• Recent delusions of applicability

  • Advertisements

Hypocrysy is a *&^%

Really I think we can all fit in our own term. In this instance I’m going to just leave it as the people I am not overjoyed with who can go die in a fire without causing me any long-term grief.

But that doesn’t roll off the tongue.

To be honest I think f*ck-tard is about as good as it gets.

Either way, I think people should get to see it when feminists, or any -ists actually, intentionally mischaracterize people to try to score cheap points…

I was bouncing around WordPress and a few other sites and came upon this article.

So, I decided to take a look at what they were so pissed about, you can read it here.

They considered it a touch of irony that the “Feminist Law Professors”  prefer commentors use their real name, Anons and Pseudonyms (like yours truly) are not really welcome, but they then posted an anonymous attack piece on a named person.

I have to say I believe Marc Randazza is spot on with his evaluation of the authors. They wrote a hit piece, pure and simple. They have intentionally mischaracterized the piece, and willfully ignored the intent of the original piece, in order to engage in a cheap bit of character assassination. And like any semi-decent assassin are doing their best to remain unnamed, their accomplices should thus bear the full brunt of the reaction since they are enabling it.

The hit piece asked:

do you really believe that a female jurist who has grappled her way into a position of power should be criticized for having a “tart tongue?”

Yes, yes they should. Because the same would be said of a male jurist, at least I hope they would be called to task for denigrating the position they have been entrusted to hold. Withholding that criticism because she is a female jurist would be sexist, plain and simple.

But our assassin doesn’t use facts, if they did they might admit the author had cited multiple times the judge was told to stop acting like a 12 year-old who happens to be bigger than the other 3rd graders and start acting like an actual jurist. After all, can one be in contempt of a court which acts as she has acted?

 But what is our anonymous bozo (AB) has a real problem with:

Your objection is that Judge Eiler is painfully honest

Yes, AB has a reading comprehension problem. Since the article doesn’t actually support this inference it could also just be called making it up as they go along.

Allow me to assist our anonymous bozo, and point out the point of the article in Time:

Seattle’s Judge Judy should have been tossed from the bench. She acted viciously, she was found to have violated the judicial canons and she did it again when she said she would not.

The rest of us call that unrepentant. When one is talking about a drug addict, its understandable, perhaps even pitiful. A drug dealer with no other options, perhaps deserving of some form of compassion. A judge with years of legal training, classes designed to specifically address the issue after their previous failure to uphold expected standards, and a habit to target those who are least able to effectively respond (or even have knowledge of avenues for redress), well it that case no, removal from her undeserved position of authority seems best.

Actually, let me help you, oh anonymous bozo, imagine the senior partner at a firm has a history of “hitting on” new associates even after being told to stop and having attended sensitivity training. Figure out why they should be let go and calls for them to be fired are entirely justifiable yet. Why yes, because the way they have acted is unacceptable, just like the judge.

So what should we do to the judge who fails to act in accordance with values demanded of all jurists, call them on their conduct or treat them differently because they have a vagina?

The only other option is our anonymous bozo thinks that Judge Judy is the model of decorum and demonstrates how judges should act. Identically to those who are being brought in on charges one would have to infer. Actually they basically state as much:

With all due respect, I believe you owe Judge Eiler and the rest of the “acerbic when irritated” female lawyers and judges in the world an apology.

What our AB believes is of little importance to me, other than exposing their own bias. An apology is owed to the female (note not all, just the female ones) lawyers and judges who get “acerbic when irritated”, in other words, its okay, because they are women. Our blogger wants to try and let people think Mr. Cohen doesn’t have a problem if a male judge had done the same. Of course they don’t have any proof of that, but its a good charge to make when one wants to score cheap points. But their overall position is too clear, a position no less sexist than the one they wrongful prescribe to Mr. Cohen. Perhaps more so since there actually is some truth to it.

“Feminist Law Professors“, you owe Adam Cohen an apology for this tripe masquerading as anything other than what it is, puerile sh*t aimed at doing damage without exposing the author to the rightful rebuke they so richly deserve for, essentially, making shit up.

Note: I do not consider it hypocritical of me to have posted this under a pseudonym, I am not the one who claims that pseudonyms strip one of credibility and then posts anonymous attack pieces, which for all we know are actually the work of the FLPs blog admins.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: