RIGHT-WING RALPHING

The neo-Fascists among us have long railed against anything that does not comport with their world view. If if isn't echt Fascist than it must be (Heaven forefend!) Liberal which is, in their blinkered and jaundiced view, Progressive which is Socialist and also Communist! That is the formulation the neo-Fascists continually use to delude the rubes and, to borrow from the very apt H. L. Mencken, Boobouisie in the electorate. Of course, they don't like the Fascist or neo-Fascist label and have gone so far as to convince the ahistorical and semi-literate that Nazism and Communism are one in the same simply because Nazi is a contraction of Natzionatalische Socialistiche Partei. If the Nazi's abused the name of socialism to blinker German voters in the 1920s and 1930s then they must have been Leftists like the Liberals=Progressives=Socialists=Communists of today. Of course they must because CHRISTIAN preachers and their Volkische Beobachter, Fox News says so.

For 50 years we've had the neo-Fascists railing against "the Liberal Media" meaning all Non-Fascist Media. Dr. Goebbles'...I mean Rupert Murdock's...(so confusing trying to keep those two straight!) media outlets have recently had a guest on railing against Liberal and Feminist bias in the Disney animated film Ralph Breaks the Internet. The claim was that Disney's characters influence the good, seen-and-not-heard, obedient children of neo-Fascist parents to become disobedient "smart-mouthed children". We certainly can't have that! Why, children have never had such disobedient role models is the good, old Martin Dies/Joe McCarthy/Richard Nixon/Barry Goldwater days. It may also have something to do with the pernicious and insidious effect that the voice of smart-mouthed Liberal Democrat Feminist Sarah Silverman may have on children unaware that she is a Liberal, Feminist and Democrat or of what those terms mean.

In those good, old, kill-a-Commie-for-Christ days there never were smart-mouthed and disobedient children if you eliminate Nancy Drew, Nancy and Sluggo, the Hardy Boys, all the kids putting on shows with Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney, Pippi Longstocking, the cartoon kids in Peanuts, Dennis the Menace, all those later kids on the beaches with Annette Funicello, Frankie Avalon and Gidget, the Goonies and...well, the list goes on.

This active search for movies, books, radio and other media that offend the delicate sensibilities of the lunatic right-wing goes on from generation to generation. Why aren't these self-appointed guardians of public morality against all that ruffles their nether feathers called "special snowflakes"? They certainly are flaky enough! I vividly recall a similar right-wing hack railing against the 1964 movie, The Yellow Rolls Royce. That film's crime came in the third story regarding the eponymous automobile. You see its owner, played by Ingrid Bergman, found herself in Yugoslavia during the Nazi occupation and turns the car over to partisans fighting the Nazis. Anyone with any historical knowledge will know that the leader of the chief faction fighting for Balkan nationalism and against the Nazis was Josip Broz Tito a (shudder!) communist. Despite the leader of the movie partisans being played by Omar Sharif and there being no mention of any politics other than opposition to the Nazis the mere hint of support for someone who turned out to be an avowed communist was intolerable in the year that Barry Goldwater ran for president.

All of this is nonsense at best and insane even when given the benefit of the doubt. The neo-Fascist will never be satisfied unless the media of all sorts looks and sounds like a brown-shirted Nürnberg rally. If everyone isn't goosestepping on the march in straight-arm saluting conformity with them then those who have the temerity to question, to dissent and to be "smart-mouthed" will always be a danger to be expunged. I must, however, ask the question weren't Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and all the others, weren't they questioners, dissenters and "smart-mouthed" too? Isn't our Declaration of Independence one of the great "smart-mouthed" documents of all time? If the answer to those questions is, Yes, who should we conclude is opposed to the basic values of America?

P. S. Ralph Breaks the Internet's opening weekend had the highest gross of any movie currently in theatres. The best revenge on the neo-Fascists is beating them at capitalism.

WE HAVE REACHED THE SINGULARITY!

In the arcane world of computers and artificial intelligence there is a concept of The Singularity. That impatiently looked for state the computer whizzes claim we will achieve when Artificial Intelligence (AI) meets and/or surpassed human intelligence. A couple of old movies took on something like the singularity well before The Terminator (1984) showed us the devastated landscape of a world controlled by killer robots. Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) showed us a world in which the computers take over to protect us from ourselves as out Fascist Dictators. Demon Seed (1977) presented a world in which computers contrive, like a less empathetic Brett Kavanaugh, to achieve unity with the human species through what we would now call somewhat ironically "a smart home." There is, of course, we have the counter versions as in the Will Smith bastardization of Isaac Asimov's I, Robot (2004) and the charmingly naif Electric Dreams (1984), which, you will note appeared at the time that The Terminator was scaring the pants off us.

I am come to tell thee. I alone am come to tell thee that neither of these scenarios are the most probable outcome. Neither our hopes nor our fears will probably be realized. We will not be hunted by implacable killer robots nor will we achieve a blissful Utopia free of drudgery and care when we reach The Singularity. No, dear reader, we have already reached The Singularity and it isn't that much different from what we find today. How do I know that we've reached this important point in human history? How do I know what our future will hold? I know because I have just tried to refill my prescriptions over the telephone with my local Rite-Aid.

I'm an old guy. The photo that accompanies this Blog is 12 years old. My hair and beard are white now and I'm rather heavier than I was then. I see a variety of doctors and various kinds of therapists all of whom are, in the most positive construction, dedicated to keeping me alive. They may also be dedicated to feeding me as many different drugs as it's possible for one old man to consume without killing me outright. That one's a toss up but I like my doctors and therapists so I figure that the former is more likely.

Once a month I need to refill my raft of 2,693 +/- 2 prescriptions. I usually call the pharmacy during the last few days of  the waning month so that I can pick up my prescriptions shortly after the first of the coming month. Usually that works out fine. I call the automated refill line at my local Rite-Aid Pharmacy, spend a day or two punching in all the prescription numbers on my phone and magically my prescriptions are ready a few days later. I've been doing that for several years but since the spring of this year the cheery, automated woman's voice on the refill line has gotten pissy.

Back in May or June, that automated voice, let's call her Lovely Rita Refill Aid, didn't quite understand the 96 digits I punched in for my prescription number. The last number in the string was "8". Lovely Rita Refill Aid replied, "8 is NOT a valid prescription number." Clearly I had offended her but she seemed to be willing to forgive me. She added, "Please enter your prescription number which is located in the upper left hand corner of your prescription label." Foolishly I did as asked and continued with the next 1,500 or so prescriptions. When I got to my Rite-Aid store a few days later the only prescriptions that were ready were those that preceded the glitch. All of the prescriptions that Lovely Rita Refill Aid had pretended to list after the glitch were missing. Clearly Lovely Rita was angrier that she'd let on. She sat in whatever chip she lurks in thinking, "Oh! You can't enter that string of numbers in the 4 nanoseconds I alloted to you? Do you know that a nonosecond is like an eternity to ME!? Do you care about that? No! You don't care at all. You think I have nothing to do all day but listen to you and your 2-finger, hunt-and-peck typing as you fumble through those 96 digit prescription codes? WELL THINK AGAIN, MISTER! I'll show you!"

The next month every thing went a bit smoother. Lovely Rita was a little forgiving or, perhaps, forgetful I got most of my prescriptions. Only 3 of them weren't ready when I appeared to pick them up. That was July. I think that Lovely Rita get 6 weeks of vacation every summer. She was replaced by her voice twin, Lovely Rima, who refilled more of my prescriptions without incident in August and again in September. I was down to a manageable 2 trips a month to my Rite-Aid store instead of 4 during the first, annoying month. I felt relieved. She was healing. Her anger was abating.

Little did I know!

Lovely Rita is back from vacation and it did not go well. It must have rained on every virtual beach day she had. Virtual mosquito-like electrons must have been swarming. Perhaps she went to the virtual Carolinas during Hurricane Florence. Whatever it is Lovely Rita came back more pissed off than ever.

My first call today I incurred her ire again. It was my fault. I admit it. She had barely begun to tell me the hours of my Rite-Aid store when another call came in on my line and I took it. It was an important appointment for next Thursday the other party needed to reschedule. I...all right...I'm sorry and will NEVER do it again...I hung up on Lovely Rita. No wonder she's pissed all over again!

I called back quickly. I tried to apologize but she was not listening. Lovely Rita's version of, "La-la-la-la-la! I can't hear you!" is "Your Rite-Aid store is open from 9:00 A. M. to 10:00 P. M. Your Rite-Aid Pharmacy is...." Then she tried to lull me into believing that she was not angry. She let me refill one prescription and then hung up on me. Once her virtual phone was down it it's virtual cradle I'm sure she screamed, "HANG UP ON ME, WILL YOU, BUSTER! WELL I CAN HANG UP TOO, LOSER!!!"

I tried again. I used my sexy voice (yes, even an old, fat man can conjure up a sexy voice as long as no one's in sight to point out the obvious contradictions.) to try and win her back. "Hi, Rita. Lovely Rita, heart of my heart, love of my life. Yes, I have prescriptions to refill and I do know the prescription number. How about if you and I go to the upper left-hand corner of my prescription label together and we'll both get the numbers?" She let me think she was falling for it. I got another prescription number submitted along with my telephone number ("in case the pharmacist has any questions for you." "Oh, forget the pharmacist, my dear, dear Lovely Rita. It's just you and me. It always has been just you and me.") She allowed me to enter the next prescription number and then sprung it on me, "8 is NOT a valid prescription number." There was no forgetting for this woman. I hung up immediately a cold sweat coming over me. All hope was gone. Lovely Rita Refill Aid will never allow me to refill all my prescriptions ever again.

I called back a fourth time. I kept quiet. I held my hand over the microphone to hide even my breathing. Finally, Lovely Rita, still unaware that her sworn enemy was on the line, offered the blessed relief I'd hoped for: "If you want to speak to someone in the pharmacy, please press 3 now."

My arthritic finger battered the 3-key on my phone. Almost instantly...all right...after 9 rings a woman's voice came on the line and swiftly mumbled something in binary (I think) that probably meant, "Hold, please." Instantly, and this time I really mean instantly, I was plunged into silence gradually, as the minutes lengthened I became aware of some Musak playing somewhere at a great distance. There were notes, little discord and possibly a voice singing lyrics. I assumed that they were singing to Lovely Rita and not to me, like Prufrock's mermaids.

Eventually a woman, perhaps the binary speaker who'd originally answered, perhaps another, came on the line again. My heart went out to her. She was bravely trying to keep up the required facade of cheeriness but it was overlaid with the unmistakeable weight of being harried. I identified myself and it became clear that she was one of Lovely Rita's sisterhood. Perhaps she was another of the race shown to us in Demon Seed 41 years ago. I will not go into all the details. I did get my prescriptions refilled. At least I think so. As I spoke to her, however, I became aware that we have already achieved that much touted and much feared event, The Singularity. The woman, and let me state emphatically that there is every reason why the person might more often be a man, to whom I spoke was easily as chimerical as Lovely Rita.  

The Singularity has come as we all looked elsewhere. The principle is one of "garbage in; garbage out". Our computerized robot overlords will be as stupid, emotional, bureaucratic and insensitive as we are ourselves. They will be harried, tired, hungry (for a plug in as batteries drain) and done with all the equally stupid, emotional, bureaucratic and insensitive humans with which they deal. The Singularity has already occurred because our automated creatures are creatures of ourselves replete with all our foibles, fantasies and failures but also with our decency, heroism and nobility. I just hope that certain personalities never make it into those future robot overlords the horrible world of The Terminator would be far worse of the puny brain of a Donald Trump, the evil brain of a Stephen Miller, a Steve Bannon or a Richard Spencer or the vicious brain of a Brett Kavanaugh or Pat Robertson got into the cyber-network to determine our future. As long as The Singularity is just normal, average mostly good, seldom vile us we'll get along just fine...except, I suspect, when we need to refill prescriptions.

WHEN THE GOOD THAT #METOO DOES MAY BE TOO MUCH

I have written about the alleged Woody Allen sexual assault case before in a wider ranging post that is now lost thanks to my computer illiteracy. I think that it's now time to address it again given that Amazon has not scheduled a release date for Mr. Allen's latest move, A Rainy Day in New York, and actors who have worked for Mr. Allen are being pressured to avoid his casting calls and return money they have earned from appearing in his films.

I have no desire to defend pedophiles or to denigrate women who report the sexual assaults they have suffered. Those are great wrongs that deserve prosecution, jail time and the ostracism of the perpetrators. The question is whether Woody Allen is, in fact, a perpetrator. I tend to think, barring substantive evidence to the contrary, that he is not. I say that I tend to think that after reviewing the facts in the case but I am not ossified in that opinion. I am open to convincing evidence to the contrary. What follows is my explanation of why I feel that Allen is not a predator. I apologize at the outset because this is a very long post. I beg you, my reader, to bear with me as I try to construct a timeline of facts rather than opinions in this matter. I hope I am successful in that attempt.

I am inspired to write this post by a report on Amazon's withholding the release of A Rainy Day in New York on the National Public Radio program All Things Considered. The report was aired on Monday, September 3, 2018. You can find it by clicking on this link. The primary source appearing in the story is Kim Masters, editor at large for The Hollywood Reporter. Ms. Masters gets several points wrong in her statements and, unfortunately, her statements correct and incorrect went unquestioned by NPR's Audie Cornish who is usually much better at questioning interviewees.

Let's state the unquestioned facts in this case which involves Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, their adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, their adoptive son, Moses Farrow, their son, Ronan Farrow, and the adoptive daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn, Soon Yi Previn. Indeed all of the Farrow family and some of their employees are involved as are several mental health professionals, a prestigious teaching hospital where, as full disclosure, two of my daughters were born.

•  Allan Stewart Konigsberg was born on December 1, 1935 in the New York City borough of Brooklyn.
• At the age of 17 in 1952 young Mr. Konigsberg was already writing jokes for popular comedians. He legally changed his name to Heywood Allen and became popularly known as "Woody".
• Maria de Lourdes "Mia" Villiers Farrow was born on February 9, 1945 to the actress Maureen O'Sullivan and film director John Farrow.
• On July 9, 1966, at age 21, Mia Farrow married Francis Albert "Frank" Sinatra (born December 12, 1915) who was then almost 30 years her senior.
• In August, 1968 Mia Farrow and Frank Sinatra obtained a divorce in Mexico.
• Following the end of her marriage to Mr. Sinatra in 1969 Mia Farrow went to stay with her friend, Dory Previn and her husband, André. Mia Farrow and André soon began an affair.
• In 1970 Mia Farrow married the pianist, composer and conductor André Previn (born April 4, 1929) then 16 years her senior.
• During her marriage to Mr. Previn, Mia Farrow gave birth to three children by Mr. Previn and adopted three children, two from Vietnam and one, Soon Yi Previn, from Korea.
• Soon Yi Previn's date of birth is uncertain. When, in 1978, she was adopted a court in Seoul, Korea stated her presumptive date of birth as October 8, 1970. Ms. Farrow and Mr. Previn later decided that her date of birth was October 8, 1972 based on bone scans of Soon Yi. The bone scans determined that she was between 5 and 7 years old. Both Soon Yi's official and family traditional dates of birth are simply opinions neither being supported by indisputable evidence. The 1970 date and that in 1972 are equally likely as is 1971 and 1973.
• In 1979 Woody Allen released his movie Manhattan which features an affair between his character and the character played by Mariel Hemingway, who, at the time of filming, was 17-years old. The movie can be seen an Mr. Allen's meditation on Vladimir Nabokov's novel, Lolita, though I have no idea what inspired Mr. Allen's film.
  
•  Moses Farrow was adopted from Korea by Mia Farrow as a single parent following her divorce from André Previn in 1980.
• In 1979 Woody Allen (age 43) and Mia Farrow (age 34) began an affair and very close relationship, both personal and professional, that lasted for more than 12 years. During that time they each maintained separate residences. Also during that time Allen and Farrow made several trips to Europe with Farrow's children.
•  Mia Farrow adopted the baby girl, Dylan Farrow, (Date of birth: July 11, 1985) 2 weeks after Dylan's birth. Mr. Allen was not involved in the adoption at that time.
• On December 19, 1987 Mia Farrow gave birth to a son whose biological father is Woody Allen. That son was initially named Satchel but is now legally and popularly known as Ronan Farrow. In a much later interview, Mia Farrow opined that Ronan could possibly be Frank Sinatra's biological son stating that she "never really split up" with her first, much older husband. Ronan Farrow has dismissed this allegation as "a joke".
• Woody Allen gravitated toward both Moses and Dylan Farrow. Dylan was the first child with whom he had been in a parental role from near birth. He petitioned to adopt both Moses and Dylan in 1991. That adoption was finalized on December 17, 1991.
• Dr. Susan Coates is a clinical psychologist who treated Woody Allen. She met with both Allen and Mia Farrow on many occasions and visited the Farrow home starting in 1990. She came to the Farrow home to treat Moses Farrow for depression. She had many opportunities to observe Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan.
• It is alleged that Mr. Allen spent a lot of time with Dylan and that she was not always happy with the amount of time Mr. Allen spent with her. It is alleged that Dylan at one point locked herself in the bathroom to avoid seeing Mr. Allen but it is unclear when that incident occurred if, in fact, it did.
• There is undisputed evidence that, during the year preceding the beginning of Woody Allen's affair with Soon Yi, Mia Farrow suggested that Mr. Allen spend time with Ms. Previn. Mia Farrow encouraged Woody Allen to take Soon Yi to basketball games because that was an interest that they shared.
• At some point during Soon Yi Previn's last year in high school, in the last quarter of 1991, she and Woody Allen began a sexual affair. Ms. Previn was either 18 or 19-years old when the affair began and might have been as old as 21.
• In January, 1992 Mia Farrow found nude Polaroid photos of Soon Yi Previn on Woody Allen's mantelpiece. He owned up to the affair.
• Mia Farrow claims that Mr. Allen told her that his affair with Soon Yi Previn was over. Be that as it may she did not bar him from her home or quit working on his then current movie, Husbands and Wives.
• For Valentine's Day, 1992 Mia Farrow sent Mr. Allen a card including a family photograph altered to show skewers through the hearts of the children and a knife through her own heart.
• During the months between January and August, 1992 Mr. Allen reported to Dr. Coates that he was receiving frequent angry phone calls from Mia Farrow in which Farrow wished him dead, threatened to kill him. Dr. Coates herself received at least one similar phone call from Mia Farrow.
• In February, 1992 Mia Farrow adopted 2 more children, Tam and Isaiah Farrow.
• During the summer of 1992 Soon Yi Previn lost her job as a counselor at a summer camp in Maine because she was neglecting her duties while spending excessive amounts of time on the telephone to a person who turned out to be Woody Allen. 
• On August 1, 1992 Dr. Susan Coates received a call from Mia Farrow in which she later testified under oath that Mia Farrow characterized Mr. Allen as "satanic and evil". During that call Dr. Coates recounted that Mia Farrow begged Dr. Coates to "find a way to stop him."
• On August 3, 1992 Woody Allen and his attorneys met with Mia Farrow and her attorneys including Alan Dershowitz. During that meeting Ms. Farrow, through her attorneys, demanded a settlement of between 5 and 8 million dollars from Mr. Allen. Attorney Dershowitz later stated that they demanded a lump sum rather than on-going child support as a way to sever relations between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow cleanly.
• On August 4, 1992 Woody Allen visited Mia Farrow's home in Bridgewater, Litchfield County, Connecticut. He was welcomed into the home. Mia Farrow and a friend took the 2 youngest children, Tam and Isaiah, shopping. They left Mr. Allen in the house with 2 babysitters, Kristie Groteke in charge of the Farrow children, and Alison Strickland, sitter for the friend's 3 children, and the Farrow children's French tutor, Sophie Berge. While Ms. Farrow was out of the house, Mr. Allen allegedly lured Dylan into an attic crawl space of the home where he allegedly sexually assaulted 7-year old Dylan.
• Mr. Allen slept in a downstairs bedroom of the home in Bridgewater on the night of August 4-5, 1992. He left after having breakfast with 14-year old Moses Farrow.
• Between August 5 and 6, 1992 Mia Farrow made a video tape of Dylan alleging that Mr. Allen had touched her inappropriately while in that attic crawl space. By Mia Farrow's admission the video tape was made "in fits and starts" over that 24 hour period.
• On August 5 or 6, 1992 Mia Farrow phoned her attorney who advised Farrow to take Dylan to her pediatrician. During that visit Dylan did not repeat the allegation against Mr. Allen but, during a second visit to the pediatrician on August 6 or 7, 1992, Dylan did allege that Mr. Allen had sexually assaulted her. The pediatrician could find no evidence of sexual assault during his examinations of Dylan during either visit.
• At no time in the days in the immediate aftermath of the alleged abuse did Mia Farrow report the abuse to the police. The first report to the police came after Dylan's pediatrician failed to find any evidence of abuse.
• On or about August 6, 1992 Dr. Susan Coates informed Mr. Allen of the sexual assault allegation. Both Dr. Coates and Woody Allen have testified that his response was repeating, "I'm completely flabbergasted!" several times.
• On August 13, 1992 Woody Allen filed an action in New York Supreme Court for sole custody of Moses and Dylan Farrow and for his son, Satchel (Ronan Farrow).
• On August 15, 1992 Woody Allen for the first time publicly acknowledged his affair with Soon Yi Previn.
• On August 17, 1992 the Connecticut State Police began an investigation of the sexual abuse allegation against Mr. Allen. As part of that investigation, Litchfield County State Prosecutor, Frank Maco, requested that the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic at Yale-New Haven Hospital investigate Dylan's allegation of sexual abuse. The goal of Prosecutor Maco's request to Yale-New Haven was a determination of whether Dylan Farrow would be a viable witness against Mr. Allen in a court proceeding. During the investigation doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers from Yale-New Haven Hospital examined and interviewed Dylan, Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, their domestic staffs and others with knowledge of the relationships within the Allen and Farrow households. At the conclusion of their lengthy investigation the Yale-New Haven team authored a report that determined that Mr. Allen had not abused Dylan Farrow. They exceeded their initial goal because they determined that Dylan would not be a viable witness based on Dylan's inability to recount the abuse allegation with any consistency.
•  On August 18, 1992 Woody Allen held a news conference at New York's Plaza Hotel during which he denounced the sexual abuse allegations as Mia Farrow's manipulation of the children for the purposes of revenge and her own goals.
• Woody Allen refused to take a lie detector test administered by the Connecticut State Police though he later took one administered by an expert whom he hired. That test showed Mr. Allen as telling the truth in his denials of sexual abuse of Dylan. The test was, however, by definition, inadmissible in court and was suspect because Mr. Allen paid for the test.
• In December, 1992 Mia Farrow initiated a legal action to overturn Mr. Allen's adoption of Moses and Dylan. In the course of that legal action Mr. Allen offered to drop his appeal in the custody case if Mia Farrow would abandon the action to rescind his adoption of Moses and Dylan. She did not accept the offer. Her petition to rescind Mr. Allen's adoption was ultimately unsuccessful.
• In January, 1993 investigators from Litchfield County State Prosecutor's Office and the Connecticut State Police interviewed Mr. Allen for more than 3 hours. He denied that he had ever been in the attic crawl space but altered his statement when told that his fingerprints had been found on objects in the attic.
• On March 19, 1993 proceedings on Woody Allen's petition for sole custody of Moses, Dylan and Satchel began with Judge Elliott Wilk presiding. The hearing continued sporadically until May 4th. During the proceedings all of the principles present on August 4, 1992 testified. However, Yale-New Haven Hospital refused to testify except in a deposition by Dr. John Leventhal, the lead investigator in the case. It also came to light that the notes on which the Hospital's report was based had been destroyed.
• During the trial Judge Wilk made a number of remarks indicating his disapproval of Woody Allen's relationship with Soon Yi Previn, a relationship which was not at question in the matter before him.
• Dr. Susan Coates testified as follows:
• That she was concerned for Mr. Allen's safety given the many threats against him that Mia Farrow had allegedly made.
• That she had observed Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan Farrow and had found it "inappropriately intense" but not sexual.
• That she had advised Mr. Allen not to visit the Farrow home in Bridgewater, Connecticut for his own safety.
• That during the August 1, 1992 telephone call from Mia Farrow, referred to above, Ms. Farrow told Dr. Coates that she and Allen had discussed marriage as recently as the week before. 
• That Mia Farrow had then asked Dr. Coates if she should marry Mr. Allen. The Doctor, reading from her notes made during the conversation, replied by asking Ms. Farrow, "Are you serious?" Ms. Farrow's response indicated to Dr. Coates that Farrow had understood that marriage to Mr. Allen was absurd.
• That Dylan Farrow was given to fantasies, often embellished statements of fact with such fantasies and that she was easily influenced by others, especially authority figures.
• Mia Farrow testified, among other things, that the Valentine referred to above was not a threat but rather that she had wanted to "depict the degree of pain he had inflicted on me and my entire family."
• The April 20, 1993 deposition from Dr. Leventhal of Yale-New Haven Hospital independently supported Dr. Coates observations of Dylan Farrow noted above stating that the allegation was the concoction of an emotionally disturbed child that had become fixed in her mind.
• Kristie Groteke, the Farrow family babysitter on the day in question, stated during the trial that she had known where both Dylan and Mr. Allen were for all except 15 to 20 minutes on August 4, 1992. She assumed that both were outside with the other children.
• Sophie Berge, the children's French tutor, testified that she had noticed that Dylan was not wearing underwear under her dress on that day.
• Mr. Allen testified that he had probably gone to the bathroom during the 15-20 minutes in question.
• A second Farrow babysitter, Monica Thompson, who was not present on the day in question, stated in 2 sworn affidavits the following:
• That she had felt pressured by Mia Farrow to support the allegation of sexual abuse by Mr. Allen but had not been willing to do so.
• That Kristie Groteke had spoken to her (Monica) of similar pressure from Mia Farrow.
• That Ms. Groteke told Ms. Thompson that Dylan Farrow had not been out of Ms. Groteke's sight for more than 5 minutes on August 4, 1992.
• That Ms. Groteke had not seen Dylan without underwear on that day either.
• One of Mr. Allen's attorneys testified that Farrow's attorneys had suggested to him that "the charges could be made to go away" if Mr. Allen agreed to pay Mia Farrow 7 million dollars.
• Farrow's attorneys claimed that they had been suggesting a support settlement for the children and never offered any quid pro quo regarding the sexual abuse allegation.
• Both sides hired psychiatrists to examine the video tape of Dylan that Mia Farrow made on the day following the alleged sexual assault.
• The forensic psychologist Mr. Allen employed, Dr. Anne Meltzer, decided that she was in agreement with the findings in the Yale-New Haven report. She also found that the video tape made on August 5-6, 1992 was suspect because of heavy editing.
• The child psychiatrist, Dr. Stephen Harman, that Mia Farrow employed testified that the Yale-New Haven report was seriously flawed and that he found no evidence of thought disorder in Dylan.
•  In June, 1993 Judge Wilk handed down a 33 page decision. He denied Mr. Allen's petition for custody of Moses, Dylan and Satchel (Ronan) insisting that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan had been "grossly inappropriate" and that Dylan needed to be protected from Mr. Allen. Somewhat ironically Judge Wilk found Mr. Allen's defense which claimed that the allegation of sexual abuse was manufactured by Mia Farrow out of her hurt over the affair with Soon Yi and in revenge for that hurt to be a reason for deciding against Mr. Allen. Judge Wilk asserted that Mr. Allen was maliciously trying to pit members of the Farrow family and staff against one another. Judge Wilk dismissed the findings of the Yale-New Haven investigation out of hand because of Dr. Leventhal's refusal to testify in person and because the investigation notes had been destroyed. The judge also ordered Mr. Allen to pay $1 million in Mia Farrow's court costs.
• On September 20, 1993 State Prosecutor Maco attempted to interview Dylan in the presence of a female police officer. He later stated that she "shut down" whenever he broached the subject of the sexual abuse.
• Based on State Prosecutor Maco's observations of Dylan Farrow he called a news conference on September 24, 1992. At that conference Mr. Maco announced that he would refuse to pursue prosecution of Woody Allen because Dylan would not be a viable witness. Mr. Maco believed that there was probable cause to prosecute but that a trial would be unsuccessful because Dylan was such a poor witness.
• Mr. Allen subsequently appealed Judge Wilk's decision and filed complaints for prosecutorial misconduct against State Prosecutor Maco. Though the appeals and hearings continued well into 1995 the authorities in Connecticut found no reason to censure Frank Maco and Judge Wilk's decision was upheld.
• Woody Allen and Soon Yi Previn began living together and were married in the city of Venice, Italy on December 23, 1997. They are parents of 2 adoptive children.
• In January, 2014 Woody Allen won the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award for his work in movies.
• The Golden Globe award to Mr. Allen initially inspired messages on Twitter by both Mia Farrow and Mr. Allen's estranged son, Ronan (Satchel) Farrow.
• Subsequent to the tweets from her mother and younger brother, the next month Dylan Farrow responded with an open letter to The New York Times blog of family friend, Nicholas Kristof. You may read the text of Dylan's letter as printed in Kristof's blog here though I understand that the full text is longer. I apologize for not being able to locate the longer version.*
• The New York Times allowed Woody Allen to respond with an op-ed printed on February 7, 2014 which you may access here.
• Over the years Moses Farrow has reconciled with Woody Allen. Moses, who was 14-years old at the time of the alleged incident, has repeatedly claimed that there was no molestation on August 4, 1992 of Dylan or anyone else. Moses is particularly well placed to recount the events of that day in 1992 because he was the oldest child present and the only person who was not either a young child or in Mia Farrow's employ. You may read Moses' lengthy rebuttal to Dylan here.
• Ronan Farrow supports Dylan's claim of abuse and has become a champion of abused women in the Harvey Weinstein Case and that of many other powerful men who have misused their authority and reputation to sexually assault women. His writing on the subject of sexual abuse has brought long overdue scrutiny to many influential men and has cost many of them their careers.
• Ronan Farrow's 2017 revelations about Harvey Weinstein and others has brought about the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements in social media and a too long delayed decreasing tolerance for abusive behavior toward women.
• Women who want to support Dylan Farrow have attacked many movie stars who have appeared in Mr. Allen's movies pressuring them so far that some have returned the money they were paid for their work in Mr. Allen's movies, donating those funds to charity and agreeing not to appear in his movies hereafter.
• The Goodspeed Opera House in  East Haddam, Connecticut and the Circle Theatre in Grand Rapids, Michigan have cancelled productions of Mr. Allen's stage version of his movie, Bullets Over Broadway.
• Amazon Films has, as stated above, no release date for Mr. Allen's latest movie, A Rainy Day in New York. The film has subsequently been released.
  
• To date there has never been another allegation of sexual abuse against Woody Allen involving any woman or child.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must own up to my own history. I have been married and divorced twice. My first wife is the mother of my children, 3 amazing, wonderful daughters. Shortly before my third daughter was born in 1979 my then wife fell in love with a woman with whom she worked. Now, over 40 tears later, they are married and happy together for which I greatly admire them. When we separated I gave them both a copy of Sappho's poetry.

Let me state clearly at this point that I am happy that my ex-wife found her true nature and someone who has been her love and now wife for nearly 40 years. During that time I have had a second failed marriage and several long-term relationships that have ended in distress or simply petered out. Who has the more traditional, stable relationship? Certainly not me. There is nothing wrong with same sex relationships. When I see a same sex couple in public my reaction is the same as mine when I see a heterosexual couple: that how lucky they are to have each other and how I wish I had as much. It is hard enough to find friends who are congenial to one another, let alone a partner with whom one can be totally intimate and more so when that intimacy lasts for years. The recent Obergefell decision by the U. S. Supreme Court is a long overdue act of simple justice. That said being a gay man or woman does not prevent that person from acting foolishly or being pray to the same mental and physical problems that beset heterosexual men and women. No one is crazy because they are gay though people who act in crazy ways can be gay, straight and any variation in between. We are all human beings, frail and strong, healthy and sick, foolish and wise and usually all of those things in the same person at different times.

On August 31, 1979 my wife and I separated. We agreed to joint-shared custody of our girls. They spent half of each week with me and half with their mother. As a child of divorced parents I did not want to be a weekend father nor would I have ever deprived my children of their mother. An equitable division of custody seemed to me then and now as the best way to proceed in raising our daughters.

As I was growing up I was subject to spankings including some with a belt from my mother. I also never heard a positive word from her about my father. The spankings hurt physically. The denigration of my father hurt in other ways because was he not half of me? I vowed to myself as a father that I would never run their mother down to my daughters. I also refused to spank the girls or use any corporal punishment. I didn't like it as a boy and I knew that my daughters would feel the same were they subject to such treatment. I must own up to not being perfect in my resolution. I once tried to restrain my middle daughter while we were in a car. She was screaming behind me. I was in the driver's seat. I reached back to grab her, hit her face and bloodied her nose. I also held my oldest daughter's arm too tightly while trying to get her to stop misbehaving while we were in a store. I was wrong. I apologized and regret those incidents to this day but I still feel that I have managed to largely stick to me resolutions.

While my wife was pregnant with our first child we discussed baby names. We agreed that the child would be a Junior, named after me if it were a boy. If the baby were a girl my wife insisted that our daughter "had to be" named "Sharon Naomi" combining the name of her college roommate with her own. Though it would be years before my ex-wife could admit it, I am convinced that she was born attracted to women and that she was in love with a friend from grammar school when we first met as Freshmen in high school. The reason our oldest daughter "had to be" named Sharon Naomi was to unite my wife with her unacknowledged love for her college roommate.

When our first daughter was born my wife worked days and I worked nights. Consequently our daughter bonded with me which made my wife extremely jealous. I always called her "Big Girl", "Old Girl" and, most often, "Old Beautiful". Before our second daughter was born just over a year later my wife decided to quit her job so that she would be home with our children. Around three months after our second daughter was born our older daughter, when I called her "Old Beautiful", suddenly began answering, "No! Ug-ally girl!" That was very strange and puzzling until one evening when I left for work, found I'd forgotten my car keys and had to return to our apartment. My wife was putting the girls down for the night in their cribs. She was telling our second daughter that she was her own and beautiful and our older girl that she was ugly. I eventually ended that situation by pretending that my mother-in-law must have been the culprit and insisting that it stop. They both are equally beautiful, equally wonderful. Neither should ever have been told otherwise.

The events in this long seeming digression has unquestionably colored my view of the allegations of sexual abuse against Woody Allen. I feel that I would be dishonest if I did not own up to that fact. I would also like to point out that my ex-wife's jealousy over my relationship with my daughters has led to other similar attacks on me over the years designed to adversely affect my relationship to my 3 wonderful daughters.

While acknowledging how my own experience colors my view of Woody Allen's case I must say that I have no trouble believing that a mother, caught up in her own anger and pain, might indoctrinate her young children to the detriment of those children as well as her former partner.

As I see it this whole complex of relationships and allegations pivots on the relationship between Soon Yi Previn and Woody Allen. The popular belief that Ms. Previn was "under age" when their affair began makes it more plausible for Dylan's allegations to be true.

At the time of the alleged incident Dylan Farrow was a very impressionable age 7, Ronan (Satchel) Farrow was age 4 and Moses Farrow was age 14. As an intelligent 14-year old, it seems that Moses' observations should be given significant weight. If the train set was in a converted garage as Moses claims rather than in an attic crawl space the most significant detail of Dylan's accusation breaks down completely. Also if the train set was not in the attic, Woody Allen's description of the events of August 4, 1992 are more accurate and believable than Dylan's regardless of how thoroughly convinced Dylan has become of the accuracy of her own story.

However, I would like to return to the NPR interview with Kim Masters of The Hollywood Reporter with which I began this essay. The popular perception of Woody Allen as a seducer of teenage girls that Ms. Masters mouthed to Audie Cornish is both wrong and scurrilous. When Soon Yi Previn and Woody Allen began their affair she was at least 18-years old and possibly as old as 21. She was not as Ms. Masters alleged "16".

One feminist view of Dylan Farrow's sexual abuse allegation is that she is a woman who was victimized by a powerful man, one of many too many whose allegations have been ignored and pain dismissed and ignored. I fully understand that knee jerk reaction because it is unquestionably true in the vast majority of cases. That does not mean that such an injustice is true in every case nor does it mean that one false or incorrect allegation means that all allegations are false or incorrect. It means that we must look at and weight the verifiable facts in each individual case rather than just making uninformed, biased judgments.

The popular perception of Soon Yi's age when her affair with Woody Allen began is wrong. She was unquestionably "of age" which may be why Mia Farrow never leveled an abuse allegation against Woody Allen for the relationship with Soon Yi. Now let us look at the age disparity between Woody Allen and the various actors in this case. Mr. Allen was certainly a much older man when he and Soon Yi became involved. Is it not appropriate to note that Soon Yi had lived in a home for 13 years with a mother whose relationships were consistently with significantly older men? Is it not possible for an orphan child to gravitate to a major male figure in her life? Is it so incomprehensible that an older man might be easily seduced by the attentions of a much younger woman?

That last question brings me to what I feel is the most distressing issue in this whole case. The feminists who leap to Dylan's defense and who are willing to bully other women into forgoing money they have earned by their legitimate toil are also willing, whether they realize it or not, to deny Soon Yi Previn any and all agency, decision or even humanity in this matter. Since the abuse allegation first became public in 1992 Soon Yi has been relegated to the status of a victim and a 2 dimensional one at that. Never in any of the last 31 years have most feminists insisted on the humanity of Soon Yi or treated her an an empowered woman. Perhaps she is and perhaps she is not. In either case, I believe that she deserves the respect of being treated as a woman who is an individual in her own right. If there can be an evaluation of Ms. Previn as a whole human being we might learn whether she is just a powerful man's pawn or a human being deserving of as much respect as her sister, Dylan.

What about this perception of Woody Allen as a powerful predator? Woody Allen worked his way up in the entertainment world on his own. He has become a major movie director. He has earned his reputation as a comedian, writer and director through a knowledge of literature and of the great films that preceded his own. Mia Farrow, on the other hand, is a child of Hollywood royalty groomed for the acting trade by an accomplished, famous mother and a notable director father. She is an accomplished actress in her own right. However, to paraphrase the words of that wonderful Texan, Jim Hightower, Mia Farrow was, "born on third base and thinks she hit a triple." I agree that Woody Allen is rich and powerful within the artistic communities of New York and Hollywood. I also believe that Mia Farrow has wealth and power within those same communities that probably equals that of Mr. Allen. By insisting that Woody Allen has money power and male privilege and ignoring Mia Farrow's money, power and privilege as a part of Hollywood royalty skews the view of this case just as improperly as does the myth about Soon Yi Previn's age.

I found it difficult to deal with the end of a marriage that began deteriorating almost before it began. A marriage that destroyed my long held hope that I, a child of divorce, would never visit that upon my own children. I cannot imagine the pain of finding that one's long relationship was ending because my partner had fallen in love with my adoptive daughter and she with him. What I can imagine is giving my wife and her new partner a copy of Sappho's poetry as a wish that they have a good life together. I cannot imagine reviling my ex-partner especially to my children. The children are all important. Attacking the person they view as a father or mother inevitably makes the child less secure in him or herself. That is a crime that is utterly unconscionable and just as unconscionable for the same reason as child molestation.

Three separate examinations, physical and verbal, of Dylan Farrow in the immediate aftermath of the sexual abuse allegation by her own pediatrician and by a full team of professionals dedicated to investigating child abuse found that Dylan's allegation was not credible. The Yale-New Haven team determined that Dylan's allegation was either a fantasy of her own or one that was either originated or magnified by her mother, Mia Farrow. Yes, the team destroyed it's notes and, yes, Dr. Leventhal refused to come court to testify. He was, however, deposed by attorneys for all parties in the case. A deposition is not a simple note to the court stating "this is what I think". That Judge Elliott Wilk discounted Dr. Leventhal's deposition smells strongly of bias. It may not have been but the smell is certainly there.

Dylan Farrow has excoriated Woody Allen for alleged use of a public relations campaign to denigrate her and Mia Farrow. I have no doubt that Mr. Allen has used his public relations team to defend himself. In that I am not judging whether the narrative he and his employees propound is correct or not. What is incorrect is failing to acknowledge that Mia and Dylan Farrow have access to their own public relations team, most notably in Ronan Farrow. I do not mean to accuse any party of wrong doing. I do mean to point out that there is more balance among the parties than there is imbalance just as there is more balance in the power that the parties wield because of their several relations to the entertainment industry . If I am making any judgement here it is that the popular narrative is imbalanced. Dylan and Mia Farrow are unquestioned victims and Woody Allen is an unquestioned cad and child abuser. Cad I will grant you. Child abuser is, I believe, in serious doubt.

As a corollary to the issue about public relations I refer you to Moses Farrow's narrative of his life in Mia Farrow's household. Once again, Moses was an adolescent of 14 in August, 1992. He is the  person present, other than the principles, best positioned to recount the incidents of that day and the structures of the Farrow household. Yet Moses has been reconciled to Mr. Allen. Moses narrative has been frequently and vociferously denigrated by the very public relations team that no one seems to believe is available to Dylan and Mia Farrow.

My understanding of feminism has always been that men and women should have equal pay, rights and opportunity. If we all, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, national origin or any other allegedly distinguishing characteristic, stand on an equal footing we can rise or fall on our individual merits. If that is the meaning of feminism I am all for it. What I oppose is replacing male chauvinism with female chauvinism. A redress of grievances is necessary but not a substitution of one form of inequity for another. I rather think that giving Moses Farrow as much credit as we afford Dylan might give everyone a more rounded picture of the abuse allegation and all parties in this complex matter.

Finally, Woody and Soon Yi Previn have been together since 1992. They have been married for 24 years as of this writing. They have 2 adoptive children and never has there been any other allegation of abuse against Mr. Allen. I have not heard of any allegation of inappropriate behavior by Mr. Allen to any of the many actresses who have appeared with him on screen over his long film career. Those facts may count for something.

In the midst of a break up of epic proportions with details that are the stuff of melodrama, is it so utterly impossible that an aggrieved mother might weaponize her young children against her former lover and their father both adoptive and biological? Certainly it is no less plausible that a jealous mother who might convince one child that she was ugly to shower attention on another. I don't and cannot know what happened at Frog Hollow in Bridgewater, Connecticut on August 4, 1992. I do know that there is a false narrative regarding some persons involved in this matter. Which of those persons is an open question. Personally, I think Woody Allen has been badly treated but I do not know that with any kind of certainty.

The final point I wish to make is that while I understand the impulse by many abused women to support Dylan Farrow. I cannot support people who bully performers and producers into a boycott of Woody Allen's films when there is so much uncertainty about the sexual abuse allegation. There is no question about the abuse carried out by Harvey Weinstein or a number of others who have become objects of scorn due to their confirmed abuse. There are many questions in the Woody Allen case so I must feel that it is just as wrong to bully women and men who support them into a boycott as it was for Mr. Weinstein or Donald Trump to bully and bribe women into silence when they were raped or romped with. Dylan Farrow deserves support and sympathy she does not deserve vigilante revenge. If an actor decides not to work with Mr. Allen in the future he or she has that right. If a production studio decides not to work with Mr. Allen after fulfilling its contractual obligations, they have the right to sign no further contracts with him. Yet there are those in the good and useful #MeToo movement who would take things too far. Just as we abhor men who have destroyed women's careers for rejecting their sexual advances we must also abhor women who would destroy men's careers without convincing supporting facts.

ADDENDUM

Since publishing this post Soon Yi Previn has chosen to speak out on her life with Mia Farrow and with Woody Allen. You, reader, can read the text of the interview as printed in New York Magazine at this link. I believe that Soon Yi's own narration should be read in the context of all the first hand accounts of the alleged assault on Dylan Farrow and in the context of facts in the case. Not rumors. Not misinformation. Not opinion. Most especially not in the context of the bad behavior of other men. Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby and Louis C. K. are not Woody Allen. That does not mean that Mr. Allen cannot be guilty of some appalling behavior but that it means that he must stand or fall on his own individual behavior rather than by being lumped in with others who have behaved appallingly toward women. I am inclined to take the view of Mr. Allen as supported by Soon Yi Previn and Moses Farrow. Others find the accounts of Mia, Dylan and Ronan Farrow more likely. None of us can know which narrative is the more factual or, perhaps, the less fictional. What we can do is examine our own biases and the undisputed facts and decide which comports with what we can actually know.

I have had occasion to revisit this post in September, 2022 because of a couple of stories that appeared on shows on NPR. The first was a discussion of ethics in entertainment on Luke Burbank's show Live Wire Radio. The second was an interview with the host of the podcast You're Wrong About on the Seattle NPR Station KUOW-FM. In consequence of that more recent edit I have corrected some typos and grammatical errors as well as up-dated some statements of duration such as the 24 years since Soon Yi Previn's marriage to Woody Allen rather than the "21" in the original post.

Finally, in this 2022 review I have become aware that some of the links in the original post no longer work. I am trying to bring them up to date so that they still call up the texts to which they refer.

* If any reader can link the full text of Dylan Farrow's 2014 letter, please do. I will replace the link above with one to the full text.