25 Years Ago Madonna's Truth or Dare

I remember going to the theater to see this first-of-its-kind (not really), documentary Truth or Dare. It's hard to believe it was 25 years ago - holy cow! Am I really that old? Oh yeah.

I was definitely a Madonna fan but, as the years have gone by, I guess you could say my interest in her has generally faded. However, there are times when her name comes up and I will read an article or watch a performance (The Super Bowl being the last). This last week, I had come upon a recent interview that Madonna did with Howard Stern.

The English accent of hers was gone and while the interview by itself is worthy of review, the topic of Truth or Dare and its 25 year anniversary caught my attention. I thought I'd go back and watch it.

For a small fee of 3 dollars, I rented this on YouTube.

When I had watched it before, I was only in high school so I didn't put much thought into this documentary at all. Maybe it was because I was too young or maybe I just didn't care. I remember I enjoyed it. I liked the performances but, I do remember thinking Madonna was a little bizarre and obnoxious.

Now that I have taken the time to re-watch it, I noticed a few things I didn't notice before and yes, Madonna is still obnoxious.

The film goes back and forth between black and white and color. The black and white parts are grainy and cover the scenes that are off-stage, while the colored film is found during Madonna's performances. It covers the time frame of the Blonde Ambition Tour.

The opening scene includes a voice-over from Madonna who is seen picking up a mess in her hotel room, as if a party had just dispersed and Madonna slides into bed, apparently finding no need to use the bathroom, wash her face, and brush her teeth.

The next scene we immediately see an angry Madonna who is frustrated with what appears to be a sound check at rehearsal before a show in Japan. We soon see that the weather is awful and Madonna is forced to perform in the rain.

The film immediately jumps to the United States but the only thing that tells us this is another voice-over from Madonna. This hopping around is found throughout the film and consequently I found myself asking, "Did I miss something?" It's highly disjointed and some parts seem to drop off and never return again; the stories are never brought to a conclusion. So often I wanted to know what happened next?

Madonna also has two hair styles during this tour. One is a long blonde pony tail which is a hair extension affixed with a braided hair piece that wraps around the base of the pony tail. The other style consists of short tight blonde curls.

Madonna immediately lets us know she identifies herself as being a motherly figure for her dancers and staff. The film then cuts to their real mothers coming to visit them and Madonna is excited to meet them all. Of course she later carries on about how all of her dancers have suffered in some way and her only desire has been to love them and give them the opportunity of a lifetime.

Interestingly enough Madonna refers to Chicago as a conservative town. I'm not sure where she got that idea?? I don't remember Chicago being conservative, not now and not 25 years ago.

So we're about 15 minutes in and we have yet to see Madonna being anything other than in full-control. There is nothing revealing and certainly nothing that gives the audience any in-depth perception of who she is.

Now enters the dancer Ollie, who claims to be the only straight male dancer (although this is questionable), and we see him waiting to meet his father. Interestingly there is no mention of his mother or where she is, or why she wasn't there? Here again, we have no understanding and this topic doesn't come up again.

The film cuts to Oh Father and the camera angles force us to question if this was actually filmed at a live performance.

Cut to Madonna's hotel room and Madonna is slurping her soup and talking to her dad on the phone. She demands he tell her if he's coming to the show, how many tickets he wants, and who is coming with him.

Now comes the technical problems - during Madonna's performance of Keep it Together we can hear her mic cut in and out. Then backstage, Madonna begins yelling at her tech person about the issue she was experiencing but the entire scene looks staged.

Finally we get a glimpse of Madonna's eyebrows being touched up, her staff kissing her ass while she complains, and her boy toy - the famous Warren Beatty. Warren is found throughout the documentary but at some point he just drops off and we never hear from him again.

Kevin Costner comes back stage and makes the mistake of telling Madonna her show was "neat" which prompted Madonna to turn around and simulate puking with a finger in her mouth.

The next scene shows Madonna getting ready for some event and calling Warren to find out his whereabouts, she then slams the phone down calling him an a--h---.

The film jumps again and we are in Toronto. Madonna who is sporting her pony tail, is approached by her brother who tells her that her actions (feign masturbation) found during the song of Like a Virgin will prompt the police to arrest her after the show because in Canada this is considered an immoral live performance. Madonna tells her dancers and they all pray in a circle. Madonna leads the prayer but the prayer seems to address her dancers directly rather than addressing the Lord.

Madonna is never seen happier during this film. She is almost giddy like a child and tells everyone that she will not change her show. She is an artist who is expressing herself. She will not compromise her artistic integrity.

What is interesting is that while the film does show Madonna performing Like a Virgin, the version they show is one where Madonna is sporting her tight curls, not the long pony tail we just saw her clearly wearing in the previous scene. So why did they not show the actual performance that she did in Toronto? The film then cuts to a news clip which shows her performing with her long pony tail and it's reported that the police found nothing wrong and they did not arrest her.

The entire episode in Toronto seems staged. I have no idea why the police would even bother unless Madonna were actually performing sex or a sexual act in the flesh there would be no cause for her to be arrested. The way she carried on about being an artist and expressing herself was just self-serving.

In Detroit, we see Madonna bring her father onstage and she asks everyone to sing Happy Birthday for him. Her father and I guess her step mom (no indication is made), come back to what we assume is her green room. Madonna explains that she bowed at her father's feet onstage because she forgot to buy her father a birthday present!

We then see that Madonna is expecting her brother Marty to arrive for a visit, but she is whispering to some guy about how to handle him when he arrives. There is of course no reason for her to whisper; it's all weird and once again staged. Marty apparently had/has an issue with alcohol and at this time had a recent stint in a rehab.

Marty later explains to the audience that he had some trouble getting to the hotel; he eventually arrived but very late and missed Madonna because she had already retired for the evening.

Almost an hour in and once again we have another staged scene. Madonna has yet to show any vulnerability.  Madonna first tells her make-up artist Sharon that she used to beat up on girls like her in high school. Then she says that Sharon reminds her of Moira McFarland, an old friend of hers. It would be later confirmed that this woman was contacted and her presence in the film was thrown upon Madonna at the last minute.

Moira McFarland is introduced to Madonna who is apparently so busy she can't take even a minute of her time to sit down with her old childhood friend. Moira gives Madonna a painting and tells her that she is pregnant again and wants Madonna to be the Godmother. Madonna tells her thank you but, she simply cannot answer her at this moment. She quickly removes herself with another "thank you" for the painting and an exchange of love you's. Moira then tells us how much she loves Madonna and how she loved Madonna's mother. We never do find out if Madonna accepts her plea to be the child's Godmother.

Now we are at the famous scene where Madonna decides to lay down on her mother's grave and speculate that her mom is probably just a bunch of dust at this point. Her brother Christopher would later state that this moment is where he truly began to question his sister and see her in a different way saying that nothing was off-limits for his sister. I have yet to see anyone give this scene a positive review. In fact this scene seems to truly repulse anyone who has watched it. I'm not sure what Madonna had in mind doing this scene in the first place. Her mother died when Madonna was only five years old. Her memories of her mother would be few and while it's reasonable for her to visit her mother's grave whenever she is in town, it is highly inappropriate for her to film the event.

The next scene might offer some insight as to why her and Warren split up. Madonna is forced to cancel some shows because she has lost her voice. A doctor is visiting her at a hotel and I believe she is in New York at this point. Even though her hair is in a towel, appearing freshly showered, her make-up is fully done, flawlessly. Beatty makes quite a few comments about how crazy it is she is doing all this stuff on camera and how insane the environment is. Madonna clearly loves it and seems to disregard any point he is trying to make. Warren might as well be an inanimate object in Madonna's world. This will be the last we see of him in the film.

One of her dancers appears on a radio show where the host asks her about a tabloid that says Madonna dumped Warren for a dancer - Ollie. She denies the claim but, I guess the audience is to infer the pair did break up, only Madonna is not dating Ollie.

Hands down the most disturbing part of this documentary comes when Madonna is told about her make-up artist Sharon waking up in her hotel with her anus bleeding. She had gone to a club and claims she was not drinking but, clearly she was slipped a roofie or something similar. Madonna's reaction? She laughs. Then she speculates that Sharon must have been telling these guys she met she worked with Madonna and they drugged her and messed with her. Sharon is then seen in the dressing room with the dancers telling them what happened and they express an equal amount of no sympathy. Nobody encourages this woman to go to the police. NOBODY even offers the slightest amount of sympathy or concern for this poor woman. It's appalling and very disturbing.

So while Madonna would like to fancy herself as a mother figure to her dancers and staff, she shows absolutely no inkling of being motherly in this instance. A staff member of hers is drugged and raped and she laughs?

"Oh well," in Madonna's world - the show must go on.

It's hard to watch anything past this point. Madonna is soon back on stage prancing around to the song Holiday and the film just moves along as if nothing happened.

Off to Europe....

Madonna finds herself at odds with the Vatican again. Eventually she cancels some shows because of the animosity.

Sandra Bernhard visits Madonna. Remember her? Ugh. She was famous for about 16 minutes in the late 80's, which was 16 minutes way too long. Madonna tells Sandra she wants to meet Antonio Banderas.

Surprise surprise she meets him and he's married.

The movie begins to wrap up and Madonna is playing the game Truth or Dare with her dancers. She performs a lewd act on a bottle and reveals her true love to be Sean - as in Sean Penn. This is the ONLY scene that is revealing and shows Madonna being sincere. The rest of the movie is really her just trying her best to shock people with her generic, obnoxious humor.

In another scene, Madonna reveals that she's not interested in being a great singer or dancer; she just wants to push people's buttons and be political.

Finally the movie ends with Madonna and her dancers in her bed - completely scripted.

While I did enjoy watching some parts of this film again, it is clear this movie is very different to me watching as an adult.

Now more than ever I realize how truly narcissistic she was. Other people are objects to Madonna. They are to be entertained and should provide entertainment for her,  but not to be recognized as having their own feelings and they certainly should not express their feelings to her directly.

On a positive note, Madonna has shown indications in her latest interview that she has indeed grown up in some ways. It's easy to be hard on Madonna and criticize her but it's hard to relate to a person who has been in the public eye for as long as she has been. The woman has literally been worshiped by millions of people across the globe so what can any of us really expect?

What makes her so special? She is right. She's not the best singer; she's never been in an acting role that has amounted to showing any exceptional talent; she's not the greatest dancer. She's mediocre at best. She does manage to keep control over her image and she knows how to manipulate the media and based on this film she definitely knows how to manipulate others around her. She also has a lot of confidence. Maybe we like her because she proves you can be successful and not be the "best." No doubt she does work and she keeps moving forward, no matter what obstacles stand in her way.

Is she a good role model for women? I don't think so. Something tells me that the woman in our country who fought for voting rights and equal treatment were not interested in women taking this power and using it the way Madonna has.

One thing I do like about her is that she never seems to take on the victim-status like so many other celebrities do. She has never found herself in rehab. She is not known for her drug use or alcohol abuse. In fact, she actually seems to take good care of her body and enjoys being healthy.

Love her or hate her, she is an icon in American culture and nothing will change that.


Testimony of Mr. Jamiel Shaw

I have nothing to add. This video says it all.


The Fall of Brian Williams

The recent story where Williams made claims to being in Iraq and nearly shot down have led to him being suspended for six months without pay.

It turns out that he has been telling a version of this story for quite some time but none of the versions appear to be remotely truthful. 
Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor of "NBC Nightly News," has been suspended without pay for six months following his continued misrepresentation of events surrounding his coverage of the Iraq War, NBC said Tuesday night.
Just prior to his suspension, he did make an attempt to apologize:

There are now reports suggesting this is not the only time the anchor has taken liberties in telling stories on the air.

I think most all of us expect to hear people embellish their stories. It certainly happens even when it's not intentional because we tend to experience things differently. When someone is directly involved in a situation, their perception is magnified while someone looking from the outside might see the same situation quite differently.

So far it does appear that Williams has indeed been lying but, why? What causes a person who is so widely recognized to lie about anything like this? Is it ego or is it just a need to feel more important? The mistake is certainly one of carelessness.

There is no telling where his career will go from here. It seems as though many are willing to forgive but, will that forgiveness lead to being able to trust again? Whether he comes back or not, he certainly has lost credibility with the public.

It is also clear that Williams needs to work out some matters with himself. More than repairing his image in the public, it will be important for Williams to address some serious issues with himself. He will have to ask himself what led him to make such silly remarks? What caused him to tell a lie to his audience? Only by answering truthfully to himself will he be able to carry on and avoid making any more foolish mistakes.


Why I Cannot Believe Amanda Knox

Amanda Knox Source

This article is written with the assumption that the reader has a general understanding of the case. If you are one of the lucky ones who currently know little to nothing about this case, it might behoove you to just continue ignoring it. I will not be held responsible for any reader being sucked into the Knox-vortex. It is time consuming and life-sucking.


Quick Post Update

I know I've been busy lately.

So far 2015 has been quite busy for me... life seems to be moving pretty fast. I am working on a very large post concerning Amanda Knox.

I will be doing more updates soon but, just wanted to get a post out there and let people who read know I have not meant to ignore my blog.

Hope everyone is having a great New Year!




Happy Festivus! Airing My Grievances

In honor of Festivus I decided to make a list ...

I've got a lot of problems with you people and now you're gonna hear about it!

Don't argue with me. I'm right. If you do these things, I assure you that you are pissing people off and one day you might get punched in the mouth, in which case you would deserve it.

1) Ya know when it's daytime but the sun is covered with a wall of clouds? Overcast. Yeah, during this time about 90 percent of people use headlights, while about 10 percent of you have not only managed to buy a vehicle without daylights but you drive around without putting your lights on. This is absolutely annoying. People cannot see you well and apparently you are shocked when people pull out in front of you. Put your damn lights on, moron. You know damn well people can't see you well and you can see that most everyone else has their lights ON. Just because it's daytime, doesn't mean you don't need your lights. Put them on, a$$clown.

2) You just got done shopping at the grocery store or Walmart and you take your cart outside in order to load your vehicle and then what do you do? Well, if you're a decent person you put the cart back or you can even put the cart in one of the stations that are conveniently located in the damn parking lot.

Of course it never fails whenever I go the super market, some jerk-off always manages to have left their cart in a parking stall prohibiting me from gaining access to that stall. Put the damn cart back, people!

Even worse, after I go to put my cart back, I tend to collect a few on my way, ya know cause I'm a decent person, and some a$$ face decides to put their cart near me because they just expect me to put it back for them. I've even had to snap back at a man doing this, "That doesn't belong there." He somehow looked surprised and finally managed to put his cart in the cart station.

You are not entitled to be a jerk. The world doesn't owe you any favors. Yes, they have people who collect carts but, did you not have a father at home to teach you how to behave appropriately? It's seriously the rudest and laziest type of behavior I witness from week to week. Unload your groceries or whatever and get your fat a$$ moving with the cart and walk the 20 or 30 feet necessary to return the damn cart. It's not that hard. There is NO excuse for your lazy a$$. If you have kids, it's all the more important that you teach them to be decent people, rather then teaching them  to be lazy blockheads.

3) If you or anyone you know decide to walk around at night, it would behoove you to wear light colored clothing. I swear to goodness, I do NOT understand how it is people do not know to wear light colored clothing. You are an idiot who deserves to be hit by a car at night. Crossing in the middle of the street, not even at an intersection AND wearing all black at night is akin to putting your tongue on metal pole in the dead of winter. It's plain stupid.

Teach your children to wear light colored clothing at night, especially if they are going to be out wandering around in the street when the sun is not up. It's not that hard. It's called having common sense but amazingly enough too many people lack.

Okay, that's it for now but, I have a feeling I will be adding to this.

Happy Festivus!!!!


Lena Dunham Meg Lanker -Obsession With Conservative "Rapists"

As I'm sure most of you have heard the name Lena Dunham by now, I decided to weigh in on this story...

Apparently, Lena is a writer for a TV show. I don't know. Honestly, I looked her up, never heard of her, never heard of her show either. I really don't watch TV much so, it's not surprising that I have never heard of her. It seems she is quite loved by many in Hollywood and appears to be revered as some typical leftist/feminist. The very first time I heard about her was over a book she wrote this last year, "Not That Kind of Girl."

The first wave of attention was garnered over some passages in her book that referred to her relationship with her sister. In the book she makes some unusual statements about growing up with her younger sister and exploring her sister's body. Okay, we've all heard of children who sex-play but the stories that are in Dunham's book are unnecessary and creepy.

She claims she would bribe her sister with candy in order to kiss her. She also states that she would lie in bed with her sister while she would sex-play with herself and even goes so far as to describe herself as behaving much like a sexual predator.

The worst of all these jaw-dropping confessions has to be:
One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. “My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!” 
My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.
When Lena was criticized about these passages and their undeniable creepy and bothersome imagery, she lashed out. She took to Twitter and went into what she referred to as a "rage spiral" because apparently this woman has never been criticized for her behavior and even more vexing is the fact that she believes her actions to have been normal.

Let me just tell you what I find terribly alarming. The way Lena writes this passage conjures up images of erotica. "Carefully spread... She didn't resist..." The child is one year old, she is likely accustomed to having her diaper changed. The addition of describing her sister not resisting is superfluous and smutty.

Then she goes on to say her mother didn't even ask her why she was looking at her sister because "This was within the spectrum of things that I did"? Why would a mother accept this as appropriate behavior? What on earth is the matter with her mother? The passage forces us to question this mother since a child of one year is not prone to stuffing things into their private area.

Where does a one-year-old gather pebbles, then later place them inside their vagina, and somehow have the acumen of believing they were playing a prank? Huh? I guess because her mother is apparently a brain-dead idiot, Lena thought her audience would also believe such an insipid story. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a few neurons that either she or her mother were placing objects inside of that poor baby's vagina. So yes, this story should indeed cause one to be alarmed. Why Lena is so shocked by the reaction she received only shows how truly sheltered  this woman has been up until now. Of course the other explanation is she just made the whole thing up.

Just as the dust was settling from these passages, more claims from her book about a man raping Lena while she attended college began to be discussed in the news.

As for this story, Lena offers up some pages describing a bad date. A man named Barry who was a ...wait for it.... CONSERVATIVE on her very liberal Oberlin College campus, who wore purple cowboy boots, had a mustache, worked at the school library, and had a voice like Barry White took her out and then had rough sex with her. She later confesses in the book that the sex was not only rough but unwanted.

As it turns out, there was indeed a Barry that went to Oberlin during the time period she describes and he was indeed a prominent conservative on campus. There were no other Barry's at the college during that time and certainly no other conservatives that even remotely fit into her description of who this man was. Breitbart's website did an exclusive story about figuring out who this "Barry" character was. The man they found has no idea who Lena is and he has been fighting to clear his name. For months he tried getting Random House (the publisher), and Dunham to clear his name.

On September 30th, 2014 Lena's book was released. It would be the the first week of October that Barry would contact an attorney about clearing his name. Not until Dec 8th and 9th would Random House and Dunham publicly clear Barry's name. Random House has also offered to pay any legal fees Barry has incurred. Lena writes:
To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced.
Her article carries on about her and her views and her ideas. She offers no empathy for the man she very clearly set-up from the beginning. If the man wasn't Barry, then why did you chose that name? Why was this man her target? Is it because she has such a hatred of conservatives she believed it to be funny to ruin an innocent man's life, rather than go after the ACTUAL man that violated her? Or is this just a made up story created to attack her adversaries?

Here's another passage that bothers me:
I have a certain empathy for the journalists who asked me questions like whether I regret how much I drank that night or what my attacker would say if he was asked about me. These ignorant lines of inquiry serve to further flawed narratives about rape, but these people are reacting to the same set of social signals that we all are — signals telling us that preventing assault is a woman’s job,..."
Yes, yes, it IS a woman's job to do whatever she can to prevent an assault. I don't understand how feminists can preach to people about empowerment and then drop the ball when it comes to advocating for women to empower themselves by taking care of themselves, protecting themselves. I agree, there are many cases in which a woman will be assaulted no matter what. If a guy is interested in raping a woman, it's likely he will find a way to do it. However, women DO need to take responsibility for their actions and they do need to do whatever they can to prevent themselves from being attacked. Be alert; don't get wasted in public or at a party; don't accept drinks from strangers; don't leave your drink unattended; don't use drugs. Also, be a friend. If you're out with a friend, watch them. Don't ever just drop someone off and drive off - wait for them to enter their home.

No, I'm not saying blame the victim but if you know damn well how certain actions are perceived then don't give anyone the fuel for those harsh assertions to be made in the aftermath. We ALL make mistakes and we ALL do foolish things but, if we can limit these mistakes by learning from them, we can limit the chances of those mistakes turning into life-changing moments.

Interestingly, Lena also made some small headlines by hiring on artists to perform at her tour. Multiple cities and multiple performances for no pay! Mind you, Lena is not hurting in the money department and can easily afford to pay these opening acts yet it wasn't until pressure was applied that she finally submitted and agreed to compensate those artists with money for their performances.

Lena's case is not the only case where a liberal woman makes accusations about a unnamed conservative - meet Meg Lanker.

Earlier in 2014, this young liberal college student thought it would be entertaining to go onto a Facebook page called UW Crushes. This page is for students who attend University of Wyoming and want to post about their crushes. One scathing and alarming post read:
“I want to hate f--- Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican b----” [sic]
Well, Meg found out about this post and created her own response:

                                                                                                    Ethics Alarms

Well, it turns out that Meg wrote this to herself. Yes, this woman decided to write a hate post to herself and then she turned around and responded to her own threat.

"Remember, there was a creeper that took the time to think this up and type it..." Yes and that creeper was Meg herself.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Meg has been in trouble before. In 2006, she decided to point a gun at her ex-boss, a man who had previously fired her.
Lanker-Simons “admitted to having (a) gun in (her) purse and pulling it out and waving it around (the) victim,” according to the affidavit. 
She pled guilty and received six- years of probation. At the time, Lanker-Simons went by the name Meghan Michelena, according to the Laramie Boomerang.

It's easy to look at these woman and dismiss them as being stupid, fat, man-hating feminists. I'll admit, I have a habit of lobbing insults from time to time. However, this salty language does nothing in a productive sense. So setting the easy insults aside, one must ask - what the hell is going on here?

You would think that Dunham and Lanker would have some cognizance of the fact that false allegations ultimately end up hurting women who are true victims. Is it any wonder that so many people immediately become skeptical the moment someone is accused of rape, when many of the cultural references we have end up being false?

In November of 2014 Rolling Stone published a now-infamous article entitled, A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA. The story is emotionally-packed concerning a young girl named Jackie who attends the University of Virginia. She describes a horrific scene that played out one evening at a frat house party where she was drugged and finally raped by several of the fraternity members.

The story is compelling and easy to believe. Anyone who has attended a frat party can relate to the confusing ambiance that seems to be a universal trait of such parties. Young freshman girls offered hard-liquored drinks disguised as fruity refreshments and being led off to the rooms on a higher floor can been seen as commonplace. The point is, when reading the story, it seemed possible even probable.

Yet, after the story was published the details were called into question. The story that Jackie told Rolling Stone was not the same one offered up to her friends that night. Her friends did not notice any blood on her and they deny ever encouraging her to keep her mouth shut, rather they wanted to take her to the hospital. There are also discrepancies about who she named as her attackers. In any case, you can read more about it elsewhere but, the main issue here is that her story has turned out to be generally false and cannot be confirmed. Again, I have to ask - what the hell is going on here?

Why would any woman feel some benefit for themselves or for others by making false accusations?

Take the recent case of Bill Cosby. None of the accusations have been taken seriously until now and it's only because multiple women have been victims. Without those other women corroborating the stories, I'm afraid that nobody would ever believe these women.

Rape is indeed something very serious and it can only be taken seriously when real victims come forward, not those that seek to be victims in order to catch headlines to further some delusional political agenda. Are these women so spiteful and filled with hate of conservatives and/or men that they felt it would be funny or a positive thing to falsely accuse a conservative of making threats or rape? How did they believe things would play out? Did they really believe they were so slick that they would outsmart everyone and get away with destroying lives over their obsessive hate? Where is the liberal outrage? Why are there not other liberals standing up and demeaning these women for ultimately hurting real victims?

I'm unsure about the Jackie-story. There is no indication that politics had anything to do with the accusation but certainly the fact that the story appears to be a hoax about rape is what makes the story another distraction that ultimately hurts victims and helps perpetrators go untouched.

I can't think of anything more hateful than launching a full-on false accusation campaign against a group of people for the sole purpose of advancing an agenda. I would hope that this is not the type of behavior that most liberals approve of but so far, it seems like many on the left side seem to not have much of a problem with Dunham or Lanker. In fact, some people are actively supporting these two and even congratulating them for their bravery?!

It is a bit odd, isn't it? I would say that both of these women indeed need help and it's clear from Dunham's stories along with her unusual parents that either she was abused or she did engage in abuse. I'm not quite sure. If Lena were a young boy who did exactly the same thing with her sister, would the same people supporting her, claiming she did nothing wrong, be saying the same thing? Or worse if Lena were  a Republican saying these same things, would these same people insist she did nothing wrong? "Oh she was just exploring." Would that truly be the answer they would give? I think not.

It seems as if neither of these women have been criticized before. They have led a life that allows them to believe they did nothing wrong. Portraying oneself as a victim of a man is somehow endearing and should be congratulated. Lanker has even been rewarded for her blog, while Lena's book continues to gain attention and praise. They are drama queens who are desperate for attention.

In the end we have to keep things into perspective. We must acknowledge that these woman do not speak for all woman. We must also encourage women to take charge of their own lives, do everything they can do to personally ensure their own safety and to speak up when it's appropriate.

To those women who would falsely accuse someone of such a horrific crime for the sake of politics, for the sake of attention, YOU are the problem and YOU are the ones making life out there for REAL victims painful. You are causing real victims to stay silent while perpetrators are free to attack again. Please stop. Get help because you are doing nobody any favors. The ends do not justify the means.


Lena Dunham's father is an artist of some kind. If you'd like to view his "work" which resembles something a child would draw, you can click here. Be aware that many of these paintings are quite perverted and are NSFW.









  The Alternative Conservative                  

Get Our Latest Posts Via Email - It's Free

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner