I am in the midst of working on other things, but I thought I would toss this little morsel to all of you snapping piranhas out there in waters of cyberspace, demanding to be fed! ;-)
I stumbled upon this item while I was digging through forgotten folders on my computer. It was in a text file, and appears to have been a comment which I posted on Hugo Schwyzer's blog way, way back in the dusty past. I can only
faintly remember this, and I think that it dates to my pre-blogging days!
The file was titled 'Post2Hugo', and I must have saved it in keeping with my usual modus operandi when I am posting comments on other people's websites. I keep such items for sentimental reasons of course, but also because I may want to exhibit them later and say "look what Joe Blow didn't let through moderation on his blog! Well here it is, you get to read it anyway!!"
I also save such items for their intrinsic value, since I am often inspired by the heat of the moment when I compose them, and they are often pretty decent material. The following is a case in point. It was evidently posted to a thread where a certain news story was under discussion—exactly which story I cannot say, although I think it might have been the one about the retired NYC doctor who committed a spectacular arson/suicide when he was apparently getting shafted in a divorce settlement. (He set fire to his Manhattan brownstone flat.)
I share the following because the points it makes are
damned important— and central, and pivotal—and because it summarizes those points rather well. And no, Schwyzer did NOT let it through moderation. At least not so far as my quick Google query could reveal:
Regarding what DaveTheRave said: Quite so! Steals the words straight out of my mouth. But still, I'd like to add a bit.
The feminist modus operandi is to throw a SPOTLIGHT upon episodes of malfeasance by males, the more spectacular the better. And if there is a titillating sexual aspect to it, that's the best of all!
The motivation behind this policy is both anti-male, and political. Let me put that plainly; the purpose is to collectively blacken the name of MEN, to harm MEN as a group, to injure MEN as a group, to poison the well of opinion against MEN as a group... and all for the central purpose of justifying further political action against MEN as a group.
An incident of spectacular male villainy (or even buffoonery!) surfaces in the news, and the feminists are all over it like flies on sh~t! They can never treat the episode sui generis, oh heavens no! It is always a morality tale about men in the abstract. In so behaving, feminists show themselves activated by base considerations.
They are also pouring gasoline upon the flames of the present gender crisis, which is unwise in my opinion.
Regarding the news story under discussion, my own position is very simply that a crime has been committed, that the accused (if he were still alive) would be entitled to due process like any other citizen, and that if found guilty by proper standards of evidence ought to recieve a sentence fitting his transgression. I offer NO excuses, NO justifications for what he did. I will undertake NO spin-doctoring of a political nature in this case or any similar case. I will take the plain-vanilla, Joe Friday facts exactly as they are, because....well, I'm a Joe Friday kinda guy, I reckon! 
I would expect others to do the same. And if they fail in this, I would take them severely to task for it. The ball is in THEIR court. The onus is on THEM specifically. I sincerely hope they will straighten up and fly right. If they don't, then a worsening gender crisis will be one of the PREDICTABLE consequences.
More... 
6th-January-2009
