unicorn

Also reminds me of a local (Los Angeles) story in which the Los Angeles Times found out that people were being paid to make false sex abuse accusations against the county of Los Angeles for cash: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-16/sex-abuse-fraud-claims-la-county-victims "...Austin Beagle, 31, and Nevada Barker, 30, said they were trying to sign up for food stamps this spring when someone offered them a background role outside a county social services office in Long Beach. They thought the gig seemed intriguing, albeit a bit unusual. The offer came not from a casting director, but a man hawking free cellphones. The filming location was, oddly enough, a law firm in downtown Los Angeles. Maybe this was how actors were recruited here, they figured. The couple had recently moved from the remote ranching town of Stinnett in the Texas panhandle, and the recruiter seemed to appreciate their Southern drawl. They hopped on a bus, excited to make $200 between them. “They said we’d be extras,” said Beagle, who was unemployed at the time. “But when we got to the office, that’s not what it was at all.” The couple said they arrived at the lobby of Downtown LA Law Group. A Times investigation published earlier this month found seven plaintiffs represented by the firm who claimed they received cash from recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse, which could violate state law. Two said they had never been abused and were told to manufacture their claims...".

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/6/minnesota-teen-reclaims-record-for-largest-mouth-gape-664425

Sergio Fernandez: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1468677708199535

You realize he's not gay, and lives in Northern Ireland?

The point is that you simply choose to believe the alleged victims (in fact, you label them "victims" rather than "alleged victims," totally discounting any possibility you might be wrong). The human tendency to believe victims should be tempered by a willingness to examine facts, and not just statements. Currently, there is zero supporting hard evidence. One would be hard-pressed to even estimate the chance that these accusations are true (or false). At least if they were to test the out-of-wedlock children's DNA, they could show that the odds aren't zero that Huerta is being truthful. Of course, this wouldn't show whether or not the sex was consensual--just that sex between the two did happen. The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I know whether these allegations are truthful. Is she just trying to cast herself as a victim? Trying to improve her reputation after giving up two out-of-wedlock children for adoption? One piece of fact that makes me a bit uneasy at taking the accuser at face value is the fact that she claims two episodes of unwanted sexual intercourse (though in one case she says she was "manipulated" into consenting), and became pregnant each time. Even if Chavez was extremely unlucky, and happened to time the sex (both times) during the 1-2 days before ovulation, there's still only a 10-30% chance of pregnancy resulting in a live birth each time: AI Overview The probability of pregnancy from a single act of unprotected intercourse with a fertile woman varies significantly based on timing, ranging from nearly 0% outside the fertile window to approximately 10-30% during the most fertile days (1–2 days before ovulation). On average, the likelihood is about 3-4% per act of intercourse over a full cycle. The New England Journal of Medicine https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199512073332301 So even if we give the most generous interpretation of the data, that he happened both times to have sex with her during her two fertile days per cycle, and that the odds are 30%, not 10%, that still gives the odds of becoming pregnant both times to be 30% X 30%, or 9%. Outside the peak two days, or if we take the middle range of estimates, the odds drop dramatically. 9% is simply the maximum odds, with the most generous interpretation of the data, of two episodes of sexual intercourse during the fertile window resulting in live births. (I should also note that Huerta was in her 30s both times, hardly a woman's most fertile years) Even if the out-of-wedlock children are shown to be Chavez's, these data would make one have to consider the likelihood that his two children are more likely to have resulted from multiple (presumably consensual) sexual acts, rather than from two unwanted ones. There is little disincentive to falsely accuse, as prosecutions against those who falsely accuse are rare. In Huerta's case, the odds are zero, since she didn't make these accusations under oath, so could not be prosecuted for perjury. This article describes a rare case in which the false accuser was prosecuted: https://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/99-of-false-accusations-go-unpunished-center-for-prosecutor-integrity-asks-why/ "99% of False Accusations Go Unpunished.... Nikki Yovino of New York falsely accused two football players at Sacred Heart University of rape. The woman later admitted that she had lied to gain the sympathy of a prospective boyfriend. As a result, Yovino was sentenced to one year in prison, plus two years of probation... One of the falsely accused men, Malik St. Hilaire, sadly recounted, “I went from being a college student, to sitting at home being expelled, with no way to clear my name. I just hope she knows what she has done to me. My life will never be the same. I did nothing wrong, but everything has been altered because of this.”...False allegations are widespread in the United States. A national survey sponsored by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity found that 8% of Americans — 11% of men and 6% of women — report being falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. The 8% figure represents 20.4 million adults (2)...".

Obviously, neither you nor I has enough (nor will we ever have enough) information to believe or disbelieve the accuser. It's certainly problematic when one has the mindset that the accused has to "disprove" allegations in order to be considered possibly innocent, especially among those whose minds is already set. That's the definition of mob mentality (and many have been lynched because of it). How would you like it if you were accused of a crime, and told no one would believe you unless you could "disprove" the allegations? I guess that still happens in some countries--one would hope not advanced societies. Accusers get plenty of sympathy, not grief, especially from those close to them. It also wouldn't surprise me if Cesar Chavez day were renamed Dolores Huerta Day. At this point, one is deluding oneself if one thinks one knows the truth. It's really unknowable at this time. One can only wonder: why bring up these accusations now? If it were true that bringing up the accusations results only in "grief," there would be no motive. No one is accusing her of lying. There's no way to tell either way. There have certainly been examples of false accusations, including the blatant lies discovered in the Duke Lacrosse players' case, which ruined innocent men's lives. While not as clear-cut, the Kobe Bryant case was probably another such case. I can only wonder why Huerta is bringing this up over six decades later, and over three decades after Chavez's death. I find the overnight rush to take down his statues and murals troubling.

I, too, am confused by some posters' comments. In looking it up, Google tells me: "Meryl Streep portrayed Margaret Thatcher, the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the 2011 biographical drama film The Iron Lady. Streep won the Academy Award for Best Actress for this performance, which explored Thatcher's rise to power and her later years."

Yup. People magazine was just trying to make her sound like a whiner.

At this point, obviously there's no way to really know. Even if it happened, what's the point of bringing it up now, decades after he died? It's one thing to bring these matters up promptly, so the perpetrator can be apprehended and prevented from repeating noxious behavior. What can the accusations accomplish at this point--other than tarnish his reputation?

Dolores Huerta, a 96 year-old labor activist who worked with the more famous labor activist César Chavez, has waited until 33 years after his death to accuse the decedent of raping her 60 years ago. Supposedly, one of the incidents (1966) was forcible rape in the back of Chavez's car. She also described an earlier encounter in August 1960 in which "she felt pressured to have sex with him in a hotel room during a work trip in San Juan Capistrano". Apparently both of these trysts resulted in childbirth, and both were adopted and not made aware of the alleged circumstances of their conception until now. Almost overnight, municipalities and other organizations have removed artwork made to commemorate Chavez. No one has waited to even test the two to find out whether the accusation of unwanted sexual activity is even plausible. Of course, we'll never hear Chavez's version. I have to wonder why Huerta is bringing this up now? Does she want César Chavez Day to be renamed Dolores Huerta Day? (I can see that happening) I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how quickly people can rush to judgment--a kind of mob mentality. https://apnews.com/article/latino-leaders-speak-out-about-chavez-allegations-f1b24d3c6bdf71b326b63d51f80ea957 Memorial in Fresno being covered up: Statue in San Fernando being removed. It seems it was important to cover it up before being removed: Mural being covered in Santa Ana: Statue being removed in Denver: All of these accusations made decades after a person's death feel rather unseemly to me. I also find the rush to judgment disturbing.

He looks like a wax figure to me. Too much plastic surgery? https://sbsstar.net/article/N1008074800/just-b-bain-becomes-the-first-kpop-boy-group-member-to-come-out#1

Yeah, I suppose you're right. She does sound more tongue-in-cheek than complaining.

There's this extremely handsome 36 year-old actor I follow on social media, Jason Caceres, who recently put out a blurb on Facebook. In the blurb, he describes firing his manager when she suggested he take "accent reduction" lessons to get the "gay" out of his voice, so that he could have more acting opportunities. His speech must be described as very gay, one must admit. That being said, the last movie I saw, Crime 101, starred Chris Hemsworth, an Australian, and Barry Keoghan, an Irishman. They play American characters, so they've obviously been trained not to speak with Aussie or Irish accents. I doubt they're ashamed of the way they normally speak, but rather realize that a good actor needs to be versatile. I think it's actually a feather in the cap for them that they can play American characters better (at least according to the casting director) than any American can. There are a lot of successful gay actors, and the best of them can play both straight and gay characters (i.e. Matt Bomer, Neil Patrick Harris, Zach Quinto, etc.). While Jason Caceres certainly has nothing of which to be ashamed, I suspect he could get a lot more acting gigs if he could play a wider variety of parts. Yet all of the comments on his clip on Facebook applaud his firing of his manager. Do you think he's being wise? https://www.facebook.com/reel/1622663045969088

Well, I can understand the situation with Frank more than with Fred. After all, Frank lives across the continent, so there isn't much opportunity for friendship. I suppose it would be a gift to let Frank know how his behavior affects others (I suspect Frank's neurodivergent), but I can see why my husband wouldn't bother. Fred has had a somewhat unusual life, and I would have liked to get to know him better. He seems like a decent person, perhaps overly attention-seeking?