May 29, 2011
--I took out what I originally wrote here, for privacy reasons. Hopefully, I won't have to worry about it anymore, or any issues similar to it.
I need to question the motives of people with whom all of my issues were resolved who only showed up after I got some attention from powerful and/or glamorous people. I had no grudges with anyone, and was under the impression that there were few if any people who had grudges with me, or who had any real reason to have a grudge against me.
Certainly at this point, I don't think that there's anyone who has any cause for complaint about how adversely I affected their lives vs. how adversely they have affected my life.
@ 3:18 p.m.
--My answer to a noble if perhaps uninformed anti-war sentiment expressed to me by a few people in town
If there are countries the size of Iran who want nuclear weapons, it's because there are countries the size of the United States who have nuclear weapons. I'm certainly in favor of world peace. If I speculated last year about what might have been President Obama's motives for supporting the deaths or continued detentions of the prisoners in Iran, it wasn't because I like the idea of nuclear weapons. I don't think that human rights abuses should be committed as part of a negotiation over anything, including nuclear weapons.
Has everyone read the page in my blog where I talked about how I didn't like the possibility that Mrs. Clinton had tried to block a U.N. small arms treaty? I wrote that last year, and I just referenced that page on a more recent blog page the other day; I gave the page number and everything.
On May 27, 2011, I referred to my blog page "From September 27, 2010," which discusses what Mrs. Clinton might have done, and why.
@3:41 p.m.
--Pedophilic references
There's some discussion of code in this section, but I'm not intending to put any code of my own here.
I got upset with a guy who has upset me several times before with his adherence to things that I think are really bad. He then revealed his new girlfriend, and gave her the code name "new."
I was upset with him because he signed up for a movie that it seemed obvious to me was going to get used to promote pedophilia, which it by now seems to me ought to be obvious to anyone who's watched the overall situation over the past year isn't a funny joke but a very serious and bad thing to do.
Now, his code name for his new girlfriend is getting used to promote pedophilia. For example, there's a youth-oriented pamphlet now circulating in this town called "New Directions For Barre." It may be that the organization that published it has been around before now, but its latest publication features a talk against drunk driving by someone whose last name is "Brooks," a quote by someone whose last name is "Stone," and more water references on the back.
There's also Dunkin' Donuts, the local outlet of which has a sign saying "NEW!" in a picture of lemonade and some other cold drinks. It's not a coincidence that the "NEW!" caption is next to the glass of lemonade; several weeks ago, I wrote about a Boston Globe, front-page article that used something called "Lemonade Mouth" to promote pedophilia.
As I've said before, my talking about these issues when they affect a lot of people isn't personal; it's about the way they affect people.
It makes me feel bad to write about this, because the young woman whose code name is getting used this way is in the same situation as all of the other people who have become a part of it. Taking advantage of people's poor judgment when nothing in their lives has prepared them for the political situation over the past year, they're young, and the only thing that they're doing is trying to date a guy whom they like is a form of abuse.
Maybe I shouldn't say that; maybe I should stop excusing people, no matter how young they are, for the sleazy things that they do and are willing to support. All I know is, that the political situation and all that goes with it is frightening and not everyone knows how to deal with that or understands the importance of defying dictators with bad agendas.
I don't think that there's a graceful way to defy dictators; "no," is at least a good start.
As I'm sitting here writing this, the same male resident of the shelter walked over behind me and said his same "Whopper with cheese" comment. There have been other comments made today.
@ 4:08 p.m.
--Pepsi
In the past few days, a large Pepsi display has appeared at the entrance of the local Price Chopper. That's probably because I talked recently on Weebly about how destructive the misogyny campaigns of Pepsi and Coca Cola have been, and how destructive, worldwide, the corporate misogyny campaigns have most likely been.
--Local effects of the harassment
As I was sitting and waiting to use the computer again, 2 of the male residents of the shelter were sitting near me, and in their conversation with each other, they made one comment after another which was ostensibly part of their conversation but which were meant to be sexually harassing.
First they were talking about the Navy, then about cheesburgers, then about rain.....I knew they were looking for a reaction from me, and I could feel that I was getting angry. Then I thought "They don't think it's wrong because the President and a lot of other influential people have been saying that it's all right," and I felt mostly sad instead.
Even when I try to have normal conversations with people like those 2 men, it's impossible. They're always waiting to make some comment.
It's definitely impeding normal life; that's all they see, is someone to whom they can be disrespectful and make constant discussion of her vagina. That is the role that all women will be forced into because of what's happening, if it continues.
I wish that I could get that idea across to the people who don't seem to understand it. It's really a big deal; it really is going to destroy all of the gains women have made, and probably it will go farther than that to taking away rights and dignities that we had, at least in the United States, even before there was any kind of civil rights or women's movement.
That's why I get angry; that's why I get upset. It's not personal; it never has been. If I try to defend myself on a personal level sometimes, it's because of just how disrespectful people do get sometimes, and how personally offensive the things that they say and do are and are obviously meant to be.
Copyright L. Kochman May 29, 2011 @ 9:37 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 29, 2011
The following is something that I wrote on the date indicated, for the reasons indicated. The man in question is someone whom I've told, without fail, that I'm not going to get involved with him or with anyone else who promotes things that I find really objectionable. So far, in however many years it's been that I've been finding objectionable things objectionable, I have yet to go back on my word with that kind of statement. I have not become involved with anyone who does those objectionable things.
Since I wrote the May 17, 2011 essay, the same guy also was pressured by President Obama for a few days to date me. That happened a couple of weeks ago.
I'm curious as to what makes the President think that he can arrange people's personal lives to his liking. Unlike me, he can actually threaten to hurt people who don't do what he says.
I'm also wondering if the President's motives in choosing one person or another to push onto whoever it is at the time usually have to do with what he thinks will be most politically expedient for him, the President. That's not really a question; I'm attempting to be polite by putting it as a question.
Nobody should be getting threatened by the President, corporations, sports teams, magazines, the media, or anybody else about whom they date, don't date, befriend, don't befriend, and so on. Nobody's life, job, career prospects, reputation, online privacy, or anything else should be getting threatened by all or any of the entities in the previous sentence; not for any reason.
Recently I said, "I might put what I wrote on May 17, 2011 back up again, about how the guy got threatened to date this woman and then also pressured to date me, and about how that's wrong." Then the President went back to giving all kinds of support to the other girl; it's got nothing to do with me or her, it's all about President Obama and his career.
Only cynicism is making me laugh; it's not funny.
@10:22 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2011
The day when I wrote on my Weebly blog about the charity/media event that was going to happen that night and the attentions that a young lady celebrity had given to a young male celebrity last year; there was nothing personal in my writing about that.
I was writing for my own self-preservation. The President was going to endorse that event, also, and I knew that it was going to be a big "get Lena" event.
Those big, harassing "Get Lena" events that occur outside of Vermont have an instant impact where I live. It is DANGEROUS for those events to occur, and that's why I talked about it.
What I was also trying to illustrate was this; I've been getting called a slut in 100 different ways for more than a year by people who were making just as big of a campaign out of trying to help another woman steal someone's boyfriend as they were making a campaign out of calling me a slut. It's been my impression all along that there wasn't anything personal in most of the big harassers doing that, either; if I've been a symbol for them of female equality and someone who refuses to be controlled, I think that they wanted to use the young lady as a counter-symbol of female servitude and someone who CAN be controlled.
They used her emotions and ambitions to make her into a tool to prove their power. That's what it has always seemed to me that the entire thing was about.
The man in question was THREATENED to date her. Whatever he may feel about her now, that happened.
This is supposed to be a free country, and all of that is exactly the kind of thing that's NOT supposed to happen in a free country.
@ 6:37 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--I took out what I originally wrote here, for privacy reasons. Hopefully, I won't have to worry about it anymore, or any issues similar to it.
I need to question the motives of people with whom all of my issues were resolved who only showed up after I got some attention from powerful and/or glamorous people. I had no grudges with anyone, and was under the impression that there were few if any people who had grudges with me, or who had any real reason to have a grudge against me.
Certainly at this point, I don't think that there's anyone who has any cause for complaint about how adversely I affected their lives vs. how adversely they have affected my life.
@ 3:18 p.m.
--My answer to a noble if perhaps uninformed anti-war sentiment expressed to me by a few people in town
If there are countries the size of Iran who want nuclear weapons, it's because there are countries the size of the United States who have nuclear weapons. I'm certainly in favor of world peace. If I speculated last year about what might have been President Obama's motives for supporting the deaths or continued detentions of the prisoners in Iran, it wasn't because I like the idea of nuclear weapons. I don't think that human rights abuses should be committed as part of a negotiation over anything, including nuclear weapons.
Has everyone read the page in my blog where I talked about how I didn't like the possibility that Mrs. Clinton had tried to block a U.N. small arms treaty? I wrote that last year, and I just referenced that page on a more recent blog page the other day; I gave the page number and everything.
On May 27, 2011, I referred to my blog page "From September 27, 2010," which discusses what Mrs. Clinton might have done, and why.
@3:41 p.m.
--Pedophilic references
There's some discussion of code in this section, but I'm not intending to put any code of my own here.
I got upset with a guy who has upset me several times before with his adherence to things that I think are really bad. He then revealed his new girlfriend, and gave her the code name "new."
I was upset with him because he signed up for a movie that it seemed obvious to me was going to get used to promote pedophilia, which it by now seems to me ought to be obvious to anyone who's watched the overall situation over the past year isn't a funny joke but a very serious and bad thing to do.
Now, his code name for his new girlfriend is getting used to promote pedophilia. For example, there's a youth-oriented pamphlet now circulating in this town called "New Directions For Barre." It may be that the organization that published it has been around before now, but its latest publication features a talk against drunk driving by someone whose last name is "Brooks," a quote by someone whose last name is "Stone," and more water references on the back.
There's also Dunkin' Donuts, the local outlet of which has a sign saying "NEW!" in a picture of lemonade and some other cold drinks. It's not a coincidence that the "NEW!" caption is next to the glass of lemonade; several weeks ago, I wrote about a Boston Globe, front-page article that used something called "Lemonade Mouth" to promote pedophilia.
As I've said before, my talking about these issues when they affect a lot of people isn't personal; it's about the way they affect people.
It makes me feel bad to write about this, because the young woman whose code name is getting used this way is in the same situation as all of the other people who have become a part of it. Taking advantage of people's poor judgment when nothing in their lives has prepared them for the political situation over the past year, they're young, and the only thing that they're doing is trying to date a guy whom they like is a form of abuse.
Maybe I shouldn't say that; maybe I should stop excusing people, no matter how young they are, for the sleazy things that they do and are willing to support. All I know is, that the political situation and all that goes with it is frightening and not everyone knows how to deal with that or understands the importance of defying dictators with bad agendas.
I don't think that there's a graceful way to defy dictators; "no," is at least a good start.
As I'm sitting here writing this, the same male resident of the shelter walked over behind me and said his same "Whopper with cheese" comment. There have been other comments made today.
@ 4:08 p.m.
--Pepsi
In the past few days, a large Pepsi display has appeared at the entrance of the local Price Chopper. That's probably because I talked recently on Weebly about how destructive the misogyny campaigns of Pepsi and Coca Cola have been, and how destructive, worldwide, the corporate misogyny campaigns have most likely been.
--Local effects of the harassment
As I was sitting and waiting to use the computer again, 2 of the male residents of the shelter were sitting near me, and in their conversation with each other, they made one comment after another which was ostensibly part of their conversation but which were meant to be sexually harassing.
First they were talking about the Navy, then about cheesburgers, then about rain.....I knew they were looking for a reaction from me, and I could feel that I was getting angry. Then I thought "They don't think it's wrong because the President and a lot of other influential people have been saying that it's all right," and I felt mostly sad instead.
Even when I try to have normal conversations with people like those 2 men, it's impossible. They're always waiting to make some comment.
It's definitely impeding normal life; that's all they see, is someone to whom they can be disrespectful and make constant discussion of her vagina. That is the role that all women will be forced into because of what's happening, if it continues.
I wish that I could get that idea across to the people who don't seem to understand it. It's really a big deal; it really is going to destroy all of the gains women have made, and probably it will go farther than that to taking away rights and dignities that we had, at least in the United States, even before there was any kind of civil rights or women's movement.
That's why I get angry; that's why I get upset. It's not personal; it never has been. If I try to defend myself on a personal level sometimes, it's because of just how disrespectful people do get sometimes, and how personally offensive the things that they say and do are and are obviously meant to be.
Copyright L. Kochman May 29, 2011 @ 9:37 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 29, 2011
The following is something that I wrote on the date indicated, for the reasons indicated. The man in question is someone whom I've told, without fail, that I'm not going to get involved with him or with anyone else who promotes things that I find really objectionable. So far, in however many years it's been that I've been finding objectionable things objectionable, I have yet to go back on my word with that kind of statement. I have not become involved with anyone who does those objectionable things.
Since I wrote the May 17, 2011 essay, the same guy also was pressured by President Obama for a few days to date me. That happened a couple of weeks ago.
I'm curious as to what makes the President think that he can arrange people's personal lives to his liking. Unlike me, he can actually threaten to hurt people who don't do what he says.
I'm also wondering if the President's motives in choosing one person or another to push onto whoever it is at the time usually have to do with what he thinks will be most politically expedient for him, the President. That's not really a question; I'm attempting to be polite by putting it as a question.
Nobody should be getting threatened by the President, corporations, sports teams, magazines, the media, or anybody else about whom they date, don't date, befriend, don't befriend, and so on. Nobody's life, job, career prospects, reputation, online privacy, or anything else should be getting threatened by all or any of the entities in the previous sentence; not for any reason.
Recently I said, "I might put what I wrote on May 17, 2011 back up again, about how the guy got threatened to date this woman and then also pressured to date me, and about how that's wrong." Then the President went back to giving all kinds of support to the other girl; it's got nothing to do with me or her, it's all about President Obama and his career.
Only cynicism is making me laugh; it's not funny.
@10:22 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2011
The day when I wrote on my Weebly blog about the charity/media event that was going to happen that night and the attentions that a young lady celebrity had given to a young male celebrity last year; there was nothing personal in my writing about that.
I was writing for my own self-preservation. The President was going to endorse that event, also, and I knew that it was going to be a big "get Lena" event.
Those big, harassing "Get Lena" events that occur outside of Vermont have an instant impact where I live. It is DANGEROUS for those events to occur, and that's why I talked about it.
What I was also trying to illustrate was this; I've been getting called a slut in 100 different ways for more than a year by people who were making just as big of a campaign out of trying to help another woman steal someone's boyfriend as they were making a campaign out of calling me a slut. It's been my impression all along that there wasn't anything personal in most of the big harassers doing that, either; if I've been a symbol for them of female equality and someone who refuses to be controlled, I think that they wanted to use the young lady as a counter-symbol of female servitude and someone who CAN be controlled.
They used her emotions and ambitions to make her into a tool to prove their power. That's what it has always seemed to me that the entire thing was about.
The man in question was THREATENED to date her. Whatever he may feel about her now, that happened.
This is supposed to be a free country, and all of that is exactly the kind of thing that's NOT supposed to happen in a free country.
@ 6:37 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------