Dan Savage has been stewing in his hate for just a bit too long, apparently.
As many as[*] 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.”
Because nothing says’ anti-bullying’ like calling people an epithet usually associated with a basic lack of masculinity. This is what we call a teachable moment, by the way: you see this guy? Yeah, this guy has spent too long thinking about things that he hates, obsessing over things that he hates, and reveling in the things that he hates… so now he’s the thing that he hates.
Don’t be this guy. Continue reading Hey, Dan Savage? This anti-bullying thing? You’re doing it wrong.
This article by Walter Russell Mead on Al Gore’s habitual and stunning eco-hypocrisy is frustrating: finding just one part to excerpt is difficult, and I can’t reproduce the whole thing. But, a taste:
Al Gore’s lifestyle is a test case for the credibility of his gospel — and it fails. The tolerance of Al Gore’s lifestyle by the environmental leadership is a further test — and that test, too, the greens fail.
The average citizen is all too likely to conclude that if Mr. Gore can keep his lifestyle, the average American family can keep its SUV and incandescent bulbs. If Gore can take a charter flight, I don’t have to take the bus. If Gore can have many mansions, I can use the old fashioned kind of shower heads that actually clean and toilets that actually flush. Al Gore looks to the average American the way American greens look to poor people in the third world: hypocritically demanding that others accept permanently lower standards of living than those the activists propose for themselves.
Or, as Glenn Reynolds (H/T, by the way) likes to put it, “I’ll believe that this is a problem when the people me telling me that it’s a problem start acting like it’s a problem.” – Only, if you’re going to wait for that to happen then I suggest that you pack a lunch.
The bad news: she didn’t realize that she was calling members of her own party ‘anti-woman’ before she started screaming The Weekly Standard‘s John McCormack about how people who voted to defund Planned Parenthood are anti-woman!
TWS: But there were eleven [correction: ten] Democrats who voted against funding for Planned Parenthood, so are those eleven Democrats anti-woman?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, they’re not, because if you, when I declare someone, when I make a broad statement like that, I look at the balance of somebody’s–where their priorities are, the balance of their record. And so one individual isolated vote here and there does not make you anti-woman.
TWS: So what are the broader votes that make those Democrats who voted on those same issues–on Planned Parenthood on H.R. 3–what makes them not anti-woman?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don’t think there are any Democrats.
Note that Debbie Wasserman Schultz happens to be the Deputy Minority Whip; I was unaware that the position was a sinecure. Or that it causes traumatic memory loss among those who have been burdened by the job. Or that the Democrats simply pick lying suckweasels for the position… actually, no: I was already aware of that one. Continue reading Good News / Bad News for Debbie Wasserman Schultz!
If you were reading Hotline On Call exclusively, you’d think that Indiana Democrats were going to have to pick a candidate to replace Evan Bayh on the ballot:
Candidates running for statewide office in IN have to collect 500 signatures from each of the state’s 9 districts. Those signatures are due by tomorrow.
Once signatures are in, candidates have until Friday to officially file for office.
Bayh could still file to run, then drop out. But if he does not file his signatures tomorrow, no other Dem is expected to collect the required [4,500] signatures by then, meaning Dems will get the chance to pick their own nominee.
Not… quite. Continue reading An Inconvenient Democrat: meet Tamyra d’Ippolito (IN).