From October 3, 2010
October 3, 2010 @ 4:50 a.m.
The current situation ranges from inconvenient to dangerous. However, it seems to me that something like what has happened in the past several months was eventually going to happen to somebody in some way, if not with the set of people and organizations that have been involved this year than with another set of people and organizations next year or in five years.
It could have been anyone that this happened to, and the slurs could have taken any number of forms. In a way it’s good that I’m the person that this happened to, because I’m not at all personally impressed with the slurs themselves and I can look at what’s going on and talk about what it means, although there are probably people who have PhD’s and that kind of thing who can talk about what’s happening more in depth and with greater understanding and historical perspective than I can. Those people and others like them can probably also speculate about what the implications of what has happened are, and that’s the beginning of figuring out ways to prevent it from happening again to someone else or to another group of people.
Although what’s been happening isn’t good, it’s good that a lot of people know that it’s now possible, in this day and age and with technology being what it is, for a situation like this one to happen. One of the relevant questions in addition to dealing with the damage that this situation has caused and could continue to cause if it isn’t halted, is “Now what?” What can be done to prevent this kind of situation from happening again, to other people and to other groups of people?
Copyright L. Kochman, October 3, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 4, 2010 @ 12:32 a.m.
When people walk up to me and make "smell," "wet," "dirty," "fish" and other harassing comments, or when they make those comments in such proximity to me as to make sure that I can hear them, it can be annoying but my true opinion is that their behavior is sad. What I think to myself is "That person seems to think that he or she is making a declaration of being special, but really that person is making a public declaration of the poverty of his or her imagination, intellect, sophistication and, for lack of a better word, class." The behavior of those people is petty, ignorant and gross; I never have any other feeling about it.
Copyright L. Kochman, October 4, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 5, 2010 @ 8:39 p.m.
I see that there are some celebrities and others who perhaps think that I've been overreacting about the pedophilia issue. It seems to me that these are people who don't understand the extent to which what they see as irony is lost on average people, not to mention kids, about that kind of situation. It's REALLY NOT FUNNY, and people who are authority figures and/or people that whole populations look up too have a moral obligation not to joke around about it.
I haven't taken pictures of the most horrifying things that the Burlington Free Press, especially the Hometown section of the Burlington Free Press, the Other Paper, the Colchester Sun, and who knows how many other newspapers in Vermont have done in regard to minors and other young people because I want to protect the privacy of the young people who are being exploited and corrupted. The one time that I didn't do that and I was very specific about which article was a problem, I got a lot of flack; I'm sure people remember that.
Why doesn't the next person who wants to make fun of me about this issue sit down with the published, paper copies of those newspapers from the past 3 months and find out what's been going on? My ability to illustrate the issue for people who aren't willing to take the time to see what's really been happening is somewhat limited.
It also happens online a lot; the Burlington Free Press has done things like run ads for cream cheese next to pictures of high school female atheletes. I'm not making anything up.
It's also obvious from the most recent edition of the Burlington Community Newspaper that the harassment of me has been approved at every level of government, from Burlington to state government, with pictures of police next to harassing references in order to back it all up and to be as threatening as possible. The most recent edition of the Colchester Sun, in addition to crowding the newspaper with sexual references around its kids, put the Colchester Police Report right next to a picture of a woman sitting in a field with an umbrella.
I've also noticed that the Boston newspapers seem to stay extra-vicious about me in particular, even when other big newspapers have backed off; why is that?
I'm having more computer problems. My computer froze a couple of days ago. I don't know if I just need to buy a new mouse or if it has a virus. I'm not using my own computer right now. It wasn't bad timing because I took those days to try to depressurize, although I don't know if depressurize is a word.
It might take me a few days to sort out what's happened and edit my blogs accordingly. It might even take me to the end of the week or the weekend; I'm sorry about that.
In addition, the next thing I need to look for is a place to put pictures that's not as likely to be the first place a prospective employer looks as Friendster is. As I've said, I don't need to get calls and job offers from people who are just planning to put a sign in front of my desk that says "Here she is. The zoo closes at 5:00 p.m. so get your stares and jibes in now." As I've said more than once, I do see all of that as a reflection on the people who do it, but it can be both annoying and distracting and I don't need it when I'm trying to work.
I'm going to have a lot to do this week.
Copyright. L. Kochman, October 5, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 6, 2010 @ 9:50 a.m.
The Burlington Free Press might try to be more careful with what it puts online if it thinks that people who care about what's been happening are watching, but that newspaper can't hide what it put in its paper version for the past 3 months, for the past 6 months, or ever. None of the newspapers can.
I also noticed last night that one of Michelle Obama's Google posts had the exact ad on it that someone had been sending to my Friendster profile. A few days ago I put a general warning on my Friendster profile that I probably have no privacy at all on Friendster and that there are probably people watching everything that happens on all of my online accounts as if those people were me, so anyone who tries to send me ads or other communication there should know that he or she has no privacy about it, either. It looks as if someone at the White House decided to try to test me and see how I would react to having my warning confirmed as the truth. There was even a caption on that blog post of Mrs. Obama's that said something like "I can't wait to see the spin that Glenn Beck puts on this one."
I don't know that anything like spin is necessary to report that the government has not only invaded your life but is bragging about it.
@ 5:54 p.m.
--Gannett news service selling pedophilia all across the country/schools will extort government and terrorize communities.
--Maybe no reason to cancel Friendster; I seem to be semi-famous already where I live.
--Attempted degradation of women becoming an institution because of this situation/smaller or unreported incidents probably happening for the past few months/only a matter of time before the precedent that's being set contributes to someone who has nothing to do with me getting attacked in a way that's so dramatic that the police and the news can't suppress the story.
--Are the students at The University of Vermont getting coerced and threatened by the school into being part of the harassment or into keeping quiet about it even if they would like to protest it? If so, is that happening in other state schools all across Vermont also? Would protestors lose federal aid even at private colleges and universities?
--I don't deserve this!
Vermont isn't a big state, and Burlington isn't a big city, but the Burlington Free Press has the biggest circulation of any newspaper in Vermont, and it has been distributing its message of pedophilia, sexual harassment and bullying across the state for a long time. I doubt that there are any schools in Vermont that don't know what's going on. How many of them plan to extort the government and to prostitute the children and other young people that go to their schools?
Gannett news service, which owns the Burlington Free Press, owns newspapers like it all across the country; that means that similar things are probably happening all around the United States. Why wouldn't there now be schools in other states who also plan to prostitute the young people whom they are supposed to be educating, to extort their local, state and federal governments, and to terrorize the parents in their communities who are against what's happening? Why wouldn't police departments, local and state governments all across the country follow the same pattern set out by what happened in Vermont and turn their communities into police states where pedophilia becomes the enforced norm? Parents who protest could get arrested because the teachers and administrators of their schools and police departments want and expect money from the local, state and federal governments and because, as I've said, where there are children there will be pedophiles. Parents who want their children to live in safe communities and to go to safe schools might try to move away, but if this fad becomes a norm, where are they going to go?
It may not matter where I put my pictures at this point; it seems as if a lot of people know who I am.
What the Obama administration and the corporations, media, and others who have been part of the harassment have done is helping to turn the attempted degradation of women into an institution in the United States, if not all around the world. I am not the only person whose life and safety is being undermined by what's happening; I may be the first person in the history of the world to whom it has happened in this way but there's no way that I'm going to be the last. For this to happen to anyone, male, female, young, old, anyone, sets a precedent for people to turn on each other in their schools, in their workplaces, in their homes; a world is being created that is needlessly based on aggression, and a world like that is also always both insecure and unstable.
I'm not that afraid most of the time because I already knew that people had this side to them, that there are a lot of people in the world who have low standards and that it doesn't take much to bring out the worst in them. I feel as if I can take care of myself, and I'm not surprised by what has happened; it's exactly what I thought was going to happen if the government started to endorse the harassment and if the participating media, corporations, Internet entities and famous individuals continued to endorse it. Women who are part of the harassment now might not see how quickly it can turn on anyone, how becoming part of that kind of gang doesn't protect them from having the same gang turn on them in a second and seemingly out of nowhere but soon they will understand what I'm talking about because that's how gangs always are. I doubt it will be very long before something really horrible happens to someone else; it will be a big news story. A girl or a woman will get attacked, with weeks or months of everyone around her calling her the kinds of things that I've been getting called leading up to a physical attack. Nobody needs to sit around to wait for it to happen to me; the example that's been set guarantees that it's going to happen to somebody. Smaller or at least undocumented incidents have probably been happening for a few months, and it's only a matter of time, probably less than 6 months, before one of those incidents is so dramatic that neither the police nor the harassing media can prevent it from becoming public knowledge.
It seems that the University of Vermont is getting used to promote the harassment; I saw a program from the Flynn theater yesterday that had a joint advertisement in it from the Fleming Museum and the University of Vermont. The ad had umbrellas all over it. I wonder what kind of messages the students at UVM are getting from their school every day, in their e-mail, in their classes. I wonder if students who might like to protest the situation, which endangers all of them because of the precedent it sets, would end up getting kicked out of school, losing their financial aid, work study, housing, or other things that are important to them if they did try to protest.
UVM is a state school; it can't run at all without government money and support. It will be the same in any state school as long as this situation continues. I suppose that it could also happen in private colleges and universities; if you apply for federal aid and the government can look you up on the Internet and see that you are against what's been happening, you might end up having problems getting funding for school.
I don't think it's ever a bad time to say this; I've never voted Republican in my life, and I have no interest in seeing Republicans win elections. I just really want this situation to end; it's bad for everyone. And let's not forget; it's sexual harassment. It really is; this isn't supposed to be happening, it goes against everything that the United States is supposed to be striving to be. I shouldn't be having to prove anything about anything for this to stop. I shouldn't have to put up pictures documenting how brutal it is; everyone who's part of the big, bullying group outside of Vermont knows how bad it is because they're the ones who started it and are continuing to push it and they can see for themselves what's happening. Nobody deserves this; nobody could possibly deserve this. I don't deserve this.
@ 9:54 p.m.
The reason that I'm trying to find out if The New Yorker was originally "The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung und Herold," a German language newspaper that was owned and published by Victor F. Ridder, an American Nazi from the last century, is that I had already noticed that the modern-day New Yorker is remarkably prone to things like anti-Semitism, sexism, and racism of all kinds, and also remarkably resistant to ceasing to be those things. The New Yorker from September 13, 2010, had a cover depicting a young girl with dark hair who could have been Asian, Jewish or any number of things, carrying a pack on her back and leading a mule with all kinds of things on its back, including a soccer ball. The message of that New Yorker was that it believed it had accomplished its goal of getting me ostracized from and condemned by society.
As the pictures that I've just put up on Friendster with some notes will attest, I'm having some trouble doing research regarding my question about The New Yorker's origins. Last night I did a few preliminary Google searches but quit because I didn't have a lot of time and I didn't want to alert the New Yorker to my queries, and then tonight, the first page I looked at had ads for Cabot Cheese at Hannaford's emblazoned across the top of the page; those are the pictures I put on Friendster. I also had more than one search after that result in a message of "this page is unavailable."
Copyright L. Kochman, October 6, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2010 @ 10:25 p.m.
--South Burlington police showed up at my house yesterday with a lie.
--The harassment is only continuing because the people involved don't want to give up their dreams of access to power, money, influence and connections that they have no right to have.
--South Burlington Police showed up at my house yesterday with a lie.
It looks as if, after writing a couple of hours ago on Friendster that I couldn’t log into my blog here, I am now again able to log in. Also, all of the Weebly part of the blog, the part that I don’t write but that has the surrounding instructions and so on from Weebly, is back to being in English.
Yesterday a South Burlington police officer came to my house and told my mother that he was there to talk to her about phone calls that he claimed I had made to the Faith United Methodist Church and to Judy Kearns a week and a half ago.
It’s a lie; either the police are lying or the church and Ms. Kearns are lying. I haven’t talked to Ms. Kearns in months; I tried to confront her on the phone a couple of times about her activities months ago but that was the only direct contact I've ever had with her. As far as the Faith United Methodist Church is concerned, I wrote very clearly in my blog, in the first page called “Home” that I had informed the pastor during the week of 09/16/10 about some of what Ms. Kearns had been doing. My informing the pastor consisted of my leaving her a voicemail; at the most, I left her two messages on that one day that I called her, and if I left two it was to make sure that I had told her everything that I thought she needed to know. I’ve had no further communication with either of those people since.
It’s too bad, because before the police officer showed up, my plan for yesterday morning had been to edit out Ms. Kearns’s name and the pastor’s name; not the names of their organizations, but their names personally, because I felt as if the people and powers that have encouraged the behavior of the participating media, churches, schools and businesses have much of the blame for what has happened about the pedophilia issue. It's sickening that those organizations were as receptive and enthusiastic about the pedophilia as they were, but the government really has a responsibility not to encourage that kind of thing.
If there are celebrities and people in the media who have been clamoring for my death, it’s because one faction or another of the entertainment industry and the media have been picking on me for a long time, for about 2 years. It seems to me that to those people, whether or not I die has the same emotional weight as whether or not I wax regularly.
The harassment got compounded when the government got involved this past summer. The government only got involved because it wanted media friends and it wanted access to the money, influence and fans of the harassing celebrities, in addition to support from the corporations that became of the harassment. That’s all that’s happened; it’s all been about money and power, and now if there are still people outside of the government who are still pushing for my death, it’s because they want to keep the direct access to political power that they thought was going to be theirs as soon as the government started to harass me.
Copyright L. Kochman October 9, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2010 @ 11:08 p.m.
What I’m wondering about South Burlington High School is if there are teachers there who want to get extra funding for the Vermont EPSCoR Streams Project. There are a lot of high schools listed on that site; I wonder if the site and the project have become points of connection for high schools around the state to become aware of and part of the harassment and the use of students in that harassment at the risk of the health and safety of those students.
At the end of the website it says “Funding For This Web Site provided by NSF EPS Grant # 0701410.” I Googled NSF EPS Grant; the first result was this:
Search Results 1. nsf.gov - Funding - Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive ...
Sep 23, 2009 ... Grants.gov Application Guide. Award and Administration ... to Stimulate Competitive Research: Workshop Opportunities (EPS) NSF Wide Programs ...
nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503341...NSF... - Cached
That link will bring you right to the National Science Foundation website. If you click on “What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts,” you’ll go to a page that has at the top of the list “Ocean Acidification Category 1: Identifying Adaptive Responses of Polar Fishes in a Vulnerable Ecosystem.” That grant award was $628, 673 to the University of South Carolina Research Foundation.
If you go back to the main homepage and click on “News,” the third of the four highlighted stories that show up on the page you will be brought to says this (NOTICE IT'S FROM AUGUST 18, 2009):
LSU Professor Develops Integrated Storm Surge and Hurricane Wave Modeling Capabilities for Coastal Protection and Restoration
Released August 18, 2009
News From the Field
Click on that, and it says this:
News From the Field LSU Professor Develops Integrated Storm Surge and Hurricane Wave Modeling Capabilities for Coastal Protection and Restoration
August 18, 2009
As Louisiana begins to keep a wary eye on the Gulf of Mexico, it's hard not to remember hurricane seasons past that produced such storms as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Louisiana State University associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, Q. Jim Chen, is leading a research group tasked with helping our coastal communities better prepare for hurricanes and other inevitable events that come with living near the coast. Full Story
Source
Louisiana State University
October 9, 2010 @ 11:25 p.m.
At the end of the Vermont EPSCor Streams Project High School there’s also listed the name of someone who works at the University of Vermont. I also looked at the general website for Vermont EPSCor.
The Vermont EPSCor website also says that EPSCor has just funded a new series on Vermont Public Television called “Emerging Science.” Follow the link provided on the Vermont EPSCor website and it says that the most recent episode for the new series was about infectious diseases; disease origin and transmission.
I’m going to say this again, so that everybody knows it’s true; I’ve got nothing to be sorry for, and there’s no good reason for me to be getting treated this way. I couldn’t care less what these people think of me, but their behavior is sexual harassment, and in general the harassment has also now become life-threatening. There’s no reason that people have to use me as a way to get attention, money or power; if they can’t get those things in ways that aren’t sleazy, disgusting and dangerous, then they don’t deserve to have them.
Copyright L. Kochman October 9, 2010 @ 11:42 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2010 @ 11:48 p.m.
--Fake search results on the name “Lena Kochman”
--Hacking and Privacy
--My use of the word "spring" in the essay that Brian Williams used to create his "Making A Difference" segment
--Google
--Fake search results on the name “Lena Kochman”
One thing that got erased along with my WordPress blog was my discussion of the fake Internet search results of my name that I have sent reports about more than once to the cybercrime unit of the FBI. Here’s one that shows up on the first page of a Google search of my name:
1. Lena Kirakosian - Pipl Profiles
lenah field fisher black bottom pie. lenagames pocketsol 3 torrent. lenah run community ... lena kirakosian msn fnp-c. lena kirk admin service. lena kochman ...
pipl.com/directory/name/Kirakosian/Lena
Anyone who does Internet searches of my name and sees results like that needs to know that I didn’t create those results and am still happily anticipating the day when the government follows their electronic footprint and deals appropriately with the person who has created them. The government shouldn’t worry that it will remove them too soon; any time is good, really. Six months ago would have been good; a year and a half ago would have been even better.
--Hacking and Privacy
During the winter of 2010 when it first seemed obvious to me that there were people who had been hacking all of my online accounts, I tried to be nice about it, hoping that those people would learn some manners. That never happened, and in fact, what they apparently considered my lack of anger over it seemed to make them think that I had been trying to manipulate them, that I somehow owed them something because it took me a while to realize that they felt entitled to do everything that they were doing and I hadn't complained about it right away.
Since there seem to be other people who think that about me too, and who also seem to think that they have the right to hack everything that belongs to me, I'll say it now; I don't appreciate people hacking my online accounts, my bank accounts, or anything else that's supposed to be private. You don't have the right to do that; not even the government has the right to do that. I'm not a criminal of any kind and there's no reason for that to be happening.
It's obscene that I was ever accused of invading anyone's privacy when people who were accusing me of that were hacking everything I had. I never hacked anything; nothing, ever, never in my life.
--My use of the word "spring" in the essay that Brian Williams used to create his "Making A Difference" segment
First of all, I was quoting someone; I think I was actually quoting the psychologist Erik Erikson's wife. Second of all, I wrote that essay long before anyone started calling me vagina names or things such as "leak" or saying any other of those kinds of extremely rude and harassing things.
What I've said all along is that I don't think it's too much to ask that people just be reasonable. I'm not asking that words such as "fish," "leak," or anything else that anyone has called me get removed from the English language, nor that their counterparts get removed from any other languages. My point has been that there's no reason for people to go out of their way to call other people those kinds of things, especially when it's been made clear that it's unwelcome and offensive.
I said the same things about other kinds of statements that were sexualized or otherwise very personal, things that had a positive connotation such as honey or sugar; that's one of the things that got erased with my WordPress blog. You don't have the right to force sexuality on someone; not in language, not in images, not at all, and you certainly don't have the right to try to make an entire country, an entire world, identify someone as either a positive or a negative sex object if the person objects to it, and you ALSO don't have the right to threaten that person's life for that person's having refused to be identified by you that way.
What I've been saying about this situation is irrefutable; there's no excuse for what's been happening, none at all.
What's more, somebody had to do this, somebody had to push to get women past being treated this way. Real change always involves people laughing at you, those same people trying to make other people laugh at you, and eventually the whole group of them trying to threaten you. As I've said before, this situation is about power; discrimination and harassment are ways that people who either can't get what they want in legitimate ways or are too lazy to try to get what they want legitimately try to get what they want. Someone like me really is a threat to those people; I'm a threat to a system that helps people who are less talented, less intelligent, less accomplished, and less scrupulous to try to take advantage of people who are more of all of those things.
I'm not trying to make anybody who is a part of that system or who likes that system to accept me; acceptance from that kind of person doesn't mean anything to me. What they need to do is to stop trying to get in the way of me living my life; they don't have the right to do that, not to me and not to anyone else, either.
--Google
Google, two days in a row you’ve had that design up; what’s your point? You're trying to say that you're in support of pedophilia? You want to make sure that everyone knows that you support sexual harassment and people getting persecuted by the government for no good reason? Is that what you're trying to say?
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010 @ 12:01 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2010 @ 2:08 a.m.
I wonder if “Stand Up To Cancer” operates on a rewards system to doctors who refer patients for the clinical trials. I wonder if doctors and researchers at cancer centers get higher places on the list in terms of getting their own projects funded by Stand Up To Cancer the more patients they persuade to take part in a Stand Up To Cancer clinical trial. In fact, I wonder if they get more flat-out financial rewards from the pharmaceutical and corporate partners in “Stand Up To Cancer” if they can talk a lot of patients into signing up to be experimented on even though those patients might do just fine with treatments that are traditional or that at least have been approved by the FDA and have also proven their worth in practice for at least 10 years?
There are all kinds of ways that industry in general gets around limitations and laws about bribes. How many patients who get sent to clinical trials when approved treatments would work just as well does it take for a doctor who has a project that he or she wants funded to get to the top of the list of grants at “Stand Up To Cancer?”
I realize that “Stand Up To Cancer” fits more easily on a t-shirt than “Our Organization Experiments on Sick People Who Don't Really Know What's Going On And We Try To Get The Public And Philanthropic Organizations To Pay For It" does but I'm curious as to how much regulation of any kind there is on “Stand Up to Cancer,” from the way it gets taxed to the way the grants get given out; I've already expressed my doubts about how much regulation there is on any of the experiments themselves. I assume that whatever government-approved medical regulation there is on it is minimal to nonexistent. Is it even legal? If sick people are being told to give over their lives to experiments as if participation in a Stand Up To Cancer clinical trial is just as good or better than what they can get with standard treatments, isn't that malpractice?
Just getting sick people to sign a piece of paper that says that they understand the risks of participating in a clinical trial doesn't mean that they do understand the risks, or that they've been properly informed about what their REAL, other, safer options are.
Do all the participants in “Stand Up To Cancer” and their families pay for their own lodging and expenses while the patients are being experimented on? What percentage of the money that gets donated to Stand Up To Cancer goes to housing, food and support services for the test subjects and their families? How many of the people who get involved in the trials sell their houses, move to new cities, put their kids into new schools, find new jobs or spend their life savings in order to be part of those clinical trials?
From a Google search on the term “Medicare cover cost Stand Up to Cancer,” I found a Stand Up to Cancer page that said the following in the first paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Posted on August 27, 2010 11:17 AM
A new federal health law beginning in 2014 will require health plans to pay the routine care costs of patients who participate in clinical trials for the prevention, detection and treatment of cancer and other life-threatening conditions. Routine patient care refers to the range of medical services people with a particular diagnosis might need. It includes treatment for side effects and other medical issues that might arise as a result of the trial. Although Medicare and many private health plans already cover such costs, some plans decline to do so on the grounds that clinical trials are experimental, say experts. More than half of states require coverage of routine costs in a clinical trial, but state requirements vary. The new law sets a minimum standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082303620.html"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What that paragraph is saying is that the U.S. Government is now going to require insurance companies to pay Stand Up To Cancer too, for experimenting on people. I wonder if at some point it will become mandatory, especially for people with government-funded health insurance, to participate in clinical trials BEFORE or INSTEAD of traditional, approved treatments that have been tested for a long time? In fact, I wonder if people who can't afford premium insurance will HAVE to participate in clinical trials in order to get any care at all, if in fact standard care will become available only to people who have the most expensive health insurance or can pay out of pocket costs?
Experimenting on the poor and the sick; it's not very original of the Powers That Be, is it?
I don’t think that rich people, especially rich people who are famous and/or influential who have suffered because they couldn’t get someone that they loved into an experimental program, understand that what they see as the miracle of Stand Up To Cancer isn’t going to be a miracle for anyone but rich people. The whole thing really is poor people getting experimented on, while Stand Up To Cancer acts as a front for the pharmaceutical industry which hands over its costs for cancer research to the public and to charitable foundations so that the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t have to turn any of the money it makes off mostly useless other kinds of drugs back into research for things that really are useful.
Stand Up To Cancer is owned by the entertainment industry; that’s an industry that makes a lot of money from advertising for the pharmaceutical industry and other divisions of the medical industry. The networks and so on do advertising not just for pharmaceuticals but for Stand Up To Cancer too.
It’s a scam; yes, research is getting done, but it’s at the expense of the lives of people that rich people see as being expendable, and the situation is only going to get worse. To make insurance companies pay for clinical trials makes everyone with insurance vulnerable to what’s inevitably going to happen, which is that only rich people will be able to get tried and true treatment, and everybody else, I mean EVERYBODY else, is going to be experimented on.
It's even worse than I thought; Stand Up To Cancer is going to the Third World. What's the rationale, any treatment at all is better than what the inexhaustible supply of helpless test subjects would otherwise get? And conveniently, who's going to know what happens to those people? They're going to be the subjects of the highest risk, lowest-turn-out experiments, aren't they, the ones that leave them vomiting blood in the dirt until they die. What are they going to do, sue?
I bet people in the Third World who don't even have cancer are going to get experimented on; it'll be "Maybe it's cancer; let's see what happens."
Here's an excerpt from the section of the official website for Stand Up To Cancer that begins "Life's Second Chance: Cancer In the Third World:" "Two years after remission, she made it her mission to improve those odds by establishing Life's Second Chance, which received non-profit status in 2005. Her goal is to build a hospital about 45 miles from the capital city of Addis Ababa. Ultimately, she hopes to create a complex complete with housing, research and training, an orphanage, and a rehabilitation center.
Bowler went straight to the people with her plan, and in 2007, the Ethiopian government donated 134 acres of land.
”The whole city is ready to help me build,” she explains. “We have volunteers, and will be able to hire Ethiopian designers and engineers for the project.”
Building the hospital will cost an estimated $19 million; with equipment and a year of administration, the costs will climb up to $118 million. But, Bowler cautions, this shouldn’t be considered a charity project.
“[The locals will] build their own hospital and homes. When it’s completed, they'll work in the hospital and a portion of their salary will go back into the project,” she says."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure this woman has good intentions, and I'm going to attempt to refrain from saying "And that's how she's building that road to hell for all those poor people."
They're going to build the hospital with local labor? Is the local labor going to get paid for that at all?
And then, if they decide to work in the hospital, some of their pay is going to be taken from them and given to Stand Up To Cancer. First of all, do they have to work in the hospital once it's built, are they going to have to sign a contract for that? Second of all, Stand Up To Cancer is going to take money from their salaries? Forever? They work....and then Stand Up To Cancer takes their money, after having made them build the hospital in the first place. Personally, I don't think that anyone should be taking any money from those people; none, not even a little bit, not ever.
And there's going to be an orphanage, too. Children.....with no parents, with nothing at all. Is that how researchers who would have a lot of difficulty getting First World parents to donate their children to Stand Up To Cancer plan to do their experiments about pediatric cancer?
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010 @ 2:45 a.m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2010 @ 10:31 p.m.
--continuation of my discussion of Stand Up To Cancer
Last night I realized that NOBODY who gets hurt by Stand Up To Cancer is going to be able to sue for damages, no matter whether the damage happens in the Third World, the First World, or any other world. Once you sign that piece of paper that says that you understand the risks of participating in a clinical trial, you will have to live with the results no matter what those results are.
Also, I am sure that once insurance companies have to pay for clinical trials, it will be no time at all before everyone, insured or not, who isn't rich, will only have access to clinical trials and not standard care. Those people ALSO won't be able to sue anyone for damages; they will get some coverage for the pills or crutches or not-too-expensive things that they'll need for the rest of their lives after Stand Up To Cancer is done with them and that will be it. I bet there will be a cap on that coverage, too; "I'm sorry, sir/ma'am, but your side effects/crippled for life benefits have been exhausted."
Where are the victims that Stand Up To Cancer has already created? Even if someone has investigated that issue, isn't it likely that all of the information from that investigation has been suppressed? Stand Up To Cancer is an entertainment industry/media production; where would someone who had made that kind of investigation publicize it? If the truth about Stand Up To Cancer gets out, that will mean that the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, research facitilites, research universities and everyone else who is profiting from Stand Up To Cancer will be angry. Everything about Stand Up To Cancer would have to be undone, would have to be reassessed and regulated and maybe just stopped, and that would mean a lot less money for everyone, not least the media and entertainment conglomerate who fronts for the organization. When I say a lot less money, I mean that all of those people who are taking advantage of the public with this monstrosity have staked their futures on it.
1. It's not possible to estimate how much money Stand Up To Cancer is saving and making for the pharmaceutical industry, even with whatever the industry gives to researchers for supplies. (please see above discussion from last night if you haven't read it already for why that is)
2. Researchers and hospitals are not only getting the public and charities to pay for their research, any breakthroughs that they make with that research will enhance their reputations and help them to get more money, awards, appointments to boards, eventually political influence; Stand Up To Cancer is very profitable for those people. Why would they want the majority of their research, all the things that didn't work out, to become public knowledge? Stand Up To Cancer specifically says it funds high risk projects, and what that means is that it funds projects that are high risk even above and beyond the huge risks involved in participating in any clinical trial. Most research doesn't yield big, fast results; that means that probably most of the research done on human subjects in those clinical trials either doesn't help those people and steals from them time and life that they could have used in approved treatments or it hurts them.
3. If all of the above people get mad at the media and entertainment industry in the event that the industry allows what has to be the truth about Stand Up To Cancer to become public knowledge, that's a lot of anger from a lot of highly connected people. Any network, newspaper or other news source that published a story like that would not only lose revenue, it could lose everything.
I hope that cures for all forms of cancer get found, but not like this. If this continues, other organizations like Stand Up To Cancer will get formed and the whole world will be definitively at the end of anybody but wealthy people having a chance to live like human beings.
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2010 @ 11:25 p.m.
Last night I was about to shut down my computer when I decided to check Senator Leahy’s website and saw that he had what seemed to be a bunch of new or at least very prominently displayed environmental initiatives.
As I’ve said, I’m happy to have anyone become a part of any worthwhile cause, and its the hateful use of the publicity for those causes that provokes objections from me.
Probably, I will feel defensive about any publicity that is done on any environmental cause for a while. All of the causes that have been used as code for people advocating that I get hurt will probably seem suspicious or immediately threatening to me for a while.
I’m talking about all of the causes that have been used as code; obviously the specific “sexually harass Lena, threaten her, hurt in every way you can and try to kill her” cause is a no-brainer for how I feel about it.
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 11, 2010 @ 10:30 p.m.
This time, this place, and this world are where I happen to have been born and where I have become an adult. I don’t know that I have any particular reason to feel sorry for myself because the point is that I didn’t take the abuse.
Anyone who’s thinking “Wow, I bet she’s sorry that she got herself in trouble with the people who have been doing this to her” about me doesn’t have an accurate understanding of my perspective. My feeling is “Why does anybody think that he or she has the right to call me vagina names or any other names all day long, or follow me around and hit the car I was driving on purpose, or threaten my friends or my family or threaten me? Who do they think they are, those people who think that I should be apologetic because they decided to behave that way?”
I’m not a second class citizen. No matter how many people try to treat me as if I were one, I’m not; neither is anybody else.
As I’ve said before; calling a woman these kinds of names is exactly the same thing as calling a black person the n-word, is the same as any other kind of slur. If I get extremely angry about the situation sometimes, it’s because I know that that’s the truth; nobody, no matter who she is or what she’s done, could possibly deserve what the harassers tried to do to me. Even criminals get due process, and I’m not a criminal.
The essence of discrimination is that people who like perpetuating it want something other than the truth to be true, because they think that it would make their lives easier if they could create the truth to suit themselves.
Copyright L. Kochman October 11, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 1:05 a.m.
--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: HARASSMENT!!
Tonight for the first time I did a Google search on "Environmental Protection Agency." Just the first sentence of the search result for the website is about bed bugs, and the entire website is nothing but harassment, with a pretense of caring about and protecting children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 2:06 a.m.
1. --I made a mistake re: Vermont Epscor and The Family Circus comic strip
2. --Along with my WordPress blog, my discussion of how the Hearst Corporation owns a lot of the comic strips and also Esquire magazine, Bill Clinton's harassment venue from July 2010, got erased from the Internet. Hearst Corporation owns "The Family Circus" comic strip. 2. --Along with my WordPress blog, my discussion of how the Hearst Corporation owns a lot of the comic strips and also Esquire magazine, Bill Clinton's harassment venue from July 2010, got erased from the Internet. Hearst Corporation owns "The Family Circus" comic strip.
1. --I made a mistake re: Vermont Epscor and The Family Circus comic strip
I made a mistake on October 9, 2010 when I said that the Vermont Epscor website had highlighted a day from its summer training program for its “Streams” project for high school and college students on a day that I had mentioned as just one example of one really harassing cartoon; Family Circus. The Family Circus cartoon, which was just one piece of harassment on one day of what has been a siege of months and months' duration, was from July 18, 2010, and the Epscor website “Streams” highlighted day was July 19, 2010.
I’ve removed that mistaken sentence from my blog; however, I have no doubt that Espcor is delighted to be part of the harassment in any way that it can, and I also think that someone who’s been going through what I’ve gone through is going to be moderately paranoid every once in a while, and prone to making the occasional mistake.
2. --Along with my WordPress blog, my discussion of how the Hearst Corporation owns a lot of the comic strips and also Esquire magazine, Bill Clinton's harassment venue from July 2010, got erased from the Internet. Hearst Corporation owns "The Family Circus" comic strip.
One thing that WordPress erased from the Internet along with my blog there was my discussion of how the Hearst corporation, which is a big media company, owns a lot of the comics that appear in the newspaper every day, including “The Family Circus.” Hearst also owns Esquire magazine, which was where Bill Clinton had a harassing cover article in July (see the page of my blog called “The Clintons.”
Here’s what the Hearst Corporation has to say about itself on the first page of its website:
ABOUT HEARST Hearst Corporation is one of the nation's largest diversified media companies. Its major interests include magazine, newspaper and business publishing, cable networks, television and radio broadcasting, internet businesses, TV production and distribution, newspaper features distribution and real estate.
If you go to the Hearst website and click on the picture/box that says “Entertainment and Syndication,” you will go to a page that has a list of Hearst-owned entertainment entities along the side. Click on the one that says “King Features,” and you will go to a page that says the following in its first few paragraphs:
· KING FEATURES King Features Syndicate is the world's premier distributor of comics, columns, editorial cartoons, puzzles and games to newspapers and websites. It is also a worldwide leader in merchandise licensing and entertainment. King Features distributes more than 130 features plus editorial packages to more than 6,000 daily, weekly and community newspapers and websites around the globe.
o T.R. "Rocky" Shepard III
President
KING FEATURES – SYNDICATION SERVICES
King Features' leading comic properties include the most widely syndicated and beloved comics in the world, such as "Blondie," "Beetle Bailey," "Hagar the Horrible," “Hi and Lois,” "The Family Circus," “Dennis the Menace,” “Mother Goose and Grimm” and “Shoe.” The company's new generation of comics—including "Zits," "Baby Blues," “Sally Forth,” “Sherman’s Lagoon” "Mutts," “Tina’s Groove,” “Rhymes with Orange,” “Retail,” “Bizarro,” “Ollie & Quentin,” “Arctic Circle” and “DeFlocked”—is receiving widespread acclaim from critics and readers alike.
King Features also distributes popular newspaper columns by well-known lifestyle advisers such as Heloise of household hints fame; distinguished commentators such as National Review editor Rich Lowry, Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman and Univision Network’s news anchor Maria Elena Salinas; public health educators and best-selling authors, the YOU Docs Michael Roizen, M.D. and Mehmet Oz, M.D.; National Public Radio's entertaining Car Talk hosts Tom and Ray Magliozzi; authors of the best-selling Chicken Soup for the Soul inspirational book series, Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen; Arthur Frommer, the “Dean of American Travel” ; best-selling author, TV personality and affordable home design expert Debbie Travis; Master Strokes, illustrated by Phil Franke, of Golf Tips magazine with professional advice from one of three PGA-certified Top 100 U.S. golf instructors; and NASCAR This Week, an exciting page of original reporting on stock car racing, America’s fastest-growing sport.
King Features continues to meet the increasing demand for interesting and informative editorial content in a variety of ways. With more than 1,300 subscribers nationwide, King Features Weekly Service packages more than 75 comics, puzzles, columns and features for weekly, monthly and college newspapers.
In alliance with Gazette Communications, King Features offers newspapers top-quality color printing for Sunday color comics and other special sections as well as advertising inserts. More than 150 newspapers around the country have taken advantage of the service’s state-of-the-art printing technology, affordable pricing and superior customer support."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 2:22 a.m.
That's the end of the section that I transcribed here from the Hearst Corporation's page for "King Features."
If a lot of the comics are harassing every day, they're not operating independently of each other; they're owned by a huge media company which has probably done everything it can to spread the harassment and its support for the harassment around the world.
Copyright L. Kochman October 12, 2010 @ 2:25 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 3:12 a.m.
1. ---Another reason why I want this to be over.
2.--Tonight I added pictures to my Friendster profile of what the Colchester Sun community newspaper from September 30, 2010, looked like; Army, Police, Fire Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Colchester High School
I want the harassment and the exploitation to end so that I can remove most if not all of what I have on the Internet and move on with my life.
I might not mind showing up on the Internet every once in a while after this issue resolves, but, as I’ve said, I don’t want to keep a constant presence here.
I talk about what’s going on because my feeling is that talking about it and trying to document it the best I can is a time-honored method for people who have encountered bad situations to try to encourage the people who are perpetuating those situations to stop perpetuating them and maybe even to take steps to reverse, ameliorate, or try to make amends for the damage that they have caused.
I’m not sure what people who threaten me think that they’re going to achieve by doing that; as long as I feel that people are trying to threaten and harass me, I’m going to do my best to expose the behavior of those people. The more harassing and threatening they become, the more reason I have to stay on the Internet and talk about what’s going on.
Documenting this situation isn’t how I want to spend my time; I don’t mind using these words:
I WANT MY LIFE BACK.
2.--Tonight I added pictures to my Friendster profile of some of what the Colchester Sun community newspaper from September 30, 2010, looked like.
On September 21, 2010, a South Burlington police officer showed up at my house and left me a Warning of Trespass Notice saying that I was not to be on the premises of any Colchester school. As I’ve said, I haven’t been anywhere near any Colchester school in 20 years, since I played sports for my own high school.
I’m not sure what the Colchester school district wanted to accomplish by giving me that notice, but if the special Colchester high school athletics section that it created in the Colchester Sun community newspaper for September 30, 2010 is any indication, and if the front page which features the army on it is any indication, looks as if the Colchester school district wanted to sexually exploit its students and to harass and threaten me, and to frighten me into thinking that there was nothing I could do about any of it.
The U.S. Enviomental Protection Agency, the Colchester fire department and the Colchester police department are all featured as part of the harassment in the September 30, 2010 issue of the Colchester Sun, also.
Copyright L. Kochman October 12, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 6:18 p.m.
(Note that I'm writing on October 14, 2010 @ 11:21 a.m.: I've removed what I originally wrote in this section.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 10:44 p.m.
Peter Shumlin doesn’t have the right to call me dirty, or to try to use the harassment of me to get himself elected. Nobody has the right to call me or anybody dirty anyway, not like this, but especially nobody has the right to call me dirty who’s allowing what’s been happening with the newspapers and the schools to continue; that’s really disgusting, to call me dirty because I object to being called dirty and because I object to pedophilia and to the exploitation of people who are too young to know the difference between sexual freedom and being exploited.
It’s impossible that the people who are most responsible for what’s been happening don’t understand that they’re doing something wrong. I saw something on one of Hillary Clinton’s blogs maybe two weeks ago that said “Big girls don’t cry,” or some kind of garbage like that; THE DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT I DON’T DESERVE THIS, and if there are women in that party who think they had to suffer and put up with garbage like that to get where they are, the answer is no, they didn’t, they could have refused to put up with it instead of going along with it.
There is no working woman now who could have a job, pay her rent, or make any of her own decisions for her life if there hadn’t been people decades ago who did exactly the kinds of things that I’m doing now; saying “This is wrong, this has to stop, it’s not equal treatment and it’s not fair.” All of those people got mocked. All of those people got threatened. Some of them were beaten, some of them were killed. They lost jobs, couldn’t get jobs, couldn’t get service in stores, couldn’t get loans for houses, but eventually their efforts paid off, to the point that young adults today have NO IDEA what life used to be like, no idea at all.
The President and his wife would be servants in somebody’s house, or slaves for that matter, if there had never been people who pushed to create a world that has allowed the Obamas to get to where they are. The Obamas didn’t shatter history; as far as I can see, all they’ve done is take advantage of the hard work that other people did on civil rights issues. They’ve done a lot to turn back the clock and to re-establish things that were always bad, that have been gradually eroding out of our society and that might be even farther gone if it weren’t for that administration.
It doesn’t seem to me that anybody in the Obama administration wants change at all; if that administration wanted change, the opposite of what has happened in the past several months would have happened.
There’s something else that I want to say, too; I worked very hard on my relationship with my family, I worked on it for years and years. If there’s really going to be something that I’m going to have a difficult time forgiving this President and his administration for, it’s the disruption in my family life that the Democrats’ selfish, greedy, hateful behavior has caused. The Obama administration didn't have to do any of the things that it has done; those people were already in the White House. Even people who are struggling in some way shouldn't do the kinds of things that these Democrats have done, but these people weren't struggling.
I don't think that there's anybody in Burlington who knows what really happened; I have now asked a few people who looked like they were part of the harassment what they thought was going on and why they were involved, and nobody had an answer. Not one person had an answer that reflected any real knowledge of why what's happening now is happening.
Copyright L. Kochman October 12, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 11:50 p.m.
Here's what I wrote on Friendster about Crystal Mangum in February, 2010. I never had a blog on Friendster; I would just write essays there and then take them out and save them or erase them when I had something new to say.
Part 1.
I remember reading an article about the Duke lacrosse case a few years ago. There were a number of things about it that stood out for me.
First; I think the article mentioned that she was taking Flexeril at the time the alleged attacks occurred. Flexeril is a muscle relaxer; if she had also been drinking that night, I'm curious as to whether a post-rape examination would have been less likely to find the kind of obvious signs of physical damage that you might ordinarily expect to find on the body of someone who has been gang-raped.
Second; am I correct in saying that the DNA samples that they got from her body didn't check out as having come from the people she accused of raping her? I'm curious about that; what would have stopped the families of those boys from paying off the lab and having it substitute random samples from men who had nothing to do with any of it? It would be easy enough then to make the case that "Hey, she's a stripper, she's probably a prostitute as well. She probably turned a few tricks before she showed up to strip at that party." I'm assuming that professional prostitutes always use condoms so it wouldn't really be logical for the defense to accuse her of that, but when people want to win they'll say a lot of things.
There were pictures as well, weren't there? Pictures of her smiling on the porch that night, with the supposedly post-rape time and date that the pictures were taken obviously imprinted on the photos? And these were submitted as evidence that she'd had a great time that night and for some reason had made up a story about those boys? How hard is it to threaten a woman who's just been gang-raped in order to get her to smile for a picture? "Smile, or you know what will happen to you."
The thing I've never understood is why people are so willing to believe that people who claim to have been raped are lying. Especially for someone like her; stripping was the way she made money. What could she possibly have hoped to gain from falsely accusing her clientele?
I read the article a long time ago, and I could be wrong about all of the above. But these are the things I thought about after I read it.
I'm concerned because now she's been arrested. It's my impression that police sometimes have a tendency to decide who they don't like and to stick with those decisions about people through thick and thin. I am not sure that those decisions always serve justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just found an article off the Internet. It's a Fox news story from October 23, 2008. The title is: "Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Insists She Was Attacked in Memoir."
There's a quote from the father of one of the accused boys:
"The forensic DNA findings revealed between five and nine different male profiles in and on Ms. Mangum--none of which matched any person on the Duke men's lacrosse team."
I just looked up some information on the lab that did the testing. The director was later removed from his job there. Apparently he had failed to hand over the report that "revealed between five and nine male profiles" that didn't match any of the lacrosse players. Does that mean that he found evidence, was paid off to suppress the report, and then later gave a false report that "exonerated" the accused boys?
I think it might mean that. Let's try this theory; the families of the boys paid the director of the lab first to suppress the evidence and then to give a false report. Then they included him in the lawsuit against the prosecutor for supposedly witholding evidence that would have settled the case sooner. He testifies during that lawsuit that the prosecutor was neglient about the lab report that eventually "cleared" the boys. The prosecutor gets punished....and what happens to the director of the lab? Does he have to pay damages to the families? Or do they drop him from the lawsuit because he testifies against the prosecutor?
I think that maybe the big question is: what was the final outcome for the former director of that lab? Did he ever have to pay damages to the families? If he didn't, then maybe I'm right.
I've just looked at a few more articles. It's weirder and weirder. I can't find anything that says what finally happend to the lab director. However, a Los Angeles Times article says that during the actual rape case questioning, the director "testified that DNA samples in the case had been contaminated with his own DNA during laboratory testing." That's from an L.A. Times article by David Zucchino on December 16, 2006.
WHY WOULD THAT HAPPEN? Is that a frequent mistake that people who work in labs that test DNA make? Oops? Is that what he was saying, "Oops, I added something extra?" Was it his own blood that he accidentally added to the samples, is that the way he contaminated what he was testing with his own DNA?
The other thing I'm not clear on here is what actually got tested in that guy's private lab. Did he test the original evidence taken from the woman's body and clothing and then compare it to the voluntary samples later given by the lacrosse team? Or was he given a report about the original evidence and all he ever did in his lab was test all of the voluntary samples?
If all he ever did was test the samples that the lacrosse team gave in order to prove their innocence, then it would have been easy for him to say "No, there were no matches between the original samples and the samples that the lacrosse team gave willingly in order to help their own case."
Where is this guy, and how much money has he had since the case against the boys was dropped and the lawsuit against the prosecutor was concluded?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prosecutor was finally found in criminal contempt and suffered a number of consequences for that. But......
Here's an excerpt from a USA Today article from August 31, 2007:
"Taking the stand in his own defense, Nifong insisted Friday he didn't intentionally lie about whether he had turned over the DNA evidence. But he acknowledged the report he gave the defense attorneys was incomplete.
"I now understand that some things that I thought were in the report were in fact not in the report," Nifong said. "So the statements were not factually true to the extent that I said all the information had been provided."
A defense attorney found the omitted data amid 2,000 pages of documents Nifong gave the defense months after the initial report. Nifong said that by the time he realized the information wasn't in that report, "it had been corrected. The defendants already had it."
"It was never my intention to mislead this or any other court," Nifong said. "I certainly apologize to the court at this time for anything I might have said that was not correct.""
But it was the lab director who had decided how to frame the report. He even admitted it, as this article goes on to say:
"On Thursday, Meehan said he was the one who decided how to prepare the report stating that no lacrosse player had been linked to the accuser. When Glover asked Meehan whether Nifong had asked him to leave anything out of the report, Meehan answered "No.""
If it was a defense attorney for the boys who "found" the omitted data, does that mean that the true data was originally omitted by Meehan (that's the lab director) and then false data was substituted for it later? Because that would mean that Nifong wasn't negligent or in criminal contempt at all; it would mean that he believed that Meehan was professional at his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other thing that makes me think that all of the above could be what happened is this; she only ended up accusing three people. But the report said it found evidence of "between five and nine different male profiles--none of which matched any person on the Duke men's lacrosse team." To me, this sounds like exactly the kind of report that would get made to order at the request of wealthy parents who want to protect their sons from jail. The thinking would be to make her look as bad as possible; to make her look like not only a liar but a filthy slut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could be wrong about what happened with the report 4 years ago. But that woman has recently been arrested and charged with a number of serious offenses, which can happen when the police don't like you. I'm not sure that she ever lied or was mistaken about having been raped at that party. Maybe she finally got intimidated during the case and said, "Maybe that night didn't go exactly the way I said it did," but that's the goal of lawyers who try to intimidate witnesses.
Part 2.
Let's take another look at the Internet Fox news article from October 23, 2008 entitled "Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Insists She Was Attacked in Memoir." First of all, it's my guess that this woman was intimidated during the trial into saying she wasn't sure what happened after all. If she was getting the feeling that not only were the boys not going to be found guilty but that she herself was going get into trouble for having accused them in the first place, why wouldn't she feel frightened enough to say she wasn't sure that it happened? She had no social standing, no money, no personal power at all; the accused had all of those things.
The father of one of the acquitted boys is quoted as saying:
"The forensic DNA findings revealed between five and nine different male profiles in and on Ms. Mangum--none of which matched any person on the Duke men's lacrosse team."
Let's say that my theory is wrong, and nobody paid off or intimidated the later-fired director of the private lab or anyone else to substitute fake evidence for real evidence.
When and where did Ms. Mangum have time and occasion either before or after the party to have sexual encounters with between 5 to 9 different men? Was the defense trying to say that she'd had sex for 2 or 3 days with different men, and then had shown up to entertain the Duke lacrosse team without ever having changed her clothes or taken a shower? Or was the defense trying to say that she'd had encounters with 5 to 9 different men after she'd left the party but before she reported having been raped at the party?
If the defense is trying to say the latter, that she had between 5 and 9 encounters after the party, aren't there pictures that the team took of her while she was still at their house? Those pictures have the time and date right on them, don't they? So, how much time elapsed between the latest time on one of those pictures and the time that she first reported that members of the team raped her? Was it enough time for her to be set upon by an entirely unrelated group of between 5 and 9 men who gang-raped her and whom she didn't want to report? Was it enough time for her to have between 5 and 9 separate consensual encounters with men that she met after she left the party but before she reported being raped by people at the party?
Was she ever alone after the party but before she reported being raped? She had a female friend with her for a while, didn't she, the other stripper who had been to the party? Did that woman see her get raped or have sex with someone else after they left the party?
There's a CBS news article on the Internet regarding a 60 Minutes story about the case. The article is attributed to Daniel Schorn and the main title is "Duke Rape Suspects Speak Out". Here's a quote from that article:
"A photograph, taken at 12:31 a.m., shows "Precious" (Ms. Mangum) standing outside the back door of the house. The team captains told police she was pounding at the door around that time, but they wouldn't let her in. Seven minutes later, at 12:38 a.m., she was lying face down on the porch, apparently passed out. At 12:41 a.m., she was being helped to Roberts' car by some of the players and the night appeared to be coming to an end."
Roberts is the other stripper who was in the house that night. At what time did "Precious," or Ms. Mangum, get examined for rape? Was she ever alone long enough to have sex with between 5 to 9 men from the time she left the Duke house with her friend to the time that she reported being raped and then underwent the physical examination by a nurse?
Here's another quote from the CBS article:
"A neighbor also told police he overheard a player yelling in Roberts' direction "Thank your grandfather for my cotton shirt.""
The DNA samples that the defense claimed proved nobody on the lacrosse team raped Ms. Mangum had to come from somewhere. Either she was wearing sperm to the party or she doused herself with it after the party, or it's fake evidence from a fake DNA testing report that the parents of the accused boys paid or intimidated someone to submit to the trial.
I have read in more than one article that Meehan, the lab director whom the prosecutor had hired to conduct more tests, withheld evidence that he got from running those tests. The lab director said that he wanted to protect the privacy of the boys who got tested. Why? Because he didn't want them to go to jail? He also said that he assumed that if the prosecutor had wanted all of the evidence the prosecutor would have asked for it. That seems farfetched to me; the prosecutor had hired him to do a job which it seems as if he didn't do. If someone hires you to do something, and you don't do it or you do it wrong, it's your fault that you did the wrong thing and not the other person's fault for not checking up on you.
As a result of the trial, the prosecutor was accused of ethics violations and disbarred. I just found an Internet article from December 22, 2006. The article is from "Reason Magazine" and is written by someone who claims to be entirely against the prosecutor. The title of the article is "The Government Fix: Just how bad has Mike Nifong screwed up?" Here's a quote from it:
"It has long been clear that Nifong's procedures were extraordinary for a rape case in the state. Anyone familiar with criminal cases in North Carolina knows that it is typical for rape kits to languish untested for months as the state lab is backed up, yet Nifong personally made sure the state lab got to this kit almost immediately and then took the extraordinary step of going to an outside private lab for more rigorous testing."
You don't think maybe Nifong just wanted to make sure that everything got done right, so he could help this woman, so he could punish people who had hurt her?
Ms. Mangum was branded a false accuser, a would-be ruiner of the lives of innocent young men. That would be a heavy psychological and social burden for anyone to bear; it doesn't seem as if she had a great life before the case, so it would be an especially heavy burden for her.
She's recently been arrested and charged with attempted murder, arson, and about 10 other things, but I can't see anything in the current articles that shows she did anything the night she got arrested besides get into a fight with her boyfriend, yell something angry at him and set some clothes on fire in her own bathtub. What if her boyfriend was beating her up to begin with? Does he have broken bones? Did he get stabbed?
It's my impression that this woman is in grave danger of getting her already bad life completely ruined because of the quite possibly undeserved reputation she got as a result of the Duke case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's something else. Nifong was accused of conspiring with Meehan to withhold evidence from the test results. But what if what actually happened was that Nifong suspected Meehan of falsifying the data? Nifong would have wanted to try to figure out a way to get the right data or go to another lab, and for that he needed time. What if all Nifong ever did was ask Meehan to hold on to Meehan's report for a little while?
Nifong would have known that he couldn't openly accuse Meehan or anybody else of being bribed or intimidated, not then or ever. He must have also realized that there was no way he could get the entire lacrosse team to give samples again and get them tested in yet another lab. He finally had to let the report go to the defense as it was, knowing that it would ruin his case against the team.
Once everything got turned around on Nifong, the best he could do was try to stay out of jail. He couldn't accuse anyone of lying or bribery because he had no proof and making those kinds of accusations would have made everything ten times worse for him. If you look at the language he used while he was being investigated after he had to drop the case against the boys, he specifically said that he did NOT deliberately mislead the court as to the test results.
He agreed to be disbarred, he agreed to a lot of things; what else could he do and escape with his life? He spent a night in jail anyway.
Originally written February, 2010, but copyright October 13, 2010 L. Kochman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2010 @ 9:16 p.m.
Anyone who thinks that he or she has the right to fault me for the times that I get upset about the harassment of me is being unreasonable and unfair. People calling me vagina names 24 hours a day for 8 months, calling me all kinds of things, and I'm supposed to somehow prove that I don't deserve it by never showing any sign of anger about it, never even talking about it in an angry way?
It's still difficult for me to believe that there are people who don't see the reality of this situation; what will it take for them to see it?
You don't think it's hideously rude to call somebody cheddar? You don't think it's hideously rude to call somebody fish? You don't think it's hideously rude and completely inappropriate to go on and on about somebody's vagina for 8 months?
The only reason that anyone could possibly think that those are not horrible and rude and wrong things to do is that you think that women are not human beings.
Copyright L. Kochman October 13, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2010 @ 9:24 p.m.
I’VE REMOVED SOME OF WHAT I HAD WRITTEN ABOVE IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. L.K.
In regard to my being harassed, all I want to do is yell “STOP! STOP IT!” Would that work? Have all of the carefully reasoned arguments that I’ve put on the Internet day after day, week after week, and now month after month about how what’s been going on in regard to me is harassment and is really bad been unimpressive next to all of the harassers’ ads for pizza, fish, jokes about flooding, leaks, and so on? All of the pictures that I’ve taken and painstakingly put on my Friendster profile, that I’ve watched get erased either by Friendster or by people outside of Friendster; were those photo albums no match intellectually for the ads for air fresheners and captions on the blogs of the highest U.S. government officials that said “The 9 millimeter won’t save you?” Am I supposed to get the message that my best efforts to elucidate what’s been going on have been a waste of everyone's time, that nothing I do, say, or show is worthwhile enough to stop the harassment from a President who wants to call me “Marlene Targ Brill?” Am I supposed to understand and then accept that no matter what I say, the government’s response is “Target Lena the Fish and encourage people like Brian Williams at NBC who ripped her off, lied about it, and harassed her for no reason but his own personal gain?” Is my acquiescence to all of the above what the government thinks should happen and is hoping will happen?
Copyright L. Kochman October 13, 2010
The current situation ranges from inconvenient to dangerous. However, it seems to me that something like what has happened in the past several months was eventually going to happen to somebody in some way, if not with the set of people and organizations that have been involved this year than with another set of people and organizations next year or in five years.
It could have been anyone that this happened to, and the slurs could have taken any number of forms. In a way it’s good that I’m the person that this happened to, because I’m not at all personally impressed with the slurs themselves and I can look at what’s going on and talk about what it means, although there are probably people who have PhD’s and that kind of thing who can talk about what’s happening more in depth and with greater understanding and historical perspective than I can. Those people and others like them can probably also speculate about what the implications of what has happened are, and that’s the beginning of figuring out ways to prevent it from happening again to someone else or to another group of people.
Although what’s been happening isn’t good, it’s good that a lot of people know that it’s now possible, in this day and age and with technology being what it is, for a situation like this one to happen. One of the relevant questions in addition to dealing with the damage that this situation has caused and could continue to cause if it isn’t halted, is “Now what?” What can be done to prevent this kind of situation from happening again, to other people and to other groups of people?
Copyright L. Kochman, October 3, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 4, 2010 @ 12:32 a.m.
When people walk up to me and make "smell," "wet," "dirty," "fish" and other harassing comments, or when they make those comments in such proximity to me as to make sure that I can hear them, it can be annoying but my true opinion is that their behavior is sad. What I think to myself is "That person seems to think that he or she is making a declaration of being special, but really that person is making a public declaration of the poverty of his or her imagination, intellect, sophistication and, for lack of a better word, class." The behavior of those people is petty, ignorant and gross; I never have any other feeling about it.
Copyright L. Kochman, October 4, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 5, 2010 @ 8:39 p.m.
I see that there are some celebrities and others who perhaps think that I've been overreacting about the pedophilia issue. It seems to me that these are people who don't understand the extent to which what they see as irony is lost on average people, not to mention kids, about that kind of situation. It's REALLY NOT FUNNY, and people who are authority figures and/or people that whole populations look up too have a moral obligation not to joke around about it.
I haven't taken pictures of the most horrifying things that the Burlington Free Press, especially the Hometown section of the Burlington Free Press, the Other Paper, the Colchester Sun, and who knows how many other newspapers in Vermont have done in regard to minors and other young people because I want to protect the privacy of the young people who are being exploited and corrupted. The one time that I didn't do that and I was very specific about which article was a problem, I got a lot of flack; I'm sure people remember that.
Why doesn't the next person who wants to make fun of me about this issue sit down with the published, paper copies of those newspapers from the past 3 months and find out what's been going on? My ability to illustrate the issue for people who aren't willing to take the time to see what's really been happening is somewhat limited.
It also happens online a lot; the Burlington Free Press has done things like run ads for cream cheese next to pictures of high school female atheletes. I'm not making anything up.
It's also obvious from the most recent edition of the Burlington Community Newspaper that the harassment of me has been approved at every level of government, from Burlington to state government, with pictures of police next to harassing references in order to back it all up and to be as threatening as possible. The most recent edition of the Colchester Sun, in addition to crowding the newspaper with sexual references around its kids, put the Colchester Police Report right next to a picture of a woman sitting in a field with an umbrella.
I've also noticed that the Boston newspapers seem to stay extra-vicious about me in particular, even when other big newspapers have backed off; why is that?
I'm having more computer problems. My computer froze a couple of days ago. I don't know if I just need to buy a new mouse or if it has a virus. I'm not using my own computer right now. It wasn't bad timing because I took those days to try to depressurize, although I don't know if depressurize is a word.
It might take me a few days to sort out what's happened and edit my blogs accordingly. It might even take me to the end of the week or the weekend; I'm sorry about that.
In addition, the next thing I need to look for is a place to put pictures that's not as likely to be the first place a prospective employer looks as Friendster is. As I've said, I don't need to get calls and job offers from people who are just planning to put a sign in front of my desk that says "Here she is. The zoo closes at 5:00 p.m. so get your stares and jibes in now." As I've said more than once, I do see all of that as a reflection on the people who do it, but it can be both annoying and distracting and I don't need it when I'm trying to work.
I'm going to have a lot to do this week.
Copyright. L. Kochman, October 5, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 6, 2010 @ 9:50 a.m.
The Burlington Free Press might try to be more careful with what it puts online if it thinks that people who care about what's been happening are watching, but that newspaper can't hide what it put in its paper version for the past 3 months, for the past 6 months, or ever. None of the newspapers can.
I also noticed last night that one of Michelle Obama's Google posts had the exact ad on it that someone had been sending to my Friendster profile. A few days ago I put a general warning on my Friendster profile that I probably have no privacy at all on Friendster and that there are probably people watching everything that happens on all of my online accounts as if those people were me, so anyone who tries to send me ads or other communication there should know that he or she has no privacy about it, either. It looks as if someone at the White House decided to try to test me and see how I would react to having my warning confirmed as the truth. There was even a caption on that blog post of Mrs. Obama's that said something like "I can't wait to see the spin that Glenn Beck puts on this one."
I don't know that anything like spin is necessary to report that the government has not only invaded your life but is bragging about it.
@ 5:54 p.m.
--Gannett news service selling pedophilia all across the country/schools will extort government and terrorize communities.
--Maybe no reason to cancel Friendster; I seem to be semi-famous already where I live.
--Attempted degradation of women becoming an institution because of this situation/smaller or unreported incidents probably happening for the past few months/only a matter of time before the precedent that's being set contributes to someone who has nothing to do with me getting attacked in a way that's so dramatic that the police and the news can't suppress the story.
--Are the students at The University of Vermont getting coerced and threatened by the school into being part of the harassment or into keeping quiet about it even if they would like to protest it? If so, is that happening in other state schools all across Vermont also? Would protestors lose federal aid even at private colleges and universities?
--I don't deserve this!
Vermont isn't a big state, and Burlington isn't a big city, but the Burlington Free Press has the biggest circulation of any newspaper in Vermont, and it has been distributing its message of pedophilia, sexual harassment and bullying across the state for a long time. I doubt that there are any schools in Vermont that don't know what's going on. How many of them plan to extort the government and to prostitute the children and other young people that go to their schools?
Gannett news service, which owns the Burlington Free Press, owns newspapers like it all across the country; that means that similar things are probably happening all around the United States. Why wouldn't there now be schools in other states who also plan to prostitute the young people whom they are supposed to be educating, to extort their local, state and federal governments, and to terrorize the parents in their communities who are against what's happening? Why wouldn't police departments, local and state governments all across the country follow the same pattern set out by what happened in Vermont and turn their communities into police states where pedophilia becomes the enforced norm? Parents who protest could get arrested because the teachers and administrators of their schools and police departments want and expect money from the local, state and federal governments and because, as I've said, where there are children there will be pedophiles. Parents who want their children to live in safe communities and to go to safe schools might try to move away, but if this fad becomes a norm, where are they going to go?
It may not matter where I put my pictures at this point; it seems as if a lot of people know who I am.
What the Obama administration and the corporations, media, and others who have been part of the harassment have done is helping to turn the attempted degradation of women into an institution in the United States, if not all around the world. I am not the only person whose life and safety is being undermined by what's happening; I may be the first person in the history of the world to whom it has happened in this way but there's no way that I'm going to be the last. For this to happen to anyone, male, female, young, old, anyone, sets a precedent for people to turn on each other in their schools, in their workplaces, in their homes; a world is being created that is needlessly based on aggression, and a world like that is also always both insecure and unstable.
I'm not that afraid most of the time because I already knew that people had this side to them, that there are a lot of people in the world who have low standards and that it doesn't take much to bring out the worst in them. I feel as if I can take care of myself, and I'm not surprised by what has happened; it's exactly what I thought was going to happen if the government started to endorse the harassment and if the participating media, corporations, Internet entities and famous individuals continued to endorse it. Women who are part of the harassment now might not see how quickly it can turn on anyone, how becoming part of that kind of gang doesn't protect them from having the same gang turn on them in a second and seemingly out of nowhere but soon they will understand what I'm talking about because that's how gangs always are. I doubt it will be very long before something really horrible happens to someone else; it will be a big news story. A girl or a woman will get attacked, with weeks or months of everyone around her calling her the kinds of things that I've been getting called leading up to a physical attack. Nobody needs to sit around to wait for it to happen to me; the example that's been set guarantees that it's going to happen to somebody. Smaller or at least undocumented incidents have probably been happening for a few months, and it's only a matter of time, probably less than 6 months, before one of those incidents is so dramatic that neither the police nor the harassing media can prevent it from becoming public knowledge.
It seems that the University of Vermont is getting used to promote the harassment; I saw a program from the Flynn theater yesterday that had a joint advertisement in it from the Fleming Museum and the University of Vermont. The ad had umbrellas all over it. I wonder what kind of messages the students at UVM are getting from their school every day, in their e-mail, in their classes. I wonder if students who might like to protest the situation, which endangers all of them because of the precedent it sets, would end up getting kicked out of school, losing their financial aid, work study, housing, or other things that are important to them if they did try to protest.
UVM is a state school; it can't run at all without government money and support. It will be the same in any state school as long as this situation continues. I suppose that it could also happen in private colleges and universities; if you apply for federal aid and the government can look you up on the Internet and see that you are against what's been happening, you might end up having problems getting funding for school.
I don't think it's ever a bad time to say this; I've never voted Republican in my life, and I have no interest in seeing Republicans win elections. I just really want this situation to end; it's bad for everyone. And let's not forget; it's sexual harassment. It really is; this isn't supposed to be happening, it goes against everything that the United States is supposed to be striving to be. I shouldn't be having to prove anything about anything for this to stop. I shouldn't have to put up pictures documenting how brutal it is; everyone who's part of the big, bullying group outside of Vermont knows how bad it is because they're the ones who started it and are continuing to push it and they can see for themselves what's happening. Nobody deserves this; nobody could possibly deserve this. I don't deserve this.
@ 9:54 p.m.
The reason that I'm trying to find out if The New Yorker was originally "The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung und Herold," a German language newspaper that was owned and published by Victor F. Ridder, an American Nazi from the last century, is that I had already noticed that the modern-day New Yorker is remarkably prone to things like anti-Semitism, sexism, and racism of all kinds, and also remarkably resistant to ceasing to be those things. The New Yorker from September 13, 2010, had a cover depicting a young girl with dark hair who could have been Asian, Jewish or any number of things, carrying a pack on her back and leading a mule with all kinds of things on its back, including a soccer ball. The message of that New Yorker was that it believed it had accomplished its goal of getting me ostracized from and condemned by society.
As the pictures that I've just put up on Friendster with some notes will attest, I'm having some trouble doing research regarding my question about The New Yorker's origins. Last night I did a few preliminary Google searches but quit because I didn't have a lot of time and I didn't want to alert the New Yorker to my queries, and then tonight, the first page I looked at had ads for Cabot Cheese at Hannaford's emblazoned across the top of the page; those are the pictures I put on Friendster. I also had more than one search after that result in a message of "this page is unavailable."
Copyright L. Kochman, October 6, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2010 @ 10:25 p.m.
--South Burlington police showed up at my house yesterday with a lie.
--The harassment is only continuing because the people involved don't want to give up their dreams of access to power, money, influence and connections that they have no right to have.
--South Burlington Police showed up at my house yesterday with a lie.
It looks as if, after writing a couple of hours ago on Friendster that I couldn’t log into my blog here, I am now again able to log in. Also, all of the Weebly part of the blog, the part that I don’t write but that has the surrounding instructions and so on from Weebly, is back to being in English.
Yesterday a South Burlington police officer came to my house and told my mother that he was there to talk to her about phone calls that he claimed I had made to the Faith United Methodist Church and to Judy Kearns a week and a half ago.
It’s a lie; either the police are lying or the church and Ms. Kearns are lying. I haven’t talked to Ms. Kearns in months; I tried to confront her on the phone a couple of times about her activities months ago but that was the only direct contact I've ever had with her. As far as the Faith United Methodist Church is concerned, I wrote very clearly in my blog, in the first page called “Home” that I had informed the pastor during the week of 09/16/10 about some of what Ms. Kearns had been doing. My informing the pastor consisted of my leaving her a voicemail; at the most, I left her two messages on that one day that I called her, and if I left two it was to make sure that I had told her everything that I thought she needed to know. I’ve had no further communication with either of those people since.
It’s too bad, because before the police officer showed up, my plan for yesterday morning had been to edit out Ms. Kearns’s name and the pastor’s name; not the names of their organizations, but their names personally, because I felt as if the people and powers that have encouraged the behavior of the participating media, churches, schools and businesses have much of the blame for what has happened about the pedophilia issue. It's sickening that those organizations were as receptive and enthusiastic about the pedophilia as they were, but the government really has a responsibility not to encourage that kind of thing.
If there are celebrities and people in the media who have been clamoring for my death, it’s because one faction or another of the entertainment industry and the media have been picking on me for a long time, for about 2 years. It seems to me that to those people, whether or not I die has the same emotional weight as whether or not I wax regularly.
The harassment got compounded when the government got involved this past summer. The government only got involved because it wanted media friends and it wanted access to the money, influence and fans of the harassing celebrities, in addition to support from the corporations that became of the harassment. That’s all that’s happened; it’s all been about money and power, and now if there are still people outside of the government who are still pushing for my death, it’s because they want to keep the direct access to political power that they thought was going to be theirs as soon as the government started to harass me.
Copyright L. Kochman October 9, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2010 @ 11:08 p.m.
What I’m wondering about South Burlington High School is if there are teachers there who want to get extra funding for the Vermont EPSCoR Streams Project. There are a lot of high schools listed on that site; I wonder if the site and the project have become points of connection for high schools around the state to become aware of and part of the harassment and the use of students in that harassment at the risk of the health and safety of those students.
At the end of the website it says “Funding For This Web Site provided by NSF EPS Grant # 0701410.” I Googled NSF EPS Grant; the first result was this:
Search Results 1. nsf.gov - Funding - Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive ...
Sep 23, 2009 ... Grants.gov Application Guide. Award and Administration ... to Stimulate Competitive Research: Workshop Opportunities (EPS) NSF Wide Programs ...
nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503341...NSF... - Cached
That link will bring you right to the National Science Foundation website. If you click on “What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts,” you’ll go to a page that has at the top of the list “Ocean Acidification Category 1: Identifying Adaptive Responses of Polar Fishes in a Vulnerable Ecosystem.” That grant award was $628, 673 to the University of South Carolina Research Foundation.
If you go back to the main homepage and click on “News,” the third of the four highlighted stories that show up on the page you will be brought to says this (NOTICE IT'S FROM AUGUST 18, 2009):
LSU Professor Develops Integrated Storm Surge and Hurricane Wave Modeling Capabilities for Coastal Protection and Restoration
Released August 18, 2009
News From the Field
Click on that, and it says this:
News From the Field LSU Professor Develops Integrated Storm Surge and Hurricane Wave Modeling Capabilities for Coastal Protection and Restoration
August 18, 2009
As Louisiana begins to keep a wary eye on the Gulf of Mexico, it's hard not to remember hurricane seasons past that produced such storms as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Louisiana State University associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, Q. Jim Chen, is leading a research group tasked with helping our coastal communities better prepare for hurricanes and other inevitable events that come with living near the coast. Full Story
Source
Louisiana State University
October 9, 2010 @ 11:25 p.m.
At the end of the Vermont EPSCor Streams Project High School there’s also listed the name of someone who works at the University of Vermont. I also looked at the general website for Vermont EPSCor.
The Vermont EPSCor website also says that EPSCor has just funded a new series on Vermont Public Television called “Emerging Science.” Follow the link provided on the Vermont EPSCor website and it says that the most recent episode for the new series was about infectious diseases; disease origin and transmission.
I’m going to say this again, so that everybody knows it’s true; I’ve got nothing to be sorry for, and there’s no good reason for me to be getting treated this way. I couldn’t care less what these people think of me, but their behavior is sexual harassment, and in general the harassment has also now become life-threatening. There’s no reason that people have to use me as a way to get attention, money or power; if they can’t get those things in ways that aren’t sleazy, disgusting and dangerous, then they don’t deserve to have them.
Copyright L. Kochman October 9, 2010 @ 11:42 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2010 @ 11:48 p.m.
--Fake search results on the name “Lena Kochman”
--Hacking and Privacy
--My use of the word "spring" in the essay that Brian Williams used to create his "Making A Difference" segment
--Fake search results on the name “Lena Kochman”
One thing that got erased along with my WordPress blog was my discussion of the fake Internet search results of my name that I have sent reports about more than once to the cybercrime unit of the FBI. Here’s one that shows up on the first page of a Google search of my name:
1. Lena Kirakosian - Pipl Profiles
lenah field fisher black bottom pie. lenagames pocketsol 3 torrent. lenah run community ... lena kirakosian msn fnp-c. lena kirk admin service. lena kochman ...
pipl.com/directory/name/Kirakosian/Lena
Anyone who does Internet searches of my name and sees results like that needs to know that I didn’t create those results and am still happily anticipating the day when the government follows their electronic footprint and deals appropriately with the person who has created them. The government shouldn’t worry that it will remove them too soon; any time is good, really. Six months ago would have been good; a year and a half ago would have been even better.
--Hacking and Privacy
During the winter of 2010 when it first seemed obvious to me that there were people who had been hacking all of my online accounts, I tried to be nice about it, hoping that those people would learn some manners. That never happened, and in fact, what they apparently considered my lack of anger over it seemed to make them think that I had been trying to manipulate them, that I somehow owed them something because it took me a while to realize that they felt entitled to do everything that they were doing and I hadn't complained about it right away.
Since there seem to be other people who think that about me too, and who also seem to think that they have the right to hack everything that belongs to me, I'll say it now; I don't appreciate people hacking my online accounts, my bank accounts, or anything else that's supposed to be private. You don't have the right to do that; not even the government has the right to do that. I'm not a criminal of any kind and there's no reason for that to be happening.
It's obscene that I was ever accused of invading anyone's privacy when people who were accusing me of that were hacking everything I had. I never hacked anything; nothing, ever, never in my life.
--My use of the word "spring" in the essay that Brian Williams used to create his "Making A Difference" segment
First of all, I was quoting someone; I think I was actually quoting the psychologist Erik Erikson's wife. Second of all, I wrote that essay long before anyone started calling me vagina names or things such as "leak" or saying any other of those kinds of extremely rude and harassing things.
What I've said all along is that I don't think it's too much to ask that people just be reasonable. I'm not asking that words such as "fish," "leak," or anything else that anyone has called me get removed from the English language, nor that their counterparts get removed from any other languages. My point has been that there's no reason for people to go out of their way to call other people those kinds of things, especially when it's been made clear that it's unwelcome and offensive.
I said the same things about other kinds of statements that were sexualized or otherwise very personal, things that had a positive connotation such as honey or sugar; that's one of the things that got erased with my WordPress blog. You don't have the right to force sexuality on someone; not in language, not in images, not at all, and you certainly don't have the right to try to make an entire country, an entire world, identify someone as either a positive or a negative sex object if the person objects to it, and you ALSO don't have the right to threaten that person's life for that person's having refused to be identified by you that way.
What I've been saying about this situation is irrefutable; there's no excuse for what's been happening, none at all.
What's more, somebody had to do this, somebody had to push to get women past being treated this way. Real change always involves people laughing at you, those same people trying to make other people laugh at you, and eventually the whole group of them trying to threaten you. As I've said before, this situation is about power; discrimination and harassment are ways that people who either can't get what they want in legitimate ways or are too lazy to try to get what they want legitimately try to get what they want. Someone like me really is a threat to those people; I'm a threat to a system that helps people who are less talented, less intelligent, less accomplished, and less scrupulous to try to take advantage of people who are more of all of those things.
I'm not trying to make anybody who is a part of that system or who likes that system to accept me; acceptance from that kind of person doesn't mean anything to me. What they need to do is to stop trying to get in the way of me living my life; they don't have the right to do that, not to me and not to anyone else, either.
Google, two days in a row you’ve had that design up; what’s your point? You're trying to say that you're in support of pedophilia? You want to make sure that everyone knows that you support sexual harassment and people getting persecuted by the government for no good reason? Is that what you're trying to say?
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010 @ 12:01 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2010 @ 2:08 a.m.
I wonder if “Stand Up To Cancer” operates on a rewards system to doctors who refer patients for the clinical trials. I wonder if doctors and researchers at cancer centers get higher places on the list in terms of getting their own projects funded by Stand Up To Cancer the more patients they persuade to take part in a Stand Up To Cancer clinical trial. In fact, I wonder if they get more flat-out financial rewards from the pharmaceutical and corporate partners in “Stand Up To Cancer” if they can talk a lot of patients into signing up to be experimented on even though those patients might do just fine with treatments that are traditional or that at least have been approved by the FDA and have also proven their worth in practice for at least 10 years?
There are all kinds of ways that industry in general gets around limitations and laws about bribes. How many patients who get sent to clinical trials when approved treatments would work just as well does it take for a doctor who has a project that he or she wants funded to get to the top of the list of grants at “Stand Up To Cancer?”
I realize that “Stand Up To Cancer” fits more easily on a t-shirt than “Our Organization Experiments on Sick People Who Don't Really Know What's Going On And We Try To Get The Public And Philanthropic Organizations To Pay For It" does but I'm curious as to how much regulation of any kind there is on “Stand Up to Cancer,” from the way it gets taxed to the way the grants get given out; I've already expressed my doubts about how much regulation there is on any of the experiments themselves. I assume that whatever government-approved medical regulation there is on it is minimal to nonexistent. Is it even legal? If sick people are being told to give over their lives to experiments as if participation in a Stand Up To Cancer clinical trial is just as good or better than what they can get with standard treatments, isn't that malpractice?
Just getting sick people to sign a piece of paper that says that they understand the risks of participating in a clinical trial doesn't mean that they do understand the risks, or that they've been properly informed about what their REAL, other, safer options are.
Do all the participants in “Stand Up To Cancer” and their families pay for their own lodging and expenses while the patients are being experimented on? What percentage of the money that gets donated to Stand Up To Cancer goes to housing, food and support services for the test subjects and their families? How many of the people who get involved in the trials sell their houses, move to new cities, put their kids into new schools, find new jobs or spend their life savings in order to be part of those clinical trials?
From a Google search on the term “Medicare cover cost Stand Up to Cancer,” I found a Stand Up to Cancer page that said the following in the first paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Posted on August 27, 2010 11:17 AM
A new federal health law beginning in 2014 will require health plans to pay the routine care costs of patients who participate in clinical trials for the prevention, detection and treatment of cancer and other life-threatening conditions. Routine patient care refers to the range of medical services people with a particular diagnosis might need. It includes treatment for side effects and other medical issues that might arise as a result of the trial. Although Medicare and many private health plans already cover such costs, some plans decline to do so on the grounds that clinical trials are experimental, say experts. More than half of states require coverage of routine costs in a clinical trial, but state requirements vary. The new law sets a minimum standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082303620.html"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What that paragraph is saying is that the U.S. Government is now going to require insurance companies to pay Stand Up To Cancer too, for experimenting on people. I wonder if at some point it will become mandatory, especially for people with government-funded health insurance, to participate in clinical trials BEFORE or INSTEAD of traditional, approved treatments that have been tested for a long time? In fact, I wonder if people who can't afford premium insurance will HAVE to participate in clinical trials in order to get any care at all, if in fact standard care will become available only to people who have the most expensive health insurance or can pay out of pocket costs?
Experimenting on the poor and the sick; it's not very original of the Powers That Be, is it?
I don’t think that rich people, especially rich people who are famous and/or influential who have suffered because they couldn’t get someone that they loved into an experimental program, understand that what they see as the miracle of Stand Up To Cancer isn’t going to be a miracle for anyone but rich people. The whole thing really is poor people getting experimented on, while Stand Up To Cancer acts as a front for the pharmaceutical industry which hands over its costs for cancer research to the public and to charitable foundations so that the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t have to turn any of the money it makes off mostly useless other kinds of drugs back into research for things that really are useful.
Stand Up To Cancer is owned by the entertainment industry; that’s an industry that makes a lot of money from advertising for the pharmaceutical industry and other divisions of the medical industry. The networks and so on do advertising not just for pharmaceuticals but for Stand Up To Cancer too.
It’s a scam; yes, research is getting done, but it’s at the expense of the lives of people that rich people see as being expendable, and the situation is only going to get worse. To make insurance companies pay for clinical trials makes everyone with insurance vulnerable to what’s inevitably going to happen, which is that only rich people will be able to get tried and true treatment, and everybody else, I mean EVERYBODY else, is going to be experimented on.
It's even worse than I thought; Stand Up To Cancer is going to the Third World. What's the rationale, any treatment at all is better than what the inexhaustible supply of helpless test subjects would otherwise get? And conveniently, who's going to know what happens to those people? They're going to be the subjects of the highest risk, lowest-turn-out experiments, aren't they, the ones that leave them vomiting blood in the dirt until they die. What are they going to do, sue?
I bet people in the Third World who don't even have cancer are going to get experimented on; it'll be "Maybe it's cancer; let's see what happens."
Here's an excerpt from the section of the official website for Stand Up To Cancer that begins "Life's Second Chance: Cancer In the Third World:" "Two years after remission, she made it her mission to improve those odds by establishing Life's Second Chance, which received non-profit status in 2005. Her goal is to build a hospital about 45 miles from the capital city of Addis Ababa. Ultimately, she hopes to create a complex complete with housing, research and training, an orphanage, and a rehabilitation center.
Bowler went straight to the people with her plan, and in 2007, the Ethiopian government donated 134 acres of land.
”The whole city is ready to help me build,” she explains. “We have volunteers, and will be able to hire Ethiopian designers and engineers for the project.”
Building the hospital will cost an estimated $19 million; with equipment and a year of administration, the costs will climb up to $118 million. But, Bowler cautions, this shouldn’t be considered a charity project.
“[The locals will] build their own hospital and homes. When it’s completed, they'll work in the hospital and a portion of their salary will go back into the project,” she says."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure this woman has good intentions, and I'm going to attempt to refrain from saying "And that's how she's building that road to hell for all those poor people."
They're going to build the hospital with local labor? Is the local labor going to get paid for that at all?
And then, if they decide to work in the hospital, some of their pay is going to be taken from them and given to Stand Up To Cancer. First of all, do they have to work in the hospital once it's built, are they going to have to sign a contract for that? Second of all, Stand Up To Cancer is going to take money from their salaries? Forever? They work....and then Stand Up To Cancer takes their money, after having made them build the hospital in the first place. Personally, I don't think that anyone should be taking any money from those people; none, not even a little bit, not ever.
And there's going to be an orphanage, too. Children.....with no parents, with nothing at all. Is that how researchers who would have a lot of difficulty getting First World parents to donate their children to Stand Up To Cancer plan to do their experiments about pediatric cancer?
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010 @ 2:45 a.m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2010 @ 10:31 p.m.
--continuation of my discussion of Stand Up To Cancer
Last night I realized that NOBODY who gets hurt by Stand Up To Cancer is going to be able to sue for damages, no matter whether the damage happens in the Third World, the First World, or any other world. Once you sign that piece of paper that says that you understand the risks of participating in a clinical trial, you will have to live with the results no matter what those results are.
Also, I am sure that once insurance companies have to pay for clinical trials, it will be no time at all before everyone, insured or not, who isn't rich, will only have access to clinical trials and not standard care. Those people ALSO won't be able to sue anyone for damages; they will get some coverage for the pills or crutches or not-too-expensive things that they'll need for the rest of their lives after Stand Up To Cancer is done with them and that will be it. I bet there will be a cap on that coverage, too; "I'm sorry, sir/ma'am, but your side effects/crippled for life benefits have been exhausted."
Where are the victims that Stand Up To Cancer has already created? Even if someone has investigated that issue, isn't it likely that all of the information from that investigation has been suppressed? Stand Up To Cancer is an entertainment industry/media production; where would someone who had made that kind of investigation publicize it? If the truth about Stand Up To Cancer gets out, that will mean that the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, research facitilites, research universities and everyone else who is profiting from Stand Up To Cancer will be angry. Everything about Stand Up To Cancer would have to be undone, would have to be reassessed and regulated and maybe just stopped, and that would mean a lot less money for everyone, not least the media and entertainment conglomerate who fronts for the organization. When I say a lot less money, I mean that all of those people who are taking advantage of the public with this monstrosity have staked their futures on it.
1. It's not possible to estimate how much money Stand Up To Cancer is saving and making for the pharmaceutical industry, even with whatever the industry gives to researchers for supplies. (please see above discussion from last night if you haven't read it already for why that is)
2. Researchers and hospitals are not only getting the public and charities to pay for their research, any breakthroughs that they make with that research will enhance their reputations and help them to get more money, awards, appointments to boards, eventually political influence; Stand Up To Cancer is very profitable for those people. Why would they want the majority of their research, all the things that didn't work out, to become public knowledge? Stand Up To Cancer specifically says it funds high risk projects, and what that means is that it funds projects that are high risk even above and beyond the huge risks involved in participating in any clinical trial. Most research doesn't yield big, fast results; that means that probably most of the research done on human subjects in those clinical trials either doesn't help those people and steals from them time and life that they could have used in approved treatments or it hurts them.
3. If all of the above people get mad at the media and entertainment industry in the event that the industry allows what has to be the truth about Stand Up To Cancer to become public knowledge, that's a lot of anger from a lot of highly connected people. Any network, newspaper or other news source that published a story like that would not only lose revenue, it could lose everything.
I hope that cures for all forms of cancer get found, but not like this. If this continues, other organizations like Stand Up To Cancer will get formed and the whole world will be definitively at the end of anybody but wealthy people having a chance to live like human beings.
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2010 @ 11:25 p.m.
Last night I was about to shut down my computer when I decided to check Senator Leahy’s website and saw that he had what seemed to be a bunch of new or at least very prominently displayed environmental initiatives.
As I’ve said, I’m happy to have anyone become a part of any worthwhile cause, and its the hateful use of the publicity for those causes that provokes objections from me.
Probably, I will feel defensive about any publicity that is done on any environmental cause for a while. All of the causes that have been used as code for people advocating that I get hurt will probably seem suspicious or immediately threatening to me for a while.
I’m talking about all of the causes that have been used as code; obviously the specific “sexually harass Lena, threaten her, hurt in every way you can and try to kill her” cause is a no-brainer for how I feel about it.
Copyright L. Kochman October 10, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 11, 2010 @ 10:30 p.m.
This time, this place, and this world are where I happen to have been born and where I have become an adult. I don’t know that I have any particular reason to feel sorry for myself because the point is that I didn’t take the abuse.
Anyone who’s thinking “Wow, I bet she’s sorry that she got herself in trouble with the people who have been doing this to her” about me doesn’t have an accurate understanding of my perspective. My feeling is “Why does anybody think that he or she has the right to call me vagina names or any other names all day long, or follow me around and hit the car I was driving on purpose, or threaten my friends or my family or threaten me? Who do they think they are, those people who think that I should be apologetic because they decided to behave that way?”
I’m not a second class citizen. No matter how many people try to treat me as if I were one, I’m not; neither is anybody else.
As I’ve said before; calling a woman these kinds of names is exactly the same thing as calling a black person the n-word, is the same as any other kind of slur. If I get extremely angry about the situation sometimes, it’s because I know that that’s the truth; nobody, no matter who she is or what she’s done, could possibly deserve what the harassers tried to do to me. Even criminals get due process, and I’m not a criminal.
The essence of discrimination is that people who like perpetuating it want something other than the truth to be true, because they think that it would make their lives easier if they could create the truth to suit themselves.
Copyright L. Kochman October 11, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 1:05 a.m.
--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: HARASSMENT!!
Tonight for the first time I did a Google search on "Environmental Protection Agency." Just the first sentence of the search result for the website is about bed bugs, and the entire website is nothing but harassment, with a pretense of caring about and protecting children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 2:06 a.m.
1. --I made a mistake re: Vermont Epscor and The Family Circus comic strip
2. --Along with my WordPress blog, my discussion of how the Hearst Corporation owns a lot of the comic strips and also Esquire magazine, Bill Clinton's harassment venue from July 2010, got erased from the Internet. Hearst Corporation owns "The Family Circus" comic strip. 2. --Along with my WordPress blog, my discussion of how the Hearst Corporation owns a lot of the comic strips and also Esquire magazine, Bill Clinton's harassment venue from July 2010, got erased from the Internet. Hearst Corporation owns "The Family Circus" comic strip.
1. --I made a mistake re: Vermont Epscor and The Family Circus comic strip
I made a mistake on October 9, 2010 when I said that the Vermont Epscor website had highlighted a day from its summer training program for its “Streams” project for high school and college students on a day that I had mentioned as just one example of one really harassing cartoon; Family Circus. The Family Circus cartoon, which was just one piece of harassment on one day of what has been a siege of months and months' duration, was from July 18, 2010, and the Epscor website “Streams” highlighted day was July 19, 2010.
I’ve removed that mistaken sentence from my blog; however, I have no doubt that Espcor is delighted to be part of the harassment in any way that it can, and I also think that someone who’s been going through what I’ve gone through is going to be moderately paranoid every once in a while, and prone to making the occasional mistake.
2. --Along with my WordPress blog, my discussion of how the Hearst Corporation owns a lot of the comic strips and also Esquire magazine, Bill Clinton's harassment venue from July 2010, got erased from the Internet. Hearst Corporation owns "The Family Circus" comic strip.
One thing that WordPress erased from the Internet along with my blog there was my discussion of how the Hearst corporation, which is a big media company, owns a lot of the comics that appear in the newspaper every day, including “The Family Circus.” Hearst also owns Esquire magazine, which was where Bill Clinton had a harassing cover article in July (see the page of my blog called “The Clintons.”
Here’s what the Hearst Corporation has to say about itself on the first page of its website:
ABOUT HEARST Hearst Corporation is one of the nation's largest diversified media companies. Its major interests include magazine, newspaper and business publishing, cable networks, television and radio broadcasting, internet businesses, TV production and distribution, newspaper features distribution and real estate.
If you go to the Hearst website and click on the picture/box that says “Entertainment and Syndication,” you will go to a page that has a list of Hearst-owned entertainment entities along the side. Click on the one that says “King Features,” and you will go to a page that says the following in its first few paragraphs:
· KING FEATURES King Features Syndicate is the world's premier distributor of comics, columns, editorial cartoons, puzzles and games to newspapers and websites. It is also a worldwide leader in merchandise licensing and entertainment. King Features distributes more than 130 features plus editorial packages to more than 6,000 daily, weekly and community newspapers and websites around the globe.
o T.R. "Rocky" Shepard III
President
KING FEATURES – SYNDICATION SERVICES
King Features' leading comic properties include the most widely syndicated and beloved comics in the world, such as "Blondie," "Beetle Bailey," "Hagar the Horrible," “Hi and Lois,” "The Family Circus," “Dennis the Menace,” “Mother Goose and Grimm” and “Shoe.” The company's new generation of comics—including "Zits," "Baby Blues," “Sally Forth,” “Sherman’s Lagoon” "Mutts," “Tina’s Groove,” “Rhymes with Orange,” “Retail,” “Bizarro,” “Ollie & Quentin,” “Arctic Circle” and “DeFlocked”—is receiving widespread acclaim from critics and readers alike.
King Features also distributes popular newspaper columns by well-known lifestyle advisers such as Heloise of household hints fame; distinguished commentators such as National Review editor Rich Lowry, Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman and Univision Network’s news anchor Maria Elena Salinas; public health educators and best-selling authors, the YOU Docs Michael Roizen, M.D. and Mehmet Oz, M.D.; National Public Radio's entertaining Car Talk hosts Tom and Ray Magliozzi; authors of the best-selling Chicken Soup for the Soul inspirational book series, Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen; Arthur Frommer, the “Dean of American Travel” ; best-selling author, TV personality and affordable home design expert Debbie Travis; Master Strokes, illustrated by Phil Franke, of Golf Tips magazine with professional advice from one of three PGA-certified Top 100 U.S. golf instructors; and NASCAR This Week, an exciting page of original reporting on stock car racing, America’s fastest-growing sport.
King Features continues to meet the increasing demand for interesting and informative editorial content in a variety of ways. With more than 1,300 subscribers nationwide, King Features Weekly Service packages more than 75 comics, puzzles, columns and features for weekly, monthly and college newspapers.
In alliance with Gazette Communications, King Features offers newspapers top-quality color printing for Sunday color comics and other special sections as well as advertising inserts. More than 150 newspapers around the country have taken advantage of the service’s state-of-the-art printing technology, affordable pricing and superior customer support."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 2:22 a.m.
That's the end of the section that I transcribed here from the Hearst Corporation's page for "King Features."
If a lot of the comics are harassing every day, they're not operating independently of each other; they're owned by a huge media company which has probably done everything it can to spread the harassment and its support for the harassment around the world.
Copyright L. Kochman October 12, 2010 @ 2:25 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 3:12 a.m.
1. ---Another reason why I want this to be over.
2.--Tonight I added pictures to my Friendster profile of what the Colchester Sun community newspaper from September 30, 2010, looked like; Army, Police, Fire Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Colchester High School
I want the harassment and the exploitation to end so that I can remove most if not all of what I have on the Internet and move on with my life.
I might not mind showing up on the Internet every once in a while after this issue resolves, but, as I’ve said, I don’t want to keep a constant presence here.
I talk about what’s going on because my feeling is that talking about it and trying to document it the best I can is a time-honored method for people who have encountered bad situations to try to encourage the people who are perpetuating those situations to stop perpetuating them and maybe even to take steps to reverse, ameliorate, or try to make amends for the damage that they have caused.
I’m not sure what people who threaten me think that they’re going to achieve by doing that; as long as I feel that people are trying to threaten and harass me, I’m going to do my best to expose the behavior of those people. The more harassing and threatening they become, the more reason I have to stay on the Internet and talk about what’s going on.
Documenting this situation isn’t how I want to spend my time; I don’t mind using these words:
I WANT MY LIFE BACK.
2.--Tonight I added pictures to my Friendster profile of some of what the Colchester Sun community newspaper from September 30, 2010, looked like.
On September 21, 2010, a South Burlington police officer showed up at my house and left me a Warning of Trespass Notice saying that I was not to be on the premises of any Colchester school. As I’ve said, I haven’t been anywhere near any Colchester school in 20 years, since I played sports for my own high school.
I’m not sure what the Colchester school district wanted to accomplish by giving me that notice, but if the special Colchester high school athletics section that it created in the Colchester Sun community newspaper for September 30, 2010 is any indication, and if the front page which features the army on it is any indication, looks as if the Colchester school district wanted to sexually exploit its students and to harass and threaten me, and to frighten me into thinking that there was nothing I could do about any of it.
The U.S. Enviomental Protection Agency, the Colchester fire department and the Colchester police department are all featured as part of the harassment in the September 30, 2010 issue of the Colchester Sun, also.
Copyright L. Kochman October 12, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 6:18 p.m.
(Note that I'm writing on October 14, 2010 @ 11:21 a.m.: I've removed what I originally wrote in this section.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 10:44 p.m.
Peter Shumlin doesn’t have the right to call me dirty, or to try to use the harassment of me to get himself elected. Nobody has the right to call me or anybody dirty anyway, not like this, but especially nobody has the right to call me dirty who’s allowing what’s been happening with the newspapers and the schools to continue; that’s really disgusting, to call me dirty because I object to being called dirty and because I object to pedophilia and to the exploitation of people who are too young to know the difference between sexual freedom and being exploited.
It’s impossible that the people who are most responsible for what’s been happening don’t understand that they’re doing something wrong. I saw something on one of Hillary Clinton’s blogs maybe two weeks ago that said “Big girls don’t cry,” or some kind of garbage like that; THE DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT I DON’T DESERVE THIS, and if there are women in that party who think they had to suffer and put up with garbage like that to get where they are, the answer is no, they didn’t, they could have refused to put up with it instead of going along with it.
There is no working woman now who could have a job, pay her rent, or make any of her own decisions for her life if there hadn’t been people decades ago who did exactly the kinds of things that I’m doing now; saying “This is wrong, this has to stop, it’s not equal treatment and it’s not fair.” All of those people got mocked. All of those people got threatened. Some of them were beaten, some of them were killed. They lost jobs, couldn’t get jobs, couldn’t get service in stores, couldn’t get loans for houses, but eventually their efforts paid off, to the point that young adults today have NO IDEA what life used to be like, no idea at all.
The President and his wife would be servants in somebody’s house, or slaves for that matter, if there had never been people who pushed to create a world that has allowed the Obamas to get to where they are. The Obamas didn’t shatter history; as far as I can see, all they’ve done is take advantage of the hard work that other people did on civil rights issues. They’ve done a lot to turn back the clock and to re-establish things that were always bad, that have been gradually eroding out of our society and that might be even farther gone if it weren’t for that administration.
It doesn’t seem to me that anybody in the Obama administration wants change at all; if that administration wanted change, the opposite of what has happened in the past several months would have happened.
There’s something else that I want to say, too; I worked very hard on my relationship with my family, I worked on it for years and years. If there’s really going to be something that I’m going to have a difficult time forgiving this President and his administration for, it’s the disruption in my family life that the Democrats’ selfish, greedy, hateful behavior has caused. The Obama administration didn't have to do any of the things that it has done; those people were already in the White House. Even people who are struggling in some way shouldn't do the kinds of things that these Democrats have done, but these people weren't struggling.
I don't think that there's anybody in Burlington who knows what really happened; I have now asked a few people who looked like they were part of the harassment what they thought was going on and why they were involved, and nobody had an answer. Not one person had an answer that reflected any real knowledge of why what's happening now is happening.
Copyright L. Kochman October 12, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2010 @ 11:50 p.m.
Here's what I wrote on Friendster about Crystal Mangum in February, 2010. I never had a blog on Friendster; I would just write essays there and then take them out and save them or erase them when I had something new to say.
Part 1.
I remember reading an article about the Duke lacrosse case a few years ago. There were a number of things about it that stood out for me.
First; I think the article mentioned that she was taking Flexeril at the time the alleged attacks occurred. Flexeril is a muscle relaxer; if she had also been drinking that night, I'm curious as to whether a post-rape examination would have been less likely to find the kind of obvious signs of physical damage that you might ordinarily expect to find on the body of someone who has been gang-raped.
Second; am I correct in saying that the DNA samples that they got from her body didn't check out as having come from the people she accused of raping her? I'm curious about that; what would have stopped the families of those boys from paying off the lab and having it substitute random samples from men who had nothing to do with any of it? It would be easy enough then to make the case that "Hey, she's a stripper, she's probably a prostitute as well. She probably turned a few tricks before she showed up to strip at that party." I'm assuming that professional prostitutes always use condoms so it wouldn't really be logical for the defense to accuse her of that, but when people want to win they'll say a lot of things.
There were pictures as well, weren't there? Pictures of her smiling on the porch that night, with the supposedly post-rape time and date that the pictures were taken obviously imprinted on the photos? And these were submitted as evidence that she'd had a great time that night and for some reason had made up a story about those boys? How hard is it to threaten a woman who's just been gang-raped in order to get her to smile for a picture? "Smile, or you know what will happen to you."
The thing I've never understood is why people are so willing to believe that people who claim to have been raped are lying. Especially for someone like her; stripping was the way she made money. What could she possibly have hoped to gain from falsely accusing her clientele?
I read the article a long time ago, and I could be wrong about all of the above. But these are the things I thought about after I read it.
I'm concerned because now she's been arrested. It's my impression that police sometimes have a tendency to decide who they don't like and to stick with those decisions about people through thick and thin. I am not sure that those decisions always serve justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just found an article off the Internet. It's a Fox news story from October 23, 2008. The title is: "Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Insists She Was Attacked in Memoir."
There's a quote from the father of one of the accused boys:
"The forensic DNA findings revealed between five and nine different male profiles in and on Ms. Mangum--none of which matched any person on the Duke men's lacrosse team."
I just looked up some information on the lab that did the testing. The director was later removed from his job there. Apparently he had failed to hand over the report that "revealed between five and nine male profiles" that didn't match any of the lacrosse players. Does that mean that he found evidence, was paid off to suppress the report, and then later gave a false report that "exonerated" the accused boys?
I think it might mean that. Let's try this theory; the families of the boys paid the director of the lab first to suppress the evidence and then to give a false report. Then they included him in the lawsuit against the prosecutor for supposedly witholding evidence that would have settled the case sooner. He testifies during that lawsuit that the prosecutor was neglient about the lab report that eventually "cleared" the boys. The prosecutor gets punished....and what happens to the director of the lab? Does he have to pay damages to the families? Or do they drop him from the lawsuit because he testifies against the prosecutor?
I think that maybe the big question is: what was the final outcome for the former director of that lab? Did he ever have to pay damages to the families? If he didn't, then maybe I'm right.
I've just looked at a few more articles. It's weirder and weirder. I can't find anything that says what finally happend to the lab director. However, a Los Angeles Times article says that during the actual rape case questioning, the director "testified that DNA samples in the case had been contaminated with his own DNA during laboratory testing." That's from an L.A. Times article by David Zucchino on December 16, 2006.
WHY WOULD THAT HAPPEN? Is that a frequent mistake that people who work in labs that test DNA make? Oops? Is that what he was saying, "Oops, I added something extra?" Was it his own blood that he accidentally added to the samples, is that the way he contaminated what he was testing with his own DNA?
The other thing I'm not clear on here is what actually got tested in that guy's private lab. Did he test the original evidence taken from the woman's body and clothing and then compare it to the voluntary samples later given by the lacrosse team? Or was he given a report about the original evidence and all he ever did in his lab was test all of the voluntary samples?
If all he ever did was test the samples that the lacrosse team gave in order to prove their innocence, then it would have been easy for him to say "No, there were no matches between the original samples and the samples that the lacrosse team gave willingly in order to help their own case."
Where is this guy, and how much money has he had since the case against the boys was dropped and the lawsuit against the prosecutor was concluded?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prosecutor was finally found in criminal contempt and suffered a number of consequences for that. But......
Here's an excerpt from a USA Today article from August 31, 2007:
"Taking the stand in his own defense, Nifong insisted Friday he didn't intentionally lie about whether he had turned over the DNA evidence. But he acknowledged the report he gave the defense attorneys was incomplete.
"I now understand that some things that I thought were in the report were in fact not in the report," Nifong said. "So the statements were not factually true to the extent that I said all the information had been provided."
A defense attorney found the omitted data amid 2,000 pages of documents Nifong gave the defense months after the initial report. Nifong said that by the time he realized the information wasn't in that report, "it had been corrected. The defendants already had it."
"It was never my intention to mislead this or any other court," Nifong said. "I certainly apologize to the court at this time for anything I might have said that was not correct.""
But it was the lab director who had decided how to frame the report. He even admitted it, as this article goes on to say:
"On Thursday, Meehan said he was the one who decided how to prepare the report stating that no lacrosse player had been linked to the accuser. When Glover asked Meehan whether Nifong had asked him to leave anything out of the report, Meehan answered "No.""
If it was a defense attorney for the boys who "found" the omitted data, does that mean that the true data was originally omitted by Meehan (that's the lab director) and then false data was substituted for it later? Because that would mean that Nifong wasn't negligent or in criminal contempt at all; it would mean that he believed that Meehan was professional at his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other thing that makes me think that all of the above could be what happened is this; she only ended up accusing three people. But the report said it found evidence of "between five and nine different male profiles--none of which matched any person on the Duke men's lacrosse team." To me, this sounds like exactly the kind of report that would get made to order at the request of wealthy parents who want to protect their sons from jail. The thinking would be to make her look as bad as possible; to make her look like not only a liar but a filthy slut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could be wrong about what happened with the report 4 years ago. But that woman has recently been arrested and charged with a number of serious offenses, which can happen when the police don't like you. I'm not sure that she ever lied or was mistaken about having been raped at that party. Maybe she finally got intimidated during the case and said, "Maybe that night didn't go exactly the way I said it did," but that's the goal of lawyers who try to intimidate witnesses.
Part 2.
Let's take another look at the Internet Fox news article from October 23, 2008 entitled "Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Insists She Was Attacked in Memoir." First of all, it's my guess that this woman was intimidated during the trial into saying she wasn't sure what happened after all. If she was getting the feeling that not only were the boys not going to be found guilty but that she herself was going get into trouble for having accused them in the first place, why wouldn't she feel frightened enough to say she wasn't sure that it happened? She had no social standing, no money, no personal power at all; the accused had all of those things.
The father of one of the acquitted boys is quoted as saying:
"The forensic DNA findings revealed between five and nine different male profiles in and on Ms. Mangum--none of which matched any person on the Duke men's lacrosse team."
Let's say that my theory is wrong, and nobody paid off or intimidated the later-fired director of the private lab or anyone else to substitute fake evidence for real evidence.
When and where did Ms. Mangum have time and occasion either before or after the party to have sexual encounters with between 5 to 9 different men? Was the defense trying to say that she'd had sex for 2 or 3 days with different men, and then had shown up to entertain the Duke lacrosse team without ever having changed her clothes or taken a shower? Or was the defense trying to say that she'd had encounters with 5 to 9 different men after she'd left the party but before she reported having been raped at the party?
If the defense is trying to say the latter, that she had between 5 and 9 encounters after the party, aren't there pictures that the team took of her while she was still at their house? Those pictures have the time and date right on them, don't they? So, how much time elapsed between the latest time on one of those pictures and the time that she first reported that members of the team raped her? Was it enough time for her to be set upon by an entirely unrelated group of between 5 and 9 men who gang-raped her and whom she didn't want to report? Was it enough time for her to have between 5 and 9 separate consensual encounters with men that she met after she left the party but before she reported being raped by people at the party?
Was she ever alone after the party but before she reported being raped? She had a female friend with her for a while, didn't she, the other stripper who had been to the party? Did that woman see her get raped or have sex with someone else after they left the party?
There's a CBS news article on the Internet regarding a 60 Minutes story about the case. The article is attributed to Daniel Schorn and the main title is "Duke Rape Suspects Speak Out". Here's a quote from that article:
"A photograph, taken at 12:31 a.m., shows "Precious" (Ms. Mangum) standing outside the back door of the house. The team captains told police she was pounding at the door around that time, but they wouldn't let her in. Seven minutes later, at 12:38 a.m., she was lying face down on the porch, apparently passed out. At 12:41 a.m., she was being helped to Roberts' car by some of the players and the night appeared to be coming to an end."
Roberts is the other stripper who was in the house that night. At what time did "Precious," or Ms. Mangum, get examined for rape? Was she ever alone long enough to have sex with between 5 to 9 men from the time she left the Duke house with her friend to the time that she reported being raped and then underwent the physical examination by a nurse?
Here's another quote from the CBS article:
"A neighbor also told police he overheard a player yelling in Roberts' direction "Thank your grandfather for my cotton shirt.""
The DNA samples that the defense claimed proved nobody on the lacrosse team raped Ms. Mangum had to come from somewhere. Either she was wearing sperm to the party or she doused herself with it after the party, or it's fake evidence from a fake DNA testing report that the parents of the accused boys paid or intimidated someone to submit to the trial.
I have read in more than one article that Meehan, the lab director whom the prosecutor had hired to conduct more tests, withheld evidence that he got from running those tests. The lab director said that he wanted to protect the privacy of the boys who got tested. Why? Because he didn't want them to go to jail? He also said that he assumed that if the prosecutor had wanted all of the evidence the prosecutor would have asked for it. That seems farfetched to me; the prosecutor had hired him to do a job which it seems as if he didn't do. If someone hires you to do something, and you don't do it or you do it wrong, it's your fault that you did the wrong thing and not the other person's fault for not checking up on you.
As a result of the trial, the prosecutor was accused of ethics violations and disbarred. I just found an Internet article from December 22, 2006. The article is from "Reason Magazine" and is written by someone who claims to be entirely against the prosecutor. The title of the article is "The Government Fix: Just how bad has Mike Nifong screwed up?" Here's a quote from it:
"It has long been clear that Nifong's procedures were extraordinary for a rape case in the state. Anyone familiar with criminal cases in North Carolina knows that it is typical for rape kits to languish untested for months as the state lab is backed up, yet Nifong personally made sure the state lab got to this kit almost immediately and then took the extraordinary step of going to an outside private lab for more rigorous testing."
You don't think maybe Nifong just wanted to make sure that everything got done right, so he could help this woman, so he could punish people who had hurt her?
Ms. Mangum was branded a false accuser, a would-be ruiner of the lives of innocent young men. That would be a heavy psychological and social burden for anyone to bear; it doesn't seem as if she had a great life before the case, so it would be an especially heavy burden for her.
She's recently been arrested and charged with attempted murder, arson, and about 10 other things, but I can't see anything in the current articles that shows she did anything the night she got arrested besides get into a fight with her boyfriend, yell something angry at him and set some clothes on fire in her own bathtub. What if her boyfriend was beating her up to begin with? Does he have broken bones? Did he get stabbed?
It's my impression that this woman is in grave danger of getting her already bad life completely ruined because of the quite possibly undeserved reputation she got as a result of the Duke case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's something else. Nifong was accused of conspiring with Meehan to withhold evidence from the test results. But what if what actually happened was that Nifong suspected Meehan of falsifying the data? Nifong would have wanted to try to figure out a way to get the right data or go to another lab, and for that he needed time. What if all Nifong ever did was ask Meehan to hold on to Meehan's report for a little while?
Nifong would have known that he couldn't openly accuse Meehan or anybody else of being bribed or intimidated, not then or ever. He must have also realized that there was no way he could get the entire lacrosse team to give samples again and get them tested in yet another lab. He finally had to let the report go to the defense as it was, knowing that it would ruin his case against the team.
Once everything got turned around on Nifong, the best he could do was try to stay out of jail. He couldn't accuse anyone of lying or bribery because he had no proof and making those kinds of accusations would have made everything ten times worse for him. If you look at the language he used while he was being investigated after he had to drop the case against the boys, he specifically said that he did NOT deliberately mislead the court as to the test results.
He agreed to be disbarred, he agreed to a lot of things; what else could he do and escape with his life? He spent a night in jail anyway.
Originally written February, 2010, but copyright October 13, 2010 L. Kochman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2010 @ 9:16 p.m.
Anyone who thinks that he or she has the right to fault me for the times that I get upset about the harassment of me is being unreasonable and unfair. People calling me vagina names 24 hours a day for 8 months, calling me all kinds of things, and I'm supposed to somehow prove that I don't deserve it by never showing any sign of anger about it, never even talking about it in an angry way?
It's still difficult for me to believe that there are people who don't see the reality of this situation; what will it take for them to see it?
You don't think it's hideously rude to call somebody cheddar? You don't think it's hideously rude to call somebody fish? You don't think it's hideously rude and completely inappropriate to go on and on about somebody's vagina for 8 months?
The only reason that anyone could possibly think that those are not horrible and rude and wrong things to do is that you think that women are not human beings.
Copyright L. Kochman October 13, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2010 @ 9:24 p.m.
I’VE REMOVED SOME OF WHAT I HAD WRITTEN ABOVE IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. L.K.
In regard to my being harassed, all I want to do is yell “STOP! STOP IT!” Would that work? Have all of the carefully reasoned arguments that I’ve put on the Internet day after day, week after week, and now month after month about how what’s been going on in regard to me is harassment and is really bad been unimpressive next to all of the harassers’ ads for pizza, fish, jokes about flooding, leaks, and so on? All of the pictures that I’ve taken and painstakingly put on my Friendster profile, that I’ve watched get erased either by Friendster or by people outside of Friendster; were those photo albums no match intellectually for the ads for air fresheners and captions on the blogs of the highest U.S. government officials that said “The 9 millimeter won’t save you?” Am I supposed to get the message that my best efforts to elucidate what’s been going on have been a waste of everyone's time, that nothing I do, say, or show is worthwhile enough to stop the harassment from a President who wants to call me “Marlene Targ Brill?” Am I supposed to understand and then accept that no matter what I say, the government’s response is “Target Lena the Fish and encourage people like Brian Williams at NBC who ripped her off, lied about it, and harassed her for no reason but his own personal gain?” Is my acquiescence to all of the above what the government thinks should happen and is hoping will happen?
Copyright L. Kochman October 13, 2010