he could sometimes be controlling and manipulative, he could also be our greatest defender. I will never forget the evening when my then-boyfriend and I agreed to host another couple for a meal…. Upon learning of my status as a convert-in-process, the couple refused to eat my food without hearing directly from the rabbi that it was safe according to the laws of kashrut. My then-boyfriend, a friend and the husband literally ran from Dupont Circle to Georgetown to knock on Freundel’s door to ask about the status of my food.

This dangerous cycle of judgment and blame makes us all victims of one another instead of family, friends, or event compatriots. We become so caught up in the opinions of others, whether they be rabbis or fellow Jews, that we lose sight of who God is and our true purpose in being a part of the Jewish world.

In the wake of Israel’s elections we are being baited once again by this cycle of judgment and blame. Rabbis now feel compelled to preach politics from the bench to congregants pressured to question their allegiance to the concluding line of the Passover Seder: “Next year in Jerusalem!” Instead of finding unity in our eternal freedom as Jews, we’re squabbling over political leaders who will come and go. Instead of taking joy in one another, we’re seeking authoritative approval of our political opinions. Instead of rejoicing in our freedom, we are being bound by the threat of destruction. And when we succumb to the fear we transition from freedom to slavery. This victimhood propels our judgment of and separation from one another.

The rabbinic claim to prophecy should motivate us as a community to engage with the Word of God firsthand, not with the goal of disproving one another, but with the aim of being the people God has chosen us to be. When it comes to religious leadership, it is our prerogative to “trust, but verify.” We cannot be blamed for the failings of others. But we are answerable to God for our own actions, and judging one another is not in His playbook.

Read bullet | 117 Comments »

5 Rules for Victory in the Culture War

Friday, March 27th, 2015 - by Frank J. Fleming

 shutterstock_215375584

Wars. Everyone loves them. Lately we’ve had the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Women. But unlike those wars that come to an end when we defeat drugs, terror, and women, there is an unending war we’re all involved in: the Culture War.

Everyone knows the culture war is important to the future of this country, but the right has been deficient in fighting it. The only reason the right hasn’t been wiped out by the left’s cultural dominance is that the left’s ideas are so screamingly idiotic. But if we want classical liberal ideas like freedom, individualism, and punching hippies to gain ground, we need to go after culture.

HOW TO FIGHT THE CULTURE WAR

1. Consume.

To influence the culture, you have to be a part of it. And you have to know what’s out there and what’s popular. So read books, watch TV or the latest Netflix series, go to the movies, and play video games. And if you still think you don’t understand things, play more video games.And if your wife is like, “Why are you playing video games all the time?!” tell her, “I’m trying to save the country!” Why does she never believe me when I say that?

2. Make something.

And now that you’re part of the culture, you need to make things to add to it so the culture doesn’t suck. That means you need to get to work. Me, I write. You may have noticed that. You’re perhaps reading things I wrote right at this moment. I recently released my first novel, Superego (I may have mentioned it before), and I work at the creative agency making all kinds of cool stuff. But perhaps you don’t write. Maybe you sing songs or draw or something. I think that’s stupid, but run with it anyway. And you can also just blog and tell other people about the good stuff you see out there. Like you could say to other people, “Have you read Frank J. Fleming’s novel, Superego? It’s great!” That’s just an example of the things you can say, but if you want to steal that, that’s fine.

3. Don’t propagandize.

Okay, so you’re making cultural contributions to society. Now how do you use this to influence people toward liberty and free markets and all the good things? My advice: Forget about it.

Goal number one should always be to entertain. That should be your sole focus. If you have principles you truly believe in, that will seep into your work in a natural way. It’s like your principles are this nice curry sauce and the work you produce is this meat, simmering in the curry sauce and taking on the flavor of the spice, and now I’m hungry.

If you try to propagandize, it compromises your work. Like with fiction, trying to make a specific point about politics or something often means making characters act artificially or having one-dimensional villains to use as strawmen. I’m sorry, but no belief is so important that it’s worth bad art.

And realize that a lot of the younger people these days grew up seeing all the partisan arguing and are tired of it. So while some people like the red meat in politics, that never influences anyone, as your targets are all vegans. If you’re righteously ranting, you’re losing.

4. Abandon your favorite words.

So what do you want to promote, anyway? Liberty? Freedom? Rights? What the hell does that mean?

We cling to a lot of words, but things that mean something very specific to us may mean something completely different to someone else. Plus, because of politics, a lot of words and phrases carry a lot of baggage and will get you dismissed as soon as you open your mouth (“That’s just another right-winger ranting about magic ‘free markets’!”).

So abandon all of your favorite words — which only promote lazy thinking — and instead try to get to the core of what you want to promote. What’s another way to say you like liberty? To me, that means I think it’s possible for people to get along without having to constantly point guns at each other and tell everyone what to do. Really, I’m a pacifist. A well-armed pacifist.

5. Forget politics.

So you have all these great principles you want to share that you know will lead to a free and vibrant country. So how do you turn them to crap? Add politics.

Politics is all the principles we hold dear, seen through a glass darkly. Take everything you value and add compromise, tribalism, and power-hungry people until it’s all a bunch of garbage. And yet politics seems to be where all the focus always is, as people try to have the tail wag the dog and think they can drag the public where they need them to go by passing the right law or electing the right sociopath.

Conservatives especially have this idea that they need another Reagan, and everything will change, but it’s a fantasy. There is no Reagan who will fix everything. And there never was a Reagan in the first place. He never existed; it was just a shared delusion on the right. Check Wikipedia, and you’ll find there’s no entry for him.

If we want to make a better country, we need to talk to people and not to politicians. Let the other fools spend all their energy and anger banging their heads against the wall of politics while we put most of our energy into culture and cultivate a people who want freedom and treasure their opportunities, and let the politics follow from that. The reason to fight the culture war is that it is where the main battle will always be. And that’s why I will never stop playing video games. Just don’t tell my wife.

*****

Image illustration via 1000 Words / Shutterstock.com

Read bullet | 11 Comments »

Can Feminism Exist Without Institutions of Higher Education?

Thursday, March 26th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Anita Sarkeesian, self-dubbed “social justice activist,” details that, had she not engaged with the sphere of contemporary feminist academia, she would not have become a feminist. A convert to the faith, it was only by adopting the “systemic and institutional framework” depicted by modern feminist writers that Sarkeesian was able to “see how oppression manifests in many subtle ways under the systems of what bell hooks calls white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.”

Sarkeesian’s feminism wouldn’t exist without this systemic framework, a mode of thinking that has caused her to question the individualism she sees inherent within the “neo-liberal worldview.” Therefore, “choice feminism” empowers oppression, because a choice good for one woman isn’t necessarily good for all women.

Sarkeesian believes that “choice feminism obscures the reality that women don’t have a choice.” The real question is, if women refuse to believe in the “systemic and institutional framework” preached by feminist academics, are they free to embrace the reality of having more choices than they’ve previously been led to believe? What would a feminism free of oppression look like? Could it function outside the walls of the academic temple?

Read bullet | 15 Comments »

VIDEO: Israeli Sisters Mash Up Yemeni Folk With Hip-Hop Beats

Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

Need further proof that Israeli Jews are anything but racist towards their Arab counterparts? Listen to the music. A-WA brings the Yemeni folk beats made famous by Ofra Haza into the 21st century with style. They put a new twist on classic Barbie Jeep imagery, and as far as those fez baseball caps? Yes, please.

Read more about A-WA (pronounced Ay-wa, Arabic for ‘Yes’) here.

Read bullet | Comments »

Is the ‘Female Way of Learning’ Destroying Boyhood?

Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 - by Rhonda Robinson

IGOTIT

In my house ADD is considered a personality type, not a mental disorder.

I’ll admit that there were times when homeschooling my boys felt like keeping order in an asylum rather than a classroom. After raising five girls in a row, the two boys that followed stood in stark contrast. In fact, more than once my boys dumbfounded me.

For example, the time I explained a math problem to my son, for the umpteenth time. He had struggled with the concept for several days. This time, I secretly impressed myself. A mental news roll streamed through the back of my mind. “Brilliant explanation,” I thought. “This makes it all so crystal clear.” Just as my self-congratulatory thoughts began, I saw it. That flash of light in his eyes that showed actual brain activity.

“I got it!” he blurted.

“Yes!” I thought to myself. Waiting with the anticipation usually reserved for Christmas morning, I leaned in.

“Mom, you know that motor on the old lawn mower? Can I put that on my go-cart?”

As my over-inflated bubble of expectations burst into flames, all I could muster was, “No. However, you can go outside. Don’t come in for at least 30 minutes.”

Your first impression might be that I just gave up on the boy and sent him outside to play–and you would be wrong. I released him from captivity to burn off energy. It was a necessary move so that he could come back in and concentrate.

This is where a homeschool setting has the advantage over a public educational system simmered in cultural Marxism. Unlike teachers, mothers are not required to pound their boys into a cultural and political mold.

Rather than being appreciated for the future explorers, warriors and leaders they were designed to be, boys are viewed as defective little girls. Teachers want them to love reading and play nice, and no one wants to know where their hands have been. What is the real trouble with boys? Well, simply put, they are not girls.

Boys are no longer judged by their developmental standards. We have lost sight of a very basic tenet of humanity, one that our ancestors understood since the beginning of time: girls are very different from boys. Boys with uniquely masculine strengths, once prized, are no longer valued. In fact, these traits of boyhood are considered dangerous, even pathological.

Schools, steeped in the feminist agenda, have been instrumental in furthering what Susan L.M. Goldberg calls “gendercide” for some time now:

Should it come as any surprise that the idea of medicating away behavioral problems would be associated with a feminist movement….Medicine is the solution to eliminating those pesky biological and psychological problems an ineffectual ideology fails to confront.

She’s exactly right, and it all started in 1990.

videoboy

J.M. Stolzer explains that back in 1990, Carol Gilligan, a “difference feminist” and author of In a Different Voice, published a series of case studies that became widely accepted as fact. According to Stolzer, Gilligan hypothesized that it was the masculine bias deeply rooted in the American school system that was causing girls to suffer severely both psychologically and academically.

Gilligan garnered unprecedented exposure and acclaim from policymakers and academia–all accepting her theory without question. The cultural Marxists did what Marxists do best–they created an underclass of victims. What more compelling victim to raise money and change policy for than sweet little girls?

Women’s groups rallied and lobbied, and government agencies responded with funding, policy changes and programs. The “girl crisis” became a commonly held belief: girls are at a significant disadvantage in the American school system because a masculine bias tilts it.

All this happened with under an ounce of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Instead, it fit the narrative of what Thomas Sowell calls “the vision of the anointed”–and the paradigm shifted.

As it always does with cultural terrorists, the remedy implemented for the manufactured crisis has created a real crisis.

Stolzer writes,

Never before in the history of the American education system have we accepted a theoretical premise that suggested that males and females would follow similar developmental pathways. It appears that recently the female “way of learning” has become the gold standard in public schools and that those who deviate from this standard are assumed to be developmentally delayed, behaviorally disordered, and/or learning disabled.

For millions of years, males have been perfecting the art of “maleness,” and this maleness was considered throughout historical time to be extremely valuable to the functioning and maintenance of society (Stolzer, 2005). What are we to do now that, for the first time in the history of humankind, we have defined these ancient and uniquely male traits as pathological? The answer is that we have constructed a myriad of disorders (i.e., behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, and so on) that are currently rampant in the education system and in many instances require that male children use pharmaceutical drugs in order to alter their behavioral patterns so that they will conform to the scripts set forth by their female constituents (Stolzer, 2005). Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 10, Number 2, 2008

The “female way of learning” has become the standard for both sexes in the classroom, and the gold standard for behavior in general.

Just as we will never fully comprehend the emptiness in the world that an aborted child might have filled, so, too, the world suffers the loss of modern-day knights, and leaders subdued in boyhood.

As long as male traits are considered defective, boys will be left to sharpen their skills in the fantasy world of a video game. While the real world, in desperate need of heroes and bravery, is content to have him sitting quietly on the couch.

*********

Photo credits: Shutterstock, Pshenina_m,  LopoloMerla

Read bullet | 65 Comments »

VIDEO: Would You Enroll in Preschool for Adults?

Tuesday, March 24th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

The Wall Street Journal is covering the latest trend in rejuveniling among the Millennial set: preschool for adults, where “play is serious business.” Six adults pay anywhere from $300 to $1000 to crowd into a Brooklyn duplex on Tuesday nights from 7 – 10 p.m. and participate in everything from nap time to envisioning themselves as superheroes.

Student Amanda Devereux detailed her reasons for enrolling in the Pre-K at Cosmo:

The self-help and goal-setting aspects were new, but welcome. I can use all the help I can get in making it to the gym, even if it means creating a superhero to get me there. I’m looking forward to seeing whether the preschool experience changes me over the next month, and I’m excited to see where Miss Joni and Miss CanCan take us on our class field trip. Mostly though, I’m excited about the snacks.

Is this latest trend in seeking eternal youth another glorified self-help program, or a sign that our traditional cultural institutions aren’t filled with hope and change? Is there a solution to be found in regressive creativity, or is this just another attempt at blissful ignorance? If you enrolled in preschool today, what would you learn?

Read bullet | Comments »

VIDEO: What’s More Sexist, Meghan Trainor Singing to Her Future Husband, or JCPenney’s Butt-Firming Jeans for Teens?

Tuesday, March 24th, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

You have to admit the retro stylings of YouTube star Meghan Trainor make for some catchy little tunes. But in her latest video, Dear Future Husband, the siren dons pinup-wear while scrubbing the floor of a 50′s kitchen and warning her husband he’d better compliment her every day and buy her jewelry. Contemporary feminists are in an uproar over the classic imagery, but does Trainor have a better grip on the inherent power of her sexuality than the teenage girls who feel the need to buy “butt-enhancing jeans” at JCPenney?

The national department store catalog includes:

The “YMI Wanna Betta Butt Skinny Jeggings” boasts: “With a slight lift and shift and contouring seams, our wanna betta butt skinny jeggings hug you in just the right places to give you a firmer, more flattering look.”

Rewind Smoothie Super Stretch Booty Buddy Skinny Jeans” features “rear-end-enhancing structure” designed to “augment your jean collection — and your backside” and comes in an acid wash finish.

Penney’s isn’t alone. Several online stores including Modaxpress, Hourglass Angel, and even Amazon offer butt enhancing denim to a teenage crowd. Where’s the feminist outrage over a wardrobe enhancement specifically targeted to those vulnerable teen girls suffering all those dreaded body-image issues? Perhaps they’re too busy in Trainor’s kitchen arguing over who gets to make the pie.

 

Read bullet | Comments »

Men Who Don’t Pay

Monday, March 23rd, 2015 - by Ying Ma

We live in a society where lots of men do not pay. Not only do they fail to pay for the women with whom they go on a date, they increasingly do not even pay for themselves.

The men afflicted with this syndrome tend to be young, and are usually under the age of forty. Those who suffer most severely tend to be products of the nation’s top universities or respectable urban workplaces—where political correctness and leftwing ideology regularly trample over concepts such as chivalry and honor. At these institutions, the worst thing that could happen is to be perceived as racist, sexist or homophobic. Being a weasel that does not pay is not considered a source of embarrassment.

The occurrences of such male wussiness in modern society are too numerous to detail, but just a few examples can shed light on the nature and extent of this trend.

Example 1. A Stanford Law student in his mid-twenties declined to take his date to dinner, claiming that he had been “eating too much lately.” Just the evening before, he met her at a dinner party at her apartment, where he was not at all deterred from eating the food that was available in abundance for free. He does not hail from a poor family, but on his date, he shelled out only $2.50 for an ice cream cone for the lady and then quickly got to the point: to secure what young men usually want from women.

Example 2. A 35-year-old captain in the Air Force met his date for happy hour at a sports bar. His date ordered a beer at the bar before they sat down at a nearby table. Later in the evening, when the waitress presented the check, he studied it intently and asked his date if she had already paid for her own drink. She said no, and reached for her wallet. He insisted, “I got it.” As it turned out, her beer, which cost no more than $5, was not even included on the check. He was a graduate of Columbia University who eagerly defended President Barack Obama and compared his nine years of service in the Air Force to indentured servitude.

Example 3. A man in his late thirties met a lady for a drink at a crowded establishment in New York’s Nolita district. She arrived early and bought a drink at the bar. When the man arrived, he, too, ordered a drink, and suggested relocating to the restaurant’s outdoor patio. The lady suggested he settle his tab first. He shrugged, said, “[the staff] will find us,” and walked outside. The busy bartenders did not notice that their customer had left and never bothered to look for him outside, and the man never paid. At the time, he served in a senior position at the Department of Commerce.

Read bullet | 163 Comments »