Ah! Feel myself again. Anybody still wanna be my valentine, Friday?
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
I imagined that all of those women on Tumblr were actually just Victoria Nuland and said fuck Victoria Nuland and then I felt better. She's married but who knows, does the poor slob really love her?
Baby, you ever point that finger at me like that, it'd be ripped off your hand and stuck up your ass so fast you wouldn't even notice the hole in your pantyhose.
Two Chinese guys shaking hands.
That's Wang Yu-chi at left of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Zhang Zhijun, right, of the People's Republic of China.
That's the first time a direct government-to-government meeting has occurred between the two since 1949 and it happened today. I cannot imagine that happening in the U.S. Let's say the Confederate States of America moved a little further south in 1865, say to Cuba. Set up their own government there. In 1923 a representative of President Harding meets with a representative of President Nathan Beford Forrest II? No.
Chinese, throughout their history, have been remarkable for the absence of a conquistador mentality. They have been far, far less imperial than Western peoples. They have not explored the world; they have not been as interested in other peoples. What I know (or believe I know) about Chinese history gives me little concern of China suddenly, with their new-found wealth, turning aggressive. Mao said to Kissinger one time, "You can have Taiwan for now, we don't care." But they did intervene in the Korean War against the U.S. They did fight a war against India, and had a mini-war with the Soviet Union. Then, why no war on Taiwan, for godssakes? Why not over Hong Kong before the hand-over? Maybe because the Taiwanese and Hong Kongers were Chinese? Not foreigners?
Is there more here than lack of foreign aggression (if that's here)? It's a pretty "stand-up" thing to do for Xi to send Zhang to meet with Wang, no? Pretty magnanimous, "forgiving?" "Chinese do not seem to me a very forgiving people," I wrote here recently. Pretty stand-up thing to do, anyway.
Dr. Jennifer Ruth has published an article on Chinese filmmaker Hu Jie. Here is the link: http://www.propellermag.com/Feb2014/RuthJieFeb14.html. In our correspondence and in her articles that I have read, there is an "ease" to Dr. Ruth's writing, that's how I've put it in the past, I think you will see it here also. Her writing "flows;" it is without "drag" or "friction." Sounds like a description of a physics experiment. She's a great writer.
Monday, February 10, 2014
I am stunned. I did not know.
.jpg)
What? I did not say a word and you are giving me that look. I posted that without any smart-ass commentary, even assuming I have smart-ass thoughts, which you do assume and which I may not...You don't know. You think you know because you know me. You think I'm a smart-ass. That's a preemptive "Oh Benjamin" and the U.S. has moved away from the doctrine of preemption. You're stereotyping, too. So, yeah.
Washington Post op-ed today:
By
Today, American and French diplomats are preparing for talks with Iran that build on the agreement that has halted progress on and rolled back key elements of the Iranian nuclear program. French and American officials share information daily to combat terrorismaround the world. Our development experts are helping farmers across Africa and on other continents boost their yields and escape poverty. In forums such as the Group of Eight and the Group of 20, the United States and France promote strong, sustainable and balanced growth, jobs and stability — and we address global challenges that no country can tackle alone. At high-tech start-ups in Paris and Silicon Valley, American and French entrepreneurs are collaborating on the innovations that power our global economy.
A decade ago, few would have imagined our two countries working so closely together in so many ways. But in recent years our alliance has transformed. Since France’s return to NATO’s military command four years ago and consistent with our continuing commitment to strengthen the NATO- European Union partnership, we have expanded our cooperation across the board. We are sovereign and independent nations that make our decisions based on our respective national interests. Yet we have been able to take our alliance to a new level because our interests and values are so closely aligned.
Rooted in a friendship stretching back more than two centuries, our deepening partnership offers a model for international cooperation. Transnational challenges cannot be met by any one nation alone. More nations must step forward and share the burden and costs of leadership. More nations must meet their responsibilities for upholding global security and peace and advancing freedom and human rights.
Building on the first-step agreement with Iran, we are united with our “P5+1” partners — Britain, Germany, Russia and China — and the E.U. and will meet next week in Vienna to begin discussions aimed at achieving a comprehensive solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In Syria, our credible threat of force paved the way for the plan to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons; now, Syria must meet its obligations. With the Syrian civil war threatening the stability of the region, including Lebanon, the international community must step up its efforts to care for the Syrian people, strengthen the moderate Syrian opposition, and work through the Geneva II process toward a political transition that delivers the Syrian people from dictatorship and terrorism.
Perhaps nowhere is our new partnership on more vivid display than in Africa. In Mali, French and African Union forces — with U.S. logistical and information support — have pushed back al-Qaeda-linked insurgents, allowing the people of Mali to pursue a democratic future. Across the Sahel, we are partnering with countries to prevent al-Qaeda from gaining new footholds. In the Central African Republic, French and African Union soldiers — backed by American airlift and support — are working to stem violence and create space for dialogue, reconciliation and swift progress to transitional elections.
Across the continent, from Senegal to Somalia, we are helping train and equip local forces so they can take responsibility for their own security. We are partnering with governments and citizens who want to strengthen democratic institutions, improve agriculture and alleviate hunger, expand access to electricity and deliver the treatment that saves lives from infectious diseases. Our two countries were the earliest and are among the strongest champions of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Alongside a revitalized alliance on the world stage, we’re also working to deepen ourbilateral economic relationship. Already, France is one of America’s top export markets, and the United States is the largest customer for French goods outside the European Union — trade that supports nearly a million jobs in our two countries. Our cooperation in science and education is illustrated by existing partnerships between our universities, top research laboratories and space agencies. But as entrepreneurial societies that cherish the spirit of invention and creativity, we need to do more to lead the world in innovation.
The trade and investment partnership that we are pursuing between the European Union and the United States is a major opportunity to build on millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic already supported by U.S.-E.U. trade. Such an agreement would result in more trade, more jobs and more export opportunities, including for small businesses in both of our countries. It would also build a lasting foundation for our efforts to promote growth and the global economic recovery.
This includes our leadership to combat climate change. Even as our two nations reduce our own carbon emissions, we can expand the clean energy partnerships that create jobs and move us toward low-carbon growth. We can do more to help developing countries shift to low-carbon energy as well, and deal with rising seas and more intense storms. As we work toward next year’s climate conference in Paris, we continue to urge all nations to join us in pursuit of an ambitious and inclusive global agreement that reduces greenhouse gas emissions through concrete actions. The climate summit organized by the U.N. secretary general this September will give us the opportunity to reaffirm our ambitions for the climate conference in Paris.
The challenges of our time cannot be wished away. The opportunities of our interconnected world will not simply fall into our laps. The future we seek, as always, must be earned. For more than two centuries, our two peoples have stood together for our mutual freedom. Now we are meeting our responsibilities not just to each other — but to a world that is more secure because our enduring alliance is being made new again.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Yo, check it out! Man, I'm excited to get that book. The soul of America is the pursuit of happiness and this book seems to treat it seriously, a rare thing! Can't wait to get this book. Dr. Mo told me one time that when he first came to America he and his wife lived in New York City briefly and in a Spanish-speaking apartment building. I remember Weimin writing to be, "Ben, the first thing we noticed that was different from China was the laughter. The Latin people were always laughing and playing music." I smiled to myself when I read that. Sure sounded like Americans of Latin descent to me! For those confused about the exact title of this book it's American Fun: Four Centuries of Joyous Revolt. The review I read quotes Tocqueville as saying Americans (in the 1830's) were not funny: "People who spend every day in the week making money, and the Sunday in going to Church, have nothing to invite the Muse of Comedy."
Standards.
Doesn’t look like we’re going to get a question-and-answer truth and reconciliation meeting at NYU, huh? That’s okay. Nobody listens to me, I know. Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen have done their best impersonations of Song Binbin and that is that. We must decide on the “evidence” that we have. At least I must decide for Ms. Farrow has “convicted” me of inflicting pain on her by watching Woody Allen movies because he molested her. She charges Allen of course with the molestation and she also has convicted Hollywood, the Golden Globes people for honoring Allen, and actors and actresses who have worked with Allen, for inflicting pain on her. There is an issue here with “retrospective punishment,” for the lack of a better phrase, with “notice,” and with a “statute of limitations,” all criminal law concepts of fairness. I have to seek guidance here where I can as this is truly a matter of “first impression.” I am a common movie-watching Joe here, not a lawyer. I take my conviction seriously because I take Dylan Farrow’s pain seriously. I must then determine to my satisfaction, and upon this “evidence,” if Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow. If (in my opinion) he did, then I must address the “fairness” concepts above-mentioned. By what standard should I make this determination? I'll look around and borrow. Whatever seems to me to be the best, fairest fit for this unusual situation.
The above serves as road-map for the exercise ahead and as introduction to the following post which is a continuation of “On Kris Dylwood, Thursday, February 7. It was written on Friday:
"Probable cause." Hmm.
Cops, for whom probable cause serves as the standard for an arrest, were involved in both Jameis Winston's and Woody Allen's sex crimes investigations. As were prosecutors. The way it works, or is supposed to work, is that cops, non-lawyers, make their probable cause determination to arrest on the streets. Their case then gets forwarded to the prosecutor for review. (S)he makes (or is supposed to) an independent legal evaluation on whether formal charges are to be filed in court. The prosecutor's standard for filing charges in court is not probable cause. The prosecutor's standard is two-pronged: (1) (S)he must actually believe that the accused committed the crime charged. (If an individual prosecutor does not so believe (s)he is ethically obligated to not handle the case.) (2) The prosecutor must make a legal determination that a reasonable jury would convict the accused at trial using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In both the Winston case and the Allen case the prosecutors announced to anxious audiences that they were not going to file charges in court. Birds hit air pumps in both announcements, however. Willie Meggs, the head prosecutor in the Winston case said:
"[W]e did not feel we had sufficient evidence to go forward and bring the case to trial."
That's an incomplete, but sufficient, statement of the prosecutor's standard.
"[I]t was not a case that we could bring forward because we would not have the burden of proof, the probable cause and the reasonable likelihood of a conviction.”
Thus, "probable cause." What else? Other standards. Winston received an award, too. What were the standards employed by his branch of the entertainment industry for the award?
The above serves as road-map for the exercise ahead and as introduction to the following post which is a continuation of “On Kris Dylwood, Thursday, February 7. It was written on Friday:
"Probable cause." Hmm.
Cops, for whom probable cause serves as the standard for an arrest, were involved in both Jameis Winston's and Woody Allen's sex crimes investigations. As were prosecutors. The way it works, or is supposed to work, is that cops, non-lawyers, make their probable cause determination to arrest on the streets. Their case then gets forwarded to the prosecutor for review. (S)he makes (or is supposed to) an independent legal evaluation on whether formal charges are to be filed in court. The prosecutor's standard for filing charges in court is not probable cause. The prosecutor's standard is two-pronged: (1) (S)he must actually believe that the accused committed the crime charged. (If an individual prosecutor does not so believe (s)he is ethically obligated to not handle the case.) (2) The prosecutor must make a legal determination that a reasonable jury would convict the accused at trial using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In both the Winston case and the Allen case the prosecutors announced to anxious audiences that they were not going to file charges in court. Birds hit air pumps in both announcements, however. Willie Meggs, the head prosecutor in the Winston case said:
"[W]e did not feel we had sufficient evidence to go forward and bring the case to trial."
That's an incomplete, but sufficient, statement of the prosecutor's standard.
"[I]t was not a case that we could bring forward because we would not have the burden of proof, the probable cause and the reasonable likelihood of a conviction.”
That's a confusing mix of the police standard and the prosecutor's standard but the man said there was no probable cause so that's that.
No p.c. Winston, keep calm and carry on. And he did.
In Allen's case the head prosecutor, Frank Maco, announced that he was not filing charges in order to spare young Dylan Farrow the trauma of testifying, a common concern. Maco did not opine on whether the evidence met the prosecutor's standard of actual belief in guilt plus legal judgment that the case could be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Maco also said, there was probable cause to arrest. Maco has said recently that he stands by what he said back in 1993. Another confusing mix.
No p.c. Winston, keep calm and carry on. And he did.
In Allen's case the head prosecutor, Frank Maco, announced that he was not filing charges in order to spare young Dylan Farrow the trauma of testifying, a common concern. Maco did not opine on whether the evidence met the prosecutor's standard of actual belief in guilt plus legal judgment that the case could be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Maco also said, there was probable cause to arrest. Maco has said recently that he stands by what he said back in 1993. Another confusing mix.
In neither case had the police made their probable cause determination to arrest. Neither Winston nor Allen were ever arrested on probable cause. In both, as happens frequently in high-profile cases, the District Attorneys snatched the matter out of police hands.
So, taking these two legal scholars at their word we have: (1) No reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial by standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in Winston. (2) No probable cause in Winston. (3) No statement on whether Allen case could have been filed according to prosecutor's standard in court. (4) Probable cause, but no arrest, in Allen. Hmm, messy.
So, taking these two legal scholars at their word we have: (1) No reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial by standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in Winston. (2) No probable cause in Winston. (3) No statement on whether Allen case could have been filed according to prosecutor's standard in court. (4) Probable cause, but no arrest, in Allen. Hmm, messy.
No arrest. Allen, keep calm and carry on. And he did.
Thus, "probable cause." What else? Other standards. Winston received an award, too. What were the standards employed by his branch of the entertainment industry for the award?
Does America Still Work?
Snowden Used Low-Cost Tool to Best N.S.A.-New York Times.
"...used inexpensive and widely-available software."
"The findings are striking because the N.S.A.’s mission includes protecting the nation’s most sensitive military and intelligence computer systems from cyberattacks, especially the sophisticated attacks that emanate from Russia and China. Mr. Snowden’s “insider attack,” by contrast, was hardly sophisticated and should have been easily detected, investigators found."
I'm glad they were incompetent in this case but they were incompetent. I wish they hadn't been incompetent in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack but incompetence is not selective and discriminating. It's non-selective and undiscriminating.
"...used inexpensive and widely-available software."
"The findings are striking because the N.S.A.’s mission includes protecting the nation’s most sensitive military and intelligence computer systems from cyberattacks, especially the sophisticated attacks that emanate from Russia and China. Mr. Snowden’s “insider attack,” by contrast, was hardly sophisticated and should have been easily detected, investigators found."
I'm glad they were incompetent in this case but they were incompetent. I wish they hadn't been incompetent in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack but incompetence is not selective and discriminating. It's non-selective and undiscriminating.
Saturday, February 08, 2014
You know, there was a time, gosh when was it, before June of last year!, when we had all these government types here, remember? State Department, Main Justice, military bases, I forget what all. There were a lot. It spooked me, I don't spook easily but it actually spooked me a little. I put up a photo of David Janssen from the old Run for Your Life TV program as dark humor. I didn't know what was going on. Virtually of them on the various China posts. That's what they were doing here. All those academic institutions? I don't even check anymore, they're all on the China posts. I remember one of the government sites had some acronym, I could never figure it out, but I remember the location given for it was Ft. Meade. Didn't know wtf Ft. Meade was at the time. No idea. It really makes me feel bad every time I think about it. Mofos, I hate...very strongly dislike, no I hate them, I hate those people.
Salon Publocc.
"Birds of a feather..." Intellectualoids know their own. We can spot each other a mile away on account of we wear our underwear on the outside.
Dylan Farrow Rejoins.
The prosecutrix always gets the last word. From the Hollywood Reporter. I think that's where Kristof is going to be working next:
"Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me--but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life. His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges--in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me--court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as 'inappropriate' behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test--in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts.
With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:
-Debunked the 'experts' my father claims exonerated him, calling them 'colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen', criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions 'sanitized and therefore less credible'.
-Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.
-Found that 'there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.'
-Concluded that the evidence '...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.'
Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found 'probable cause' to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect 'the child victim', given my fragile state.
From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on my. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he's promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced."
"Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me--but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life. His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges--in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me--court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as 'inappropriate' behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test--in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts.
With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:
-Debunked the 'experts' my father claims exonerated him, calling them 'colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen', criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions 'sanitized and therefore less credible'.
-Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.
-Found that 'there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.'
-Concluded that the evidence '...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.'
Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found 'probable cause' to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect 'the child victim', given my fragile state.
From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on my. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he's promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced."
Woody Allen Responds.
As I pulled a muscle climbing up that light pole and a ladder rescue truck had to get me down...PDA Saturday is over. From the New York Times:
TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.
I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.
Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.
Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”
Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”
But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)
Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.
I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.
Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.
I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.
NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.
Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.
After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?
Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)
TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.
I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.
Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.
Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”
Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”
But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)
Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.
I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.
Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.
I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.
NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.
Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.
After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?
Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)
Friday, February 07, 2014
"Fuck the E.U.."-Victoria Nuland, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO.
I could be a diplomat, I talk like that too! I will talk like that. Fuck Victoria Nuland, author of the Benghazi coverup talking points and fuck the U.S.!
Thursday, February 06, 2014
.jpg)
On Kris Dylwood and Song Binbin (really).
Hey didja hear? The New York Times may publish a rebuttal by Wood, according to "Questions" Sullivan.
I suggest an alternative to the dueling op-ed's: a truth and reconciliation (or non) proceeding at New York University. Yes! exactly as I suggested in Songie's case. No, I have not had "positive confirmation" that my idea that the Chinese people confront and question Binbin at Peking University has actually been, like, "adopted" or anything. That's okay. A "moot court" proceeding really would work in l'affaire Dylwood. No, it will never happen. That's okay.
Are Kris Dylwood Chinese? Are they unfamiliar with the concept of an "interview," of questions AND answers? Or do they just do statements, like Song. Dyl called me--all of us--out in her letter for paying to see Wood's movies and I am goddamn well going to continue answering her. She called out actors and actresses by name--Cate Blanchett, WD-40, Alec Baldwin. Dyl took a shot (with Kris' weapon); is that it? It shouldn't be. She has the obligation to answer questions, too. She said in her letter she is now strong enough to go public with her accusations against Wood and against all of us. Is she strong enough to answer questions? Maybe Wood will ask her some questions. Will you take questions from anybody, Dyl? Agree to be interviewed, say, on 60 Minutes? Best of all, would you appear at an NYU moot court? Or, are you only strong enough to fire shots while hiding behind Kris? Huh? I'm asking you.
I suggest an alternative to the dueling op-ed's: a truth and reconciliation (or non) proceeding at New York University. Yes! exactly as I suggested in Songie's case. No, I have not had "positive confirmation" that my idea that the Chinese people confront and question Binbin at Peking University has actually been, like, "adopted" or anything. That's okay. A "moot court" proceeding really would work in l'affaire Dylwood. No, it will never happen. That's okay.
Are Kris Dylwood Chinese? Are they unfamiliar with the concept of an "interview," of questions AND answers? Or do they just do statements, like Song. Dyl called me--all of us--out in her letter for paying to see Wood's movies and I am goddamn well going to continue answering her. She called out actors and actresses by name--Cate Blanchett, WD-40, Alec Baldwin. Dyl took a shot (with Kris' weapon); is that it? It shouldn't be. She has the obligation to answer questions, too. She said in her letter she is now strong enough to go public with her accusations against Wood and against all of us. Is she strong enough to answer questions? Maybe Wood will ask her some questions. Will you take questions from anybody, Dyl? Agree to be interviewed, say, on 60 Minutes? Best of all, would you appear at an NYU moot court? Or, are you only strong enough to fire shots while hiding behind Kris? Huh? I'm asking you.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
On Kris Dylwood.
The topic here is standards. What standard do others apply in deciding whom to honor? The case of Jameis Winston immediately came to mind, a case well-known to many readers of the American persuasion. Nicholas D. Kristoff's characterization of Woody Allen as an "artistic giant" would reasonably be applied to Winston, whose art was practiced in the field, and on the field, in that branch of the entertainment industry known as "college tackle football." Like Allen, Winston was accused of a serious sex crime, rape. Winston's victim was young but not that young, not seven years old. She was college student age. As in Allen's case the District Attorney declined to prosecute. The D.A.'s decision in both cases freed the suspects to continue their artistic endeavors. And, like in Woody Allen's case, the "industry" had an honor to bestow on Winston. Which it did.
In the case of Jameis Winston there are two bodies whose standards we may compare and contrast with Kristof's and Hollywood's in the Allen case, first, Winston's university's standard, and second the standard of the honor-bestowing body. Florida State University's standard was no arrest, no prob, Winston could continue representing the university as their star player in the most visible and most lucrative college sport there is. The undersigned believes but does not know "for sure," that this standard was applied consistently by the university, i.e. to other athletes, male and female, football and field hockey, cash cow, and money-losing dreg. As with the standards used by Kristof and Hollywood, there are no "should's" here. Florida State was within its right to employ that standard. Is it a reasonable standard. In my opinion it is. Might we reasonably criticize it? We may. It does seem a little low; this is a publicly funded university. That is as far as the "character" issue extends at a public university? It is. Might there not be more character expected of a student on a free tuition ride at a public university in such a high-profile role as star of the tackle football team than not to get arrested for rape. For Godssake? Yep. But, that's the standard and they're stickin' to it. One more thing: Florida State's standard is to adopt someone else's standard, namely the standard of the police. Might we reasonably criticize a public university for not independently determining this matter rather than to punt ( pun intended, of course) that decision to the cops and breathlessly await the D.A.'s press conference? Yes. But...standard...stickin' to it.
What is the police standard to make an arrest? "Probable cause," more probable than not that the accused committed the crime. Now I must say, that is the goddamndest most reasonable standard I've heard yet. If it is probable that the accused committed the crime, he was OUTTA THERE! Winston would have had to pursue alternative artistic endeavors, perhaps in the field of medicine or nuclear physics, or pizza delivery, wherever his talents took him. So, thank you Florida State, thank you cops. You have shined light in the dark forest of Nicholas D. Kristof's cranium.
In the case of Jameis Winston there are two bodies whose standards we may compare and contrast with Kristof's and Hollywood's in the Allen case, first, Winston's university's standard, and second the standard of the honor-bestowing body. Florida State University's standard was no arrest, no prob, Winston could continue representing the university as their star player in the most visible and most lucrative college sport there is. The undersigned believes but does not know "for sure," that this standard was applied consistently by the university, i.e. to other athletes, male and female, football and field hockey, cash cow, and money-losing dreg. As with the standards used by Kristof and Hollywood, there are no "should's" here. Florida State was within its right to employ that standard. Is it a reasonable standard. In my opinion it is. Might we reasonably criticize it? We may. It does seem a little low; this is a publicly funded university. That is as far as the "character" issue extends at a public university? It is. Might there not be more character expected of a student on a free tuition ride at a public university in such a high-profile role as star of the tackle football team than not to get arrested for rape. For Godssake? Yep. But, that's the standard and they're stickin' to it. One more thing: Florida State's standard is to adopt someone else's standard, namely the standard of the police. Might we reasonably criticize a public university for not independently determining this matter rather than to punt ( pun intended, of course) that decision to the cops and breathlessly await the D.A.'s press conference? Yes. But...standard...stickin' to it.
What is the police standard to make an arrest? "Probable cause," more probable than not that the accused committed the crime. Now I must say, that is the goddamndest most reasonable standard I've heard yet. If it is probable that the accused committed the crime, he was OUTTA THERE! Winston would have had to pursue alternative artistic endeavors, perhaps in the field of medicine or nuclear physics, or pizza delivery, wherever his talents took him. So, thank you Florida State, thank you cops. You have shined light in the dark forest of Nicholas D. Kristof's cranium.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
On Kris Dylwood.
Boy. Folks, I don't know what is wrong with me. I have not been thinking well on this subject. Taking posts down, putting them back up. I've concentrated on this sentence by Mr. Kristof in 2-3 posts now and I missed the most important part:
"When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester."
The most important part of that sentence is "when evidence is ambiguous." Think of what that means for Kristof's "standard." If even when evidence is ambiguous, friendship or honors are withheld or the accused is boycotted or shunned, all things I dealt with in previous posts, then an impossible, an utterly impossible, standard is set for "unimpeachable honor." The evidence of dishonor should be unambiguous and unimpeachable. Kristof has taken leave of his senses. That is outrageous. It is an outrageous statement to make. There is something going on here with Kristof. He is too close to this--somehow, for some reason--to be writing crap like this. He has no perspective, he's writing claptrap.
And so am I. How did I miss that? I don't know, I don't know. Readers of this page can expect corrections in previous posts, maybe entire re-writes, I don't know. I'll read them all over tomorrow and see what else I've fucked up. And an apology now. I have thought hard and spent a lot of time writing on this subject and I've botched it. I apologize. I will report for a struggle session tomorrow.
"When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester."
The most important part of that sentence is "when evidence is ambiguous." Think of what that means for Kristof's "standard." If even when evidence is ambiguous, friendship or honors are withheld or the accused is boycotted or shunned, all things I dealt with in previous posts, then an impossible, an utterly impossible, standard is set for "unimpeachable honor." The evidence of dishonor should be unambiguous and unimpeachable. Kristof has taken leave of his senses. That is outrageous. It is an outrageous statement to make. There is something going on here with Kristof. He is too close to this--somehow, for some reason--to be writing crap like this. He has no perspective, he's writing claptrap.
And so am I. How did I miss that? I don't know, I don't know. Readers of this page can expect corrections in previous posts, maybe entire re-writes, I don't know. I'll read them all over tomorrow and see what else I've fucked up. And an apology now. I have thought hard and spent a lot of time writing on this subject and I've botched it. I apologize. I will report for a struggle session tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
