Back in August I made several videos warning humanity NOT to go down THE ROAD TO DUMB DUALITY. Did YOU listen? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Now, the whole world is caught up in a SHAME FEST, and don’t know it – consciously. Before we proceed, here is what Meher Baba said about DUALITY. Will anyone read it? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/godsunit.html

At the Roseville Zoo lived the Spitting Monkey. The Presco Children would go visit him early, before fellow primates arrived. There was a drinking fountain near his cage. We would take turns filling our mouths with water, then let go a stream at the captive monkey – whose jaw would drop in outrage! He was mortified. How dare we! He would the go fill his cheeks and spit a stream back at us. Being abused and shame-based children, we squealed with delight! How did the monkey feel? Who knows? Who cares! This paragraph WILL get me in trouble! People will want to spit on me, bring me to some kind of justice. What kind of justice that will be – is an amazing mystery as Baba points out.

Yesterday, we saw the pretty Aryan white face of Nancy Shurtz being brought out and put in the Public Pillary – and shamed for wearing black face. This morning, I read about the outrage of casting a White Man as a Black Man – Michael Jackson. The Spitting Monkeys are spitting up a storm. Before I went to bed, I was witness to the Battle of the Clever White Minds as Skull Woman and Anderson Cooper went at it, there not a black face around to interrupt their CHAIN OF DUAL THOUGHT!

Skull Woman and Shame Man had launched an attack on all media at their news conference. The shameful fake report that Trump Monkey was caught with his peckerwood in Female Russian Spies was being employed to render Donald immune from the Free Press for the next eight years – if not for the rest of his life – because The Main Pussy Grabber was victimized by Modern Day Nazis, who spit water all over him, then, pissed on him. The term ‘Golden Shower’ was used. The rest, is being written on a level few – care to understand. We primates are fascinated by a good Shame Fest – that is writing itself. My newspaper may be put out of business! The Gideon Computer has taken over.

Remember my ideas for ‘Love Dance’ – that morphed into going across America with Belle Burch on a train? I fell in love with Belle on a level you must make an attempt to grasp, or, we may never emerge from ‘The Labyrinth of Shame’. What is Belle doing in this pic?

She is inviting me to Dance The Dance Of Duality! She went Sub-rosa. A part of Belle and Alley knew I was SECTRETLY doing the work of Meher Baba, who bathed the MAST.

“I spit on you, and, you spit on me! O.K.?”

The video of a white man playing a black man while driving Ms. Taylor in a car as they escape the terrorism that struck New York City, is a continuation of the homemade movie I am making. ‘The Last Shout Out of The Antichrist’ (seen below) is the demarcation point of reality as we once knew it. Why I am THERE, is amusing on a Godhead Level.

Jon Presco

https://rosamondpress.com/2015/05/05/my-big-beautiful-blue-bicycle-2/

“It is for love that the whole universe sprang into existence, and it is for the sake of love that it is kept going.

God descends into the realm of Illusion because the apparent duality of the Beloved and the lover is eventually contributory to His conscious enjoyment of His own divinity.

The development of love is conditioned and sustained by the tension of duality. God has to suffer apparent differentiation into a multiplicity of souls in order to carry on the game of love. They are His own forms, and in relation to them He at once assumes the roles of the divine Lover and the divine Beloved. As the Beloved, He is the real and the ultimate object of their appreciation. As the divine Lover, He is their real and ultimate savior, drawing them back to Himself.

Thus, though the whole world of duality is only an illusion, that illusion has come into being for a significant purpose.

“There is no within and no without. Reality pervades. There is nothing beyond Reality, no within or without, no up or down. Reality is all over, all-pervading. So-called illusion is also Reality. Illusion is the shadow of Reality. When you walk, your shadow follows you. You do not attach any importance to the shadow, because it has come out of you, it is nothing but shadow. It is your own shadow that follows you; you do not follow the shadow.” Exactly at midday, twelve noon, the shadow disappears. It is only you who are there, and the shadow has no existence at all.”

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/12/cooper-conway-clinton-lawsuits-guilt-cnn-intv.cnn

https://rosamondpress.com/2015/08/18/love-dance-7/

Following up on this morning’s post, 23 Oregon Law Profs Call On Colleague To Resign For Wearing Blackface At Halloween Party:  KEZI 9 News, UO Law Professor Under Fire for Controversial Halloween Costume:

KEZI learned that the professor involved is [tax professor] Nancy Shurtz.

Students are outraged by the incident and have even started a petition demanding her resignation. The petition needs 100 supporters before it can be delivered to the dean of the law school.

Shurtz sent a letter to students explaining why she chose her costume. She said she read a book and wanted to portray the character. She also said she apologizes and never meant to offend anyone.

“I chose my costume based on a book that I read and liked—Black Man in a White Coat.  I thought I would be able to teach with this costume as well (or at least tell an interesting story).

I have been on target.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7654387/michael-jackson-family-urban-myths-trailer-joseph-fiennes

c

Paris-Michael K. J.

✔ @ParisJackson

Paris Jackson is “incredibly offended” and wants to “vomit” over the casting of white actor Joseph Fiennes as her father Michael Jackson in an upcoming comedy series. As Gossip Cop reported, the first trailer for Urban Myths with Fiennes as Jackson was released on Tuesday, and now Paris has called the casting of Fiennes “insulting” and a “shameful portrayal.”

The Jackson episode, which is one of eight from Sky Arts, is based on a Vanity Fair article that claimed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the singer, Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando jumped into a car and drove out of New York together because all of the airports were closed. Though Fiennes previously defended his being cast as Jackson, stating the King of Pop “definitely had an issue — a pigmentation issue,” and “was probably closer to my color than his original color,” Paris is furious. In a string of tweets on Wednesday, she wrote, “I’m so incredibly offended by it, as i’m sure plenty of people are as well, and it honestly makes me want to vomit.”
Elizabeth Taylor sits with Michael Jackson during his “30th Anniversary Celebration, The Solo Years” concert on Sept. 7, 2001 in New Madison Square Garden. (Beth A. Keiser/Reuters)

Terrorists have attacked New York City. So Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando pile into a car and get the heck out of there, stopping at fast food joints as they trek across the country.

This is not a Mad Lib. This reported account will be depicted in an upcoming Sky Arts movie called “Elizabeth, Michael & Marlon.” Michael Jackson — arguably the most famous black musician of all time — will be played by white British actor Joseph Fiennes, for some reason.

Donald J. Trump

✔ @realDonaldTrump

[White man is playing Michael Jackson in a TV movie, and the Internet is angry]

Whether this 9/11 escape road trip actually happened has been the subject of rumor and debate ever since Vanity Fair published the account in 2011.

Here’s what we do know: Michael Jackson played Madison Square Garden on Sept. 7 and 10 in 2001 for 30th-anniversary concerts. A lot of very famous people in Jackson’s orbit were around for the star-studded events, including Whitney Houston, Eminem, Yoko Ono, Liza Minnelli, and yes, Taylor and Brando.

Five minutes into the first concert, “the darkened stage was lit to reveal Marlon Brando, sitting in silence on a leather chair, wearing dark glasses and a suit and fiddling with his watch, apparently oblivious to some 20,000 fans,” The Washington Post reported at the time. “When the actor finally spoke, he delivered a grumpy, half-comprehensible lecture about the ‘hundreds, if not thousands of children’ being starved and hacked to death in some foreign land. Michael Jackson, he gravely intoned, is one of the few souls out there trying to help.”

“It was a harangue that might merely have seemed inappropriately timed if it were audible. All cheer in the room vanished, replaced first by startled quiet, followed shortly by anger and a hail of boos. ‘Stella!’ hooted a wag.”

During a series of tributes, “Michael sat like a Roman emperor in a lit booth near the side of the stage and air-kissed the performers,” The Post relayed. Taylor and Macaulay Culkin flanked him.

The morning after the final Jackson concert, the twin towers fell. Chaos gripped Manhattan. Planes were grounded. And, according to Sam Kashner’s Vanity Fair piece “Elizabeth Taylor’s Closing Act,” Jackson “hollered down the hallway of his hotel for everyone in his entourage, and for Brando, to leave immediately;” Taylor was staying in a nearby hotel.

From the Vanity Fair piece:

Now here’s where the story gets complicated. In one version, these three towering icons of American pop culture planned their escape, afraid that they would be the next target. Michael and Brando had trouble leaving their hotel garage because fans kept banging on the car windows, following them down the street, screaming. Unable to fly, they drove out of the city.

Former child star Corey Feldman told Kashner that he had gotten into an argument with his friend, Jackson, the night before, and that on Sept. 11 the pop megastar was “trying to get Elizabeth out! He was looking for a private jet.” The piece continues:

A former employee of Michael Jackson’s says that Michael, like General Washington, led his entourage to a temporary safe haven in New Jersey, before the three superstars took to the open road. “They actually got as far as Ohio — all three of them, in a car they drove themselves!” he recalls. Brando allegedly annoyed his traveling companions by insisting on stopping at nearly every KFC and Burger King they passed along the highway. One can only imagine the shock their appearance caused at gas stations and rest stops across America.

But this account was debunked by another anonymous source, one of Taylor’s “close friends and assistants” who insisted to Kashner that she remained in New York City, “went to a church to pray, and she went to an armory where people were who couldn’t get home or who’d stayed behind to look for the missing. She also went down to Ground Zero, where she met with first responders. Eventually, the airports opened and she flew home.”

As Kashner notes, nothing bubbled up in any news accounts at the time about Taylor tending to the stranded or visiting at Ground Zero.

Unfortunately, all three protagonists are no longer around to confirm or deny this entire episode.

[Michael Jackson died five years ago. Here’s how his death played in print.]

If you’re thinking, “Man, this would make for a great premise for a piece of fiction,” you’re too late! Zadie Smith beat you to it last year with her short story “Escape from New York.” In the piece, Brando says to Jackson, “I hear you drive like a maniac.” It continues:

“I do go fast, Marlon, but I also stay in control. You can trust me, Marlon. I promise I will get us out of here.”

Michael felt really sad seeing Marlon like that, eating a cheeseburger on the sidewalk. He was so fat, and his little chair was under a lot of strain. The whole situation looked very precarious. This was also the moment when he noticed that Marlon wasn’t wearing any shoes.

“Have you seen Liz?” Michael asked.

“What is that hunk of junk, anyway?” Marlon asked.

Michael had forgotten. He leaned over and took the manual out of the glove compartment.

“A Toyota Camry. It’s all they had.” He was about to add “with a roomy back seat” but thought better of it.

Fiennes, speaking to WENN, described the upcoming movie as “a story, possibly an urban legend whereby Michael, Marlon Brando, and Liz Taylor were all together the day before 9/11 doing a concert. Airspace was shut down and they couldn’t get out and Michael had the bright idea to go to hire a car and drive.”

He continued: “So the three of them got in a car and drove 500 miles to Los Angeles. It took them a while because they had to stop at a lot of Burger Kings for Marlon; but they got out!”

Oh, and it’ll be a comedy.

Shurtz was critical of the investigation, but she has also apologized for her actions. Schurtz said she was attempting to start a conversation about racial discrimination by portraying the book “Black Man in a White Coat” written by a black medical doctor

In a letter Monday, President Michael Schill said Shurtz remains a member of the law school faculty.

Schill said again in the letter that University Provost Scott Coltrane took action to make sure Shurtz understood the severity of the incident. Schurtz could not provide any more details, citing university policy.

UO President Michael H. Schill sent the following message to the campus community Jan. 9:

Dear Colleagues,

Over the past couple of months, the University of Oregon’s handling of events associated with Professor Nancy Shurtz’s decision to wear a controversial Halloween costume has garnered significant media attention, both locally and nationally. A number of editorials, letters to the editor, and blog posts have engaged in discussions on the topic. Some of the coverage has been, in my opinion, thoughtful but some has, perhaps not surprisingly, sensationalized and caricatured what is a very serious incident that deeply affected our students and, by extension, our entire university community. A number of colleagues have asked me for my own views on the matter. I hesitate to burden you with this personal reflection, but because this incident has polarized our community I have decided that it would be useful for me to share some of my own thoughts about the matter.

At the outset, I should state that, under university policies, the provost, not the president, is the figure whose job it is to respond to complaints against faculty members. Therefore, I have not played a formal role in responding to the incident. I write this to clarify my institutional role and not to decline responsibility. To the contrary, as president, I am ultimately responsible for everything on our campus.

When Professor Shurtz invited her two classes to her home for a Halloween party on October 31 and dressed up wearing blackface, she created a conundrum that is the stuff of a very difficult law school examination question. Two very important principles were potentially in conflict—the right of students to be free from racial harassment and the right of faculty members to exercise free speech. A law firm that the university hired to do an impartial investigation of the matter interviewed students and faculty members who were at the party and made a factual finding that at least some of the students felt compelled to attend their professor’s party and that they would potentially suffer negative consequences if they left early, despite being deeply offended and affronted by Professor Shurtz’s costume and its strong connotations of racism. The investigators made a factual finding that the behavior by Professor Shurtz constituted racial harassment under university policy V.11.02.

Of course, this is only part of the story. Professor Shurtz told the investigators that she didn’t intend to act in a racist manner. Instead, she said she was dressed “as a book” she had recently read that highlighted the shortage of black doctors in the medical profession. She also told the investigators that she was making a statement about the paucity of African American doctors. The law firm weighed the harms from the harassment against the value of her conduct and determined that, according to the balancing test prescribed by Pickering v. Board of Education, the former outweighed the latter, rendering her conduct unprotected. The provost accepted the findings of the investigation and, pursuant to university policy, took appropriate actions to make sure that Professor Shurtz understood the gravity of the incident and would not behave in a similar fashion in the future. I am not able to divulge the nature of these actions because university policy mandates confidentiality.

As I consider the case of Professor Shurtz, I have to admit I am torn. I believe that freedom of speech is the core value of any university. When faculty members pursue their avocation—teaching students and conducting research—they must be able to say or write what they think without fear of retribution, even if their views are controversial, and even if their research and their views risk causing offense to others. Otherwise, advances in learning will be stunted. This freedom of speech includes the freedom to share political views, academic theories, good ideas, and even bad ones, too. It includes speech that offends others. Without academic freedom we could scarcely call the UO a university.

For me, stating that principle in the abstract is easy and uncomplicated. But here is the problem—figuring out when and whether there are legitimate limits on freedom of expression actually is complicated. In general, it is not acceptable for someone to use her rights to deprive another of her rights. I should not be able to use my speech to deny others of their right to be free from racial or sexual harassment. I can hold—and share—controversial views. But that does not give me the right to harass specific individuals or to speak in any way I wish to, in any place, or any point in time.

But, when exactly does offending someone turn into proscribed harassment? Only a small number of legal commentators would say that faculty members should be immune from all harassment charges on academic freedom grounds. Instead, most of us recognize that speech rights are extremely important, but they also fall on a continuum. For whatever it is worth, I personally am fairly close to the end of the spectrum that believes speech should be maximally protected. But even I believe that there are cases when speech or conduct is of relatively minimal value compared to the great harm that it may do to our students—particularly to students who already struggle with isolation and lack of representation. For example, imagine a required class in which a professor repeatedly uses the “N” word for no apparent reason except to elicit a reaction. Could African American students forced to sit through this class have a claim of harassment? I think so. Similarly, imagine a class in which a professor makes repeated, sexually explicit remarks to a student or students for no educational purpose. Free speech principles should not, in my view, prevent the university from taking appropriate actions to make sure these actions stop and do not recur in the future.

To be sure, the case of Professor Shurtz is not quite as clear-cut. The events took place in her home, not in the classroom. Her stated intention ex post was not to offend, but to draw attention to systemic racism. Still, some of her students felt that they were in a similar situation to students in a classroom being subjected to harassing speech, as they felt pressure to attend and to remain at the event. They felt that they could not leave without jeopardizing their standing in the class, and they also felt that the offensive nature of the blackface was the equivalent of hearing the “N” word. In these circumstances, should the university have ignored the event or should it have taken action proportionate to the offense? What lesson would we be teaching our students if we let the incident end without even an official letter of reprimand? These were the very difficult questions that Provost Coltrane had to grapple with, and I am supportive of the process he used and the fairness he displayed in making his decision.

Some commentators have taken to the barricades, and suggested that any finding or action taken with respect to Professor Shurtz will ultimately open the door to firing professors for expressing their political views. Really? In law, we call this the “slippery slope” argument or “the parade of horribles.” While I have tossed and turned for nights over the fact that the university found that a professor’s expressive conduct constituted harassment, I think the reaction of those commentators is overly dramatic and not supported by anything that took place in this case. Go online and you will find that Professor Shurtz remains a member of the law school faculty. Name a single faculty member who has been punished by the provost for his or her political views. This has not happened and you have my vow it won’t happen as long as I occupy my office in Johnson Hall.

The blackface incident has been a painful one for everyone in our UO community. It came at a time of heightened emotions with respect to the treatment of African Americans on our campus and on campuses throughout the nation. It also came at a time of turmoil and recrimination in our national politics. In my opinion, each of us should be uncomfortable with the harassment that our students experienced at the home of a senior faculty member. Each of us should also be uncomfortable with the fact that the provost felt it necessary to take remedial actions with respect to a faculty member in connection with her expressive conduct. Maybe I am just being a Pollyanna, but ultimately I hope that this discomfort will serve a good purpose. I hope that we come out of this experience with a greater understanding both of the value of free speech and the ways in which our speech can harm each other.