The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

VIDEO: ‘Neither Explicit Nor Indecent’ Also, How Not to Get Banned at AOSHQ

Posted on | June 11, 2011 | 55 Comments

Here is an Associated Press video report about WeinerGate:

Keep in mind that Anthony Weiner spent the first 10 days of this scandal telling lie after lie after lie, until Andrew Breitbart finally started publishing the pictures Weiner had sent to Meagan Broussard.

And even in his Monday press conference confession, Weiner continued telling lies, among other things saying that he’d never used his office to communicate with his cybersex partners.

Anthony Weiner is a liar. Why should we believe him now?

Well, Delaware police say they have ended their investigation of Weiner’s communications with the 17-year-old girl, even though it was reported “much of the conversations between Weiner and the high schooler had been deleted from the girl’s computer.”

So we are left to wonder exactly what Weiner and the girl were chatting about. The award-winning Ace of Spades says:

A guy who sometimes sends [obscene photos of himself] to admirers should not be cultivating an online relationship with a 17 year old girl. Period.

By the way, Ace is now banning commenters who engage in unwarranted speculation about “Weiner’s Wilmington Lolita” (as certain irresponsible people have called her). Whatever you do, don’t go over to the award-winning Ace of Spades HQ blog and suggest that this “sultry jailbait vixen” (to cite another unfair label) was anything other than an innocent victim of Weiner’s perverse online predations.

Calling her a “hot-to-trot teen temptress“? Yeah, Ace would ban you in a heartbeart for that. And don’t be linking any “suggestive videos,” either.

UPDATE: So far as I know, Dan Collins is not yet banned at AOSHQ, even though Dan seems to be speculating on a connection between WeinerGate and “Slutwalk.” And since we’re engaging in unwarranted speculation here — trying to fill the niche left open by by Ace’s banhammer threat, as it were — let’s just go all-in, why don’t we?

How is it that feminists nowadays are so adamantly “pro-sex,” encouraging young women toward “sexual empowerment” by dressing (or rather, undressing) as trashy as Madonna circa 1992 and acting as whorish as one of Charlie Sheen’s porn-star “goddesses” and yet — and yet! — should one of these completely empowered feminists get herself mixed up with some sort of highly public sexual wrongdoing, she must be treated with such deference that no one even dare identify her, at peril of being accused of “blaming the victim”?

Just throwing that out there, as a question.

I don’t claim there is any “correct” answer to that question, but it does appear to me that there are certain obvious contradictions in feminist rhetoric. You might even say that it looks like a Catch-22 setup — a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation — so that no matter what happens, women are in a victim posture, and the patriarchal oppressors (i.e., men) entirely to blame for any ill that befalls women.

This kind of open-ended musing might not even be relevant to the situation with Weiner’s Delaware DM Delight, but given that Amanda Marcotte lately seems to have lost interest in making a fool of herself in defense of her “progressive” hero, I’m just throwing it out there.


Comments are closed.