Saturday, September 16, 2006

We Don't Support Gropers except for Bill Clinton

In a recent post, Ann Althouse rightly pokes fun at a picture of a group of left-leaning bloggers who met with and posed with Bill Clinton. Professor Althouse points out the irony of a female blogger from a "feminist" blog standing in front of Clinton posing in a rather provocative stance. When the blogger, Jessica, comes to protest on Professor Althouse's blog that she is being judged for her looks (yes, she is pretty clueless), she gets this dressing down from the professor:

Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don't assume you're the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog....

Well, the irony to me is that the same left-leaning "feminist" types fawn over, and show support for Bill Clinton--one of the biggest gropers and sexual harrassers around--all the while shrieking that if a man tries to touch them in a bar, all bets are off and physical violence will follow. In response to my post about whether or not a woman should use a violent reaction in response to being almost touched in a bar, the "feminists" came out in full force to say that I was supporting gropers when I said that using violence in that setting as an initial reaction was not the best idea.

But, apparently, if the man is powerful and a real sociopath--uhh, I mean charmer--these "feminists" sing a different tune. Groping, sexual harassment, and unwanted advances from such a doll (with beautiful blue eyes at that!) are A-OK with them and here is the picture to prove it. You go, girls!


Update: Well, I guess Jessica from the Feministing blog who is featured in the Clinton picture above is making the rounds to various blogs to stand up for her honor. She writes:

Helen, you're being disingenuous about my response to the Althouse. I didn't complain about the POST judging my looks, but rather the comments in the thread doing so. Which, if you read them, are clearly completely focused on the way I looked. So please, if you’re going to post about this—at least be honest.

I’m not even going to touch the fact that you think standing for a picture is “provocative.”

My response---


I really do not care how you look in the picture -- I care that you were in the picture at all. Really, posing with Bill Clinton as the poster boy for women's rights? Come on....I would have been flipping him a bird for making a fool of me and my gender.

If you were a gay-rights activist, would you happily pose with David Duke?

Update II: Jessica offers a very reasonable response:

And I think that's a completely valid argument. But then why link to a post that became all about my breasts? Don't you think that's beneath the conversation you'd like to have?

My response:

Thanks for offering something that can start a logical conversation. I am sorry if your looks got dragged into this, but I assume that it was the posturing of your body--that you looked so proud etc. to be with Bill Clinton etc. that led others to believe that you "approved" of his past behavior. I realize that maybe you did feel proud--that you were invited to go meet a former President--I can understand that. However, given the values you say that you are for--women's rights, the right not to be sexually harrassed in the workplace etc., can you really say that posing with him was the right thing to do? If I was anti-war and posed with Bush, smiling the whole time with a weapon in my hand, would you not wonder about me and point out my hypocrisy? BTW, this is not the case for me--I would be fine with posing with President Bush etc. but that is another story.

Update III: Seriously people, the breast thing is getting really dull--I do not give a damn if women want to put their breasts all over the internet--unless they have a political agenda that is hypocritical. As you can see, the t-shirts I have worn on the internet are proof of how little I care if women model t-shirts etc., their tits etc.

However, when you have a political message that contradicts the wearing of these t-shirts, it is fair game to call a person out on it. I am not holding myself out as a feminist blog opposed to sexual harassment and then running out to get my picture made with Bill Clinton--if I did, I would see myself as the hypocrit I would rightly be.

Again, children, this is not about breasts--it is about the politics of "feminists" who balk at the idea that they cannot break the fingers of men who approach them in a bar and then have the gall to actually defend a group of "feminists" who hang out with Mr. Happy Hands himself. Just my observation. Now I have to get going--thanks for all the links from your angry blogs--it really helps boost my traffic!

Update IV: The real reason lefty bloggers who dine with Clinton are so upset.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Oriana Fallaci Dies

Sadly, the writer Oriana Fallaci has died of cancer (Hat Tip: With Malice Toward None). I have always been a big fan or her work--especially The Rage and The Pride. There is more at

Thursday, September 14, 2006

A Note on Comments

You might have noted that I enabled the comment moderation for a couple of days during a discussion of this post. While I enjoy lively discussion and have no problem with disagreements with myself or others, the thread disinigrated into such a juvenile level of name calling, and just plain silly behavior that I chose to moderate the comments.

Remember, I do not have time to always read through and moderate these comments as they come in--and I really do not want to, as I feel that people should say what they want on my blog, within reason. But, unfortunately, people also associate my views with the commenters--making it my business what people here say. But some of the commenters--particularly those coming from live journal sites (you know you've hit bottom when you see these in your referral stats) are just attacks, plain and simple. If you wish to change people's minds, at least use an ounce of common sense and decency, unless your purpose is just to harrass others, in which case, you are wasting your time here.

I will add that most of my regular readers are gems, have great insight and even when they do not like what I say, are polite and knowleadgeable, often getting me to stop and think. However, the trolls make it more difficult for everyone. I hope that I can keep the comment section open and unmoderated and that good sense (and good discussion) will prevail.

Podcast with Bill Frist

Today, we have Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist back on to discuss some important issues that are going on this week in Congress. First, he talks about the earmark transparency bill on pork which has now passed the Senate and the House. Next, he moves on to his new site,, the military tribunal bill, why he supports Bob Corker in the Tennessee senate race and finally, what he plans on doing after his term is up.

You can listen to the podcast here at Pajamas Media--no downloading necessary. You can download the file by clicking right here. If you're a dialup user, you can click here for a lo-fi version. You can find our past podcast archives at the

Update: For those of you who prefer a transcript of our talk with Senator Frist, click here.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006


A school shooting in Montreal--this time at a college campus.

Update: Sari Stein has more on the shooting here (Hat tip: Instapundit). What I found most interesting is that Canadians seem to have no realization that violent crime exists:

Just to give you an idea of how uncommon it is to hear gunshots in Montreal, CBC is interviewing one student who said she was in the other cafeteria at the time when they first heard the shots, and that for about 10 minutes afterwards, people just continued doing whatever they were doing before, because nobody actually realized they were gunshots until someone ran into the room screaming at them to get out. She said everyone assumed it was a joke, or fireworks, or just a random loud noise.

This same lack of awareness and realization of danger was apparent when a madman opened fire in the 1989 massacre at École Polytechnique at the University of Montreal :

Satisfied, the rampage killer returned to the escalator and went down. His next stop: the first floor cafeteria, where more than 100 people had gone for dinner. Students running through had urged them all to flee, but many had dismissed the warnings as last-day pranks. Those few who decided to leave did so quickly. Many remained and continued with their meal or indulged in the free wine offered that day to celebrate the term ending. Around them hung signs wishing them a Happy New Year a year that some would never see. For them, it would be their last drink.

Maybe it's time Canadians opened their eyes and started providing instructions to students on how to respond in an emergency because sitting there finishing your lunch is as clueless as it gets.

Update: Here is a link to the killer's webpage at Notice on the page that his dislikes include "Animal Cruelty, anyone who supports the American Government, capitalists, Republicans, racists" and just about everybody else. I wonder where his life and mind took such a wrong turn to be so full of hate?

Why Blog?

Dr. Wes discusses his reasons for blogging.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Podcast with Bob Corker

Today we are talking with Bob Corker, the former Mayor of Chattanooga, Tennessee, who is running for Bill Frist's Senate seat in November. Corker, a Republican is running against Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. and it looks like it will be a close race--so close that John Hawkins at Right Wing News has categorized this campaign a "dogfight." Mr. Corker talks with us about where he stands on national security, gun rights, immigration, spending and how he differs from his opponent.

You can listen to the podcast by clicking here or by subscribing via iTunes. If you have dial-up, you can listen here.

Or you can just go here and click on the gray Flash player to listen directly from your browser with no downloading required.

You can listen and compare the two candidates on the issues by listening to our previous interview with Harold Ford, Jr. too, if you'd like.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

A Bit of an Over-Reaction?

I saw on author John Scalzi's blog that his wife, Krissy, had a run-in with a drunk at a bar who was apparently trying to pick her up (Hap tip: Instapundit). Scalzi states:

She basically ignored him for most of the evening, until the point where the guy actually tried to touch her. At which point she shoved him up against a wall, jammed her arm into his throat and said, "I have had enough of you being rude and disrespectful toward women. The next time I see you, you will be polite and show respect." At which point the dude started blubbering all sorts of drunken apologies.

Scalzi shows a picture of Krissy with a baseball bat and a caption reading, "Respect me for me. Or because I will beat the holy crap out of you. Really, it's your choice." How charming. So the implication is that if one is a woman, she can beat the crap out of someone for "disrespecting her?" This regressive behavior is typical of the violent youth I see who have so little impulse control that they beat someone up for "dissing them." I would hope a grown woman of Krissy's obvious intelligence would have more sense than that. But no. She decides that a man in an open public place just trying to touch her warranted shoving him against a wall and putting her hand to his throat.

Apparently the female commenters to this post advocate assault against men and are as regressed as Krissy, if not more so:

Most excellent.It reminds me of when my friend Shernita confronted with an aggressive yahoo who referred to her as a [n-word - sorry, can't even type it] in a bar. She asked if that was le mot juste, and on being provided with an affirmative, politely introduced the speaker's face to her knee.

Krissy Rocks! I've always wanted her to guest post...or start her own blog. But now I know that she is too busy doing the essential task of keeping men in their place.

Note to Krissy: I have found the breaking of fingers is also quite effective, as I believe you noted earlier. Were you channeling Jane?

If a man lost his self control and put his hand to a female admirer's throat, think of the repurcussions. He might be arrested for assault or at least thrown out of the bar. Instead, a woman is seen as really cute and a real sexual turn-on as is stated by one of the male commenters to the post, "I think I just got a hard-on..." Talk about sexist--the real sexism here is by male and female commenters who act like a women's act of violence is so ineffectual, it should be labeled as cute and sexy.

Krissy had a number of options before she used violence in this situation, for it is not one of self-defense like someone breaking into your house or holding you up on the street. It is a common annoyance that happens in bars and does not usually warrant a choke-hold as an initial reaction. She ignored the guy initially--great--but that didn't work. The next step might have been to talk firmly to the guy, if that didn't work, some verbal humiliation might be next along with some verbal intimidation. Perhaps she could have gone next to the manager and told him or her that this man was bothering her--they might have put him out. After that, if he physically touched her, a warning that physical consequences would follow might be next and then they should follow.

But to start with violence, to me is an over-reaction, and one that she and her husband, along with their joyous commenters should not be celebrating. It is giving women license to use force when no clear danger is present other than dealing with annoying drunks who find them attractive. Is this annoying?--yes. Upsetting?--yes. But deadly? It sure didn't seem that way from the description.

Fathers teach boys the boundaries of when and how to use violence appropriately--at least they used to. Boys with good role models for fathers teach them how to control their aggressive impulses when necessary as well as when to use them appropriately in the right situation. Perhaps we should be teaching the same concepts to girls and women.

When I write about self-defense, people often accuse me of favoring violence in general. But that's not true. Violence in self-defense is different from violence in response to "disrespect." Part of being responsible is being . . . responsible.

Update: Krissy posts a response to a commenter's questions:

Several questions:

Did she ask him, politely or not, to leave her alone first before actually attacking him?

Why is it that everyone here seems to be turned on by belligerent, butch women?

Do you know any lawyers? Because if she actually hits someone who annoys here with a bat you're going to need one.

Krissy | September 10, 2006 05:28 PM

K -

- Yes, I did ask him several times to leave it alone.

- I may be a bitch woman but I am neither butch nor belligerent.

- I did not actually hurt the little man.

Update II: Why is it that lefty bloggers can never understand the difference between self-defense and a bar room brawl? Could it be that in the former instance, a person is puting into practice their second amendment rights and in the latter one (at least in the above instance) a woman is humilating a man?

Update III: John Scalzi updated his post to say that Krissy was grabbed and not just touched. My post was in response to his original one saying that the man tried to touch her-- if he had originally stated that the man had grabbed her etc., my post would have read differently as that would have been more evidence that the measures she took, were indeed, warranted. However, I am still of the opinion that promoting a picuture with a caption that advocates extreme measures--beating the crap out of others--for disrespect--is not socially useful. "Disrespect" is not generally a concept one can use as a legal defense to warrant using self-defense.

Vox Day has more thoughts on the incident--very reasonable ones, I might add.