Ye Gods and Madmen!!!

July 26, 2010

What the fuck is this!?!?!?

Mother sues son she abandoned at age 15 for parental support


W hen Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn’t want him anymore.

Ken’s father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province’s Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking second-youngest son Darryl with her.

Ken was left behind. He had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas at the local station to make a buck. He says he can’t even remember how many couches he slept on, or how he kept himself going. He just knows he never got to go to a prom, finish high school or even think about college.

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.


Shirley Anderson, 71, is suing Ken and four of his five siblings for parental support. The case has been dragging on for years, but the August hearing should complete it.

Shirley has dusted off a little-used section in B.C.’s Family Relations Act that legally obliges adult children to support “dependent” parents.


Ken is too overcome with a sense of injustice to know what is more of an affront: that the statute exists or that the woman who abandoned him even meets the definition of “parent.”

Ken says it’s been nearly two decades since he even spoke with his mother. “The only time she ever called was to ask for money.”

Christ’s Wounds!!! This is madness!!!

(A tip o’ the hat to Kathy Shaidle for the link).


And this is why I use an alias…

May 1, 2010

You can’t trust anyone. Literally.

Harvard Pulls a Larry Summers on an Ex-Crimethinker

It was a private dinner conversation among three friends. The topic: affirmative action and race. The debate presumably was passionate, given the divergent opinions of the Harvard Law School students.

* Full text of the e-mails

Stephanie Grace, a third-year law student, felt she had not made her position clear, so she followed up via e-mail, according to a person with direct knowledge of events.

“I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position,’’ Grace wrote. “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African-Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.’’

The lengthy e-mail, sent to her two dinner companions six months ago, ignited an Internet firestorm this week when it was leaked and first reported Wednesday by the legal blog, followed by other websites.

This is where we are now. Put aside the question of intelligence, and look at the situation itself: a private conversation is no longer sacrosanct–the only safe place left in the world is the interior of your own skull (and even that is a questionable spot). Is approach anxiety really all that mysterious?

Edit: Well, now I’ve heard the rest of the story: a jealous “friend” went back into her e-mail archive and dug out the six-month old letter, then forwarded it to Black Law Students Association. The BLSA then forwarded it nationally, leading to what is happening now. Hell hath no fury–just ask Tiger.

The Irony? This was originally produced by General Motors.

March 23, 2010

The Road To Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek, (in cartoon format).

We are all properly fucked now.

Would someone please explain to me….

February 12, 2010

…why the Fruit-of-the-Boom terrorist is entitled to the same rights as an American citizen (including Miranda rights), while the US Government now has an official policy of whacking US citizens abroad?

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee today, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told representatives that American citizens can be assassinated by the US government when they are oveseas. Blair said the comments were intended to “reassure” Americans that there was a “set of defined policy and legal procedures” in place and that such assassinations are always carried out by the book.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R – MI) inquired about the procedures involved, asking what the legal framework was under which Americans could be killed by the intelligence community.

Blair insisted that under no circumstances would Americans be assassinated overseas for criticizing the government, adding “we don’t target people for free speech.” Rather they are subject to assassination when the government decides they are a threat and when they “get specific permission.” Exactly who was giving that permission was unclear.


(Obligatory tip ‘o the hat to Vox Popoli for the link.)

Still more fury–and the double standard.

February 4, 2010

Oh, boy.

A while back, PUA Roosh V (author of Bang and A Dead Bat In Paraguay: One Man’s Peculiar Journey Through South America) posted an email he received from a stalker. As Roosh expected, the stalker outed herself, and the fallout has spread to other blogs.

Points to take away from the Anoukange/Roosh clash:
1)When your emotions run rampant, you become your own worst enemy. It doesn’t matter how right or wrong you or the other person is or was, or how badly either of you behaved–if you let your emotions go unchecked, you will alienate any allies you might have, and dig yourself deeper into the hole.

2) Game works. Period. Default User has it completely right. Learn, or get left in the dust.

3)Learn from your mistakes. Poetry of Flesh makes an important point in the comments here:

The last time a guy successfully gamed me when I did not wish to be gamed was late ‘08.

Afterwards, when we were lying in my bed, I turned to him and broke down exactly what he did that made me want him, want to sleep with him, then complimented him on his game. He thanked me, then started telling me stories of how he came up with his methods, how often they had worked, what his no-fail LMR tactic was (which is what he used on me and I was so enamoured with).

I still bring up his tactics when explaining game to my guy friends, when they need tips and tricks for handling LMR.

4)Everyone wants to be dominant. No man wants to get strung along for money and drinks; no woman wants to give herself to any man less than her standards require. All personal interactions are exchanges of power between individuals–and no one wants to yield more power for less return (no one wants to pay too much). Women who fear Game do so out a mistaken perception of the playing field: in the modern West, absent rape, women decide with whom, how, and how often they will have sex. Their only limiting factors are a) how high they set their standards when deciding on a sexual partner, and b) thier value in the sexual marketplace. Women always have the home court advantage.

Men, on the other hand, have to stand out from the crowd, overcome his fear and approach, capture her interest, maintain that interest until he demonstrates that he meets her standards, get her to agree to have sex with him, get her to a location where she will feel comfortable having sex, and get her to overcome her last-minute resistance to having sex.

Most men have no idea how to do any of that. The old rules of courtship that our fathers used to woo our mothers don’t work anymore–because the values that women look for in men today are radically different from those our mothers looked for in our fathers. Feminism and the sexual revolution have made men the default losers in the sexual marketplace.

Game is simply the means men use to even the playing field. Game allows a man to demonstrate those characteristics, values, and standards that women are looking for in men. Game teaches men how not to get taken advantage of by women, or engage in behavior that will lower his value in her eyes.

But what Game doesn’t do is trick a woman into having sex with a man. Game isn’t force, or rape. Game doesn’t guarantee that a man will have sex–it just tips the scales back to even. The final decision to have sex still remains the woman’s. It always has been, and it probably always will be.

5)Women can still get away with shit men can’t. Imagine, just for a second, what the situation would be if it had been Roosh writing those emails to Anoukange; what do you suppose the reaction of would have been? Does anyone believe Anoukange faces the same risks that a man would, had he acted the way she has?

Nah–me neither.

For a man who claims to have no formal training in economics…

January 24, 2010

…Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech gives a damn good explanation of what happened to cause the housing bubble, and how the misandry bubble is much the same. I was particularly struck on his observation of the use of shaming language in driving the housing market.

When will the misandry bubble end? It’s anyone’s guess; economics is a Science, but psychiatry and sociology are Arts–they rely on non-empirical measurements and analysis, and laboratory results can vary wildly from experiment to experiment. Just how much pain will men, as a whole, endure? And when the bubble does pop, what will the fallout be?

Joe Iannicelli Exposes Family Court Corruption in Video

January 10, 2010

Re-posted from the article of the same name at The Spearhead:

All I can say is: GODDAMNIT!

This is a death sentence for Iannicelli–at 80, he’s not going to last very long inside, even in a minimum security facility.

How is it that this case could be prosecuted after being dismissed 6 times prior? Just how many bites at the apple do these people get?

And I thought we had corrupt judges in Massachusetts.

Jesus H. Christ!