Serena Williams and John McEnroe

Today, for whatever strange reason, many people consider it a hateful statement when someone says that A is not B. The retired professional tennis player John McEnroe provided a recent example of this in an interview with NPR reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro in which after having praised current professional tennis player Serena Williams to the high heavens, he made the "mistake" of responding honestly to a question by Garcia-Navarro which in today's political climate could only be considered trollish. 

Lulu Garcia-Navarro: We’re talking about male players but there is of course wonderful female players. Let’s talk about Serena Williams. You say she is the best female player in the world in the book. 
McEnroe: Best female player ever — no question. 
Garcia-Navarro: Some wouldn’t qualify it, some would say she’s the best player in the world. Why qualify it?
McEnroe: Oh! Uh, she’s not, you mean, the best player in the world, period? 
Garcia-Navarro: Yeah, the best tennis player in the world. You know, why say female player? 
McEnroe: Well because if she was in, if she played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world.
Garcia-Navarro: You think so?
McEnroe: Yeah. That doesn't mean I don't think Serena is an incredible player. I do, but the reality of what would happen would be I think something that perhaps it'd be a little higher, perhaps it'd be a little lower. And on a given day, Serena could beat some players. I believe because she's so incredibly strong mentally that she could overcome some situations where players would choke 'cause she's been in it so many times, so many situations at Wimbledon, The U.S. Open, etc. But if she had to just play the circuit — the men's circuit — that would be an entirely different story.
For making this accurate assessment of Williams' abilities vis-a-vis professional male tennis players, McEnroe was immediately attacked as a hater and as racist and sexist. He was also badgered to apologize, which he has refreshingly refused to do, and peremptorily ordered by Williams to keep her name out of his mouth.
Well. If you don't like the peaches, don't shake the tree.

Vezmar Date Lawsuit

Despite all of the changes that have taken place concerning the dance of life between men and women, one thing that hasn't changed is the general expectation that the man is supposed to pay for the date, at least at first. A man who doesn't do that or tries to split costs before the woman is convinced that he's even worth any of her time or money is often derided as cheap or a loser. Good, bad or indifferent that's just how things are. Even many staunch feminists suddenly become Victorian England style ladies when faced with the idea of spending their money to meet men. If the man and woman don't like each other's company or independently decide that they'd be better off elsewhere or conclude that the date was a serious waste of time, money and resources then the man just has to eat the loss of whatever money he shelled out. And though it ought to go without saying, taking someone on a date doesn't guarantee anyone anything. Not one doggone thing. There is nothing implied other than the opportunity to determine if you like someone's company or not. If you spend $17 on a date but discover that someone is not up to your standards most people (men) would count that as the cost of dating and write it off to the game.

But 37 yr old Brandon Vezmar is not most men. Brandon went out on a date with a 35 yr old lady. Things didn't go well.

Cuba Gooding and Sarah Paulson: Inappropriate?

One of my favorite comedians was the English humorist and variety show host Benny Hill. A regular show gag was the extent to which men would go to get a gander at women. It didn't much matter whether the women were partially dressed or completely undressed (the latter was never shown on the show-just implied). Men just liked to look. Men would make utter fools of themselves doing so. This was all done for laughs. Hill's brand of admittedly oft puerile humor fell out of style in the eighties with an ascendant feminist movement. Recently the actors Cuba Gooding Jr. and Sarah Paulson touched on this style of humor when, at an event for American Horror Story, Gooding attempted to lift up Paulson's dress. At the time of this post I don't know if this was a spontaneous prank on Gooding's part, something pre-planned by both Gooding and Paulson, or some sort of in character reference to their roles on the show, but Paulson didn't appear to take offense. She just slapped Gooding's hands away. But we live in the age of the internet and twitter so of course there were plenty of people who rushed to take offense on Paulson's behalf.

It turns out Cuba Gooding Jr is a dickhead who has no respect for women. He had absolutely no right to lift Sarah Paulson's dress like it 😡😡

— Rebecca O'Keeffe (@RebeccaOkeeffe5) March 27, 2017

anyone wanna help me choke @cubagoodingjr with a chainsaw

— kommissar (@choirgirI) March 27, 2017

Cuba Gooding Jr. is a creep.

— Karolina Molina (@KarolinaVega) March 27, 2017

Rutgers Incident: Keep Your Hands to Yourself!!!

I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to understand that if you go around hitting people you will eventually run into someone who will hit you back. Fighting should be your last resort. It should only be done in self-defense. Although I can appreciate that certain insults can make a man or in this case a woman feel that honor requires them to lay hands on someone I would remind people that when you get into a fight with someone--especially when you start it--you're essentially signing up for whatever comes next. I think it's an utter obscenity for men and women to fight-whether it be in a domestic violence context or in a street brawl as in this case. There used to be an understanding in society that gentlemen did not hurl sexual assaults at ladies and that ladies did not attempt to fight gentlemen. Unfortunately many of those conventions have been lost with our insistence on equality as the highest and only good. Equality is necessary but it is not the whole of human experience. But in a country that insists upon placing women in combat is there any reason to be upset at this situation? I think there probably is though as a society we no longer have the vocabulary to explain why. So all I can say is morals aside, from a strictly pragmatic POV, this is why it is a very bad idea for most women to start a fight against most men. The difference in strength, speed and endurance is too great. And the law apparently doesn't protect people who start fights, regardless of their gender, even if they do wind up with a cracked skull.
No charges will be filed against the man caught slugging Emily Rand in the face with a right hook so hard that she was knocked unconscious when her head hit the sidewalk. “We’ve finished our investigation and interviewed the individual you see in the video, as well as a lot of other people. At this time there’s not going to be any arrests or any charges,” New Brunswick Police Capt. J.T. Miller told New Jersey 101.5 of the incident that took place around 1 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 29. “It’s a mutually exclusive fight between the individuals.”

The incident was captured on video, which was posted online.

Miller said that the 19-year-old Middlesex County College student from South Amboy struck the man first and “there is evidence that she was aggressive towards other people before the video starts.”
Other people involved with the video do not want to pursue charges against Rand, according to Miller, who did not disclose the identity of the man. Rand has been at Robert Wood Johnson University Medical Center and was in a coma following skull surgery to relieve pressure in her swollen brain. Her aunt, Debbie O’Connor, said Rand has started to breathe on her own this week and will soon begin physical therapy.

LINK

Mary J. Blige, Divorce and Money

I don't really keep up with Mary J. Blige. I am not a fan of her singing style. But I wouldn't deny that she has talent and has put the work in to get where she is in life. Like a lot of different people in life she's come to the end of her road with her special someone. It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you make it's got to hurt when, to paraphrase Sam Kinison, your significant other comes home and tells you that s/he doesn't want to share anything with you any more and must drink a six pack each night to keep from decapitating you. Such is life though. If you live long enough that or something similar to that will happen to you. Now if a couple married young and worked and sacrificed and supported each other as they built a fast food franchise that morphed into a real estate empire that purchased a bank that later took over a professional sports team then they really did create something together. If they split in their later years, each person should get 50% of the value of all their businesses. Or if not 50% it should be pretty doggone close. But when one person in a marriage has the job of making all of the money and the other person has the job of spending all of the money I don't think there should be an even split of marital assets upon divorce. I think that just because someone once did something kind or ran through walls for their partner doesn't mean that he or she needs to keep doing that once the thrill is gone. And although I do tend to be more traditional in some aspects I feel this way regardless of the sex of the partner seeking to be taken care of post-marriage. There are lots of things that men and women do for each other when they're in love that are no longer done once the love is gone. That's just human nature. I don't think you can change that. I don't think that you can or rather I don't think that you should force people to continue doing those things with someone that they currently hate. Kendu Isaacs, who is being divorced by Mary J. Blige, is requesting a reported $129,319 in monthly spousal support. 

Kendu Isaacs lived a life of luxury during his marriage to Mary J. Blige, and he is determined to keep it going. Earlier this year, Blige filed for divorce from her husband of 12 years, and on Monday, Isaacs asked a judge to grant him temporary spousal support. But Isaacs wasn’t just Blige’s husband; he was also her manager—until she fired him after filing for divorce. Isaacs claims that Blige made between $1.5 million and $5.1 million over the last two years. Isaacs also insists that although a prenuptial agreement was signed, he did so without having a lawyer present. LINK

As you might imagine the former Mrs. Isaacs doesn't quite see the logic of her dear hubby's request. No. Not at all.

Mary J. Blige starts her concerts by displaying images of tabloid headlines covering her estranged husband's request for nearly $130,000 in spousal support in an attempt to embarrass him, her ex claims in their on-going divorce battle. Martin 'Kendu' Isaacs, 49, believes the R&B songstress is on a 'public campaign to destroy' his reputation, as well as 'shame' and 'financially suffocate him'. The singer 'opens her show by displaying various images of tabloids pertaining to this dissolution in an attempt to paint herself as the victim and Mr. Isaacs as the villain', according to court documents obtained by DailyMail.com. LINK

The couple has been married since 2003 so I don't think you could automatically claim that this was a short term fling where the non-famous person was just trying to grab the famous person's money. All the same though I would, were a judge, have a great deal of difficulty accepting anyone of sound mind and body claiming his ex-wife owed him $130K/month because he got used to the lifestyle she provided. Women may be the gender that's stereotypically more likely to do this but in my view it's wrong no matter which gender does it. Isaacs should get a small settlement because that's what the law allows. He should not get anything approaching $130,000/month. He's grown. He can and should take care of himself. If I were the judge I would give him one hundred thousand total and a CD of his wife's greatest hits. I don't think that divorce should be something that enriches anyone. If I were running this case Mr. Isaacs would just have to learn to live on his own abilities and talents. And I would say the same to women trying to do what Isaacs is doing.

Fun and Games in Michigan: False Accusations and No Nonsense Judges

It shouldn't matter but because people often jump to conclusions based on misunderstanding or disliking an argument I would like to point out that I do know people who have been sexually assaulted or molested. It's a horrible crime, almost as bad as murder. As we recently noted the seriousness of sexual assault shouldn't be minimized. But in a time where people are judging movies by what crimes their directors were acquitted of or trying to decide if a Presidential candidate assaulted women, it is important to remember that although we don't like to admit it, some women really do lie about sexual assault. There is debate as to how frequently this occurs. Most reputable studies suggest that only a small percentage of accusations are ever proven to be false. Just because some women lie doesn't mean most women do. In this recent story Leiha Artman lied about being raped and kidnapped. The lie was evidently detected before someone was arrested, charged and convicted. So from what I can tell right now no unfortunate soul who "fit the description" was hauled into court based on Artman's lies. Contrary to the current zeitgeist, women are just as capable of immoral behavior as men are. Just because someone makes a charge doesn't mean that the charge is true. If someone denies a charge or vigorously defends himself we can't assume his actions indicate hatred of women or promotion of rape. Our justice system hinges on the idea that the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. No one is entitled to be believed automatically without evidence. There are all sorts of reasons someone would lie about being the victim of a horrible crime. To reach the truth it's imperative that the hypothesis that a crime was committed be challenged, tested, poked and prodded. Nothing is perfect. There will be some guilty people who go free and some innocent people who go to jail or prison. In some cases we'll never know what happened. And beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond all doubt. But ideally our system is designed to minimize the number of innocent people who are convicted. I am glad that in this case the criminal is going to jail. If anything I think her sentence is too light. She could have gotten six years. I definitely would want to give her a sentence that would impress upon her the wrongness of her actions.

A mother has been jailed for making up an elaborate kidnap story claiming she was abducted and raped by four black men. Leiha Artman from Muskegon, Michigan, claimed she was abducted when the men stopped to ask her for directions while she stood in the driveway of her home in March.

The 25-year-old said they threw her in the trunk of their car, beat and sexually assaulted her. During the two days she was missing, her boyfriend received photographs of her in which she appeared gagged, bound and bleeding from the head. She was sentenced to one year behind bars on Wednesday after admitting to one count of making a false report of a felony.

Artman has a 2014 conviction for resisting and opposing a police officer, as well as a felony breaking and entering a building conviction in 2007 when she was a juvenile. She also was sentenced in June to two days in jail and 12 months probation for financial transaction device fraud.
Artman was sentenced in Oceana County in February 2015 for larceny less than $200 and agreed to testify against a co-defendant in return for the dismissal of a breaking and entering a building, the Oceana County Press reported.  LINK1  LINK2

Fortunately I have not had reason to spend much time in courtrooms. However I have noticed that judges as a group can be very possessive of what they call "their courtrooms". Technically that courtroom belongs to the people but society has given judges a tremendous amount of leeway to regulate behavior in the courtroom. Getting into an argument with someone who can send you to jail or prison just because he or she doesn't like your looks or attitude isn't very smart. Jacob Larsen, an accused stalker and definite big mouth, forgot that needlessly irritating a judge when you are in his court, is a sub-optimum choice.

JACKSON, MI – Clearly growing agitated, Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain threw off his robe and helped tackle to the ground a defiant man during a hearing on a personal protection order violation.

"Tase his ass right now," the judge shouted as he rushed toward Jacob Larson, who had been talking back to the judge and blamed his alleged stalking behavior on the woman he was pursuing. McBain had ordered the man to spend three days in jail, a period that quickly jumped to 93 days as Larson continued to aggravate the judge during the December hearing.

The resulting takedown was a rare instance of a judge using physical force, one Jackson County Chief Circuit Judge Thomas Wilson said was allowable. "A judge has the power to take whatever action is necessary to maintain order in the courtroom," he said and noted circuit court judges have arresting powers.

Wilson had seen the court recording of the hearing, but there is no review process for such incidents, he said. When McBain's court officer went to take Larson into custody, he resisted. McBain said he was "hand fighting" the officer, Jared Schultz, then a deputized law clerk. Larson would not cooperate, tensed up and made a fist as though he was trying to fight, said Schultz, now working for the state Court of Appeals. McBain noted that he "pretty clearly and unequivocally" warned Larson to avoid contact with the woman.
"She's instigating it," Larson replied and talked about pictures she posted wearing a lot of makeup and with her "hair done and all that stuff, the full nine." He repeatedly made statements about how she would not directly tell him to leave her alone.

Speaking of sexual crimes, let's not forget that this nonsense all could have been avoided in the first place if Larson had stopped contacting his stalking victim either when she asked or when the judge told him to do so. If someone asks you to stop talking to them or sending them emails or calling them or bothering them then you should probably do that. But some people always want to do things the hard way. So it goes. A hard head makes a soft behind.

LINK 3

The Kiss: V-J Day

Just about everyone in the US has seen this photo. It's probably the best known symbol of the end of World War Two. It's also in some cases been seen as an snapshot memory of a better time, when America unambiguously won conflicts. For some people this photo is the pictorial paragon of a time where optimism was in the air and there was nothing that this country could not do. The photojournalist Alfred Eisenstaedt took this picture in Times Square of a sailor kissing a nurse shortly after the announcement of the Japanese unconditional surrender and end of the war. Growing up I naively thought that both of the people were either married to each other or were dating. That wasn't the case. The sailor and nurse were strangers to each other. That nurse, Greta Friedman (Zimmer) recently passed away. Greta Friedman, who said she was grabbed and kissed by a sailor in a euphoric moment that made for one of the most defining American photos of the 20th century, died on Thursday in Richmond, Va. She was 92. The cause was pneumonia, her son, Joshua Friedman, said. In 2012, a writer on the website Crates and Ribbons argued that the picture depicted not a moment of romance, but a “sexual assault by modern standards,” pointing to Ms. Friedman’s description of the kiss during her interview with the Veterans History Project. “I felt that he was very strong. He was just holding me tight. I’m not sure about the kiss,” Ms. Friedman said. “It was just somebody celebrating. It wasn’t a romantic event.” In an article in 2014 about the photo, Time, whose parent company discontinued the monthly publication of Life magazine in 2000, noted that “many people view the photo as little more than the documentation of a very public sexual assault, and not something to be celebrated.” Ms. Friedman did not shy away from the photo or her role in it, her son said. Mr. Friedman said he believed she understood the argument that it was an assault but did not necessarily view it that way.
LINK

Standards and mores change of course. There probably aren't too many people today who would venture to grab someone and plant one on their lips without prior consent, some sort of signal or an ongoing relationship. That said though when once in a life time events occur people do feel emboldened to do or say things they otherwise wouldn't attempt. By today's standards this would be some sort of assault but even then there are people who wouldn't feel that way if it happened to them. Knowing the story behind this photo I just think it's a Rorschach test on how our concepts of masculinity, femininity and consent have mutated over the years.

Carmen Chamblee Keeps It Real

There are times and if you live long enough most of us have experienced them, when someone close to you rips your heart out, throws it on the ground, looks you right in the eye, and gleefully does the tarantella all over your bleeding broken heart. Although in later years you may look back at whatever occurred between you and your special rider and find if not exactly humor, some perspective and wisdom, at the moment when this happens most of us will be in a foul mood, caught between sadness and anger. Some among us who are more prone to anger will lash out at the person who did us wrong. If we can't reach them we may even try to hurt someone they loved or damage some of their property. This is of course a remarkably stupid idea. Any thing that involves possible criminal charges is as far as I am concerned not worth doing. And why would you want to give someone you don't even like anymore the satisfaction of knowing that they can still push your emotional buttons? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. However one Florida woman by the name of Carmen Chamblee allegedly decided that she wanted to make a point to her ex-boyfriend by burning his car. I'm guessing Miss Chamblee is a Waiting to Exhale fan. Well there are a couple of things you should keep in mind when you're burning your ex-boyfriend's car as retribution for whatever heinous thing he supposedly did. (1) You should make sure that you're not caught on video setting the car on fire and fanning the flames. (2) You should also probably make sure that the car you're setting on fire is actually your boyfriend's car. Because it would kind of stink to get caught doing something so foolishly vindictive as setting a car on fire and not even get the satisfaction of having burned the correct car.

A Florida woman set fire to a car thinking it belonged to her ex boyfriend but got the wrong vehicle, authorities believe. Carmen Chamblee, 19, was arrested Saturday morning near Clearwater and charged with second-degree arson. She is accused of intentionally setting a Honda on fire earlier this month. Jennings' roommate was the one who alerted him that his car was on fire. The two men ran out with a pot of water to try to extinguish the blaze - but Jennings told ABC Action News it was 'too much'. Chamblee was taken to the Pinellas County Jail on Saturday according to online records. She was scheduled to appear in front of a judge on Sunday morning.

I guess that some will look at this story and think next time she should get the right car but obviously that would be the wrong lesson. As parents teach their children, when you feel that it's necessary to commit physical harm on something or to somebody, instead of doing that just stop. Take a deep breath, count to ten and use your words instead. Chamblee is actually fortunate that she wasn't burned or didn't hurt someone else by her dumb actions. There's a fine line between passionate and crazy. Chamblee crossed it. 

Ailes Out at Fox News

Once a year everyone in my company has to complete online training on how to prevent or not engage in sexual harassment. It's painfully obvious stuff. You don't have to believe in or accept 100% of the most radical feminist worldviews to understand that putting hands on someone without their permission, commenting on their body parts without invitation or God forbid making their promotion, continued employment, assignments or pleasant work environment contingent upon them having sex with you is illegal and something which could cost you your job and your employer a lot of money. Some of the examples which are used in my company's yearly training are so over the top that I couldn't believe that even the densest rockhead out there wouldn't already know that this stuff is out of bounds. But there's always someone out there who thinks that the rules don't apply to him. The latest example of this was former Fox News Boss Roger Ailes, who was accused by former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson of long running virtual textbook sexual harassment over several years of her employment at Fox News. You can read some of her complaint here. Among other things Ailes allegedly asked Carlson to turn around so he could look at her bottom and told her that she should have had sex with him a long time ago in order to help her career. Ailes' alleged statements to and activities around Carlson are exactly the sorts of things which I thought were so obviously sexual harassment as to not be worth mentioning in a corporate CYA training video. Now to be fair there are a fair number of married people who meet each other in a work environment. And I don't think that one pass is grounds for harassment. But Ailes was Carlson's boss. That alone should have made Ailes keep everything above board. Apparently Ailes' bosses, Rupert Murdoch and his sons, decided that Fox News could get along without Ailes. Ailes "resigned" with a reported $40 million payout. If someone "suggests" that you resign or be fired, resigning is probably the smart move, right? According to some reports the Murdoch sons and Ailes were never overly fond of each other. Ailes chafed at having to report to the younger Murdochs. Some other women, most of them anonymous, claimed to have been harassed by Ailes over the years. But what may have flipped the switch was alleged confirmation by Fox News' top star Megyn "Jesus is White" Kelly, that Ailes sexually harassed her some years ago. Kelly is the future of the network. Presumably the Murdochs want to keep her happy and around. It puts more money in their pockets.  

So Ailes will have to face Carlson's lawsuit on his own. Fox News is of course, depending on your POV, famous or infamous, for transparent desks, thigh level camera POV, and women who show off expanses of cleavage and legs. So all in all I'm not surprised that the man who created a sexually charged work environment allegedly sought to benefit from same. For most people it's usually a bad idea to get your honey where you get your money. And it's always a bad idea to tell someone to give it up or get out. Allegedly....

Professor Nagel Sires 22 Children

A little over a decade ago the film director Spike Lee made a movie which was titled She Hate Me. Among other things this film depicted the plight of a desperate biotech executive who, running into political, racial and financial problems at work, starts a lucrative side hustle of being the sperm donor for (primarily) lesbian women looking to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term. The movie's hook was that the executive and many of his clients preferred that the actual impregnation occurred in the old-fashioned face to face "hands-on" way. Well it wasn't always face to face strictly speaking (snicker) but no turkey basters, laboratories or other artificial methods were involved, thank you very much. I watched this movie mostly for Dania Ramirez, Monica Bellucci and Kerry Washington, all of whom are as far as I'm concerned, good enough reasons to watch most movies. Critics generally panned She Hate Me as dumb, unrealistic and of course "misogynistic". All the "serious" critics and sexuality "experts" told us that such a thing would never happen. Lesbians would never ever ever do such a thing. After all, by definition lesbians are not interested in intimate or romantic contact with a man, right? This film was just fevered sexist fantasy no doubt inspired by male fears over the rightfully lessening cultural and economic importance of masculinity. The movie was not only a critical flop but a financial one as well. And beautiful actresses not withstanding I would have to admit that the movie was not Lee's best work. Not by a long shot.  It was actually a film that made me think that I should probably wait to see what lots of other people thought of a Spike Lee film before I spent money or time on it. Well sometimes life is just as strange as fiction. In New York, some folks who apparently watched She Hate Me a few times too many have shown that the central premise of Lee's film actually does work for some people. 

On a busy night last week at the Target on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, Ari Nagel, 40, emerged from the men’s bathroom looking a little flushed and quite pleased with himself. “It’s better when it’s fresh,” he told them. “It” is Nagel’s semen, and it’s in demand. The 6-foot-2 CUNY Kingsborough math professor has served as a sperm donor for dozens of locals, siring 22 kids over the past 12 years with 18 women of various backgrounds. For lesbian couples and single ladies looking to have a baby without the expense of going through a sperm bank (which can run in the thousands of dollars), he’s the No. 1 dad. “This isn’t time-consuming, and I’m doing it anyway,” he says of his hands-on hobby. “It’s very easy for me to do.” His oldest child, now 12, was conceived with a woman he was in a committed relationship with, but all of his offspring since, he says, have resulted from his donations.

About half the time, he provides his seed the old-fashioned way. Sometimes, a lesbian looking to conceive will have her partner in the bed for moral support while she and Nagel engage in intercourse. “She’s never slept with a guy before, so the partner’s in bed, holding her hand,” Nagel explains. “Sometimes, it could be a little painful, then after a few times, they’re comfortable to do it on their own.” Other times, he supplies his goods in a cup, which he prefers. And Nagel’s seed-sowing isn’t a drain on his love life. He doesn’t make a point of mentioning it on dates, but when it comes up, ladies typically don’t mind. “Never underestimate the desperation of a single woman on the Upper West Side,” he says.

But it’s not all sunshine and babies. The first five women he worked with successfully sued him for child support, and nearly half of his paycheck is garnished for his offspring. “I don’t know what’s more surprising: that five sued or that 17 didn’t,” Nagel says. “They were all well aware there was no financial obligation on my part. They all promise in advance they won’t sue.” Crystal, a Connecticut woman who has two sons, 6 and 7, by Nagel, says she wasn’t aware of any such arrangement.

The 45-year-old mom, who took Nagel to court for child support, says that she was expecting to co-parent with him and that she didn’t know of his plans to father an entire baseball team. Nagel’s progeny isn’t limited to the tri-state area. He has kids in Florida, Illinois, Virginia, Connecticut and Israel. Some he sees once a week, some he sees once a year, some he’s never met.

I don't really care how people live their lives. And I don't care about how many children any person has or doesn't have. That is a personal decision. If you have the time and resources to raise and support your children go for it. As the song goes, it's your thing. Do what you want to do. I can't tell you who to sock it to. But one thing that is worth mentioning is that Nagel and the women with whom he's interacting are deliberately depriving the children of a parent or at least of a father. There are consequences to running around and being irresponsible that don't just impact the adults who are involved. At the extremes this sort of behavior raises the chances, however slightly, of accidental incest as there are a number of half-siblings created who will not know each other or grow up together. Ugh. But even putting that aside I've always thought that it's just a crappy thing to do to bring a child into the world when you lack the ability or desire to build a parental relationship with that child. And it turns out that Professor Nagel is still married. So you can throw adultery into the mix as well. We've written before about men who acted in good faith as sperm donors for lesbians or single heterosexual women. Some of these men later get sued by the state or the women for child support. In many of those cases the men had either a written agreement or verbal understanding with the women that they would not be a father in any sort of way. The women changed their minds or the state big footed its way into what was a private relationship. In those cases I do think the men got a raw deal. But in Nagel's case I think he's just a fool. He deserves whatever comes his way. As far as the women are concerned I think it is amusing and a little sad that in a time where women complain loudly and incessantly about men who impregnate them and disappear, several women are lining up to be impregnated by a man who will disappear and not be a father to the resulting children. I guess it all depends which men are doing the pumping and dumping. There are apparently a lot of desperate and yet picky women out there. People are strange.

Though she has yet to actually meet Nagel, Simmons has no qualms about the notoriety of the man comedian Chris Hardwick recently called “Johnny Peopleseed.” She says, “I’m OK with [Nagel’s newfound fame]. I’m OK with people knowing who my child’s father is, because I know he’s a great man.” Blandine Rodney, a 43-year-old Brooklyn nurse who wants a child with the college math professor, agrees. “He’s handsome, he’s a genius. I’d be proud to have my child say Ari is his father.” The divorcée, like all of the other women The Post spoke to, is black (Several of Nagel’s 22 children have black mothers). “Someone said [to me] he’s trying to whitewash the black community,” says Rodney. “It’s not whitewashing! More white men should give sperm to women who need it.”

LINK1

LINK2

What are your thoughts?

D'Angelo Russell and Breaking the Code

For many reasons people often share private, personal and intimate information with those they consider within their circle of trust. I have done so. You have as well. Everybody has. It's part of being human. For most of us the group of people that we trust includes closely related family, past, current or would be intimate partners, clergy and really good friends. For some of us the group of people whom we trust without reservation even includes co-workers. I have never seen co-workers in that fashion but there are some jobs where it's critical to know your co-workers in ways that would be uncomfortably intimate for most of us.These types of jobs usually involve the requirement of spending much more than a 9-5 shift with your co-workers. And sometimes, no matter what kind of job you have or what sort of trust level you have with the people around you, you just need to vent or share information that probably shouldn't be shared. Whatever the case may be when you are giving personal information to someone you usually don't expect that news to go beyond the two of you, let alone be broadcast to the world. Basketball player D'Angelo Russell, LA Lakers guard, apparently didn't understand this. Russell had a conversation with teammate Nick Young. Young talked about his sexual exploits with women, some of which may have occurred while he was engaged to his fiancee, Australian rapper Iggy Azalea. The problem was that Russell recorded this conversation, evidently without Young's knowledge. The worse problem is that Russell or someone close to him provided this conversation to the entire planet. This action obviously embarrassed and humiliated Young and Azalea. It also revealed Russell as an immature and decidedly untrustworthy individual. Russell's Lakers teammates have responded to his breach of decorum by freezing him out of their social networks. At the time that this post was written they're still refusing to talk to Russell, acknowledge or sit next to him during travel or lunch. And some football players responding to Russell's actions have broadly hinted that in the aggressive and dangerous world of the decidedly macho NFL, Russell might have worse and more pressing problems than someone not wanting to be his friend.    

Now I suppose a person of a more moralistic bent might point out that if Young didn't cheat or boast about things best left unspoken then he wouldn't have to worry about public exposure and any hypothetical resulting damage to his relationship with Azalea. And that's true as far as it goes. The greater sin is Russell's violation of trust with his teammate. I think that the parameters and boundaries of Young's and Azalea's relationship are things they need to discuss with each other, not with Russell or the world. If I were to become aware of a co-worker's infidelity or negative feelings towards his or her spouse I would not think I was required to give that knowledge to the spouse or make it public news. After all the spouse by definition knows the co-worker much better than I do. He or she may already know all about whatever ugly dirt I'm dragging into the spotlight. The spouse may not appreciate my actions. And in a case where two young attractive millionaires who work in the sports and entertainment business travel the world it would almost be more newsworthy if neither one of them was ever unfaithful. So I think I'd just keep quiet. The only way I could ever see pulling someone's coat about their spouse's unfaithfulness is if I am directly related to the party that's being cheated on or otherwise had some strong pre-existing relationship with him or her. And even then I'd have to think twice about it. And then I'd have to think some more. I have enough of my own issues to solve. Getting into someone else's personal business is dangerous stuff. And sharing it with the world is damn near unforgivable. This is like going to confession and learning the next day that the priest posted details of all of your sins on the Vatican website. It's just not what you expected when you spoke to him. Few people stay angry forever. It's not healthy. There are only a small number of people on the planet with the sort of talent possessed by D'Angelo Russell. So I think that eventually the NBA fraternity of players and coaches will if not quite forgive Russell, come to some sort of understanding with him. But Russell will always have that "snitch" label attached to him. For now he might consider a stint in the Witness Protection Program until the heat dies down.

Would you ever reveal someone's bad behavior told to you in confidence?

There's No Crying at Work!!!!

There is a common blues couplet that reads "Crying won't help you/Praying won't do you no good". I tend to agree with the spirit of those lyrics. Leaving aside the very serious events in war there are only a few situations when I would grudgingly concede that it is theoretically appropriate or excusable for a grown man to cry. These times are few and far between but would probably include such traumatic occurrences as the death of a parent, wife, sibling or child, the joyous occasions of a child's birth or daughter's wedding, and possibly such horrific fictional events as the shooting and eventual death of Sounder, Cochise's death or the Red Wedding. Snicker. These are my rules anyway. I'm not saying they should be yours. Humor aside, I am saying that for better or worse a man who runs around crying at every little thing will inevitably discover that he will lose respect from both men and women. A fellow who lets other men, women or life's ups and downs regularly reduce him to blubbering helplessness shouldn't be allowed to call himself a man in my view. There are very few problems that are solved by crying. And no matter what fresh hell we may find ourselves in at any given time it's a certainty that the world is going to keep turning. The Sun rose yesterday despite all the horrible atrocities that occurred to people who aren't you. And the Sun will rise tomorrow if you get some terrible news today. That's just the way the world works. As both of my grandfathers were prone to saying (fortunately jokingly by the time I arrived on the scene), "Hush up that crying before I give you something to cry about!" I view most crying by men, outside of the previously listed exceptions, as an announcement of utter incompetence, childishness and weakness. Life does not reward such behavior in general. As the Godfather informed us it's important to act like a man!! So whatever problems you face in your life remember that other people have faced them and survived. Or to quote an influential local DJ of my teen years , "Whenever you feel like you're nearing the end of your rope, don't slide off. Tie a knot. Keep hanging, keep remembering, that it ain't nobody bad like you." 

So it was with initial bemusement and later something close to growing horror that I read a piece in The Atlantic which argued that men and especially women should feel entitled to cry at work if they needed to do so. In fact women should have permission to cry more than men because equality and grrlpower or something. And looking negatively at people who cry at work is sexist.That was Olga Khazan's argument anyhow.

When the president of CBS News fired correspondent Mika Brzezinski a decade ago, she cried. And she regrets it. “There was no place for those tears in that moment,” she told the Huffington Post two years ago. “If anything, when you cry, you give away power.”
Of the 15 other high-profile women the news site interviewed about crying at work, the majority expressed negative views of some sort. Frances Hesselbein, former CEO of the Girl Scouts, put it most bluntly: “Tears belong within the family.”
In the office, crying is simply another unexpected emotional cue, like a guffaw or a jump for joy. But unlike those, it’s negative, so it snaps people to attention.
The ignominy of the office cry is still more of an issue for women than for men, because women cry more than men do. In her survey of 700 people, Anne Kreamer, author of It’s Always Personal: Navigating Emotion in the New Workplace, found that in the past year, 41 percent of women admitted to crying at work, but only 9 percent of men did.

Part of the explanation is hormonal: Men generate more testosterone, which inhibits crying, while women produce more prolactin, which seems to promote it. Anatomy also plays a role. Men have larger tear ducts than women, so more of their tears can well in their eyes without spilling out onto their cheeks. The only solution, it appears, is to normalize office crying for everyone. Not unlike other unpleasant things, crying happens. Men shouldn’t reap the unfair advantage of a mid-meeting misting, and women shouldn’t worry that on top of their own embarrassment, they’re being judged as manipulative and incompetent...

LINK

Now to be fair the social expectations are just a wee bit different for women. Outside of the workplace I don't view the spectacle of grown women crying with the same disdain I would have for grown men. Is that (horror of horrors) sexist? Perhaps so. I think most honest people will admit that, politics aside, they have slightly different expectations for men and women. It's just how the world works. Men and women are different. And that's a good thing. Still, man or woman, the workplace is not the place to have teary breakdowns. For men, in most work arenas I've been in, the loss of respect will be almost instantaneous and very difficult to retrieve. I don't think women face that exact same issue. A woman would often receive more confused sympathy than contempt. But even so, a grown woman who cries a lot at her workplace will have people wondering about her competence and stability. Ironically, one of the nastiest, meanest, most aggressive and most profane female co-workers I ever worked with was also a huge crybaby. I thought her tears were just another tool in her kit of emotional manipulation though she claimed not to be able to control them. So my thought is that encouraging people to cry at work is a horrible idea. It takes no account of how the world is today. We can argue and debate about how much of the difference in the frequency in men and women crying is due to biology or environmental factors. But regardless of whether you have XX or XY chromosomes, if you are routinely boo-hoo-hooing at work for reasons that don't include a loved one's death trust and believe that in many workplaces you will find yourself slowly marginalized and kept away from challenging or highly visible assignments and promotions.You need to put on your big boy/big girl pullups. Keep punching away at whatever problem afflicts you. If you really feel that you just need to have a good cry then I would strongly urge you to find yourself a private office or a bathroom stall and do what you need to do there. You won't share private moments with co-workers. You won't run the risk of having a crying jag in front of someone who may not know you that well and probably doesn't want to know you that well. Crying in front of a good friend, supportive and empathetic lover or spouse is utterly different from doing so in front of someone who evaluates your work, a rival peer who may crave your job, or an ambitious underling who resents reporting to you. 

I mean if I had a boss who broke down sobbing because another boss said something mean to him on the Tuesday conference call going forward am I really going to trust Fearless Leader's judgment and mental balance? No. No I am not. Although it is impossible to completely separate work from your emotions the bottom line is that you are at work in order to make money. All the emotional stuff needs to take a back seat while you're at work. Don't try to pretend it's not there. But don't start having crying fits at work either. I'm not interested in comforting you if you are a man; trying to comfort you if you are a woman could be misinterpreted by HR. Please keep your crying to yourself.

But that's just my take. What's your view?

Bronx Subway Brawl Beatdown

We've talked before about the seeming modern phenomenon of women assaulting men and the internal moral conflicts which such actions can cause. Really though, such actions are probably not modern at all. It's just that we're better able to capture such assaults on video. Ronda Rousey or Laila Ali notwithstanding if you see a man really going all out on a woman, chances are quite high that the woman will badly lose the physical confrontation. So most civilized men are taught from early on to refrain from hitting a woman-often even in situations of self-defense or instances where another man would have already caught several fists to the face. Unfortunately this cultural expectation of male physical restraint has led to some women deciding that they can initiate a physical confrontation with a man without suffering any consequences. They, and indeed much of society, are actually outraged if a man under attack decides to defend himself. My personal belief is that a gentleman should never hit a lady but neither should a lady ever strike a gentleman. In other words--no hands. Period. Make sure that whatever you do to someone is something that the person is going to like. Because there's an excellent chance that he or she will respond in kind. And gentleman or not, we all have the right and duty to defend ourselves. Recently a man in NYC got into a dispute with a woman on a subway train. Allegedly she was too heavy to fit into a seat next to this man. So someone else got the seat. Words (and elbows?) were exchanged. After a period of mutual insults and threats the woman hit and spit on or at the man. Now that was the wrong thing to do. Is there any worse sign of utter contempt? But the target of her ire was evidently something of a chivalrous sort. Being unwilling to hit the woman, this fellow decided to beat the dog**** out of her husband. So I guess we should all be happy right? There was no violence against women. The problem with holding a man accountable for his wife's or girlfriend's actions is that by doing so we are giving women the moral standing of children. And that's no good. The whole point of being an adult is that we take responsibility for our own actions instead of passing the buck to someone else. Bottom line however is that one man got beat up and another is wanted for assault, all because no one knew how to act. Anyway the video is below. I am happy that I live in an area where I don't use public transportation. I have enough hassles in my life. This is why before you marry someone you might want to make sure that they are not the kind of person who will let their mouth write a check that your behind can't cash. I guess the husband had time to think about his wife's poor cognitive abilities while he was on the floor getting beaten like a rented mule. Love is grand isn't it?

On the two train , this lady was too big to sit in a small space next to the guy, he instead let his smaller coworker sit next to him. She then got upset , they threw insults back and fourth. She then began to get into his face. She spit at him , it missed. She spit at him again and he began to beat up her boyfriend because he didn't wanna hit her.
Posted by Belle Porter on Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Part two !!!!
Posted by Belle Porter on Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Even her in-laws say she’s out of her mind. The instigator of a videotaped subway brawl that left her husband battered on the floor of a Bronx train is nothing but bad news, according to one of her spouse’s aunts. “She’s mentally ill!” the aunt shouted Friday at her Brooklyn apartment. “She’s beating everybody up all the time. She fights everybody.” The Wednesday afternoon beatdown on the No. 5 train began when the victim’s batty bride started a screaming match with a male straphanger over a seat aboard the fairly crowded subway. The woman began spewing obscenities at the man, who shouted back but refrained from getting physical — even after she put her hands on him and pushed her cellphone into his face.LINK

Twerking, Sexual Assault, and Double Standards

We've previously discussed the differences between men and women insofar as who's more likely to initiate declarations of sexual interest (men) and who's more likely to reject them or become offended that someone said something offcolor (women). I believe that these tendencies are virtually hard coded between the genders though obviously there are coy men who play hard to get and aggressive women who demand immediate no strings attached sex. But generally men initiate (often after a woman sends a signal) and then women respond. I think that's just the way humans are made. Obviously each culture regulates this dance of life differently.  Some men get in trouble by misreading signals that were meant for someone else or seeing signals that weren't even there.  Serious protocol violations can lead to verbal/physical conflict, police involvement or worse. On the flip side some cultures attempt control over all expressions of a woman's sexuality to the point that her travel is restricted. And in some areas an accusation that a woman was speaking to a man who is not her husband or relative can have very negative results. We generally give negative attention to men in public spaces who shout out double entendre salutations or ruder statements to women. In some quarters this is called "street harassment". Men who do this rarely seem to achieve their desired result though as with lottery winners there's no doubt someone out there who has hit the jackpot. Most women seem to dislike this verbal attention though paradoxically some women who complain about it the most also complain when they no longer receive it. Whatever. Everyone's different. Although reasonable people can disagree about the timing and propriety of approaching a woman on the street, no one could disagree that putting hands (or other body parts) on someone without her permission is grounds for assault charges. It's just not something you do. Well the door swings both ways.
Recently, in what appears to be a "man bites dog" event two women in a Washington D.C. gas station decided to physically harass a man who was rather obviously not interested in buying what they were selling. And selling is probably not a figure of speech here. At least one of the women has been charged with prostitution before. The women ground themselves against the man and touched his chest, backside and manhood. The man claimed that he feared for his life.  One of the women has since been charged with third degree sexual abuse. On a local radio station some hosts derided the man's "feared for my life" claim or the idea that the women should be criminally charged.  


The way I see it Mr. Tharpe, a middle school teacher, had no idea who those women were, if they were armed, or where they had been. He didn't know if this was a police sting operation. He didn't know if the women had pimps or other associates who were watching him and preparing to rob/extort him. And would you want some street hooker of either gender making a grab for your privates? I'm thinking not. Perhaps for any of a thousand reasons Tharpe doesn't want to be touched by or have sex with nasty women whom he does not know. That is his right, after all. The idea that men should always be (ahem) "up" for sex at any time for any reason with anyone is balderdash.  As he explains it was a lot more than twerking.

So society should be just as intolerant of unwanted touching/abuse/assault from women as from men. I don't think that we're there yet though. I don't know why it is so difficult to get people to understand that you need to keep your hands to yourself. It's a very simple concept. Ask first. That will usually clear up any unpleasant misunderstandings. Or if you make a move and someone reacts as if they just touched a live wire and starts screaming for their Mommy, chances are they aren't interested in doing anything with you. Take the hint.

De'Andre Johnson dismissed from FSU football team

Some people like to say that there is no excuse for violence against women. I don't really like that framing at all because it turns what could be a valid reason into an "excuse" and ignores the fact that whether we like it or not there are some very violent, dangerous and even deadly women on this planet. What IS true however is that almost regardless of what a particular woman might have done to initiate or continue a physical confrontation, a man who hits a woman rightfully has a very high bar of skepticism and contempt to climb over in a court of law or especially the court of public opinion. Because this is the case it is a good idea to avoid putting hands on women. It's a bad idea and is often morally repugnant. However, men, like women, do have the right and duty to defend themselves. There ought to be a better way for us to distinguish the case of a man who is legitimately defending himself from the case of a lowlife punk who just gets his kicks beating and terrorizing those who are weaker than he. I've seen both situations. This problem is further muddled by the assumption that women are and should be in all ways "equal" to men. Some people say that if we wouldn't worry about a bad outcome happening to a man because of his or someone else's dumb decision than we shouldn't worry about a woman in the same position. So by this logic if a woman wants to be in combat and is qualified, let her do it. There should be no cries of "Save the women and children!" if a ship starts to sink. We're all equal. Well.
De'Andre Johnson, former quarterback for the Florida State Seminoles football team, found out the hard way that "defending yourself" from a woman in the same way that you might defend yourself from a man is not, at least for him, an acceptable course of action. He got into a physical confrontation with a woman at a Tallahassee bar. She raised her hands which were balled up in fists. They both appeared to push and grapple with each other. She took a swing at Johnson. Johnson punched back. The woman lost. It is the difference in gender and strength that makes this a shock. Johnson was suspended and later dismissed from the team.


Florida State Seminoles coach Jimbo Fisher dismissed freshman quarterback De'Andre Johnson from the team Monday night, hours after the state's attorney's office released video showing Johnson punching a woman in the face last month at a Tallahassee bar.

Fisher made the announcement in a brief statement released by FSU on Monday night.
Johnson, who was named Florida's "Mr. Football" as a senior at First Coast High School in Jacksonville, Florida, was indefinitely suspended from the team in June. He was charged with misdemeanor battery for striking the 21-year-old woman during an argument June 24. He surrendered to Tallahassee police on June 30 and was released on $500 bond.
The video, which was captured by security cameras in a bar near the FSU campus, shows Johnson trying to push past the woman, who was waiting to order at the bar. The woman turned toward Johnson, who grabbed her right arm after she raised it in a fist. The woman raised her knee and swung at Johnson with her left arm, and then he punched her in the face.
LINK

When I watched this I asked myself what was Johnson, who is under the legal drinking age, doing in a bar in the first place? But I was informed that some bars allow underage people to enter; they just won't serve them alcohol. Both Johnson and the woman made bad decisions. If I were the prosecutor I would charge both of them or charge neither of them. But I'm no lawyer. Perhaps someone with actual legal training and experience will chime in to discuss the charges. Bottom line though is that I think it's critically important that we teach all people regardless of their race or gender not to put hands on other people. If this were a smaller man who had started something with say, a heavyweight MMA or boxing champ before losing in a spectacular fashion, many more of us would likely find it humorous. We would tend to judge same gender interactions differently than we would opposite gender ones. Is that wrong? Perhaps. I think it's good and proper to teach men not to hit women. I also think it's good and proper to teach women not to hit men. No hands. Why is this so difficult? Did the woman think that Johnson was just to going to accept a punch in the face? Did Johnson think he was going to walk away with no repercussions? 

Michigan State Senator Virgil Smith and Domestic Violence

The Bible tells us that only the person without sin should throw stones. It also informs us that we should judge not lest we be judged. That might be good moral advice but of course a working society requires that we do judge certain sins and crimes and punish those who engage in them. That's just the way it is. Although I think everyone has dealt with lust, jealousy and anger at some point in their life not everyone lets these sins get the better of them. You have to maintain control over your actions. The result of losing your temper could be disastrous for you and those around you. Michigan State Senator Virgil Smith (D-Detroit) is finding this out the hard way as new details and conflicting stories are emerging about a confrontation between Smith and his ex-wife that turned physical.  Two sides emerged Monday in the story of a lurid domestic shooting involving a state senator with longtime family connections to the the halls of power in Detroit and Lansing. State Sen. Virgil Smith told police that opening fire at his ex-wife’s Mercedes-Benz with a rifle early Sunday morning was “the most stupid thing” in his life. In a statement Smith gave to investigators, he said his ex-wife, whose name is being withheld by The Detroit News, “was banging on (the) bedroom window,” at about 1 a.m., a Detroit Police report said. Smith said he opened the front door, and his ex-wife, “kicked the door open and pushed (past) him. 

“(The ex-wife) went into (Smith’s) bedroom and observed a female ... in (Smith’s) bed. (Smith) stated that (the ex-wife) attempted to attack (the girlfriend),” the police report obtained by The News said. “(Smith) grabbed (his ex-wife), they fell backwards, knocking over the television. (Smith) stated that (his ex-wife) attempted to attack (his girlfriend) again.” Smith told police “he grabbed (his ex-wife) and forced her out of his house,” the police report said. Smith then told investigators he went back into the bedroom to check on his girlfriend, and then returned to the front door, “and observed (his ex-wife) throwing a chair at his house windows.  “(Smith) then stated he did the most stupid thing in his life, he shot (the ex-wife’s) vehicle,” the report said.  

A second police report, containing the ex-wife’s side of the story, was taken by police at 4:41 a.m. Sunday. She said Smith had invited her to stay the night at his house, and, when she arrived, “she was met by a naked (Smith) and an (unknown) female,” the report said. “At this time she became angry and upset, and both started verbally arguing. “At some point during the argument (Smith) grabbed her by the back of her head and shoved her face first into the carpet. Victim stood up and was struck by (Smith) 4-5 (times) in the face with closed fist causing cheeks on both sides of her face to swell.” Smith’s ex-wife told police she ran out the front door, and he chased her with “an (unknown) type long gun and followed behind. She observed muzzle flash (three times) as suspect began firing at her,” the report said. The ex-wife said she ran into a nearby alley as Smith fired the rifle. She said she went into the nearby home of a friend, “who allowed her to call 911 and clean her wounds.” 

The friend later tried to retrieve the ex-wife’s 2015 Mercedes Benz GLA250, but that it was “unable to start due to gunshot damage,” the report said. Evidence technicians later found three suspected bullet holes in the vehicle’s hood; two in the driver’s side headlight; two in the driver’s side front fender; and one each in the driver’s side door, windshield, and rear driver’s door pillar, the report said.

LINK
My thinking is that if Smith did not want his ex-wife at his home he never should have opened the door. Nothing good came from that decision. Perhaps he thought he could calm her down. Or perhaps he and the ex-wife were indeed planning to have some adult fun but the ex-wife did not know another woman would be there or didn't know that that particular woman would be there. Who can really say what's going on in someone else's private life. I have always thought that if someone is an ex there is likely a good reason for that status. Why change it? The problem for Smith is that although the differing stories around the confrontation inside the house may be unverifiable, the ten bullet holes in the car and his own alleged admission of firing the gun would seem to make this a pretty simple case of assault. The only reason to use a gun is if you're defending yourself from another person's deadly force. Even if Smith's crazy ex was throwing chairs at his home windows I don't see how that would legally or otherwise justify shooting at her or her car. But once some people lose their temper and HULK out so to speak, there is no reasoning with them. Still, as far as I'm concerned it's a fair expectation that a State Senator should be able to avoid situations that are more likely to show up on Worldstar than C-Span. I wonder why the other woman in this tale has not sought to press charges for assault? 

Should Smith's fellow Senators expel him from the State Senate?