Sunday, November 24, 2013
A 14-YEAR-old Massachusetts boy has been indicted for the brutal rape and murder of his high-school maths teacher.
Danvers High School teacher Colleen Ritzer, 24, was found dead outside the high school last month - killed after what a court prosecutor said was a series of "unspeakable acts".
Philip Chism, one of her students, has today been charged with murder as an adult, along with aggravated rape and armed robbery.
Court documents allege that Chism, armed with a box cutter, robbed Ritzer of credit cards, an iPhone and her underwear before sexually assaulting her with an object and then murdering her.
"The indictments returned today detail horrific and unspeakable acts," Essex County District Attorney Jonathon Blodgett said. "This is the first step in a long process to secure justice for Ms. Ritzer and her family."
Her throat had been slashed with a boxcutter. She had also been punched in the face.
The school's security camera recorded Chism pulling on a pair of gloves. According to court documents, Chism then allegedly followed Ritzer into a bathroom.
He then dragged her body out of the bathroom in a wheeled recycling bin.
After going home to change his bloody clothes, he went to a Wendy's outlet for lunch and then went to watch a Woody Allen movie at a nearby theatre. He did not return home.
That night, both Ritzer and Chism were reported as missing.
Feminists insist that only a feminist view of the world should be shown on TV
Furious parents have blasted the BBC’s new children’s series Topsy and Tim, branding it 'flabbergastingly sexist'.
The new version of Topsy and Tim, which hit screens earlier this month on CBeebies, was supposed to have been updated for the 21st century. But despite dad using a tablet computer and mum spending time on her laptop, the series - inspired by the hugely popular books and animated TV show of the same name - appears to be stuck in the past.
Since the first of 60 episodes aired on November 10, thousands of parents have flocked to internet forum Mumsnet to express their opposition to the show.
Most of the outrage is over the way the characters conform to gender stereotypes.
One parent, who called themselves MadBannersAndCopPorn posted: 'I caught it for the first time tonight and thought it was a load of rubbish. 'I hated the boys playing on quads and girls decorating princess cupcakes too - Tim’s friend a boy, Topsy’s a girl etc
Another parent, called DoubleLifeIsALifeOfSorts added: 'It’s flabbergastingly sexist - I was so disappointed. 'Mummy and Topsy do the washing while Tim helps daddy with the man’s work. 'Topsy is inside making cakes and Tim gets told they’re not for him and he must go outside and play with the quad bike.
'I can’t let my three-and-a-half-year-old watch it, he already thinks girls can’t do stuff that boys can.'
Meanwhile some mums have revealed actress Anna Acton, who plays the children’s mother, has a large following of husbands.
Mumsnet user, who calls themselves nomeansno20 said: 'I want to thank CBEEBIES for topsy and tim series. Its the only time my hubby sits down with the kids.
'I’m sure its cos yummy mummy Anna Acton is so lush. I’m not jealous tho, its funny to see him perk up whenever she comes on screen. 'Anyone else becoming a Topsy and Tim widow?'
Oprah, Obama and the Racism Dodge
In Britain to promote her film "The Butler," Oprah Winfrey gave an interview to the BBC last week. Not surprisingly, she promoted her movie about race relations in the White House with comments about race relations and the White House.
The BBC's Will Gompertz asked: "Has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment of Obama and the challenges he's faced and some of the reporting he's received is because he's an African-American?"
Now there's a fresh take.
Either Gompertz has been handcuffed to a radiator in someone's windowless basement for the last five years or, more likely, he was riffing off the suggested questions Winfrey's PR team handed out to interviewers. Neither explanation would lift the stench of staleness from the question -- or the answer.
Winfrey responded: "Has it ever crossed my mind? ... Probably it's crossed my mind more times than it's crossed your mind. Just the level of disrespect. When the senator yelled out, 'You're a liar' -- remember that? Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he's African-American."
Now it's true that Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) should not have shouted "You lie!" (whether or not it was a lie) at the president during his health-care address to Congress. But the evidence that Wilson was motivated by racism is simply nonexistent.
However, a lack of evidence hasn't stopped countless liberals, editorial boards, pundits and stand-up comics, not to mention administration officials, from propagating the idea that Obama's problems boil down to the irrational bigotry of his opponents.
Looking for examples of this relentless smear is like hunting for sand at the beach. In July, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the NAACP that the same people who opposed the Civil Rights Act and anti-lynching laws were opposing Obamacare. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) made similar arguments. And from what I can tell, so has virtually every host on MSNBC (except for Joe Scarborough). In one way or another they subscribe to Chris Matthews' view that opposition to Obama and Obamacare is driven by faith in white supremacy.
It's all very stupid and lazy. When President Clinton tried to transform health care in the 1990s, conservatives opposed the effort hammer and tongs. But when they mount the same battle with an even more liberal president who happens to be black, the only logical conclusion is that racism is afoot. George W. Bush is pretty white, and he was shown ample disrespect. You can look it up.
This is not to say there aren't racists -- even in the GOP -- who don't like the president and his agenda. It's just that you don't need to leap to racism to understand the criticisms of Obama and his agenda. If the man were white, the argument about Obamacare wouldn't change one iota, at least not for conservatives.
For liberals, it's not so clear. Since Democrats steamrolled the Affordable Care Act into law, its defenders have acted as if any opposition to the law is irrational, extremist, absurd and, of course, racist. They gave themselves license to dismiss all inconvenient facts simply by impugning the motives of those who point them out.
Just days before HealthCare.gov crashed on takeoff, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has often suggested that the president's opponents are bigots, railed on the Senate floor: "Obamacare has been the law for four years. Why don't they get a life and talk about something else?"
"We are going to accept nothing that relates to Obamacare," he added. "Let them find something else to be weird about."
In recent polls, 58 percent of Americans have a negative view of the health-care law, 54 percent disapprove of Obama and 50 percent think he isn't honest or trustworthy. Are they all racists and weirdos?
Winfrey, a billionaire twice over thanks in no small part to her popularity among whites, told the BBC that the older generation of bigots may "just have to die" before America can get past racism. In 2012, 60 percent of voters under 30 voted for Obama. Now more than half view him negatively. I hope Winfrey doesn't think they need to die too.
Arrogant Swedish social services
Swedish police used stun grenades to subdue a mother who refused to hand over her five-month-old son.
The 30-year-old woman had armed herself with a knife when police entered her flat in Helsingborg, southern Sweden to aid social services with taking the child into care.
She locked herself in a room with the baby boy and, after several hours of negotiation police judged her a threat to the child and called for backup.
The incident took place earlier this month when social services in Helsingborg requested police presence when removing the child from the woman’s care.
The five-month-old boy is the third child to be taken from the woman, who has been in and out of employment for several years.
When social services ruled that her baby should also be taken into care she made serious threats to staff and refused to cooperate, and as a result, police were called in to help remove the child from her.
The initial police force had kicked a hole through the door to communicate with the distressed mother, but she refused to let go of her son.
When a squad team arrived at the scene, they decided to use stun grenades to subdue the woman.
The grenades, also known as flash grenades, go off at up to 180 decibels temporarily paralysing the person they are fired at.
The child was hospitalised and the woman was taken to a psychiatric clinic.
Her legal representative claims police used unnecessary force. 'It is very strange that police use stun grenades on a petite woman who just tried to defend her child.
'She judged the actions of the police to be unfair and feels she was facing an impossible power,’ lawyer Charlotte Lagersten told Dagens Nyheter.
When her two older children were taken from her, a psychiatrist noted that they both ‘seemed safe and well cared for’ and had a ‘warm and caring relationship’ with their mother.
When it was ruled that her new-born should also be removed from her care, a psychologist who met with them wrote that the boy showed ‘an attachment to his mother which is rare to see today.’
‘I am extremely critical to how the woman and her children have been treated,’ Ms Lagersten adds.
‘Social Services have chosen not to divulge any of the investigation or papers which have proven the woman’s ability to care for her children.
‘They have also completely disregarded the fact that the children at the time of going into care were physicially and mentally well.
‘In short, there are no legal grounds for taking them into care.’
The woman, who left psychiatric care on Thursda, has previously applied to have her other two children returned from foster care, but she has not been allowed to see them for 18 months.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.