A Wolf in Knee Pants
In the wake of the sexual assault of CBS reporter Lara Logan, various bloggers went nuts in one direction or another. One of the more notable was Redstate "moderator" Leon H. Wolf. In a rambling post that wandered all over Wolf mainly just castigated Jim Hoft for a post at Gateway Pundits.
Wolf compounded his stupidity further by making a fool of himself in response to push-back from several Redstate readers. Some posters felt that Logan was partly to blame for inserting herself into the chaotic conditions in Cairo. Wolf reached his nadir of idiocy with this line:
"I reject the premise that one can be truly “culpable” in their own sexual assault. "
So let's review. In Wolf's considered opinion these four women are "equal" and pure as the driven snow:
A. Woman dragged from her bed and raped.
B. Woman leaving a bar alone at 2:00 am, grabbed and raped.
C. Woman looking for drugs in an alley at 4:00am, knocked over the head and raped
D. Woman standing on a street corner to sell her body, picked up by a stranger and taken to a wooded area and raped.
No woman wants to be raped, even a caveman knows that. But to say that no woman can be "truly “culpable” in their own sexual assault" is just incredible. All of us make bad decisions and when we do they often lead to bad things happening to us. Those things are often not at all what we wanted to happen, but the fact remains that we share to at least a degree in the blame for them.
To go back to Hoft's post however, he never suggested that Logan wanted to get raped or was directly responsible for what happened to her. His point was simply that by failing to report on the true nature of the Islamic extremists, Logan did in fact contribute to a misleading perception that all was sweetness and light in Egypt in the days leading up to her attack.
Leon Wolf was too stupid and full of himself to understand that simple point.
Next: Neil Stevens
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Its Been A While....Redstate is Still Nuts
Life moves so quickly that you look up and 5 or 6 months have flown by. Looking at my last post that came back in September, I see that I was fairly accurate on how the election went. Yeah for me!
On to other things now. Readers of this blog know that I dislike Redstate.com and their clown leader Erick Erickson. Recently however the site has just gone completely nuts. The atmosphere of fear is thick and even long time posters are tip-toeing around unsure where land mines might be buried.
Beginning today is a multi-part series on the mess at Redstate.
What is the purpose of redstate.com? Does anyone know? Is anyone really in charge over there?
Began in 2004 as an answer to the many left-wing blogs supporting John Kerry, Redstate at one time appeared poised to be the most important right of center website in US political discourse. Over the last seven years it has become an inchoate melange of conservative and libertarian hucksterism.
The site’s “editor” is Erick Erickson who has no discernible background or ability for the job. This is not a major problem for Redstate however as its editor does little more than gather a few links each morning for the usually mundane Morning Briefing “What conservatives read first”.
Otherwise the site is under the “control” of a band of thugs who apparently are ranked according to a secret compact signed in blood and kept under wraps from mortal man. Perhaps the Chief Thug is a preening fool named Moe Lane.
Lane is a practicing homosexual which is an odd fact given that Redstate is supposedly opposed to gay marriage and the homo lifestyle. Lane prances around the site throwing hissy fits and bringing about exchanges such as this:
“JWR” wrote
“Republicans should never support a candidate without a clear appreciation for the sanctity of life. Erick - or others - I’ve heard conflicting reports about Corwin’s stance on the abortion issue (and defunding Planned Parenthood) - can anyone speak to her true stance?”
Moe Lane responded
How's D-PAK doing?
Moe Lane Tuesday, February 22nd at 5:03PM EST (link)
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/07/02/010702ta_TALK_SMOKE
Yes, you have to respond to that.
Next post, please.
The New Yorker link is to a story about some grade school kids who have a club called D-PAK. So Lane was dismissing “JWR” as both childish and a Democratic plant. The crime that poor “JWR” had committed was questioning the conservative credentials of a candidate that Moe “Thug” Lane had signed off on. Such effrontery can not be allowed!
Next: A Wolf in Knee Pants
Life moves so quickly that you look up and 5 or 6 months have flown by. Looking at my last post that came back in September, I see that I was fairly accurate on how the election went. Yeah for me!
On to other things now. Readers of this blog know that I dislike Redstate.com and their clown leader Erick Erickson. Recently however the site has just gone completely nuts. The atmosphere of fear is thick and even long time posters are tip-toeing around unsure where land mines might be buried.
Beginning today is a multi-part series on the mess at Redstate.
What is the purpose of redstate.com? Does anyone know? Is anyone really in charge over there?
Began in 2004 as an answer to the many left-wing blogs supporting John Kerry, Redstate at one time appeared poised to be the most important right of center website in US political discourse. Over the last seven years it has become an inchoate melange of conservative and libertarian hucksterism.
The site’s “editor” is Erick Erickson who has no discernible background or ability for the job. This is not a major problem for Redstate however as its editor does little more than gather a few links each morning for the usually mundane Morning Briefing “What conservatives read first”.
Otherwise the site is under the “control” of a band of thugs who apparently are ranked according to a secret compact signed in blood and kept under wraps from mortal man. Perhaps the Chief Thug is a preening fool named Moe Lane.
Lane is a practicing homosexual which is an odd fact given that Redstate is supposedly opposed to gay marriage and the homo lifestyle. Lane prances around the site throwing hissy fits and bringing about exchanges such as this:
“JWR” wrote
“Republicans should never support a candidate without a clear appreciation for the sanctity of life. Erick - or others - I’ve heard conflicting reports about Corwin’s stance on the abortion issue (and defunding Planned Parenthood) - can anyone speak to her true stance?”
Moe Lane responded
How's D-PAK doing?
Moe Lane Tuesday, February 22nd at 5:03PM EST (link)
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/07/02/010702ta_TALK_SMOKE
Yes, you have to respond to that.
Next post, please.
The New Yorker link is to a story about some grade school kids who have a club called D-PAK. So Lane was dismissing “JWR” as both childish and a Democratic plant. The crime that poor “JWR” had committed was questioning the conservative credentials of a candidate that Moe “Thug” Lane had signed off on. Such effrontery can not be allowed!
Next: A Wolf in Knee Pants
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Home Stretch
Less than 4o days now until we find out just how disgusted American voters are with the state of our government and Barack Obama. While there are endless numbers of opinions and predictions on how the totals will shake out, it is universally agreed that the Republicans will gain significant ground.
As with all elections, there are many factors to consider when trying to divine where the voters will be five and a half weeks from now.
We know (or at least we think we know) that the Obama Agenda is unpopular with a majority of Americans.
We know that with the growth of the Tea Party movement, Republicans and Republican leaners are far more enthused about voting this year than the Left.
We know that many voters begin to move from undecided toward their roots as election day nears.
We know that polls underestimate Republican strength more often than they underestimate Democrat strength.
So what does what we know suggest will actually happen?
As of today, September 24, 2010, I believe the GOP will take back the house by a narrow margin. Forced to choose a number I will settle on a pick-up of 47 seats leaving the House at 226R-209D.
In the Senate there are so many polls with conflicting numbers that the final tally could wildly vary based on just a relatively few votes. My fearless prediction is that the GOP will pick up 8 seats to bring the next Senate to 49R-49D-2I, leaving Democrats with razor thin control.
Less than 4o days now until we find out just how disgusted American voters are with the state of our government and Barack Obama. While there are endless numbers of opinions and predictions on how the totals will shake out, it is universally agreed that the Republicans will gain significant ground.
As with all elections, there are many factors to consider when trying to divine where the voters will be five and a half weeks from now.
We know (or at least we think we know) that the Obama Agenda is unpopular with a majority of Americans.
We know that with the growth of the Tea Party movement, Republicans and Republican leaners are far more enthused about voting this year than the Left.
We know that many voters begin to move from undecided toward their roots as election day nears.
We know that polls underestimate Republican strength more often than they underestimate Democrat strength.
So what does what we know suggest will actually happen?
As of today, September 24, 2010, I believe the GOP will take back the house by a narrow margin. Forced to choose a number I will settle on a pick-up of 47 seats leaving the House at 226R-209D.
In the Senate there are so many polls with conflicting numbers that the final tally could wildly vary based on just a relatively few votes. My fearless prediction is that the GOP will pick up 8 seats to bring the next Senate to 49R-49D-2I, leaving Democrats with razor thin control.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Erick Erickson is at it Again!
My antipathy for Erick Erickson, the so-called "editor" of RedState, is no secret. Now, Erickson has rung the bell again. In spite of RedState's policy of "support the Republican" or be banned, Erickson has a post this morning in which he explicitly renounces Mike Castle in Deleware, twelve days before the Senate Primary in that state.
My antipathy for Erick Erickson, the so-called "editor" of RedState, is no secret. Now, Erickson has rung the bell again. In spite of RedState's policy of "support the Republican" or be banned, Erickson has a post this morning in which he explicitly renounces Mike Castle in Deleware, twelve days before the Senate Primary in that state.
"I would rather die a thousand times over via crushing by an anaconda while being torn limb from limb by a jaguar than see Mike Castle in the Senate. I would rather be slowly run over by a road roller while listening to Janeane Garofalo dialogue from The Truth About Cats and Dogs than see Mike Castle in the Senate.I’d rather see the Democrat get elected than see Mike Castle get elected. Seriously, I know many of you disagree with me, but if the majority depends on Mike Castle, to hell with the majority."