Kate's rhetorical trick is to take an unexceptionable act, "blogging and advocating," and recast it as "bullying and shaming" so as to manufacture a seemingly reasonable prohibition. But she is quite literally advocating a right to vote that encompasses a freedom from mass expression. Excepting her own, presumably. She's describing a statement of principle in a public forum as if it were an act of individual harassment. No reasonable person supports "bullying and shaming." Thus Kate deliberately conflates these with acts that are at the root of our liberty.

here are two things I believe in fervently and will defend strenuously: Reproductive freedom and the right of all citizens to vote however they damn well please without being bullied and shamed by those who disagree.

Kate, that's an expression of totalitarian disdain for freedom of expression. Call it "bully and shame", call it "keyboard rape," just take a deep fucking breath and understand precisely what it is you are advocating: the right to an environment free of contrary views. There's a hateful label for this brand of feminism, and you have surely earned it this day.

...she has no entitlement to purely gracious responses from among an audience with no barriers to entry. The "Outrage Industry," which serves an important purpose in documenting dangerous societal and media trends, too often makes bank from a handful of anonymous outliers.

And thin-skinned Meghan has demonstrated herself unworthy of leadership. For now.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/10/14/polanski-revisited.aspx

and at the sig.

...and hand his head to him, much like the character in his logo. Broadsheet used to run Saletan Alerts, as I recall.

Having sex at 13 is a bad idea. But if you're pubescent, it might be, in part, your bad idea. Having sex with a 13-year-old, when you're 40, is scummy. (Personally, I'd be stricter. If I ran a college, I'd discipline professors for sleeping with freshmen.) But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up. A guy who goes after 5-year-old girls is deeply pathological. A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn't excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently.

(He's rolled the argument back a little today.)

...not the Noble Peace Prize.

EconCCX (corrections troll)

I don't disagree with your assessment of the original controversy. But in misremembering Natalie's words, Glenn softened them, while characterizing the public reaction as "unhinged."

Glenn in fact inadvertently turned Maines' statement "innocuous." His argument will only be stronger if he's willing to apply it to the actual words for which Maines apologized.

(And, on last-minute check, I see he has done so.)

It was the unhinged lynch mob fury provoked by Natalie Maines' innocuous statement that she was "embarrassed" that George W. Bush was from her home state.

"Just so you know," says singer Natalie Maines, "we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2003/mar/12/artsfeatures.popandrock

The reaction was indeed disproportional, but "ashamed" is far more provocative than "embarrassed." If you're characterizing Maines' words as innocuous and the mob's fury unhinged, a correct(ed) quote is imperative.

...rather than an array of ingredients we can't pronounce. Products evolve.

So, did it not occur to Broadsheet that if Lysol was marketed as a douche in the mid 20th century, it perforce had a non-caustic formulation at the time? And quite a different meaning as a brand?

Are we so eager to identify patriarchal oppressions as to believe that marketers would think it in their own interest to encourage American women to cleanse their delicate tissue with harsh disinfectants of the sort used in today's kitchens and bathrooms?

I'm not blaming Carter for 30 years of deficits. But Reagan bears no responsibility for those of 1980, and little for those of FY '81. Noted in the spirit of factuality, not partisanship. Read through my posting history and you'll see how much of it is mere error checking.

...and the tax laws and budget lived well into 1981. The predecessor has responsibility for anything that happens before September 12th of the inaugural year.

But he was elected to public office as recently as 1998 for crying out loud.

That urologist's name, quite appropriately, is Harry Fisch, not Frisch.

Swim on, boys.

No, Ms. Benfer didn't pull this absurd notion entirely out of her hat. The throwaway sentence in the Science Progress article reads:

Although the lack of an ejaculation does not affect the quality of orgasm, urologist Harry Fisch claims this side effect will preclude many men from considering this contraceptive: “I don’t think a lot of men are going to take this … The ejaculate coming forward is a significant part of a man’s sexuality.”

And where, per footnotes, did the Science Progress author find these words from urologist Harry Frisch? In a Traister piece in Broadsheet!

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/12/01/male_pill/index.html

Rebecca was excerpting a conversation with "a truly obnoxious group of guys interviewed in yesterday's New York Daily News." Frisch was among them, his comments subsequently elevated to scholarly writ in a bizarre game of telephone.

Of course the claim that ejaculation doesn't impact the quality of orgasm isn't Dr. Frisch's; it comes from Science Progress author Lisa Campo-Engelstein, grafted on to the urologist's comments, which included some refreshing guy talk: "I wouldn't do anything with it. Nice try." Damn right.

Ladies, you speak of which you know not. The ejaculation is mandatory. It is the vaginal port of call that is entirely optional.