jump to navigation

The continued tunnel vision of Amanda Marcotte UPDATED May 19, 2007

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Pandamansanity, Pharyngulism.
trackback

I mean, really.

South Dakota legislator Ted Klaudt has been arrested for a rather mind-boggling list of of sexual crimes against underage girls that he had in his custody as a foster parent.

Ted Klaudt, 49, a Republican rancher from Walker, faces a long list of charges: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking….

In the most disturbing accusation, the girls say Klaudt had them convinced they could earn up to $20,000 by donating their eggs to a fertility clinic. And even though he has no medical training, the girls say Klaudt did all the supposed “exams” and “procedures” himself.

Naturally, he’s a Republican.

Now look. I’m not going to sit here and defend Klaudt. I have little difficulty imagining that the man had trouble keeping his hands to himself. This seems to be a problem that many men who lust for power have. They also lust after domination; voters, little girls, aides, whomever.

But don’t tell me that this pathology is confined to the Right.

Ever hear of an Arkansas hillbilly by the name of Bill Clinton that enjoyed absuing his office so he could sodomize fat young interns?

You’re a hypocrite, Amanda.

UPDATE

Meanwhile, noted Organic Brain Damage victim Myers weighs in, now criticizing all South Dakotans.  What a twit.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. AnitoKid - May 20, 2007

Just these words to the people of South Dakota: Hang Klaudt. And I kid you not!

2. demolition65 - May 20, 2007

I believe you miss the point of my post, sir/madam.

3. John - May 20, 2007

Exactly!! Finally, someone who agrees with me that Bill Clinton having consensual sex with an adult is exactly the same as a child raping republican! The left-tards are just too (moon)batty to recognize what a child-rapist Bill Clinton is!!! Does their hypocrosy know no bounds?

(seriously wtf is wrong with you?)

4. demolition65 - May 21, 2007

Read.
My.
Lips.
ABUSE.
OF.
OFFICE.
There ARE similarities, significant ones, beginning with taking a position of power and authority over others and then exploiting that power difference for one’s own aggrandizement.
At least in this case, I don’t have to ask “wtf is wrong with YOU?” The diagnosis is simple. A combination of BDS coupled with MoonBat Blinder Syndrome. (MBS, pat. pending).

5. John - May 21, 2007

Just a minor point really, but Klaudt’s crime was not his abuse of power; it was raping children.

Clinton’s activities were unethical. He was married, and although the sex was consensual, there were indeed power issues because he was her top boss. However, he was the president, not the general manager of a Jiffy Lube, and the illicit nature of their affair put a significant amount of power back into Lewinsky’s hands. To try to cast the Lewinsky affair as anything remotely similar to Klaudt is irrational.

Tell me, if some former democratic NY state legislator was arrested for raping children, and one of us moonbats (what does that even mean?) strolled in here and said “That was wrong, but republicans are hypocrites, because Bush did X, which is totally the same as raping children.” I’d wager that you’d call that irrational, or deranged, or some other appropriately disparaging adjective. (Or just BDS). And you’d be right.

The thing about BDS that seems so fascinating is the projection that accompianies the accusation. Presumably BDS is when liberals can’t think rationally because they Hate Bush, because they are teh suck. The shear magnitude of this inverse projection boggels my mind. Please help me understand your “logic.”

(seriously wtf is wrong with you?)

6. demolition65 - May 21, 2007

Abuse of power is abuse of power is abuse of power. By any other name, and all of that.

The comparison is not irrational. particularly when considering the initial context of the post: The people bringing this up are using Klaudt’s behavior to smear Republicans (and in some cases, all of South Dakota), when the issue is not one of Republicans (or South Dakotans), but one of abuse of power by one idiot congresscritter from South Dakota
Hence, the rationality of my comparison. And if the state legislator of your example is then being used as a means by me to smear all of the Democratic party. . .I’d be well-served in being called a “hypocrite.”

But I haven’t done that.

And it’s “sheer”, as in “precipitous”, not “shear” as in “to cut”.

As for your last question, inverted, my diagnosis still stands.

Have a nice day. 🙂

7. demolition65 - May 21, 2007

PErhaps I have not been clear enough about Klaudt’s abuse of power. Since you show signs of being a simpleton, I’ll spell it out.

He had power over those girls. He then abused that power for his own aggrandizement. Really, pretty simple. Doesn’t matter if he was elected to that office or not.

8. John - May 21, 2007

I’m afraid you’re still missing the point. While I acknowledge their were power disparity issues in the Clinton affair, I refuse to agree that inappropriate but consenual relationships are equivalent to child rape.

Is it so hard to believe that what appalled people about this case is that this man raped children, rather than his relationship to those children? It’s very disturbing that he was a foster parent to these children, but its more disturbing that he RAPED THEM!

Also, all abuses of power are not created equal, and it is trivially obvious why. Clinton’s consensual sexual relationship with an adult is simply not in the same ballpark as this slob raping children. It really is that simple.

But I would dearly like to help you understand the absurdity of your position, so here goes.

For Marcotte to be a hypocrite, 1) she would have to endorse Clinton’s behavior while 2) condemning Klaudts, and 3) their respective behavior must be suitably comparable to warrant the charge of hypocrisy. (With numbers to help you follow!)

1) I’m not aware that she has endorsed Clinton’s behavior. I suspect that she has not. I imagine that she has written about the absurd waste of tavpayer time and money when the republicans made Clintons penis public enemy #1, but that’s hardly the same thing as excusing his behavior. I wouldn’t even be suprised if Marcotte has written about Clinton and admonished his behavior on a personal, ethical level. But again, I am not aware of her specific history of writing regarding this, and it would certainly strengthen your argument if you could point it out. It seems that you just assumed that because Marcotte is liberal, and Clinton is a democrat, she must naturally excuse everything he does. The tendency to excuse bad acts due to party affiliation is second nature to wingnuts, so I understand why you assumed this.

2) She has condemned Klaudts behavior, but she certainly did not explicitly condemn Klaudt because he abused his trust as a foster parent. If I had to wager, I would imagine that what really nauseated her was not Klaudt’s abuse of trust, but the raping of the children.

3) Finally, the two situations are not meaningfully comparable. Again, Klaudt’s abuse of power was his minor crime; his child raping was his major crime. Clinton’s major crime was perjury. There is an argument to be made that Clinton’s affair should concern feminists because of the power disparity of the involved couple; in fact this argument has been made, and discussed, for about 8 or 9 years now. The bottem line is ultimately that Lewinsky was an intelligent, consenting, adult, and there were never any explicit or implicit threats made to coerce her behavior. Finally, I think you missed my point about the significance of Clinton’s position. The fact that he was President gave him great power over Lewinsky, but it also gave her great power over him. She had the tremendous power to go public and embarrass Clinton, or blackmail him if she wanted. Indeed, the potential for blackmail is probably the most troubling issue in such affairs for me (I dont care how a politician gets off, unless it affects his/her ability to do his/her). This all does not excuse Clinton’s behavior, but it is foolish to imagine that the President is all powerful and immune from attack. Few people in the nation are under such immense public scrutiny, and this protects whistleblowers (please no bj jokes there).

That you so acrobatically try to compare Clinton and Klaudt to cry “Hypocrisy!” says much more about you than it does about Marcotte.

Please, help me understand where you fail to understand.

(PS. Thanks for pointing out that I incorrectly used a homonym of “sheer.” I will surely make similar mistakes in the future, but this one made me chuckle. I’m an engineering grad student, and today I’d been writing a report on the catastrophic failure of carbon fiber/e-glass composite centrifuges for uranium enrichment, wherein I used the word “shear” dozens of times, and “sheer” not at all. My mistake. Please let me know if I make another mistake!)

(for real bro wtf is wrong with you?)

9. John - May 21, 2007

Haha, I did it again! Second sentence at that. their=there. I promise I’ll proofread next time.

10. John - May 21, 2007

A few more for you;

1) I wrote “Tavpayer” instead of “taxpayer”
2) I failed to place the possessive apostrophe in on of the “Clinton’s”
3) I wrote “bottem” rather than “bottom”

Apologies.

11. demolition65 - May 22, 2007

in re: #1: The tendency to excuse bad acts due to party affiliation is second nature to wingnuts, so I understand why you assumed this.

Is this anything like the tendency of moonbats to attribute all sins of some Republicans to ALL Republicans? Which Marcotte is doing here? Which is the original point of the post, which keeps getting missed here?

Just a little reminder of Marcotte’s tagline: Naturally, he’s a Republican.. That’s all that need be said on #1. You are trying to change the subject. If I failed to make that suffciently clear in the original post, I don’t give a damn.

But to indulge your point for just a moment: Marcotte is such a foamingly paranoid lunatic when it comes to teh dicks and how they persecute women, I would say that Clinton’s abuse of office is simply ripe for a ripping from someone like her. Why have none of us heard about it?

re, #2: Fine. So she’s nauseated. So am I. Again, what is the point? This appears to be an extension of #1, an effort to change the subject.

re, #3: I am at the point of dismissing you as being willfully obtuse. The point is making gross generalizations regarding groups of people based on the degenerate behavior of one person, not the one-for-one comparisons of Clinton and Kaludt’s sins. I then used CLinton as a comparable example of making these vast, sweeping and in-the-end incorrect generalizations.

While your engineering work is I am sure admirable and may have direct application to the industry of Our Friends the Mullahs of Iran (as in, showing exactly where they may be in creating the Bomb -no, I am not making a snide aside that you would be trying to assist them-), this appears to be an effort to imply your intellectual superiority.

Don’t bother.

I cannot be any clearer. Perhaps your diagnosis requires that obtuseness be added.

12. John - May 22, 2007

Alas, DemolitionMan, despite your blunt barbs it I fear it is you who is being deliberately obtuse. Would you agree that Marcotte’s post was an off the cuff one liner? Yes, it’s a cheap shot, but then you went and got your panties in a bunch and cried hypocrisy, which is where I accused you of either being thick or not understanding what hypocrisy means.

It’s not a change of subject, it is the subject. Marcotte was not being hypocritical, clearly. You disagreed with her shot, in which case you should explain why you disagree, not level a false charge.

We have so many back and forths I must abandon some for the sake of brevity. I think I clearly refuted the charge of hypocrisy in my last post.

I do want to reiterate the idiocy of taking Marcotte to task for not admonishing Clinton, however. As I said, I suspect that she has addressed those very issues you so inartfully raised, and you really should do some searching to find what she has said on the subject before you declare her a hypocrite for her lack of denunciation. Clinton was 10 years ago! Why would she still be writing about him today? Are you saying that in order for her to avoid being a hypocrite, that every time she makes fun of the child raping republicans she should add an addendum about Clinton’s moral wrongs, lest she be unfair to republicans?

My dear demolitionman, I am afraid this entire exchange has been bred by your lack of comprehension of the word “hypocrite.” It is a word with a specific meaning that seems lost on you.

As an aside, yes, I did go into some detail to snobbishly refer to my academic pursuits. U enrichment is not a field I am in, it’s for a mechanics of failure class. I didn’t think it would bother you, because no one else reads this blog besides you and me. Incidently, I found it because I was surfing PZ’s kill file, and checking out the troll websites. Care to discuss global warming and atheism next?

(yo im not kidding wtf is wrong with you)

13. brian - May 22, 2007

As much as it pains me to do this, Hoody, I’m going to have to agree with John on this one.

Amanda’s diss on the Republican Party was incredibly weak, but it doesn’t make her a hypocrite unless she somehow endorsed or defended Clinton’s…”mistake.”

That’s my deeply profound and original take on this subject..

Tx2FN,
Brian

14. demolition65 - May 22, 2007

This comment revolves around one assumption:
Would you agree that Marcotte’s post was an off the cuff one liner? Nope. Sorry. I don’t buy that line of reasoning. Consequently, much if not all of the rest of your comment is invalid.

As for my understanding of the word “hypocrite”, I still call “BS”. Find me the time she took one of her ideological brethren to task for wanderiong off the reservation. I’m not gonna waste my time reading her tripe to search for it. Evidence suggests quite strongly that it is not there. She loves to slam the RIght, while the Left gets a free pass. That’s a double standard. That’s hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, if the last paragraph is somehow designed to lower my self-esteem for suggesting that no one else is reading this, or that Myers’ list of people who challenge his relentless Party Line (the Dawkobot line, so to speak), well, nice try but not really. I could care less if anyone reads this. I write to vent my spleen, as I announce at the very top. As for Myers, getting banned from Pharyngula is like getting banned from the Playboy Club or the Yearly Kos. There are some places where it’s a badge of honor to be on the blacklist.

As for global warming and atheism, bring it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: