The Other McCain

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

LIVE AT FIVE – 11.15.11

Posted on | November 15, 2011 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Police Begin Clearing Zuccotti Park of #OWS Squatters
Sandusky Admits He “Horsed Around” With Boys, Denies Pedophilia Charges
Syria Under Increasing Pressure After Arab League Suspension



POLITICS
CNN Poll: Gingrich Soars, Cain Drops
Gabrielle Giffords Haltingly Promises Return To Congress When She’s “Better”
Tensions Rise As Deficit Committee Hits Final Week
Mass. Lawmakers In Rush To Pass Casino Bill
Panettaa: Deep Defense Cuts Mean Fewer Troops
Recall Effort Against Wisconsin Governor Walker Begins
Prosecutors To Reveal Details Of Georgia Militia Plot



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
European Stocks Drop As Italy’s Monti Faces Political Resistance
Who’s Afraid Of Big Tech? Not Buffett
Consumption Bounce Lifts French Q3 GDP, Outlook Gloomy
European Uncertainty Drags Wall Street Lower
Anadarko Reports Major Oil & Gas Find In Colorado
Store Closings Slam Lowe’s Profit
Gold Declines As Strengthening Dollar Curbs Demand; Paulson Cuts Holding
Kindle Fire Review: Yes, It’s That Good
iTunes Match: A Solution For A Problem Apple Helped Create
“HALO: Combat Evolved Anniversary” Awkward But Fulfilling For Fans
Samsung Admits “Informal Policy Of Not Suing Apple”
Gartner: Android Passes 50% Of Smartphone Sales



SPORTS
Players Reject NBA Offer, Season In Jeopardy
Matthews, Defense Shake Off Season-Long Struggles As Packers Pound Vikings 45-7
Frank McCourt Apologizes To Dodgers Fans For Ownership Struggle
Texans QB Schaub Likely Done For Season
Giroux, Pronger Lift Flyers Over Carolina, 5-3
Gordie Howe Dons #9 As He Enters Hall Of Fame
BCS Leaders Begin Examination Of Possibly Altering Format
Venezuelan Police Arrest Two More Suspects In Ramos Kidnapping



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Charlize Theron: Breaking Away
Anna Kournikova Not Returning For “Biggest Loser”‘s Next Season
Channing Tatum For “Man From U.N.C.L.E.”?
NBC Unveils Midseason Schedule
“Like Crazy”‘s Felicity Jones Is Warren Beatty’s Choice For Howard Hughes Film
Pink Shares Her Secret For Successful Motherhood
Matthew Weiner On His Beef With Alex Trebek, And How “Mad Men” Will End
Yates To Direct Bigscreen “Doctor Who”



FOREIGNERS
Dozens Killed In Continuing Syrian Violence As Jordan’s King Tells Assad It’s Time To Go
Norwegian Judge Rules Mass Murder Suspect Breivik Not Insane
Israel Continues Withholding $100 Million In Taxes Owed To PA
Karzai Call For Loya Jirga Brings Security Fears, Political Clash
Norks Jolt Japan With Fractious Win In World Cup Qualifier
Two Bangkok Industrial Parks Hold Out Against Flood
Keeping Euro Only Choice For Greece, Papademos Says



BLOGS & STUFF
Nick Gillespie: The Dumbest Theory On Why Pedophilia At A Nonprofit Went Unreported For So Long
Legal Insurrection: Poll – Romney And Newt Tied Up For Lead
Pat Dollard: Cain Sinks
Michelle Malkin: The Real Cain Scandal – Video Cringe Alert
Verum Serum: Video Livestream Of #OWS Being Evicted
Lonely Conservative: Deranged #OWS Crowd Vows To Shut Down Wall Street, Rebuild Neighborhoods
Weasel Zippers: Obama Golfs With Friend Busted In Prostitution Sting
Gateway Pundit: Portland Needs 70 Dump Trucks To Clean Up Filth After #OWS Goons Ejected
Sister Toldjah: CNN Shows Heavy Bias In Waterboarding Question To Obama, Gets Facts Wrong

Category: Live at Five

Allred and Bialek’s Ex-Boyfriend: ‘No Wonder He Didn’t Want to Answer Questions’

Posted on | November 14, 2011 | 35 Comments

Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has video of Gloria Allred’s press conference today with the ex-boyfriend of Cain accuser Sharon Bialek. 

This whole story strikes me as profoundly weird: At the Bialek press conference last week, Allred waved a couple of affidavits from people to whom Bialek previously told her story — as if this proved something. But if all Bialek has is one side of a “he-said/she-said,” what does it matter that her ex-boyfriend attests to her side of the story?

So then today, Allred brought out the ex-boyfriend, Dr. Victor Zuckerman, for his own press conference, at which he read his statement and refused to take questions. And then Professor Jacobson did a quick search and discovered some details of Dr. Zuckerman’s 2010 bankruptcy:

In May 2010 (after the bench trial, but before the judgment was entered) Stratford Pediatric sold its assets to Central DuPage Hospital for $333,000.00 in cash. This money was mostly transferred to Zuckerman’s personal accounts. He soon went on a gambling and day trading spree and lost all of the money. In July 2010, Zuckerman moved to Louisiana. On September 15, 2010, Zuckerman filed a chapter 11 petition in the Western District of Louisiana. His creditors include, among others, Stratford Center (with claims of $675,000.00), his ex-wife (with claims of $89,000.00), and the IRS (with claims of $50,000.00).

So this guy blew more than $300,000 in a gambling spree, declared bankruptcy owing more than $800,000, while Bialek herself has a shaky financial history (never mind the cryptic comments of Bill Kurtis) and the other named accuser, Karen Kraushaar, seems to be a habitual complainant. Everybody keeps saying, “Four accusers! Where there’s smoke, there must be fire!” but when examined critically, the accusers whose names we know don’t seem especially upstanding people. What would we learn about the other two anonymous accusers if they weren’t anonymous?

Anyway, back to Gloria Allred:

Allred says it’s time for Cain to admit he does know Bialek, and “fully disclose” the specifics of the allegations against him. Cain’s strategy of “blanket denials simply won’t work,” she says.

This is absurd: Herman Cain says he doesn’t remember this woman whom, according to her, he met exactly twice in 1997. Since then, Cain has run for Senate in Georgia, built a career as a radio talk-show host, survive Stage 4 cancer, spoken at scores of Tea Party rallies, and launched a yearlong campaign for president. Yet if such a busy man says he doesn’t remember a woman he supposedly met twice 14 years ago, Allred wants us to conclude, Cain must be lying!

And if Cain is innocent, what’s wrong with “blanket denials”? Allred would have made a fine prosecutor in the Moscow show trials.

Category: Election 2012, Herman Cain

Rule 5 Monday

Posted on | November 14, 2011 | 9 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Well, this has been a fine weekend to be without the Intertubes at home. Fortunately, unlike last week’s FMJRA, all I need for Rule 5 Monday is e-mail and WordPress, so let’s see what came in over the transom this week.

The POH Diaries lead off with Kate Upton, followed by a two-part midweek break from Randy’s Roundtable. Fishersville Mike brings us some good news from PSU for a change, and Eye of Polyphemus goes with some Katy Perry this week. Reaganite Republican spoils the fun with the first sharia-compliant Rule 5 post. The Rio Norte Line takes a gander at the new Bond Girl, and also Rachel Grant.

El Opinador Compulsivo checks in with a pair of Colombian bombshells, a report on sweatshop conditions, random pictures here here and here, as well as here, Dakota Fanning’s banned ad, and a high-res picture gallery.

A View From The Beach leads off with Catherine Bell, follows with Avril Lavigne, a review of Silvio Berlusconi’s women, advice for the women on settling, and a video purporting to be the Girls Summer Fail Competition.

Jake Finnegan’s Burkalesque Babe this week is Rachel McAdams. Troglopundit reports on Danica Patrick’s enormous pair, while the theme at Dustbury this week is women not on bicycles. Example A: Famke Janssen. Example B: Jane Seymour.

Proof Positive has Erin Heatherton, vintage babe Evelyn Ankers, another 49er cheerleader, this week’s installment of Sex In Advertising, and in a possibly disastrous crossing of the streams, Pinups For Ron Paul. Maggie’s Notebook has the Top Ten Hottest Blondes, and Three Beers Later checks in with not just Mitzi Gaynor but a Rule 5 poll! Late arrival: That Mr. G Guy with two things that go together: girls and guns!

Soylent Green starts the Rule 5 week early with Leticia Zuolaga and a Daylight Savings Time reminder before getting back into the groove with the large economy-sized Monday Motivationer. Then follows Humpday Hawtness, a shoutout to Bulgarian Go(Oglers), Jessica DeCarlo, the obligatory corsets, and supplementary snooch for Friday.

At The Camp of the Saints, it’s Nanci Li Brandi, the Rule 5 News, Cristina Buccino, Katrina Kaif, Erika Elfwencrona, and a bit of Witches’ Brew.

Thanks to everyone for their links and patience! To be included in next week’s Rule 5 roundup, please send your links to Rule 5 Wombat by November 19.

Category: Rule 5

The Difference Between Junior And Senior Democrats Is The Number Of Zeros

Posted on | November 14, 2011 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

The blogs are alight with the Worst Speaker in U.S. History undertaking actions which, while not illegal, fail to pass the smell test. From the American Spectator:

Yesterday’s “60 Minutes” on CBS included a report on members of Congress profiting from privileged information. The report was based on a upcoming book by Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, and includes instances of Rep. Spencer Bachus and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, benefitting from investing in industries affected by legislation they were working on at the time. The segment is worth reading/watching.

Now, Princess Pelosi is a nationally known piece of work. One hopes that the factual details of the insider trading case will be sufficiently sordid that even the open sewer that is her district cannot stand her any more.

Democrat party hijinks are often more tawdry at lower levels. For a look at Prince George’s County, across the river in the Peoples’ Republic of Maryland, we get Jack B. Johnson,

Jack Bruce Johnson (born April 3, 1949) is an American politician who served as the county executive of Prince George’s County, Maryland from 2002 to 2010. On November 12, 2010, both Johnson and his wife were indicted on federal charges as part of a larger political corruption scandal in the county.[1] On May 17, 2011, Johnson pleaded guilty to extortion and witness- and evidence-tampering.

Today, the FBI released recordings of the bust:

For the first time, the public’s getting to hear private conversations between former Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson and his wife, former Prince George’s County Council member Leslie Johnson, recorded by the FBI as agents arrived at their home to serve a search warrant.
Leslie Johnson was at their Mitchellville home when the FBI arrived, and she had a panicked phone conversation with her husband. He instructed his wife to get a check out of his bedroom dresser drawer.
“Get the little box, and in the box there’s a check,” Jack Johnson told his wife. “Just tear it up or chew it up, or something.”
It was a $100,000 bribe from a developer, according to court documents.

Regarding the wife:

Authorities said when they searched her they found almost $80,000 in her underwear.

Let Nancy and the Johnsons be sentenced to spend a week with #OccupyDC, since the Democrat party is all about the little guy, and the #Occupy weenies are mostly Socialists like the Dems, right?

Category: Democrats, Maryland

‘You Have to Answer for Santino, Carlo’

Posted on | November 14, 2011 | 73 Comments

“Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 16, 2009

“Former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells NRO that he is sure that endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava in the upcoming special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district was the right thing to do.”
— Robert Costa, National Review, Oct. 20, 2009

“She’s dramatically better than the Democrat.”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 21, 2009

“The choice in New York is a practical one . . .”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 22, 2009

“Newt for 2012? No, thanks.”
— Michelle Malkin, Oct. 26, 2009

“If this third-party candidate takes away just enough votes to elect the Democrat, then we will have strengthened Nancy Pelosi by the divisiveness. . . . The money raised in the district is overwhelmingly going to Dede Scozzafava.”
— Newt Gingrich, Oct. 27, 2009

“In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York.”
— Dede Scozzafava, Nov. 1, 2009 (endorsing Democrat)

“I’m very, very let down because she told everybody she was a Republican, and she said she was a loyal Republican.”
— Newt Gingrich, Nov. 2, 2009

“Guess who will not be representing the 23rd District? Dede Scozzafava!”
— supporter of Doug Hoffman, Nov. 3 (Election Night)

“This one was worth the fight. . .  And this is only one fight in the battle. . . . Stand up and fight back.”
— Doug Hoffman, Nov. 3, concession speech

“We cannot forget how this whole thing happened in the first place. . . . The right message here would indict the way party bosses, Republican Party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt screwed the whole thing up, from the get-go.”
— Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 5, 2009

When Allahpundit first asked, “Second look at Gingrich?” on Oct. 18, my visceral reaction was, “Are you freaking kidding me?” Nothing astonishes me more than poll numbers — from PPP and CNN — suggesting that people are taking Newt seriously as a presidential candidate. And of all the prognotications I’ve ever made, of none have I been more confident than in predicting this: It won’t last.

The Newt Bubble is one of two things:

  1. A transition point for the erstwhile Rick Perry voters before they go to one of the other Not Romneys; or
  2. The final doomed hope before these fickle voters — the ones who started out for Tim Pawlenty or some other non-viable candidate, then hopscotched around amongst the Flavor of the Month candidates — shrug their shoulders, say “Why not?” and settle for Mitt Romney.

The croakers are once more pronouncing doom on Herman Cain (all day today the Fox News talking heads have treated Cain dismissively), which doesn’t bother me much since the croakers never believed in Cain to begin with, and they’ve been so wrong so often that I automatically discount their repetitive doomsaying. Cain will either recover or he won’t, but the ultimate non-viability of Newt remains a solid fact.

To get way ahead of the argument, Newt is unelectable, period. If Republicans actually were to nominate him, sending the twice-divorced Pillsbury doughboy up against Obama would be a fool-proof formula for catastrophic electoral wipeout on Nov. 6, 2012. Supporting Gingrich is therefore tantamount to advocating the re-election of Obama. I’m convinced that Republican primary voters will sooner or later wise up to that reality, and the Gingrich Bubble will collapse as suddenly as it has inflated the past two weeks.

What is ironic, of course, is that many of those prominent voices now cheering the Newt Bubble are the same people who often say that they oppose Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum on the grounds that those particular Not Romneys are not “electable.”

These self-authorized arbiters of “electability” are never going to have a chance to be proven wrong about Gingrich in the general election next November because, within the next 10 weeks, it will be demonstrated that Newt can’t beat Romney.

Prediction: Newt won’t even finish ahead of Ron Paul in Iowa.

Why do I say that? Because Ron Paul inspires fanatical devotion from his followers, and can muster armies of fired-up volunteers. By contrast, Newt’s staunchest supporters are respectable Establishment types who aren’t going to be trudging through the snow in Iowa on Jan. 3.

If a blogger really wants to have some fun, do this: Start collecting comments of pundits who are currently pumping up the Newt Bubble. Save the links in a special folder in your browser bookmarks, and wait until the morning of Feb. 1 — the day after the Florida primary — at which point those quotes are going to look silly as hell.

By Feb. 1, Newt will be 0-for-4, his campaign will be deeply in debt, and he’ll be ready to quit and endorse Romney. Take it to the bank.

Of course, if I’m wrong and the Newt Bubble proves an enduring phenomenon so that, on Feb. 1, we’re left with a choice between Newt and Mitt, I’ll endorse Mitt, because I can never forgive Newt for what he did to Doug Hoffman in 2009.

While thousands of grassroots conservatives all across the country were doing all they could to elect Hoffman in the NY-23 special election, Gingrich spent three weeks telling everybody that Dede Scozzafava was “our best hope.” He kept going on TV to repeat the counterfactual assertion that Dede was the unaminous choice of Republicans in the district, while suggsting that Hoffman — a mild-mannered accountant — was some kind of wild-eyed extremist, and that those of us who supported Hoffman were ignorant of the realities in the district. Of course, Newt himself never even bothered to visit that district, and was just repeating what he had been told by the clueless hacks in the New York GOP leadership and at the NRCC.

When push came to shove, as we all remember, Dede quit on Halloween — the Saturday before Election Day — and endorsed the Democrat on Sunday, which was just about the only thing she could have done to prevent Hoffman from winning. In the end, Bill Owens won by less than 4,000 vote out of more than 150,000 votes cast in the special election, with Dede leaving her name on the ballot to collect some 8,500 votes, which was greater than Owens’s margin of victory.

It was Dede Scozzafava, not Doug Hoffman, who was the marginal “spoiler” candidate in that election, a role she played with Newt’s wholehearted support.

Like many of other Republicans of his vintage, Newt never understood or sympathized with the Tea Party movement. Gingrich, like so many GOP Establishment types, seemed to fear the grassroots uprising as a potential third-party threat, and viewed Hoffman’s campaign in that context. But what happened in NY-23 was a unique circumstance that has never been repeated in the past two years, and Gingrich evidently couldn’t be bothered to do the research necessary to discover that his Republican buddies were lying to him: About Dede, about Hoffman and about the 23rd District.

As someone who traveled all over NY-23, I can attest that the district was mostly rural, with a few relatively smallish towns — Watertown and Plattsburgh being the biggest — and a bit of suburban Syracuse thrown in. It was a basically conservative district and there was nothing in Hoffman’s platform that made him unelectable. Frankly, Hoffman’s worst problem in the district was the open hostility shown by the publisher of the Watertown newspaper, who seems to have been a personal friend of Scozzafava and hated Hoffman with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Newt couldn’t be bothered to learn any of that, and made a complete fool of himself: “She said she was a loyal Republican.” Chump.

Here we are two years later, and Gingrich wants to pretend none of that ever happened. Newt is currently prospering because he talks a good game. He’s always been brilliant at articulating issues, and has benefitted by comparison to the hapless Rick Perry, at a time when Herman Cain has been under siege for two weeks. But the Newt Bubble won’t last, because people will eventually remember Newt’s past and his lack of grassroots volunteer enthusiasm will doom his candidacy.

Nobody is going to volunteer to campaign for a career politician who blows half a million at Tiffany for his third wife and then goes off on a luxury Mediterranean cruise. Newt isn’t going to get those $25, $50, $100 campaign contributions from retirees and housewives. Whatever campaign Newt puts together, he’ll have to rely on paid staff, and he’ll get no help from Tea Party activists who remember what he did to Doug Hoffman, the original hero of the Tea Party movement. And if nobody else remembers, we’ll be sure to remind them.

“You have to answer for Santino, Carlo. You fingered Sonny for the Barzini people. . . . Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Stracci. Cuneo. Today I settled all family business so don’t tell me that you’re innocent. Admit what you did.”

Category: Doug Hoffman, Election 2012, Newt Gingrich, Tea Party

Ayn Rand On The Liberal And Liberal-Lite Parties In The U.S.

Posted on | November 14, 2011 | 37 Comments

by Smitty

The Tea Partiers are the moderates; everyone to the Left is suicidal.

NPR quotes Ayn Rand:

“Both [GOP and Democrats] today are for socialism, in effect — for controls. And there is no party, there are no voices, to offer an actual pro-capitalist, laissez-faire, economic freedom and individualism,” she said. “That is what this country needs today.”

The Tea Parties are a de facto second party, infiltrating the Liberal-Lite party.  Hence the tepid response to Mitt Romney at the Defending the American Dream Summit, until he mentioned repealing ObamaCare. Lots of applause. “Should have started with that,” he observed.

The Rand quotation comes from a 1959 interview. Since then, we’ve entered an Information Age. The Nanny State was as brutally stupid toward individuals then as it is now. Subsequently, the demographics have worsened, and the people who used to scream at home, clutching their newspapers, are now blogging, commenting, networking, and comparing notes. The Nanny State delenda est. The likelihood of success for the GOP nominee is proportional to the degree (s)he gets it.

via The Future of Capitalism

Category: Politics, Progressivism

ObamaCare Granted Certiorari

Posted on | November 14, 2011 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

SCOTUSblog reports:

Setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation over federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three separate cases on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law, and set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument, to be held in March. The Court, however, did not grant all of the issues raised and it chose issues to review only from three of the five separate appeals before it. It is unclear, at this point, whether all of the cases will be heard on a single day.

My man Cuccinelli has sounded quite firm and confident about the arguments in Virginia’s case, which is being pulled into the multi-state fracas. 27 states, in fact, desire to tell #OccupyResoluteDesk where to go with his legislative brainchild and what to do with it upon arrival.

Jimmie Bise on Twitter seems to think that a majority of the states could get crushed in a case where constitutionally, economically, financially, historically (to look at Europe) the states totally have the right of it*. Coming as it does during an election year, the SCOTUS will be under extreme pressure not to make the president look worse than usual. A follow-up post at SCOTUSblog summarizes the issues. The intense scrutiny on this issue is going to hurt the Left significantly. So much of ObamaCare in particular and Progressivism in general is predicated upon you shutting up and grazing quietly in your pasture, you ungrateful little sheep.

Yet Progressivism is the dead parrot of our day. I cannot fathom the Roberts court failing to scuttle ObamaCare, at least in a de facto way. There may be enough desire to offer a fig leaf that an attempt is made to leave BHO’s centerpiece ‘achievement’ intact. Certainly, the wording will try to minimize collateral damage to the Progressive project, lest the Roberts court be charged with Judicial Activism, which is only acceptable to Progressives in the service of tearing down what is good about the country.

In a way, it does not matter. Irrespective of the ObamaCare decision, conservatives must double down on efforts to emancipate future generations from the failed promise of the New Deal. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

via Ace of Spades

Update: Linked at The Lonely Conservative

Update II: More at Hot Air, and now a Memorandum thread. Legal Insurrection notes:

And, it does not look like Elena Kagan recused herself from consideration of the cert petitions, so expect her to be part of the decision, notwithstanding very strong evidence that she had some level of prior involvement when Solicitor General.

I, for one, can assert with total confidence that Kagan was not selected specifically to tilt the discussion in favor of ObamaCare. No, wait: it’s blatantly obvious that she was.

Update III: At Power Line, a note on the fact that the SCOTUS will hear 5.5 hours of testimony across four questions:

It is impossible to overstate how remarkable this is. Usually the Supreme Court allows only an hour for a whole case to be argued. They didn’t even extend the time limit for the two Bush v. Gore cases in 2000. Prediction: If the Court strikes down Obamacare, and especially if its opinion goes beyond just the individual mandate, as these issues suggest is possible, look for the Left to start calling it “the Extreme Court.”

Since we’re in an all politics, all the time era, we see how Obama tries to leverage the abject failure of his policies into a “blame conservatives” game. ObamaCare was sabotaged by the GOP and Buuuuush appointees. In order to usher in the Progressive Human Unicorn Cornucopia (PHUC), we must re-elect #OccupyResoluteDesk, so he can appoint more drool bucketwise softball player Justices, and break through this conservative roadblock.

Update IV: The Federalist Society Blog:

the Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate and Luncheon at The Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, former solicitor general Paul Clement and Professor Laurence Tribe debated the very question. It was truly a preview of coming attractions since Clement will be arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

A very interesting post, showing just how far off a straightforward interpretation of our Constitution, and into the realms of sophistry we have journeyed.
Video here.

*That tweet is so Eeyore-ish as to invite the question: Is Jimmie Bise actually the international man of mystery known as Allahpundit?

Category: Health Care

‘The People Who Peddle This Stuff Deserve Neither Respect, Nor Credit for Good Intentions, Which in Fact They Lack.’

Posted on | November 14, 2011 | 46 Comments

So says Professor Glenn Reynolds about those vicious feminist ax-grinders whose hatefulness is at least partly inspired by their self-interest as brokers at the redemption window where ordinary molehills of hurt feelings can be exchanged for Himalyayas of entitled victimhood:

The words used in workshops — “uncomfortable,” “inappropriate,” “hostile” — are vague, subjective, slippery. Feminists and liberal pundits say, with some indignation, that they are not talking about dirty jokes or misguided compliments when they talk about sexual harassment, but, in fact, they are: sexual harassment, as they’ve defined it, encompasses a wide and colorful spectrum of behaviors. . . . [W]hen I was at Princeton in the ’90s, the guidelines distributed to students about sexual harassment stated, “sexual harassment may result from a conscious or unconscious action, and can be subtle or blatant.”

To explain what’s wrong with the criminalization of “misguided compliments” might require a book, although we could summarize what’s wrong with it in a single word: Everything.

People respond to incentives. The Feminist Victimhood Narrative inspires a culture of grievance, which incentivizes self-pity, scapegoating and vindictiveness. Where grievance multiplies and the list of prohibited behaviors expands, the vendors of feminist ideology are able to enlist their clients as saleswomen to help them generate demand for their product.

It’s the Amway approach to ideological hegemony.

Everyone encounters unfairness and hostility at some point in their lives. Everyone suffers wrongs that make them angry. However, feminism encourages women to think of themselves as members of a permanent victim class encompassing half of humanity, engaged in a daily zero-sum struggle against a demonized enemy, The Patriarchy. And if ever any woman believes herself to have encountered injustice at the hands of a member of The Patriarchy, feminism stands ready to aid her in her heroic struggle against the perpetrator.

Collective empowerment by such means can only be accomplished by the diminution of the individual, persuading people that they lack autonomy and agency, and stigmatizing those who refuse to join in the collectivist enterprise.

When you call feminists out for their totalitarian evil, you will predictably be accused of defending everything ever done wrong by any man anywhere throughout the course of history. Thus do feminists protect their perverse worldview against critical scrutiny, by arrogating to themselves the authority to declare any critic a “sexist” or worse.

Did I mention there will be a Gloria Allred press conference today?

Category: Feminism
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin