Writes jeremias at Metafilter, about "The Most Gullible Man in Cambridge/A Harvard Law professor who teaches a class on judgment wouldn’t seem like an obvious mark, would he?," which we've been talking about here and which I can't stop thinking about.
Answering jeremias's question is jam jam:
Since you won't say it jeremias, I will.Suddenly, "The Most Gullible Man in Cambridge" pairs up with that other article we've been talking about,"The Case of Al Franken/A close look at the accusations against the former senator."
We are seeing this right now because so many people are so uncomfortable about the things women are saying about powerful men, and they are DESPERATE for any excuse at all to disbelieve those women.
And this story will give them that at an unconscious level.
Posts
80 comments:
I too have that "can't stop thinking about it" reaction to the Hays splooge article. I don't know quite why. Maybe it's all the little details that my mind keeps stumbling on. Maybe it's the "looking at the mangled cars as we drive by" voyeurism.
Whatever it is, this story stuck with me.
If he'd been paying attention, the Professor would have been able to tell by her intensely stiff necked nuzzling that the woman's interest wasn't sexual.
The story wouldn't mean as much if Hay were the only mark. The fact that it seems like a routine is what makes it so sensational and salacious. And yeah, don't believe all women.
We are seeing this right now because so many people are so uncomfortable about the things women are saying about powerful men, and they are DESPERATE for any excuse at all to disbelieve those women.
If I was desperate for an excuse to disbelieve women, I'd start with Anita Hill, Tawana Brawley, CBF, Crystal Magnum or Emma Sulkowicz long before I'd resort to this article.
This article is nothing. It's existence is blip #12,458 in a long winding narrative that's ongoing.
You want to talk impactful? Tell me why Christina Rubin Erdely's "A Rape On Campus" needed to exist...I mean that should be a gimme. Straight up fiction vs. Non-fiction right?
I guess my point is pifflepafflewifflewaffle. I was disbelieving what lesbians, trannies, and women were saying before it was cool.
The Harvard prof wants some sympathy. He also wants these women to stop harassing him and he thinks this story might work because obviously the legal system has failed him. He’s allegedly spent $300k and he is still getting ground up.
The liberal politics of this clusterfuck is fascinating.
Liberal dysfunction has ruined this guy’s life. And as Ann has noted, his real kids have been damaged.
To repeat from the previous post: Some people like golf, some like knitting... but seriously, there were other men they had similar 'big old personal relationships' with. Sounds like just a different manifestation of psychopathic behavior.
That someone would try to tie it to #MeToo seems sociopathic. And predictable.
I.e., the article should not have been written because it reflects poorly on "women". Not politically useful!
This case is Exhibit A in the case for liberal dysfunction and unhinged-ness. I’d bet big money all three believe in CAGW.
Come on - the article itself spells out why it exists. Hay is trying to put pressure on Harvard to finish the investigation and find him innocent. Since Hay has the right political beliefs, resume and contacts he was easily able to find fellow leftists / "journalists" to help him out.
I tried to read it, but it was long and seemed like a run-of-the-mill "midlife crisis goes wrong as man gets taken by young con artist" article that is noteworthy only because the guy really should have known better (Harvard Law!). In which case the only way it's worth it is if it's really well written. Which it wasn't.
Is that the wrong take?
it's unclear to me why the article exists.
I find it disturbing we all expect to see the coordinated political motive in every drop of journalism.
#disbelieve everyone
It's the same publication, that glorified Frank Lucas the destroyer of a good part of a whole generation of African americans
That covered for epstein for 15 years, that let anonymous slander by Wallace and schmidt stand, that spiked the Weinstein story in 2016, while hinting bill Cosby down
The market rent for that house was at least $4500 per month. They scammed him for at least $3k per month.
And that music portfolio that Mia-Pia supposedly owned is not worth much. Ask Peter Frampton what Spotify, Pandora and SiriusXM pays. Peanuts.
The operative rule in any con is people believe what they want to believe.
It gets better. Although I loathe linking to the odious 'Salon' website:
https://www.salon.com/2016/02/27/i_thought_i_could_reason_with_antonin_scalia_a_more_naive_young_fool_never_drew_breath/
Hay once wrote an article glorifying (no exaggeration) this very transexual lunatic and savaging Scalia, (though the article seems to imply Hay's wonderful broad mindedness towards evil conservatives by noting he "leans" left and "briefly clerked for" Scalia) in which he blames Scalia and his ilk for Haider's depression and lack of academic accomplishmenst on physics. The irony is too delicious.
Plus - there is no real attempt at investigative journalism. Is Maria-Pia really from a wealthy family?Does that family support her? Is her french accent real or affected? Is Mischa truly a polymath, violinist.... or is that all also lies?
I think these stories are coming out at this time due to the on-coming revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein case. There's two sides to a scam, and I wondered who falls for these long-term con artists? Isn't it possible that the people who are unable to extricate themselves from these situations are people who are waiting for an admission of guilt. They can't say to themselves that they see what is going on and the situation includes the fact that Person X will never directly admit his or her guilt. They wait for that admission - and wait and wait - and are exploited and exploited. This applies to the gullibles still believing in the Russia hoax as well as Jeffrey Epstein's enablers - those people are waiting for Comey and Clinton and the fake news and Jeffrey Epstein to admit what they did and say they're sorry. Those gullibles are perpetually waiting. Won't happen. And they think we should wait also. Nope.
Its a liberal-bien pensant comeuppance story.
This tends to upset people with an emotional attachment to the sort of world view Professor Hay seems to have had at the beginning of his adventures.
The original premise is, after all, something of a pat story, or combination of them really. The "new model family" thing, with happy open relationships, children by many fathers to a "lesbian" couple, one of whom is allegedly transgender and thereby nobly suffering from oppression, etc.
That this lot, which could be seen as a near-perfect example of modern social ideals, turns out to be a gang of malicious grifters, is not helpful to those attached to modern social ideals.
This all is very much in the spirit of the piles of post-hippie regret-literature, or the commune from hell theme, or post-cult escape stories from the last 50 years.
In a world where everything is political, then every story also is political.
It will not improve until there is no great advantage to be won through political agitation.
The guy followed his dick right over a cliff. It happens.
He should have known better and he had a wall full of fancy sheepskins to prove it.
It's interesting that these metafilter guys are so discomfited by the idea that a lesbian and a "transwoman" could possibly mistreat a man. Having an identity politics totem pole to rank people makes moral judgments quick and easy.
The Metafilter community seems like exactly the sort of crowd that would encourage the development of this sort of train wreck.
"The guy followed his dick right over a cliff."
This wasn't about sex. Hay claims medication leaves him with a low sex drive and barely able to perform. This was about vanity. While he was initially thrilled to be found attractive. The real elation comes when he is befriended by the "lesbian wife" (male transitioning to female) Haider. In the Harvard swamp bragging rights to a brown-trans-lesbian friend is a sure winner.
It's a story of a long con. How could a supposed competent person, book smart, be fooled so profoundly? Many movies and books have been written about a long con. It's a mystery/ detective genre plot. Betrayal and the dangerous individual has been a central aspect of many movies; it compels audience attention. The motivation of the women is unclear; there is some evil at work. It's a mystery and compelling. This story could be made into a movie.
I have seen commenters remark this is "typical" of people who go to Harvard. A segment of the internet sees it as confirmatory that Trump supporters are better family men, more able to keep their families intact. As a social conservative who does not believe in divorce, I observe that divorce, adultery, and family dysfunction are not restricted to one political party. Social conservatives are more interested in keeping families whole, but still have work to do to encourage family togetherness and the needs of children over adults. And libertarians are not necessarily interested in working against divorce and adultery. I see a huge resistance to talking about the dangers of divorce from all ranges of the political spectrum.
Due to their relative ability to navigate life, professors at Cambridge are more likely to marry once, not divorce, and keep that family together, then the general population. Divorce and family splits are incredibly common in the general population and it takes luck and skill to keep a family together. This story goes far beyond the typical divorce, due to the long con aspects and the abrupt dislocation and economic threat posed to the children from the house-swindle. But we all know that family disruption, geographic dislocation, and psychological injury to young or adolescent children is far too common in family breakups.
The major male character in the story: he did not protect himself or his family. He was desperate and needy or lonely. Perhaps it was his mental illness, but he could not recognize the severe dysfunction in these two individuals. His ex-wife had remarked on his friendships with women, and seen something off with them in the past. It appears he didn't know how to relate to adults in a healthy way, and make proper friendships, with proper boundaries. He's lucky his ex-wife was in the picture to pick up the pieces.
Let the backlash begin.
Combine it with the Huma's Weiner story and you get a shot across Hillary's bow.
The Dilbert cartoon in this FakeNous article is very apt I think.
Bedlam, I say, Bedlam. Great tour. Recommended.
"This was about vanity."
Pride and vanity were involved. But it's about some desperate need that is not clear in the story. The story suggested he wanted to be part of their household. He had long, intense bonding conversations about mental illness with them. He wanted the connection desperately, and he betrayed his family and his children in particular in an effort to get it.
Why he had such a desperate need for those relationships is unclear to me. The intense emotionality & drama in the relationships is more typical of adolescent girls.
This wasn't about sex.
That's what his dick wanted him to think.
Question: Why haven't these women been indicted for serial extortion by the US Attorney or County Attorney?
Answer: Favored members of the liberal class are protected. Just like Hillary Clinton was protected by the FBI. You can break the law if your politics are correct.
My own take is that Hay is a narcissist and he willingly engaged with these people because he sees himself as starring in this incredible movie titled "Bruce's Wacky Weird Wonderful Life" and they brought the drama, the excitement, the thrill of not knowing what will happen next to Bruce. This article is just inviting the rest of us to sit down for awhile and watch along with him.
As to the women and their motives..."some people aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some people just want to watch the world burn.”
This thing about having to have things make sense. It's so retro. So...2015.
P.S. I deleted and reposted as I had this loser's name wrong.
Hmmm... Is this all #metoo backlash, attempts to rehabilitate the public perceptions of Al Franken and Bill Clinton, compare (positively) the principled metoo-ism of Gillibrand to the Hays duo, justify the Kavanaugh lynch mob, and arguing that Creepy Joe really ain't so creepy?
Pretty much all just anxious navel gazing by the Left. They have no principles to retreat to, so they have to rationalize all these seemingly incongruous events and their feelings about them.
I am not similarly afflicted and thus will be over here watching and eating popcorn.
tim maguire is right: The article is disorganized and poorly written.
The only things that can be said in this schmuck's favor are that he is/was on the faculty at Harvard and he holds all the right political/personal views. (But I repeat myself.)
There's no fool like an old fool.
wwww~
I disagree with your categorical rejection of divorce, and of your comment about how it’s good that the ex-wife was there to ‘pick up the pieces.’ I fault her for staying with this lunatic and exposing her children to this pile of dysfunctional evil. It would have been FAR better for them for her to have scooped them up and split during the time when he was choosing to devote himself to his ‘friendship’ with these women rather than being a (common-law) husband and a father. She should have left for good instead of indulging in ‘crying and anger,’ per the article, when he was spending ‘hours’ on the phone with his ‘new friends.’ Someone who prioritizes his time and energy in that fashion is rejecting his family and is not husband and father material. And that’s even before the nightmare to come. So their mother should have seen that coming and left him, along with the children, in order to provide some level of stability to them. Divorce (or living by their previous divorce which for whatever reason they were pretending hadn’t happened) would have been the best and most protective thing that could have happened to those kids.
All you smart guys need to be extra careful. Remember, if you're smart, your dick's smart too.
okay, i went and read the 1st article
There's a pic of her (next to a picture of a guy in drag, presumably to make her look better in comparison
Here's some pro-tips.
If a girl (woman(person(object))) is further out on the crazy axis than she is on the hot axis...
STAY AWAY!
IF
you decide NOT to stay away from crazy girl; you need to NOT blow her off afterwords
Especially not for you previous crazy ex wife that you're still living with
"I disagree with your categorical rejection of divorce, and of your comment about how it’s good that the ex-wife was there to ‘pick up the pieces.’ I fault her for staying with this lunatic and exposing her children to this pile of dysfunctional evil."
I don't disagree with you. I 100% agree that once she saw the con was occurring, she needed to do everything to protect the children.
I said he was lucky she picked up the pieces. He was lucky. He's a mess and hapless. The children were not lucky. She needed to protect the children and their house from her ex-husband's dysfunctional relationships.
In terms of my beliefs about divorce so many things went sideways I don't know where to begin. They were divorced and had 2 children after the divorce. What? Why? Why are they living together? Apparently he thought it was "ok" to get into a "fling" because they were not married. This guy needs rules clearly stated to him. "You're married, you have kids, you're not allowed to get into a sexual or intense relationship with anybody else."
"We are seeing this right now because so many people are so uncomfortable about the things women are saying about powerful men, and they are DESPERATE for any excuse at all to disbelieve those women."
What an idiotic comment.
1 - Would anyone change their opinion on the honesty of woman based on that article? Of course not.
2 - Half of the two scamsters are men.
That poor guy wrote an article on the wonderfulness of his male victimizer, combined, somehow, with the horribleness of Antonin Scalia.
"It would have been FAR better for them for her to have scooped them up and split during the time when he was choosing to devote himself to his ‘friendship’ with these women rather than being a (common-law) husband and a father."
I agree. (Although are they common-law if they're divorced?) But yeah I agree. They were divorced previously and he was putting them in dysfunction situations and danger through his strange actions.
The following link appeared in the Althouse ad space after I clicked back from this article.
Make of it what you will.
Clear violation of Rule No. One.
Meade (7:24) gets it! Men lie, women lie, the child who knocks over the expensive vase and says “Not me! lies.
I wish I'd bookmarked the youtube of the guy explaining the crazy/hot graph.
I was about to say what are the odds that his first choice of female was normal when his second was a sociopath, but that's what my father did. He was 60 and she 42, so that's part of it.
I submit that both of these articles (Al Franken and the Nutty Professor) are affirmations of the idea that got Prof. Amy Wax in trouble at UPenn Law School, namely, that adhering to middle class mores and traditional bourgeois values is a well-defined path to a happy and prosperous life. These folks didn't, and it cost them when the man and the hour came together.
The story of the Nutty Professor speaks for itself. When you venture into the weeds of life, strange things happen. It would have been better if he had stayed married and been loyal to his wife and children.
Al Franken is a clown with a pull-by date in the past. He stole his way into the US Senate, and he continued to have flashes of clown behavior. Then came the #MeToo movement (and the Roy Moore election), and he discovered he was expendable. He would have been better off if he had behaved in a restrained, respectful manner after he was elevated to the Senate, but the clown ran deep in him, and he paid a price.
It is interesting to see Trump the family man in the White House. His tweeting habits may catch up with him, though. He is a great counter-puncher, but I am not sure that will always be what is called for or in his own interest. He is taking a walk on the wild side every time he picks up that phone.
For most of us it works best to work hard, improve our skills, take responsibility for our families, defer gratification, and practice thrift.
Althouse: "We don't know that she's a grifter."
How do you explain the legal cases against two other parties apparently unknown to Hays?
Althouse: "The article tries to center the dispute on a paternity claim, but says that Mischa is listed as the other parent on the birth certificate, and there's nothing about trying to get child support from Hay."
One of their earlier cons was disproven via a paternity test. It seems like they learned this was a path not to be taken.
"which I can't stop thinking about"
Weird. I invite you to think deeply about that.
"We are seeing this right now because so many people are so uncomfortable about the things women are saying about powerful men, and they are DESPERATE for any excuse at all to disbelieve those women."
Huh? We righties were never uncomfortable with the things women were saying about JFK, with Juanita Broaddrick's accusation against Billy Jeff, with Tawana Brawley being exposed as a liar, or --. Nor are we "desperate for any excuse": facts will do--the facts of the repeated lies by women in prominent cases, the fact of the organized smear against Kavanaugh, etc.
Nor are progs "desperate for any excuse": they just have to gauge carefully when and whom to disbelieve, without their cynical instrumentalism toward women's claims being too obviously exposed as rank hypocrisy to the public at large and to sensitive "feminists" under the illusion that the left stands for equality.
I view the story as a data point in a still-unsettled intra-prog dispute. Some progs know that women can be evil, some progs still care about procedural protections even for men, and some progs think that giving women carte blanche can be a strategic error, if only because it hurts useful allies (Franken, Hay).
In terms of my beliefs about divorce so many things went sideways I don't know where to begin. They were divorced and had 2 children after the divorce. What? Why? Why are they living together? Apparently he thought it was "ok" to get into a "fling" because they were not married. This guy needs rules clearly stated to him. "You're married, you have kids, you're not allowed to get into a sexual or intense relationship with anybody else."
My guess is that he's the only one who thought they weren't committed to each other. "Mostly platonic" ha! He said himself he didn't have a lot of libido. I'm guessing the ex wife believed that's why they weren't having sex very often.
Is there any evidence of Mischa Haider actually being a physicist? Per bio at HuffPo s/he is "an applied physicist at Harvard University" but does not appear in a search of the faculty on Harvard's website. Supposedly s/he "studies applications of mathematical and physical models to social networks" which sounds like typical academic BS fluff that tries to appropriate scientific jargon to appear more legitimate. No citations at all on Google Scholar.
"My guess is that he's the only one who thought they weren't committed to each other. "Mostly platonic" ha! He said himself he didn't have a lot of libido. I'm guessing the ex wife believed that's why they weren't having sex very often."
Reading the story, I wondered if that was the case. If they were divorced but living together for $$ or housing reasons, I would think that would be clear. But they got back together after the divorce and had 2 children together. I think this guy needed very clear rules to not mess up: You're married, you're a husband, focus on your wife and kids.
I can't stop thinking about it either. I drove by the house last night, and the front door had been left ajar just as it was in the New York Magazine picture.
The story has at its center a great whodunit as to who is the biological father of Maria-Pia Shuman's baby boy:
(1) Bruce Hay, the gullible or guileful Harvard Law Professor.
(2) Miscia Haider, the trans woman listed as the other parent on the birth certificate who Maria-Pia's other kids call Maman.
(3) Andrew Klein, Miscia Haider's longtime boyfriend who Maria-Pia's other kids call Daddy.
(4) John Doe, the young, lanky, blue-eyed CPA who Maria-Pia also told was the father of her baby boy.
(5) John Poe, the Harvard medical student against whom Maria-Pia's had made a previous paternity claim.
Maria-Pia may be some kind of con artist, but it also may be that she just didn't know and was pursuing all the potentials. I do suspect that Bruce Hay is more culpable in this multi-sided affair than he claims to be.
They were divorced and had 2 children after the divorce. What? Why?
The idiot should have demanded paternity testing on Zack's kids as well.
Ralph L said...
I wish I'd bookmarked the youtube of the guy explaining the crazy/hot graph.
hot crazy matrix
gongtao asked... Is there any evidence of Mischa Haider actually being a physicist?
https://www.seas.harvard.edu/applied-physics/people/graduate-students
he's apparently a grad student
NOTE! it looks like quite a few of the other grad students are real cuties (maybe even hotties!) Unlike HIM!
Another angle on this story, if you accept Bruce Hay as victim, is which woman took most advantage of him:
(1) Maria-Pia Shuman, the woman who claimed he was the father of her baby boy and later moved his wife and kids stuff out of their house so that Team Shuman could move in.
(2) Miscia Haider, the trans woman who moved in with Team Shuman and later filed a Title IX complaint against him.
(3) Jennifer Zacks, the ex-wife who talked him into signing over his half interest in their $3.2M house.
(4) Kera Bolonik, the writer of the New York Magazine article about him.
Or did Bruce Hay take advantage of all of them? I suppose it's not an either/or.
Left:
The father is probably Andrew Klein.
Is that house really worth $3.2m? In the Dundee or Cathedral neighborhood in Omaha, that house is about $250k; maybe $400k if the interior is fixed up.
Did anyone read this thinking "so this is why people watched the Jerry Springer show"?
They trade trailer parks in Ohio for million $ homes in Massachusets, but both have trannies!
I read the entire article yesterday, and my impression was this- Hay isn't as stupid as he appears in that one-side story. For whatever reason he may have, I think he has exaggerated his stupidity in an attempt to build sympathy for himself. Sure, he displayed really bad judgment getting involved with Haider and Shuman, but the fact is that he shows really bad judgment, also, for believing this story will make him seem sympathetic- the story does exactly the opposite of what he clearly intended.
"Is that house really worth $3.2m? In the Dundee or Cathedral neighborhood in Omaha, that house is about $250k; maybe $400k if the interior is fixed up."
You can sell a crappy house for a lot of $$ in some places You should see what ca sell in Seattle/ San Fransisco/ Silicon Valley/ London/ Vancouver. People buy w/ no inspection, no counter-offer when multiple offers are flying in for 1 house.
Vancouver: Crack Shack or Mansion. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-quiz-asks-crack-shack-or-mansion-1.880972
Sex, gender, political congruence and politics.
A fiat order that All sexual mores are the same for every age, sex and family status has required Open Borders living that effectively leaves every fool that follows them wide open to be abused and looted. Imagine that being pushed as a virtue way of life...pushed by the cult leaders that need a continuous victim supply.
Meade said...
"#disbelieve everyone"
Trust, but verify.
We are #Believing too many liars who are women these days, so balanced exposure to all kinds of anecdotes in proportion to their prevalence could be corrective.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/bonfire-of-the-trannities-bruce-hay-harvard-law/
cacimbo said, "This wasn't about sex. Hay claims medication leaves him with a low sex drive and barely able to perform. This was about vanity."
It was about sex.
What's was the first thing the guy did? He fucked her. He shouldn't have, but his dick talked him into it. Not even the powerful drugs could keep that dick down. You kinda have to grudgingly admire that dick. It brings to mind Randle McMurphy in 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest'.
So the dick got its way. Everything that happened after that was just him tumbling down.
A dick not properly supervised will ruin your life just trying to get what it wants. It may not even succeed. How many guys have screwed up their lives over a woman and ended up never even getting any? Buts its still about sex.
Worse decision-making skills than Jimmy McNulty's--good grief!
I’ve read about half the story about the gullible law professor (It’s long, eh?). If I read the second half it will be to see who is the father.
This is my hood. Love Darwin’s The story has everything.
The story is so blue state Love it.
I forget. Was Althouse ever a defense attorney, or has she been a professor her whole career? In any case, it's obvious that Haider is the biological father of all Shuman's children.
One thing being ignored is that Hay has issues ejaculating, yet his ex-wife claims he is the father of two kids born 8-10 years after their divorce. The moron needs to do a paternity test. Yeah, all the women in his life are con artists and HE LIKES IT.
Eh, all confidence scams seem unbelievable when you read about them afterward. Especially when you've already been primed to disbelieve them by the author explaining that it's a scam.
This pair ran the same grift on three or four people just in this article. Even down to the opening line: "Excuse me, but you're very attractive!" Same story about living out of town and just being around for a few days. A brief sexual encounter with no ejaculation, followed by a paternity claim.
These are people with a practiced scam. They've run it multiple times, and they're good at it. They know how to respond to the usual objections.
The scam doesn't work because it is foolproof -- most scams have obvious red flags. Scams work because they get the mark to emotionally buy into the story they're being told. In a scamming situation, every interaction with the scammer strengthens their hand.
An interesting book on the subject is The Big Con, by David Maurer.
The Salon article quoted above is indeed quite remarkable. If you see the objective of the con as getting the mark to emotionally buy in, you can see the hooks are very deep:
Anyway, about his contribution to physics. I am close to one of the victims of his operation, a transgender woman named Mischa Haider, whom I got to know during the course of her work on a Ph.D. in physics at Harvard. She’s an extraordinary polymath — gifted violinist, writer and novelist; fluent speaker of a half-dozen languages; math genius. And physicist. Her intellect would have made our brilliant Justice want to hide his head in a bag, to borrow his charming words from last year’s marriage equality ruling. Those who have any doubt about trans mothers should meet Mischa’s children.
So there's ingredient one of the con: Hay is involved with brilliant, wonderful people.
Interesting question: do we actually know that she is a violinist, writer, novelist, fluent speaker of a half-dozen languages, or math genius? I will take his word for it that she was enrolled as a physics grad student, although it seems to me that there is ample reason to doubt anything that comes out of her mouth.
And here's ingredient two: anybody who disagrees with these brilliant, wonderful people is a terrible, bigoted person.
Since coming out as trans a few years ago, this remarkable woman has suffered a debilitating depression. Partly from the transphobia she encounters daily at the allegedly enlightened Harvard; from the constant stares in public; from the indignity of worrying about things the rest of us take for granted, like walking in the street or using a public bathroom without fear of taunts or violence, or taking her children to the park without fear of being humiliated in front of them. And from the pain of rejection by family and former friends who, despite her prodigious achievements, are somehow ashamed to be associated with her.
That last line about "despite her prodigious achievements, [her family and former friends] are somehow ashamed to be associated with her" is particularly poignant in light of the revelation that she's a serial scammer.
In the context of the scam, it works brilliantly: you're not allowed to object to anything or ask hard questions, because that makes you a bigot.
Every crazy detail in the story seems to involve one of those two emotional axes: the brilliant, wonderful people he's gotten himself involved with, or the terrible bigotry and emotional hurt that his doubts and resistance inflict on them.
Let’s be clear about the purpose of writing and publishing this clusterfuck article: Netflix movie!
The creative dilemma will be to establish the genre. Is it a French farce comedy? A truly terrifying horror film where bunnies and children are boiled? Is it a coming of age story about hard core leftie Jewish woke weirdos? Is it Bonfire Of The Trannities? Or is it a docu-series each episode of which is a shark-jumping exercise worse than Kate Plus 8?
I vote for drowning them all in the Charles River as an object lesson to others of their ilk.
- Krumhorn
Post a Comment