Saturday, July 22, 2017

Why So Few Female CEOs?

This weekend’s big read long form story is a New York Times article about why there aren’t more women CEOs. Written by Susan Chira it complains and complains and complains about the injustice of it all.

Chira has mostly interviewed women who have not quite made it to the top and this opens her to the suggestion that her subjects are simply sore losers. On the other hand, being number two or being an important executive in a corporation is a significant achievement. Why diminish it by complaining about not having risen higher?

In itself, the complaints might be the reason why more women aren’t CEOs. They might be so conscious of the obstacles to their advancement that they are less focused on the task at hand. Thank you, Sheryl Sandberg, for teaching women how to fight against injustice. But, however successful Sandberg is, being a fighter against injustice will not look good on your résumé.

There are a few bottom line points we can make here, in no particular order.

First, nothing about anyone’s corporate charter says that company performance is judged by how many women in has in which positions. We do not know what happens in a company when there are more or fewer women in which positions. If the government imposes gender equity requirements, this might persuade the non-women on the team that the women who succeeded did not earn their way. Thus, gender diversity quotas can breed resentment and make cooperation more difficult.

Second, if having a woman executive improves profitability, then the marketplace will naturally produce more female executives. Chira and her sources suggest over and over again that women leaders are better than men. This might be true. But it might not be true. Since Chira’s sources were women who were passed over for promotion, they might have cherry- picked the facts that make their grievances look more just.

Third, the article largely ignores the cost of motherhood. It barely hints at the fact that when women become mothers they often choose to spend more time with their children and less time on the job. You might think that it’s inconsequential. The chances are that it isn’t. If you take Anne-Marie Slaughter’s experience seriously, it is extremely difficult to be a good mother and to work your way up a status hierarchy. Given the choice, most women will choose as Slaughter did and opt for their children.

Fourth, most women simply do not want to advance up the corporate hierarchy. One recalls the basic Darwinian principle, namely that a more powerful man becomes more attractive to women while a more powerful woman becomes less attractive to men. Most women know this and choose their careers accordingly. It is not sexist. It is rational. Of course, the rule has exceptions, but for the most part it seems clearly to be true. Chira mentions one woman who said that in order to stay on the CEO path she would have had to uproot and take a job abroad. When the opportunity arose she turned it down… perhaps for reasons that had to do with family. This was her choice. We should respect it for as much. It must have contributed to her failure to become CEO.

Fifth, the article scrupulously ignores the possibility that men and women are differently constructed, both in terms of physical strength and in terms of the mental ability to respond effectively to stress. Chira ignores the facts, but this blog has not. Links here and here. Chira suggests that our culture does not teach women to be assertive and to lean in. But theynshe suggests that when women become assertive they provoke negative and even hostile reactions. It might be that men are sexist, but it also might be that when you are physically weaker your assertion of strength will be seen as a bluff. And it will also be seen, not as a gesture of self-assertion, but as a gesture of hostility.  Chira also suggests that women are less competitive, but, for all she or anyone else knows, this too is part of a woman’s DNA. When women are more competitive they are less likely to survive in a world inhabited by men who are constitutionally stronger. This does not mean that some few women might have the competitiveness gene, but it means that such women will be the exception, not the rule.

Sixth, the constant discussion over sexual harassment has made it that men are often wary of taking meetings alone with women or of traveling alone on business with them. When women become a threat to their male mentors, this does not enhance their career opportunities.

Seventh, Chira notes clearly that the higher executive ranks are mostly a male domain, even a male locker room. The presence of women upsets the dynamic and the male bonding. You may think that this is trivial, but if you have never engaged in it, how do you know? It means that men who behave and speak in a certain way when women are not present will be obliged to change the way they function when women are present. One suspects that when women are in the company of other women they do not talk about men as they would if there were males present. Moreover, now that the night riders of the thought police have descended on the culture what man would risk his livelihood on the chance that he might, in the presence of a woman, say something that is sexist, or, God forbid, inappropriate? Feminists cheer when a powerful man is brought low by charges of sexual harassment or sexism, but, even assuming that it is a just result, the people who will pay for this might very well be other women—who will no longer be included in meetings or trips.

Eighth, Chira and her interviewees completely ignore the emulation factor. Leaders do not just lead by drawing up plans and by motivating their teams. They set an example; they lead by example. Every study of executive leadership makes this point, over and over again.  If a manager sets an example of good conduct, company loyalty and office decorum, his staff will, almost unconsciously, follow his lead. He will not have to tell them. Showing will suffice. This works because all people want to improve themselves; they want to better themselves. They do so by emulating their betters, because they want ultimately to be like their betters.

How many young men do you know who want to grow up to become like Hillary Clinton? By the way, how many women do you know who would like to be just like Hillary?

Case closed.

Friday, July 21, 2017

Hating Free Speech

The alt-left has long been at war against free speech. It wants to shut down Fox News and any other media outlets, even bloggers whose opinions it deems offensive. People who were proclaiming themselves to be champions of facts have long since been trying to monopolize the marketplace of ideas. They insist that differing opinions, disagreements, even offensive remarks must be banned, their speakers consigned to oblivion.

Before examining the debate incited by Professor Lisa Feldman Barrett through a New York Times article, it is worth underscoring that the only speech that Barrett and the alt-left legions want to suppress comes from the right. In particular, they seem to be horrified at the negative effects produced by professional provocateur and best-selling author Milo Yiannopoulos.

If you hold to the politically correct dogmas of the alt-left, if you are a leftist extremist fawning over Hugo Chavez, bowing down to the image of Chairman Mao, honoring convicted murderers like Joanne Chesimard and Rasmea Odeh you can say anything you damn well please. The armies of the alt-left will defend you to the death. 

But if you are a gay Jewish British conservative like Milo your speech must be suppressed, lest it stress out thin-skinned students and hurt their delicate feelings. Barrett argues, with a special lack of cogency, that any speech that hurts your feelings and that detracts from your mental health is an act of violence. And what does she feel about the “evil eye?” Should we outlaw envious looks too.

Before proceeding into the tall grass of Barrett’s defective reasoning, we should note the salient philosophical issue. The alt left does not believe in reality. It believes in uniform opinion, in one mindedness, closed to all ideas that might undermine the faith of those who believe what they have been told to believe, without regard for fact or evidence.

The error is almost too easy to understand. If we see a cat lying on a mat we will all agree that the cat is on the mat. Faced with an objective reality we agree to its truth. And we all say that the cat is on the mat.

And yet, is the fact a fact because we all believe it? Does belief make the fact a fact? (See the current mania over transgenderism, here.) I don’t think so. Thus, the error in alt left thinking consists in imagining that if we can all agree and say that a rat is on the mat, this becomes the truth, even if the rat is nowhere to be seen-- because the cat just ate the rat. 

You might consider the statement that the rat is on the mat to be a higher truth, a truth referring to a world produced  by your wishes—where dreams come true. But, to imagine that if we can convince everyone to accept as a fact that the rat is on the mat then the rat will be on the mat… is a fundamental error.

It’s like saying that everyone agrees and says that Shakespeare was a great writer. But then, you add that what makes Shakespeare great is that everyone agrees he was great. If the world did not think that Hamlet was great play it would not be a great play. Thus, those who would want to control your mind explain that if we can somehow convince everyone, from the media to the academy, that your neighbor down the street, a hack poetaster if ever there was one, is a great writer, then, presto, your neighbor becomes a great writer.

To produce this new reality and to effect this magical transformation you will need to ban all speech that speaks ill of your neighbor's literary talents, because otherwise your neighbor and anyone who accepts the belief as truth will be seriously traumatized. After all, if you have bought into a series of lies, if you have based your life on them, you certainly do not want to hear anyone tell you that you are wrong. Between changing your mind and shutting down the discordant speech, you will choose the latter. If you are hearing echoes of the Hans Christian Anderson story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” you have gotten the point.

Meanwhile, back with Professor Barrett’s efforts to undermine the First amendment, Jesse Singal  summarizes her position in New York Magazine:

Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons— and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.
Singal offers up a few words from Barrett’s op-ed:

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture.

Barrett bemoans the fact the being subjected to so much stress is bad for your nervous system. One might say that the nightly news causes an equal or greater degree of stress, but the alt left will then decide that it needs to start policing the nightly news… the better to shut down all conservative ideas.

Barrett continues:

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

Since no one seems to notice this, but these arguments always assume that people who do not toe the academic party line are hatemongers. One way that the alt left has tried to suppress inconvenient speech is to call it hate speech. But this has been going on for quite some time now.

Happily, Singal refutes Barrett’s ideas clearly and cogently. To his mind she has confused the chronic stress suffered by people who grow up poor with the stress experienced by a college student who has been subjected to microaggressions, that is, to remarks that might be interpreted negatively. As you know, the alt left wants to explain the academic underperformance of certain groups by the fact that other students look at them cross-eyed. Its blame shifting and a rationalization for failure.

Singal writes:

Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there. One situation involves a level of chronic stress that is inflicted on you against your will and which really could harm you in the long run; the other doesn’t. 

Perhaps, more importantly, research shows that you can sensitize people to react badly to certain kinds of speech. If you tell students that their college careers are being sabotaged by Milo, no matter what he says, they will feel that his words are traumatizing them.

Singal continues:

It’s also worth pointing out that this sort of scaremongering — Milo is coming and he is shrinking your telomeres! — could become a self-fulfilling prophecy for some students. There’s an intriguing area of behavioral science known as mind-set research, and one of its tenets is that the relationship between stress and humans’ response to it is partially mediated by how people expect stress to affect them.

And also,

Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm. And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.

Kudos to Jesse Singal for a cogent and lucid take down of a pseudoscientific argument designed to take away your free speech.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Shunned and Confused

The letter writer who calls herself “Confused” is so confused that she has written to Ask Polly. It will be like the blind leading the blind. Or better, like the blind leading the blinder.

Confused has a problem. She has, of late, become somewhat estranged from a group of women she counts as her closest friends. She explains it in terms of social media slights, but apparently, for the millennial generation those count as real life social interactions. You will understand that people who communicate through Facebook and Snapchat and Whatever are not in very close contact with each other. Such is life. The compensation is that slights are more easily quantified. If all the girls are responding to each other and not to you, you have an objective factual record. So, no one can say that Confused is just making this up.

With regret that, as often happens in these letters, Confused does not provide us with nearly enough information to make a judgment, we can still suss out the problem.

Confused writes:

I feel like while everyone is kind to each other in the group and celebrates their successes and lives, I am overlooked and even ignored, often. It sounds petty, but if I post anything on Facebook, a couple of the girls often don’t “like” it, even though they meticulously like each other’s things. They haven’t even added my boyfriend, who I’ve been with for two years and who they have met several times. He’s a very kind and likable person, by the way, so there’s no reason for them not to have added him.

I  don’t know if it’s as simple as jealousy (I am pretty successful in my career as a scientist) or whether I’m just not a very likable person. I try to be nice, and never disagree with or criticize them….

I always feel like they’re being saccharine sweet to each other and then when I write anything no one replies. And when we meet up in person, one of the girls in particular really gives off a strange vibe toward me and stares at me sometimes in an unsettling way.

I don’t think you have to go too far out on a limb to see that the problem is the kind and gentle boyfriend. These women are trying to tell Confused something. They are screaming about it, in a muted way. From the information available I do not think that they are jealous because she is a scientist. I think they are trying to tell her that her boyfriend is unacceptable.

If they all hang out together all the time and if they have only met said boyfriend a few times in two years… it’s a sign. I have no idea whether he is kind and likable or even whether Confused herself is sufficiently likable, but, truth be told, people are included or excluded from social groups for reasons that go far beyond being kind and likable.

I find it interesting and even encouraging that the group of friends has not intervened directly, has not told her to her face. If the boyfriend is the problem they do better not to tell her directly. But, they are telling her, in a subtle way, that they want to remain friends with her but do not want him to be part of their crowd.

They may be right. They may be wrong. But, Confused is facing a stark choice.

One also notes that Confused was spurred on to write because one of the group is getting married. We wish her the best. But, Confused does not say whether she is a bridesmaid. One assumes that she is bringing her boyfriend as her date, and perhaps her friends fear that she will marry him, and that this will cause them to lose her forever.

Naturally, Polly misses the point. Completely. But then again, if she were capable of getting the point she would not be going on at excruciating length about feeling her own feelings.

In truth, Polly wants this woman to feel better. Don’t we all? But, she tells her to be blind and deaf to the message that her friends are sending her. Polly says that even though Confused is being shunned by her sometime friends, it isn’t about her. Call this the consolation prize. Call it the booby prize, if you prefer. It might make Confused feel better, but it is a lie.

Polly writes:

The point is, it’s not personal. These are your old friends, yes, but maybe it would soothe you to recognize that they don’t match you the same way they match each other. They’re not rejecting you, they’re just being who they are. When they act the way they act, it’s not a verdict on who you are.

It might be that Confused needs to make some new friends. And yet, she ought not to be encouraged to blind herself to the message her friends are sending her. It might be that the friends are wrong and that her boyfriend is a prince among men. It might also be that the friends are right and that the boyfriend is a toad. From the information available we cannot reasonably answer the question. But, Confused should not be told to think that this is not about her.

Netanyahu Unbound

What some political leaders say off the record is far more constructive than what other leaders say on the record in interviews with hostile news outlets.

Just saying.

Anyway, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is on a diplomatic foray into Eastern Europe. Being in the presence of leaders who understand the state of Europe, he spoke freely on an open mic.

He began by denouncing the decadent cowards who are running Western European nations. Ostensibly, he referred to the European policy toward Israel—or better its support for Palestinian terrorism—but he could have been referring to Europe’s self-destructive willingness to welcome more Muslim refugees.

Netanyahu said:

I think Europe has to decide if it wants to live and thrive or if it wants to shrivel and disappear…. I am not very politically correct. I know that’s a shock to some of you. It’s a joke. But the truth is the truth — both about Europe’s security and Europe’s economic future. Both of these concerns mandate a different policy towards Israel.

Shrivel and disappear—a nice touch that.

As for the EU policy toward Israel, Netanyahu declared that the EU was the only political entity that made its policy contingent on the Palestinian issue, thus, on politics.

The European Union is the only association of countries in the world that conditions the relations with Israel, that produces technology in every area, on political conditions. The only ones! Nobody does it.

Only the EU, we might say, is so cowardly that it feels a need to appease terrorism.

Other major nations construct their policies on more rational grounds.

The Times of Israel reports on the Netanyahu observation:

China, Russia and India all have special relationships with Israel that aren’t contingent on progress in the peace process, Netanyahu said. “They don’t care about the political issue.” He cited conversations with the leaders of those countries in which they said they were interested in what Israel had to offer them and disregarded the lingering issue of the Palestinians.

“We have a special relationship with China. And they don’t care, they don’t care about the political issues,” he said.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his recent visit to Israel, told Netanyahu he needs water for his people. “Where will I get it. Ramallah? No,” Netanyahu said, also noting that Israeli cows produce more milk than any other cows in the world — double the European average.

“If I can suggest that what comes out of this meeting is your ability, perhaps, to communicate to your colleagues in other parts of Europe: Help Europe… Don’t undermine the one Western country that defends European values and European interests and prevents another mass migration to Europe.”

Imagine that... India and China do not care about defending the Palestinian cause. They are not lining up to support and fund terrorism. They want to do business. They want to acquire advanced technology. For that they will not be travelling to Ramallah. Duh!

And, of course, Israel represents what used to be called Western values. One wonders whether such is still the case.

“There’s an anomaly. I don’t hide it. We’re often criticized by Western Europe, often more than any other place in the world,” he continued. The Jewish state is the one democracy in the Middle East, a “beacon of tolerance” and a “bastion of European and Western values in the heart of a very, very dark area,” he said.

Even many Arab countries understand that Israel serves their interests, he added. “So it’s time to have a reassessment in Europe about their relations with Israel. We have much to offer each other. We have much to offer in the realm of security, much to offer in the realm of technology.”

Earlier, during the closed meeting, Netanyahu also expressed clear backing for the so-called Visegrad Group’s support of border fences to guard Europe from another wave of refugees from the Middle East.

Netanyahu supports the border fence being built in Eastern Europe. And he notes that even Arab countries are turning toward an alliance with Israel. As we have often reported the prime minister has enjoyed many great diplomatic successes. To overlook them or to diminish them because Israel has not capitulated to Palestinian terrorism is more than short-sighted. It is deranged.

On his contentious relationship with the notably anti-Israeli Barack Obama, Netanyahu said this:

On the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, Netanyahu said Israel “had a big problem” with the Obama administration in Washington and its too-hesitant policies vis-a-vis Iran and Syria, and was more pleased with its predecessor [sic].

“I think it’s different now. Vis-a-vis Iran, there is a stronger position,” he said. The US is conducting more bombing attacks in Syria, which is “a positive thing. I think we’re OK on ISIS. We’re not OK on Iran.”

The Times of Israel should have known the difference between predecessor and successor.

Obviously, Israel does not want to see Iranian troops on its northern border. The prime minister explained it to Russian president Putin and the two apparently reached an understanding.

Israel build a border fence on the Golan Heights because the Islamic State and Iran via its proxies have and are still trying to set “a terror front” against Israel there, Netanyahu went on.

“Frankly, I told [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, when we see them doing this, we take military action against them. We’ve been doing this dozens and dozens of times, and we’ve not clashed with Russia.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Dershowitz on Corruption

I have reported on the Democratic lust to prosecute Trump, to overturn the election in the name of democracy. And I have noted that, on this matter,  Prof. Alan Dershowitz has been the voice of reason. Since Dershowitz is a life-long liberal Democrat, but also a man of integrity, we pay special attention to his views. More so when they defy the party line about Trump.

Writing for the Hill, (via Zero Hedge), Dershowitz argues against the notion that President Trump should be prosecuted for corruption:

My critics have argued for an extraordinarily broad definition of corruption capable of being expanded to fit nearly everything Trump has done — from firing FBI Director James Comey, to asking him to consider dropping the investigation of General Michael Flynn, to his son’s meeting with Russian surrogates.

Dershowitz is taking on the New York Times. It recently editorialized about Trumpian corruption:

This is the way the New York Times put it in its story about the court’s narrowing the meaning of corruption in the context of federal criminal law: “There was a time when political corruption might have been described — as a former Supreme Court justice once said of pornography — as something you knew when you saw it." In other words, it was in the eye of the beholder rather than in a precise statutory definition.

As for the law, the professor notes that the Supreme Court has addressed the question of corruption:

It ruled that not all political actions that smell or look like corruption can be prosecuted criminally without Congress specifically making such conduct criminal by precisely worded legislation.

As it happens, Dershowitz continued, civil libertarians were happy with the court’s definition. It prevents overzealous prosecutors from attacking their political enemies on dubious or even made-up grounds. In other terms, it protects democracy.

Now many of these same civil libertarians, liberals and even defense attorneys have forgotten how dangerous those bad old days were, and are demanding that President Trump and his family members should be prosecuted for corruption under the most expansive definition of corruption, despite recent court rulings narrowing that open-ended term.

“Just this one time, please. Just let us get Trump.” That is what the fair-weather liberals, civil libertarians, and criminal defense lawyers seem to be saying. “Then, we will return to our principles.”

But, the counselor replies, the law does not work on the “just this one time” exception:

There are no exceptions — no “just this one time.” The law operates on precedent. Today’s exception may become tomorrow’s rule. And even if it doesn’t, it creates a precedent for more exceptions, which may be applied to our side of the political aisle, as Republicans tried to do with Hillary Clinton.

Those who find the law too narrow in its scope, Dershowitz continued, need but craft legislation that changes said scope. That would solve  the problem democratically.

Germany Infected

Meanwhile, back in Angela Merkel’s Germany, the flood of new refugees has not just brought with it a crime wave. Some of the refugees have also brought infectious diseases with them.

Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute has the story:

A failed asylum seeker from Yemen who was given sanctuary at a church in northern Germany to prevent him from being deported has potentially infected more than 50 German children with a highly contagious strain of tuberculosis.

The man, who was sheltered at a church in Bünsdorf between January and May 2017, was in frequent contact with the children, some as young as three, who were attending a day care center at the facility. He was admitted to a hospital in Rendsburg in June and subsequently diagnosed with tuberculosis — a disease which only recently has reentered the German consciousness.

Kern’s information comes from a report prepared by the Robert Koch Institute, the German government’s version of our CDC. For the record, I underscore that the Koch Institute has nothing to do with the Koch brothers or Coca Cola or cocaine.

The RDI tells a gruesome story:

The report shows increased incidences in Germany of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough.

Most of these diseases have been contained. Yet, the statistics are grim. Kern reports:

The incidence of Hepatitis B, for example, has increased by 300% during the last three years, according to the RKI. The number of reported cases in Germany was 3,006 in 2016, up from 755 cases in 2014. Most of the cases are said to involve unvaccinated migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The incidence of measles in Germany jumped by more than 450% between 2014 and 2015, while the number of cases of chicken pox, meningitis, mumps, rubella and whooping cough were also up. Migrants also accounted for at least 40% of the new cases of HIV/AIDS identified in Germany since 2015, according to a separate RKI report.

The RKI statistics may be just the tip of the iceberg. The number of reported cases of tuberculosis, for example, was 5,915 in 2016, up from 4,488 cases in 2014, an increase of more than 30% during that period. Some doctors, however, believe that the actual number of cases of tuberculosis is far higher and have accused the RKI of downplaying the threat in an effort to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

Apparently, the German press has been reporting about the problem. Kern collected a set of headlines:


Finally, the refugees have brought with them many diseases that had been eradicated in Germany. Among them: Louse-borne relapsing fever; Lassa fever; Dengue fever; Malaria; Echinococcosis, a tapeworm infection; diphtheria; scabies.

Not to be too repetitive, but this all shows that we in the rest of the Western world need more leaders like Angela Merkel. Right?

Debauching the Morals of a Minor

It could have been a felony. The sentencing judge regretted that he could not give 27-year-old schoolteacher Emily Lofing more jail time, but, she had had the good sense to have sex with the boy on his sixteenth birthday.

Since sixteen is the age of consent in Nebraska, Lofing could not be found guilty of the felony. Thus, the judge sentenced her to 90 days in jail for the misdemeanor offense debauching and depraving the morals of a minor.”

The court records note:

On or between the 7th day of July, 2016, and the 15th day of July, 2016, (Lofing) debauched or depraved the morals of (the student)… a boy under the age of seventeen years by arranging or aiding or assisting in arranging any meeting between the boy… for the purpose of sexual penetration'.

Apparently, if the boy had been seventeen it would all have been fine. Except perhaps with Lofing’s husband.

It looks like our sexist misogynist Puritanical culture has found yet another way to repress female sexuality.

Emily Lofing