I write about the things that matter to me. All opinions are my own.

Search This Blog

Friday, March 31, 2017

Originally written in response to a question about whether the Jewish religion, or Jewish people, are part of a conspiracy to take over the world/subjugate non-Jews, as is claimed in some videos purporting to be scholarly. 

Let me first say that I am not a rabbi nor am I a scholar of Judaism. I wasn't even the most attentive student in religious school. But I was raised in a completely religious Jewish environment, and I was exposed to Jewish beliefs, Jewish culture, and the Jewish community in the New York City area. So I feel pretty confident about the things I am about to say.

Number one, the Jews have no plan to take over the world, either now or at some point in the future. Think about it. If we had a plan to take over the world, what is that plan exactly? We must have it very well hidden, because any time you get two Jews in a room there are about 100 different opinions about any issue under discussion.

Number two, within the Jewish community, the vast majority of people do not even believe in God. They do not identify as Jewish. Half of all Jewish marriages are to non-Jewish people. So the assimilation rate is extremely high. Again, if we had a master plan, it is hard to understand how many of us would actually be practicing members of other faiths. You could argue that Jews secretly practice other faiths in order to propagate Judaism at some point later on, but I have never heard of that happening.

That said, I do think there is some kind of master plan, and that it involves subjugating most of the human race. Can I prove this? Of course not. But there is so much obvious deception out there, so much silencing going on, so much that just does not add up. There seem to be a very few people who know what's going on, while the rest of us are in the dark. And it seems very often like President Trump is fighting an enemy that he cannot share with the rest of us.

If there is a master plan, it is most definitely not a Jewish one, not religiously and not politically. From a Jewish point of view, our Scripture tells us constantly NOT to try and turn other people into Jews. We do not recruit. As far as land goes, we historically and religiously claim only one small space, which is Israel. Unlike other religions, which claim land far and wide, and then say they can't retreat from it. So we don't want extra people and we don't want extra space. Again, this is far from the actions of a group with a master plan.

Do we want to subjugate non-Jewish people when the Messiah comes? In Isaiah it is very clear that we do not. The prophet says that all people who fear God will join together to serve Him as one, even those who are not Jewish. There is no language anywhere in the Bible that suggests we seek to dominate other peoples.

Now - what about the bad behavior of Jews themselves? Theology cannot fix this. The fact of the matter is that there are some Jews, maybe many Jews, who act bad - just like in every other religion. This means you have religious Jews who think they are "better." You have non-religious Jews who think they are "better." You have thieves and liars and pedophiles. You have wife-beaters. All of it.

As far as Israel goes, the historical record shows that when Zionism first started, there was a huge debate in the Jewish community. Some Jews were completely secular, in fact they were communists, and they simply wanted to move to the land and create a safe haven for the Jewish people there. Other Jews were more religious, and viewed Zionism as a tremendous existential threat from a religious point of view. They saw, accurately, that there would be an ideology of nationalism, and that nationalism would conflict with religion.

What we see many years later is that Jews, under the rubric of Zionism, have done many things that we should not be proud of or defend. I personally am ashamed of them. But it is also true that we have a real survival threat, and that there was a Holocaust, that we bought the Land of Israel, and that the U.N. created Israel. Also, the Arab countries expelled 850,000 of us, and nobody really cared about that. Unfortunately when people persecute Jews, the world does not exactly cry.

Please note, I am well aware that there are sick cults who do all sorts of things, and that they may call themselves Jews, but I am immersed in the religious community, and among us (and in fact in any mainstream Jewish community, whether Orthodox or not) there is no such thing.

_______________

All opinions my own.
"Crying makes me question your judgment," said Barbara Corcoran on Shark Tank.

The entrepreneur was sobbing after a harsh dressing-down by "Mr. Wonderful," Kevin O'Leary.

She'd walked with a pitch for her eyelash-extension business, but the "sharks" weren't having it.

The problem was that she had misconceived her strength.

It wasn't in the intellectual property behind the more efficient process she used.

Rather, it was herself, the brand she had developed, the look, the following -- in short, the service model behind the business itself.

The truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and as usual Kevin delivered it brutally.

She broke out in tears, and for that Barbara Corcoran chastised her too.

Lori Greiner, the other female "shark," disagreed with Barbara. She made a show of supporting the contestant's right to express her vulnerability.

But the truth is that Barbara was right. If you're a woman, especially, you do not want to cry in front of your boss. In fact there is a very good book with this title. It's called If You Have To Cry, Go Outside: And Other Things Your Mother Never Told You, by PR executive and reality TV star Kelly Cutrone.

This does not mean that you should be a stone, either.

The truth is that some vulnerability at work is not only healthy, but vital.

You need to be able to show your weakness, at times, because, as they say, "stuff happens." Particularly stuff with other people. They say or do something, and in the absence of understanding why, you come to your own conclusions.

That survival mechanism kicks in, and suddenly you are on the defensive.

It is at this point that many people screw up.

Instead of doing what they should be doing, which is to PAUSE AND REFLECT AND ASK QUESTIONS, they simply act on whatever assumptions are flying around in their heads.

A better approach, if you can, is to write down whatever you are feeling, and then look at it on a piece of paper. What you are doing in that moment, when stress is flowing through your body, is of the ultimate importance. For we, when under attack, react exactly as animals do: fight or flight, we take on the world or we run, because we see ourselves in mortal danger.

It is commonly assumed that people have better coping skills than they do. And so frequently, bad news is delivered on a Friday, "because they can take the weekend to recover."

In reality what happens is that people take the weekend to ruminate.

As a professional, no matter what level of job you hold, it is so important to develop some way of handling those moments when you are vulnerable at work.

As a general rule, you should never react instantaneously. You know that.

You do need to take a break, think, and most of all express in some safe way what it is that you are feeling.

Observing yourself as though you were a kind of scientist, the next step is to evaluate what you have just put down on paper. Are all those assumptions justified?

You probably do not know the answer to that, and so the next step is the hardest: You need to be asking questions, directly from the source.

Gather your composure and find a way to have a conversation. Sometimes this means a third party is in the room; other times it's just the two of you.

Focus on the work at hand -- not your personal triggers. "We need to do business together" is the point, "and to do that I need to feel psychologically safe and to trust you."

Of all the professional mistakes I have made in my life, handling vulnerable moments at work has bedeviled me the most.

Fortunately I am learning.

If you can simply teach yourself the ability to WAIT AND EVALUATE, you may even find a golden opportunity awaits.

For our most valuable teachers, very often, are the ones who can perceive and communicate well our most persistent weaknesses.

The capacity to receive that information, calmly and without interrupting, is the best skill you will ever have at work.

It makes you stronger, more capable and more confident -- every single day.

___

All opinions my own. Public domain photo by moritz320 via Pixabay.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

I attended what the mainstream media called a "sad" Pizzagate march last weekend. That's me, along with the other early arrivals, pictured in someone's tweet standing next to a lady and her elderly mom.

The sign I held was very plain, because for me, this cause is very plain and simple: "STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING."

I stood back a bit and watched as a journalist went up to someone with a far more interesting sign. I could hear her asking questions, and learned later on that her name is Anna Merlan, a reporter at Jezebel.

(How did I learn this? Because she had a Tweet pictured in that Uproxx article, where my photo showed up, very grainy. How did I find that? Because my husband found it first, and said very dryly, "your picture is here.")

Looking at Merlan's Twitter account my first impression was, "Satanist." And maybe even pedo-creep; the header has Winnie the Pooh bowing before Baphomet.

But I'm a pretty good judge of character and vibes, and the person I saw at the demonstration that day is not a Satanist at all. Even if a quick Google Search turns up a few articles on the Satanic Temple for Jezebel, and the Village Voice; and even if she refers to "Pizzagate" as "a fully revived version of the Satanic ritual abuse panic."

Because the difference between a real Satanist and a good person is a conscience. In other words, Satanism is fundamentally about the right to do what I want, to know all there is to know of the world, and to defy any sort of God as I do it.

Faith is about having a conscience. Which starts with hearing that still small voice within you that says, "God says no."

It is because of my faith that I stand up against human trafficking.

As I stood at the march I was also observing the observers. And it was clear, at least early on, that many looked at us as a curiosity. Sort of like the kind of people you call "crazy conspiracy crackpots." Right? We're uneducated, we're gullible, we're well-meaning but a little bit demented.

I get that, and I get that particularly if you're an extremely skeptical and well-educated journalist who doesn't believe in anything uncritically.

It is from that vantage point that I cannot understand how the journalistic profession has fallen so flat when it comes to investigating this truly insane story.

Surely there is somebody out there, who is not a devoted Trump fan, who finds it worthwhile to put together all the pieces on this Pizzagate thing and see the tough questions through to their conclusion.

Please don't misunderstand me: I know that a lot of independent journalists are pursuing this, and an uncountable number of researchers.

But where are the stories that present, in that old-fashioned investigative way that Ms. Merlan seemed to typify, a balanced view of the picture?

Here is just one example of a piece of evidence that's noteworthy.

I was on vacation last November when Twitter alerted me that someone by the Twitter handle of @sye_phan announced that he had discovered an "app" for Comet Pizza.  Whoever posted that "app" disappeared almost as soon as they showed up, leading me to think that they were dead, or soon to be. (Twitter showed the status as "does not exist.")

I feared foul play because people who get powerful people in trouble, tend to get in trouble themselves. The fancy term for that is "whistleblower reprisal." As John Podesta once said: "I'm definitely for making an example of any suspected leaker whether or not we have a real basis for it."

Now when I think of an "app" I think of something that goes on my mobile phone. An example is the Starbucks mobile app, which lets me buy coffee in advance of showing up. 

However, this "app" seemed more like a program that you install on your computer. It had instructions (a screenshot remains online). See below:
"Last month's satisfied customers were raving about our pizza and we know you will too. Repeat customers know the drill. For newcummers(sic), first run the program given to you by your special friend and all instructions on how to enjoy this joyous hobby will be easily understandable. But please, remember the penalties for breaking the rules which are also included in the program. Very few have broken the rules and needless to say the penalties are harsh. All pricing is included in the App. The app will only run once, and the following requirements must be meet: (sic) 
* The app is to be run from your own personal computer that only you have access.
* Your computer must be connected to the internet when run
* The App must be run from your home
* You must destroy the media on which you received the App.
* Remember the password that will activate the app as there will be no icons on your computer. 
November Newcummers(sic):0 
November's Specials 
This month we have five fresh pizzas for your enjoyment. We also have four surviving pizzas from last month's session, all are on sale at an extremely low price as they are in poor health and not expected to survive so a requirement is that you finish eating your pizza after your session.
This months special includes a 30% discount on severe torture! Each image below is available for $1,000 in fine print. Andrew also has some prints he would like to sell, so contact him for more information. (they are true masterpieces.)"
The first question I had was, is this for real? 

Many people echoed that skepticism. For example, on Voat, one commenter wrote:
"Pretty doubtful. The story associated with this torture menu, and how they supposedly attained it, seems to be a work of bad fiction. 
"Two Pizzagate investigators (that nobody has heard from before) are connected to a super secret 3 letter agent guy. Guy #1 sneaks into some pizza place in the dead of night, and starts sabotaging their network in some apparent attempt to get them to call their "pedo friendly computer repairman". Guy #2, as this repairman, gets this call and goes in and steals all their data. Guy #1 somehow gets killed. Now Guy #2 is supposedly on the run and being relocated by his 3 letter pal. But, not before chatting it up on Reddit, posting this badly made menu with associated child porn, and generally appearing to be mildly retarded. This is not how this all works. 
"That said, early investigations into a couple of these websites seem to indicate that they had hidden member areas with some sort of password protected files. From the names of them, they could have been anything from company financial data to child porn. I don't think anyone ever figured out what they were or how to download them. I doubt they're even on the site anymore at this point, as we've tipped them off quite heavily."
You would think that the media would be all over this, nevertheless. If it's a crazy, made-up, whacked out story that was specifically intended to sink a candidate for President (as was the consensus), then wouldn't they go point-by-point to actually "debunk" it, as they so commonly claimed that "pizzagate" was?

The media continuously claimed that "pizzagate" was:
"The totally false conspiracy theory claims that Hillary Clinton and her former campaign chair, John Podesta, ran a child sex ring at the basement of a pizzeria in DC, Comet Ping Pong (which doesn’t even have a basement)."
But no researcher on this subject has actually made this claim. If you look at the Pizzagate wiki, the authors state:
"At its core, Pizzagate is a joint investigation between citizens, law enforcement, and governments into the pervasiveness of sex trafficking, ritual abuse, and cyber crime in global political powers around the world. These investigations, some in the making for decades, continue to exist because they are based on real facts, data, and observations."
How would you debunk a call for an investigation, particularly when the FBI calls child sex trafficking the "fastest-growing business of organized crime?"

More importantly, why would you want to debunk such a thing?

And how can you ignore a screenshot that looks so suspicious? A potentially direct link between language for selling pizza and sex, torture, "penalties" that were 'harsh" for "breaking the rules," very specific instructions about "destroy the media" and possibly coded language about killing. 

If you were a conscientious and skilled journalist with integrity, you would question all this.

You would question why, when Edgar Maddison Welch drove hundreds of miles to show up at Comet Ping Pong with a gun, "his shots struck a locked closet door, which had computer equipment inside."

If he was so convinced that this pizza place was indeed trafficking in children, wouldn't you think that Mr. Welch would make a statement or take an action directly intended to draw attention to that problem?

Why would he shoot at computer equipment, through a locked door?

How would he know to shoot through that particular door, anyway?

A serious journalist would go onto Voat, as I have, and followed the debates over this topic in particular.
  • This thread, for example, asks whether the app is real.
  • This thread goes into hidden files, and whether they're meaningful or not.
  • This thread talks about severe repression of reddit for even hosting a discussion of all the pizzagate-related claims.

Why are journalists so seemingly reluctant to use a repository of research? 

Whenever I visit Voat, the level of rational debate, and skepticism, is unbelievable. I would say that it surpasses any ordinary conversation on social media that I've ever seen.

So what's the problem here?
  • Is every journalist afraid they will get threatened for studying this topic?
  • Is there simply no money in its pursuit, and not worth their time?
  • Is it overall "bad for the resume?"

I guess my thing is, we don't need to dwell on Comet Ping Pong to save kids. Not at all. 

But it's the precedent of ignoring suspicious stuff that has me concerned.

Dr. Phil had a trafficking victim on his show the other week - she talked about people breeding babies just to serve a rich, international cadre of elite politicians and law enforcement officials.

That should have any journalist's hair standing up straight in the air. 

So I don't get it. Maybe I am missing something here, maybe I'm on the slow train as they say, and if so please enlighten me.

Why should we not do everything we can to save even one child's life, especially if her oppressors are the very ones who are supposed to be doing the protecting?

_____

All opinions my own.




When it comes to government communication we have come a long way from ten years ago. For example, as a rule, most people I encounter agree strongly in the concept of “user-centered content” for consumers of government content. The GSA’s 18F has a great online guide applicable to any agency, and plain language is the law
 
However, we still seem to lack clarity around what constitutes appropriate civil service communication. I see this periodically in articles about government communication, and in particular in articles that declare our work to be inherently propagandistic. 
 
Just the opposite is true. First, every year, government-wide agency appropriations prohibit lobbying, publicity or propaganda. But of course there are always problems, gray areas, and controversies – see for example this Congressional Research Service white paper from 2005, and this white paper from 2016. (And yes, there are exceptions, when you have to proactively market or communicate about a product or service.) 
 
It is interesting, if you look back:
  • When I joined the government in 2003, it was considered appropriate to provide highly detailed, technical, difficult-to-understand information that could never be called inaccurate.
  • As time passed, we went the other way and there was a heavy emphasis on “good news.” 
 Both are not helpful. 
 
The basic sub-activities involved in producing a “good message,” from the perspective of civil service communication, include:
  1. Providing data
  2. Explaining why it matters
  3. Positioning the facts under the umbrella of the mission
  4. Admitting to problems, and
  5. Taking responsibility for fixing them.
For example: 
“Agents arrested 1,000 people for X crime this year, which is 50% more than last year, primarily because of improved detection technologies purchased under the ABC initiative. The initiative started in 2015 as part of the broader ‘Smarter Ways To Stop Crime’ Program. The technology is not considered optimal as yet, because of several flaws that can yield a false positive. However, a plan is underway to resolve these issues by 3Q 2017.” 
 
The GSA offers a helpful guide with four questions (full document attached) to ask yourself before embarking on a contracting arrangement with an Advertising & Integrated Marketing Solutions (AIMS) provider. They are also useful for considering the appropriateness of all civil service communications, in my opinion: 
  1. “Does the requirement involve self-aggrandizement or “puffery” of an agency, its personnel, or its activities? If the answer is yes, the services shall not be solicited under AIMS.”
  2. “Is the purpose of the requirement “purely partisan in nature” (i.e., it is “designed to aid a political party or candidate”) If the answer is yes, the services shall not be solicited under AIMS.”
  3. “Is the purpose of the requirement “covert propaganda” (i.e., the communication does not reveal that government appropriations were expended to produce it). If the answer is yes, the services shall not be solicited under AIMS.”
  4. “Is the statement of work so broadly written that it could be interpreted to condone or encourage any of the activities described above? If the answer is yes, the statement of work/RFQ is not yet ready for issuance. Address how the statement of work addresses these issues to ensure acceptable contractor performance/deliverables.”
In the end, what you want is information that meets the needs of the public for clarity, but that also involves what I call “good messaging.”

Usually of course you hear that “messaging” is a dirty word, like “spin,” but in reality you have to provide some context to whatever data you’re sharing.

The key is to keep it accurate, and balanced. 

____________

Originally posted to the Federal Communicators Network listserv on 3/29/2017. All opinions my own.
 
 
Be on the lookout for telltale signs that you aren't getting the truth.

The following tips are extracted from the brilliant article by Caitlin Johnstone, "How To Spot A Media Psy-Op." (January 17, 2017).
  • Slogans are repeated across news outlets (the same word or phrase is to describe a topic in such a way that you form a particular opinion or bias)
  • Words or phrases are slipped into a sentence where they ordinarily don't belong - purpose is to deliver a subconscious message (this is called a non-sequitur and it is a form of neuro-linguistic programming)
  • Two separate ideas or topics are jammed together to make you associate them ("forced association") - e.g. 9/11 and Iraq War - so you'll support invading Iraq
  • An entire mainstream media outlet seems "owned" by opinion manipulators
  • Opinions are being expressed online that seem unnatural, because someone has been paid to go there and pretend to express support naturally
In her article, Johnstone recommends this Ted talk by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, author of Stonewalled and The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote. 

In her talk, Atkisson offers the media consumer three ways to detect when independent voices are being deliberately silenced:
  • When an accuser is labeled a "crank," "nutty," a "conspiracy theorist," etc.
  • When the default response to criticism involves attacking the questioner, not answering the question.
  • When all criticism is aimed at those alleging wrongdoing, and not at the alleged wrongdoers.
I hope that you will check out Attkisson's work, as well as Johnstone's article, and be inspired.

No matter how despondent we may feel sometimes at the proliferation of "fake news" and bought journalists, there are great minds at work in the field today.

_________

All opinions my own. Photo by MelSi via Pixabay (Public Domain)

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Originally posted to Voat
Here is a good summary of the March 21, 2016 episode of the Dr. Phil Show that featured an alleged victim of an international child sex trafficking ring serving the rich and powerful. It is by Jay Syrmopoulos at thefreethoughtproject.com (March 22, 2017).
Key points below, organized by theme.
  • Born into it/Multigenerational
"Kendall explains that she was born to be a sex slave, as her parents intentionally had her for the trafficker she calls her 'owner.'"
"She says she doesn’t even know her actual age, as she has been a sex slave her entire life."
"She describes having birthed 3 children while in captivity, all of which have been taken from her by her owner/trafficker, and are believed by Kendall to now be child sex slaves themselves."
  • An organized ring of traffickers
"Kendall says that her parents sold her at birth to an elite pedophile ring"
  • International
"Trafficked around the globe"
  • Transportation/Drugging
"Often drugged before being transported in the darkness of night."
  • "Elite"
"Extremely wealthy – often 'pillars of the community' – with some even owning private islands or large pieces of land."
"Major sports franchise owners and even high level U.S. politicians."
"High ranking law enforcement official (s)."
"Confirmed that there are many elite U.S. politicians that have been engaged in raping children for many years"
  • Coverup
"The politicians always took great care to hide what they were doing"
  • Men and women
"Describing her first memories as being passed around groups of rich and prominent men and women for them to 'take turns' with her"
  • Sadistic - Hunting
"They would buy us just to hunt us."
"One of her most fearful memories was that of the pedophiles hosting a“hunting party” on one of their large private plots of lands, making numerous children run and hide in fear, as they were the “prey” to be hunted."
"The pedophiles would then hunt the children as they ran and hid in fear – raping and torturing them when they were captured."
  • Sadistic - Being Forced to Kill
"Admits to having been forced to kill a baby by the human trafficker she describes as her 'owner.'"
  • Sadistic - Cages
"She explains that she and other children were often hung from cages suspended from the ceiling"
  • Sadistic - Pregnancy (The Uniquely Horrific Sadism Of Forcing A Woman To Get Pregnant For Your Pleasure)
“'I was allowed to get pregnant, because men paid for that"
  • Extremely young children involved
"When Dr. Phil asks how old she thinks she was when she was first raped, Kendall explains that it was 'before I could talk – I was used to it by the time I was 2.'"
"She explains that she was forced to rape children as young as 5- years-old"
  • Veracity of Story
"Dr. Phil confirms that his team not only investigated Kendall’s case for four months, but also consulted with law enforcement experts who confirmed her story. Dr. Phil said he “100% believes” that she is telling the truth."
Clips from the show frequently highlight brainwashing and torture.
Things that made me question her story: (Note I did not see the show, so these questions may have been answered)
  • If the trafficker is as dangerous as she claims, how did she get out without getting killed?
  • Isn't she afraid of getting killed now, with her face showing on the television program?
  • If law enforcement verifies her story, what are they doing to bring down this ring?
  • Is there another source of data that can corroborate her story?
Things that made me believe this story:
  • Generally, multiple sources have similar themes (victims and experts)
  • Breeding sex slaves in captivity explains how traffickers can source children without getting caught
  • She seemed brainwashed and shell-shocked, and even to still have some allegiance to her captor
  • She admitted straightforwardly and directly to committing crimes (such as raping a young boy, albeit by force; killing an infant)
The story of Fiona Barnett, especially, resonates:
Pedophile "hunting" parties - Australia - alleged perpetrator was Nicole Kidman's father, Antony Kidman.http://childabuserecovery.com/nicole-kidmans-father-dies-amid-pedophile-child-murder-ring-allegations/
"The Ninth Circle was also said to have well organized and secretive human hunting parties that included pedophilia. Privately owned forest groves were believed used in the US, Canada, France and Holland. It appeared children and teens were obtained by the criminal drug syndicate Octopus, which was believed connected to the Vatican. The kidnapped children and teens were said to be stripped naked, raped, hunted down and killed."
She claims that those who abused her worked with the U.S. government "in close collaboration" and (similar to victim who appeared on Dr. Phil show) talked about their skill at hiding their crimes:
My perpetrators operated in close collaboration with the USA government and they employed sophisticated methods for keeping their operation hidden.
For example, they allegedly used doctors to cover up murders:
I said I had witnessed Dr Petrauskas fabricate medical documentation to cover for crimes including murders.
Barnett mentions involvement by the entertainment industry as well, a theme which has emerged repeatedly:
The documentary team located Antony Kidman’s former North Sydney home at 16 William Edward St, Longueville. This matched the description I provided the NSW Psychology Board in my complaint against him. Via realestate.com, I recognised the lounge room and pool in which I was sexually assaulted by Kidman and his famous stage actor friend who is still alive. The assault occurred during a post-production party held at Kidman’s house.
There seems to be a connection with Nazi war criminals here; not clear if this is incidental to the story or connected to other reports that governments have used them for intelligence purposes after the war:
They discovered the identity of the man my siblings and I were instructed to call "Dr Mark". Leonas Petrauskas (pictured right) was the adopted son of a Lithuanian opera star, and he played basketball for Lithuania. (My Nazi war criminal grandmother was Lithuanian and friends with Petrauskas.) Petrauskas owned and worked at the Engadine Medical Centre on the corner of Boronia Ave and Old Princess Highway. The documentary team obtained copies of Petrauskas’ family photo albums, passports and Nazi papers. These documents show he was the Nazi doctor who matched the description of him I have been supplying to institutions for 25 years.
She also discusses the use of a USA military plane for sexual assault of her by a USA politician. The article includes a sketch of the plane. Barnett notes that a 60 Minutes reporter, whom she mentions by name (Ross Coulthart) had difficulty believing her account.
I sent 60 Minutes reporter Ross Coulthart the information I had so far supplied state and federal police. Whilst interviewing my friends and associates, Coulthart questioned the validity of my testimony. He described my memory of being assaulted by a USA politician in the back of a USA military plane at an Australian military airport as far-fetched. Just what do people think international child trafficking looks like? If it is documented that the USA military and CIA have been involved in drugs and arms trafficking, would child trafficking be a physical or moral impossibility for these same people?
Barnett brings up a connection with the UK government and use of UK government facilities for her rape and a pedophile "orgy". Here again, a connection between US - Australia - UK:
Ross Coulthart also questioned my memory that a Governor-General raped me during a paedophile orgy at Parliament House.
___
All opinions my own.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The Walking Dead, Season 7, Episode 15 (March 26, 2017) had Sasha in the Sanctuary, about to be raped by Davey, one of the "Saviors."

Negan comes in, gives a short speech about how rape is against the rules, and sticks a knife in Davey's throat.

He then gives the knife to Sasha so that she can stick it in Davey's forehead and prevent him from "turning" (into a zombie).

This gift comes with another short speech about how she can choose to stay with them and live pretty well, considering the times they're in. How she will be better off in the end for doing so.

The writers of the show are not just telling a story, when they bring us the character of Negan.

They are constantly presenting us with a moral dilemma: What if the crazy man who goes off and throws people into ovens (think about the Holocaust symbolism here), is actually good for the people?

Of course Negan is not presented that way. He is presented as a terrible villain, in counterpoint to Rick and Michonne and the other survivors. Confronted with bandits, killers and rapists, this group somehow finds a way to survive, without taking more than they need to take.

But they are also weak, in the end, and in this season we see them struggling to overcome Negan. This is a character who commands forcefully, who makes decisions accurately and quickly, and who kills instantly and without reservation.

Negan can identify talent. And in Negan's world, there is order -- at least most of the time. Misery, too, and organized rape (forced prostitution), and humiliation, and when you will meet your end and how is as unpredictable as his temper.

But most of the time, there is order -- and food. And as Negan frequently points out, holding his barbed-wire-covered-baseball-bat ("Lucy"), there are rules.

In a world full of ruthless and terrible people, who do you want in charge?

The charming and brilliant but insane dictator, who kills "Rapey Davey" without question?

Or Rick, Michonne, and the Council, who agonize over every decision that's important?

The show's writers feel compelled to tell you, through the character of Sasha, that this is a morally unambiguous choice.

As soon as she has any freedom, she will find a way to kill Negan.

Eugene the scientist, on the other hand, who choose to stay and work for him, is "a coward" -- all of us know that.

But deeper in the script, and in the way the character of Negan is played, we see that things are not so clear for people.

They are, at the end of the day, scared -- weak.

A strong leader gets their attention, and obedience.

Even if that will one day mean their own untimely end.

_______________

All opinions my own.

Monday, March 27, 2017


At that time, he was a 14 year old and not in control of his fate. It is not clear why, as an elderly individual with billions of dollars to his name, he would want to continue supporting such evil.

It is even more inexplicable why he would secretly fund, to such a significant extent, an anti-Semitic hate group that uses propaganda as its tool, and Jews as its face. That group is If Not Now.

Is George Soros behind If Not Now?
  • "According to its website, “If Not Now is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization and all contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.” However, as of May 11, 2016, the organization has not published its 990 forms, an annual budget, donors or donation amounts, reflecting a lack of transparency and accountability." - NGO Monitor
  • "If Not Now....postures as an independent volunteer grass roots anti-Israel group. In fact it's a group of J Street U people trying out a new brand....the If Not Now hate group evolved out of anti-Israel protests during Hamas' attacks on Israel....This is what your social media looks like if you hate Israel and want to see it destroyed....activists (in addition to Israel-hating, BDS-supporting Simone Zimmerman - DB) were also top J Street U people. Tamara Shapiro was J Street U's director, Yonah Lieberman co-created a J Street U chapter, Max Berger worked for J Street, Emily Mayer was with J Street U at Haverford....Despite claims of a split, If Not Now is just pursuing the exact same agenda as J Street U, protesting Jewish charities for supporting Israel, while claiming to be the voice of a new generation. It's the same scam with a new brand and slightly less of a paper trail." -"If Not Now, J Street's Latest Anti-Israel Front," Front Page Magazine.com, March 1, 2016
  • "The Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, which bills itself as the dovish alternative to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby, has secretly received funding from billionaire George Soros despite previous denials that it accepted funds from the Hungarian-born financier and liberal political activist. Tax forms obtained by The Washington Times reveal that Mr. Soros and his two children, Jonathan and Andrea Soros, contributed a total $245,000 to J Street from one Manhattan address in New York during the fiscal year from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. The contributions represent a third of the group’s revenue from U.S. sources during the period." "Soros Revealed As Funder of Liberal Jewish American Lobby," The Washington Times, September 24, 2010
  • "A set of half-truths, non-truths and ambiguities from J Street lead a reasonable person to conclude that the group tried to conceal that George Soros has been one of its largest donors for the past three years, and to falsely claim that it had been "open" about those donations during that time....J Street called me up this morning and disclosed that it had successfully grown its fundraising since forming in 2007 and that Soros and his family have given the group $250,000 a year over the past three years, a fact that was in the process of being verified and reported by The Washington Times' Eli Lake. - "J Street's Half-Truths and Non-Truths About Its Funding," The Atlantic, September 4, 2010
____

All opinions my own.
This blog is about an episode on HBO's television show "Girls" - Season 6, Episode 3, called "American Bitch." Get the episode recap here.

The difference between an artist and most people is that most people try to make themselves look good.

Lena Dunham is an artist, and her gift shows up in the unparalleled honesty she brings to HBO's "Girls."

Yesterday I watched an episode of "Girls" called "American Bitch." It aired on television February 26, 2017. 

The episode shows an interchange between the lead character on the show, Hannah (played by Lena Dunham, in a way that feels autobiographical) and her literary idol, Chuck Palmer. 

Hannah has written a blog post about several women's accounts of their treatment by Palmer. 

The women claim that he manipulated them into sexual activity. 

Palmer is incensed by this blog and he invites Hannah to his apartment.

Right away the viewer finds herself wondering why Hannah would accept this invitation, but that is part of the story. 

Hannah is flattered that her idol reached out to her.

Hannah is triggered into repeating a previous episode of ambiguous sexual abuse by a teacher who told her she was "special" and who repeated those words as he massaged her neck and hair in grade school.

Hannah is curious to find out the truth.

So Hannah and the writer have this interchange, and he tries to convince her that he is the one who is wronged. That he is a jerk, maybe, but not a sexual abuser.

As a character, Hannah is repeatedly shown in sexual situations that are degrading, unhealthy, and boundary-crossing and this episode is no exception.

She follows the writer into his bedroom, where he gives her a book by Philip Roth that was almost called "American Bitch."

The viewer finds herself wondering why Hannah has gone into the bedroom.

The writer asks her if she will lie down with him, and she does.

Is this a seduction? Is this a trick? The viewer knows that something bad is about to happen.

And indeed it does, as the writer turns the situation very explicitly sexual.

Hannah participates, for a moment, and then she jumps up.

She has a lock of horror on her face.

The writer is grinning from ear to ear.

He has just proven that Hannah is no different than the girls she wrote about as victims.

Without ever asking him what had occurred.

From what I could gather, the reviews of this episode portray the writer as exactly the bad guy Hannah thought he was.

But my first reaction was, that he wasn't the bad guy she wrote about at all.

He was, in fact, very much like Hannah herself. 

And in the episode, he showed her high-handed moralizing to be a pile of total hypocrisy.

The feminist movement was founded on the idea that women are equally as valuable as men, and have the same rights. 

But with rights come responsibilities.

By portraying Hannah with such raw honesty, Lena Dunham showed that women cannot avoid the consequences of their own actions.

Consequences they have traditionally blamed on men.

____________

 All opinions my own.






Sunday, March 26, 2017


As it happened I was dragged into the Federal civil service, pretty much kicking and screaming.

"I'LL NEVER BE A BORING BUREAUCRAT," I wailed, as we sat there considering my future.

What I wanted, in my head, was that image: the glamorous brand consultant, glamorously traveling the world.

But it wasn't good for me. It wasn't good for us.
  • "How are you going to do all that traveling?"
  • "What about the kids?"
  • "You know how unstable consulting is."
  • "This is where the jobs are - you're in Washington, D.C."
  • "Think about the hours they keep over there."
I did it, and it hurt me to do it, because I wanted what I wanted so much.

In the end it turned out right...working for the government changed me.

Yes, for the better.

Government workers are in the end a group of decent people. They give back to the community.

They are rationally oriented, focused on the details, extremely knowledgeable, stable, and committed to what can be done within the limits of procedure.

For a creative mind like mine, which works fast and goes off in fifty different directions at a time, the discipline has been healing.

I remember there was a time that I wanted to be a writer. Full-time, just a creative in the coffee shop, turning out book after book.

But as it turned out, the art and the craft of creative writing was destructive for me.
It took me to dark places inside my head.

Sure the writing was beautiful. But it was harrowing, too.

One time, before I started grad school, I had an interview to work at a fashion magazine.

But the environment wasn't right.

I couldn't admit it to myself, and so God solved it for me: The night before, I got a terrible migraine, and it did not go away until I cancelled.

As a young adult, I wanted to be a volunteer.

It happened that I knew several people who were raped. And in those days, the victims just disappeared from school.

They also rattled the doors when they went to sleep at night, obsessively and compulsively. (For they remembered having opened the door when they shouldn't.)

So I chose the Rape Crisis Hotline, and the first time I showed up at the hospital, and I saw the victim laying there, I ran out of the room and vomited.

It was hard, because I cared so very much. But my presence in that place, at that time, and for that cause wasn't helping anybody.

Today I have gingerly re-entered that space, of trying to help.

It is frustrating; I can only yell out from behind a very tall fence.

Because I can't fall down the rabbit hole, again.

I guess the point is, what are you good at in life?

What is your purpose on this planet?

You need to make money, and your soul needs you to make a difference as well.

But you have to keep yourself as intact as possible. Not do things that drag you away, into the pit of Hell.

For as they say: "Life is not a sprint; it's a marathon."

There are people on this Earth who need you.
_____________

All opinions my own. Public domain photo by pixel1 via Pixabay.

Saturday, March 25, 2017


This is me. 

Today I attended the first part of the #Pedogate / #Pizzagate march. 

Here is my poster.


I chose to focus on human trafficking (#humantrafficking), the broader problem. Others are focused on the underreported and unexplained phenomenon of missing African American girls in Washington, D.C. (#missingdcgirls)

The march organizers took a middle course, emphasizing community concerns that law enforcement is dragging its feet about investigating child sex trafficking by influential people connected to Washington, D.C. elites. (The term "elites" covers anyone with money, political power and influence.)

The social media icons used to advertise the march used the hashtags #pizzagate and #pedogate. This has been made fun of repeatedly in coverage by The Washington Post and others who repeatedly suggest that concerned citizens are victims of a conspiracy theory "which falsely linked Hillary Clinton to an alleged child-sex-trafficking ring operating out of a D.C. pizza parlor."




In fact, the term "pizza" refers to two things. 
  • Number one, leaked emails that have never been contested with respect to their validity. Those emails contained references to pizza that do not appear to have anything to do with pizza. 
  • Number two, graphic sexualized images of pizza and children that appeared on the public social media accounts of a pizza shop proprietor. (I leave it to the reader to Google these images.)
It is noteworthy that the Department of Homeland Security released a video for human trafficking month (January 2017) showing a minor being trafficked outside a pizza parlor. The symbolism was hard to ignore.

In any case, I was at the march as it began and documented some of the goings on. 

The most noteworthy thing, to me, was the focus on children rather than on a particular person or place accused of wrongdoing. It was clear that the event organizers (as you can see from the poster behind me) seek their safety. The poster contained three demands, as explained by event organizer Neil Wolfe:
  • Release the children being held captive
  • Surrender to law enforcement
  • Beg for mercy
Wolfe stated that he planned to organize a protest in front of the NYPD, which reportedly has incriminating evidence from Anthony Weiner, to demand that they release it.

We know that organized sex trafficking of children by people at all levels of power is real.


The second thing that stood out was the emphasis on prayer. I saw two people praying as they stood on the podium. This video shows researcher David Seaman, there to give a speech on the topic, praying for our Nation to have the strength to deal with this issue, to bring the perpetrators to justice, and to heal. (He, too, previously has shared his experience of being targeted for covering this issue on numerous occasions; here is just one example.) 

As far as the people who attended the event, I can only speak about a few. 
  • Speakers: I was there for the introductory remarks, mentioned above. During researcher David Seaman's speech he talked about someone who was filming him at the event, and everyone got distracted by the interchange.
  • Journalists: When I was there it seemed like there were as many cameras as protesters. There seemed to be people filming the event and asking questions in a genuine way.
  • Attendees: I spoke with a woman who was outraged that John Podesta had not been arrested. She said that this cause was very much a matter of "light against the darkness."
  • Passers-by: A woman from South Africa asked me what the protest was about.
I did not get the impression that people attending were "crazy." Rather, they seemed sincerely concerned about kids. If anything, observing conversations, it was clear that they were self-educated, and trying to get some official information. This is a sentiment I wholeheartedly share: Let's get the facts.

Getting an official investigation going, without citizen investigators having to do the work, was the entire purpose of the protest.

It is not acceptable to tell young Black girls to "stay home" to avoid getting kidnapped and trafficked.

I left at around 11:30.

___
All opinions my own. Photo of myself, and video, by me. 







Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Went out for lunch and the area is covered in police cars. I see them gathered around one person who has "Bomb Squad" written on the back of his jacket. Briefly I consider, is it my turn to die today? (God forbid) Then I proceed forward, march on, just be normal.

In the park there is a guy trying to look homeless, but he is obviously not homeless, and I wonder at the fact that I may have just seen my first spy going "undercover."

Forward, forward, forward. I get my usual falafel wrap, and sit down to eat in silence, scanning the news headlines on my phone.

There is a story about the DC police telling kids they should "stay home" if they don't want to get trafficked.

I stare at that headline in disbelief, and share it without any comment. What can one possibly say?

And on.

I go to Starbucks and sit down to write, to contemplate, to stare at the people coming through this great city. All of them different, all the time.

I think to myself about what the Rebbe (z"l) told me, so many years ago. You have to live your life in great joy, not in misery.

He was right: It's going to end anyway. Like that line this week in "The Walking Dead" -- "you think you have forever to life your life, and then you don't."

May God bless us with the wisdom to stop tearing each other apart, and start solving problems that really matter.

___
All opinions my own.

This is my response to a question originally posed on Quora.

The answer, like lawyers tend to say, is: “It depends.”

Not knowing what you do for a living, let’s assume that your LinkedIn profile is typical, meaning that it reflects the image of a corporate professional.

Would your boss, or a prospective employer, think badly of you for promoting your passion for beer?

Traditional product branding says that you should focus on your unique selling proposition fairly single-mindedly. Your goal is to create a space in the customer’s mind dedicated to your brand so that when they want to purchase something like it, they shortcut all alternatives and go straight to you.

So from a product branding point of view, putting a personal beer account on your professional profile is distracting. It tells an employer that you’re not totally focused on the encyclopedic and ever-evolving knowledge, skills and abilities required to do your valuable type of job.

However, people are not products, and applying the product branding model to an actual human being in the employment marketplace is problematic.

In the real world, people want to work with other people who are “normal,” meaning human, relatable, and interesting. And so (presuming that the rest of your employment profile looks solid) I think an employer would be highly likely to value your personal passion on a topic of interest to many.

Frankly it’s also reassuring to know what people are into on their personal time, given the number of absolute and total freaks that appear to populate our planet.

Some personal branding advisors might question the fact that your passion involves alcohol. However, I think beer (and wine) live in that zone we would call “moderate,” and is therefore not a problem.

If you crafted that beer at home, it would be even better, but that kind of wizardry is not a requirement.

As you said, it goes without saying that drunk vacation photos don’t belong on an Instagram you connect to your LinkedIn account.

Frankly I don’t think it’s a good idea to take drunk vacation photos in the first place.

All that said, I don’t believe most people should connect their Instagram accounts to their LinkedIn profiles. This is because for the vast majority of people, such accounts contain photos of personal interest. Unless your personal brand hinges on being a “personality,” such photos distract from your professional accomplishments.

Frankly, they also make you seem lacking in judgment. I know this may be a controversial statement in a world where people wear jeans and flip-flops to the office. But I am one of those people who believes that there should be a distinction between your professional and personal self, most of the time.

Some people don’t really get that, and they will post links to every single social media account they have, as though some economy were gained by sharing them.

Don’t.

The bottom line is this: If your Instagram account, or other social media account, reflects something worth sharing professionally — then post it.

Otherwise, it’s better for your income to keep the two separate. Even the other account is public, and it is possible for any interested party to find out what you do in your spare time.
________
All opinions my own. Public domain photo by Pexels via Pixabay.