The wording was, I think, little inappropriate (I especially regret "the Idiot Marcotte," which I think was a little unncessary under the circumstances) but the point is valid. TheraP obviously thinks making unsubstantiated assertions—unsubstantiated that is other than to put out a couple of names that the reader has to go through the trouble of looking up—is his idea of how to make a convincing point. This tactic is especially questionable since he makes the outragelous and patently abusrd claim that penis envy applies more to men than it does to women. Unless I'm very much misinformed, having a penis is one of the defining pieces of equipment for the male of the species which somewhat relates as the whole concept of penis envy relies on the party involved not having one.

And as long as we're trading compliments, you called my rather cutting wisecrack at Ms. Faludi's expense "inane." According to my dictionary inane as an adjective means "1.lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions. 2.empty; void." As I explained, asking Ms. Faludi how her penis envy was doing was an ironic sarcasm aimed at Feminists' tendency to quote Freud as an authority figure when it suits them and to damn him as a sexist quack when it doesn't, penis envy being a prime example of the latter. Ironically, it is your charge of my being inane that is inane. Nice work. And thank you so much for your marvelously substantive remarks.

Posted at November 12, 2007 8:19 AM in response to Final Thoughts and Thanks

TheraP, you can find "research" to prove just about any point you like. Merely, asserting that he's valid and citing a couple of names means diddly squat (see my response to the Idiot Marcotte). Freud was a self-evident quack who has quite justifiably fallen out of favor. Granted, there is a very very slight possibility that you're onto something and that I am making an intellectually tragic mistake in choosing to ignore you but the overwhelming odds are that you're a deluded twit who knows little about critical thinking.

Posted at November 11, 2007 6:27 PM in response to Final Thoughts and Thanks

Says you, TheraP. Says you.

Posted at November 10, 2007 5:35 PM in response to Final Thoughts and Thanks

You are, of course, and without presenting any evidence of your own, presuming that Freud is right exactly when he support Faludi's point, thus proving my point. Freud's methods were consistent and since he has obviously produced results that are screaming bupkis he is discredited wholesale as an authoritative voice. In other words, Freud may be right occasionally but you're nuts if you think it just because he says so. That's critical thinking 101. I'm sure George Bush is occasionally right but I wouldn't take his word for anything either. Hell even you're right occasionally, your magnificent work regarding the Duke Lacrosse case nonwithstanding but I wouldn't believe anything you say without some significant backup.

I don't think much of authority figures, period. Reality is not determined by authority be it feminist, Freudian or the Catholic church. Reality is determined by examining empirical evidence and by comparing notes with others, not by quoting long-discredited quacks. Apparantly this is news to some people.

Posted at November 10, 2007 5:26 PM in response to Final Thoughts and Thanks

I'd always thought it was a covert protest against McCarhtyism: Bad guys come to threaten us but rather than unite against said threat most people decide to be cowards so as not to get hurt.

Posted at November 10, 2007 1:18 PM in response to The Terror Dream and Its Consequences

According to a news report I just saw with the opening of Young
Frankenstein, he's planning on doing exactly that.

Posted at November 10, 2007 12:42 PM in response to The Terror Dream and Its Consequences

Hey Susan, as long as you're quoting Freud, how's your penis envy doing?

Forgive me for explaining the joke but in case anyone's thinking of complaining about this post with an eye towards censorship, I am commenting on the ironic tendency of certain feminists to quote Freud as an authoritative source when it serves their purpose and damn him for the insufferable quack he so undoubtably was when it doesn't.

Posted at November 10, 2007 8:06 AM in response to Final Thoughts and Thanks

1) I would happily throw Bush and Giuliani to the wolves. Whether Sharpton is worse or better is utterly beside the point. The point is that voters dislike him for reasons that make perfect rational sense.
2) It is completely unnecessary to demonize Sharpton. He's done that just fine all by himself. The reason the Republicans paid for his presidential campaign is because they know that.
3) I do not recall Giuliani reviling anyone who got a broomstick shoved up his ass by crazy cops. I do remember a report that the cops shouted "It's Giuliani time!" while doing it and that that report later turned out to be false.
4) What exactly do Elian Gonzales or Terry Schiavo have to do with the fact that Sharpton is a lying sack of shinoloa?

If anyone is wondering why Rush Limbaugh & Co. have been able to paint liberals as crazy, this is a pretty good example right here.

It's just like Seinfeld. Nobody ever learns anything.

Posted at September 11, 2007 5:21 PM in response to Crank Politics

Considering that Al Sharpton was a featured speaker at the 2004 DNC and in view of whiterosebuddy's response, which in my experience is anything but unusual when Saint Sharpton is openly criticized, I'd say, yeah: Infatuation is the right word.

Posted at September 11, 2007 11:19 AM in response to Crank Politics

"Maybe, you are unaware of the deeply moralistic values that drove the civil rights movement and unaware of how religious AA's are? "

Strange as it may seem whiterosebuddy, I do not consider falsely accusing people of rape, comparing Mario Cuomo to Hitler, supporting an ally as he fasely accused NYS Attorney General Robert Abrams of maturbating over the photo of a supposed rape victim, implying that anyone who didn't believe her frankly ridiculous rape story of racism—in short whipping up an acrimonious racial frenzy for the purpose of calling attention to oneself— to be my idea of "deeply moralistic values." It seems to me that the problem here is that you, like so many people, including a large number of notriously tin-eared liberals, are easily taken in by the words of charlatans and have a chronic inability to appreciate legitimate reasons why others do not see things the same way that you do.

Here's the question I'd like you to answer: If Al Sharpton is such a plus for Democrats why did the Republicans, especially Roger Stone who was instrumental in stopping the 2000 Florida recount, finance his campaign?

The grand irony is that no one has done more to discredit racism as a compelling issue than Al Sharpton. Of such stuff are liberal allies made.

Posted at September 11, 2007 11:14 AM in response to Crank Politics