Attention Global Warming Skeptics: There’s no need to work ourselves into a dither over Climategate, the risible global caper designed to make us believe the world will soon be turning into a burnt crisp. After all, Climategate is the new kid on the block, compared to all the other Leftist bamboozles.
Take Mediagate, the fact that the lamestream media stonewalled the Climategate story for two full weeks, hoping to get beyond the Copenhagen summit to limit the fall-out. But this past weekend the media moguls finally realized they had to pull back the green velvet curtain — and then used every trick in the book to downplay the scandal.
The Washington Post featured the story on Saturday when no one bothers to read the newspaper. CBS aired the report knowing its news program would be preempted by college football. NBC reassured its global warming true believers “the evidence is overwhelming that man is behind climate change.” And ABC mentioned the dust-up without revealing what the incriminatory emails actually said.
How’s that for full disclosure?
But the media is still playing footsy with another Leftist fairytale. It’s known as Abusegate.
Take the Tiger Woods case. Everyone knows his wife went after him with a nine-iron, which is a form of criminal assault. But how many media accounts put Woods and “victim of domestic violence” within a par-5 golf hole of each other? (And if we’re going to say marital infidelity justifies partner assault, let’s be sure to tell all the cougars out there to bone up on their self-defense skills.)
The cover-up of female partner aggression dates back to 1977. That’s when University of Delaware professor Susanne Steinmetz published an article titled “The Battered Husband Syndrome.” Her ground-breaking research revealed women are just as likely to abuse.
But the feminists were not going to allow her research to upset the ideological apple cart. After all, domestic disputes are all about evil men who try to control and dominate their wives with “violence or the subliminal threat of violence.” At least that’s what rad-fem icon Gloria Steinem once said.
So when they got wind of Steinmetz’s apostasy, the libbers began a whispering campaign deriding her work as “anti-feminist.” Then the enlightened souls who aspired to stop the cycle of violence called in bomb threats. Steinmetz soon took the hint and called a halt to her research.
Across the pond in England, abuse-shelter founder Erin Pizzey reached essentially the same conclusion as Steinmetz, going so far as to write a tell-all about rolling-pin wielding wives. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” a shell-shocked Pizzey would later reveal.
So while the global-warming hucksters confined themselves to relatively benign enhancements of temperature data, the feminist-fascists proved Philip Jones and his fellow Climate Research Unit perjurers to be rank amateurs when it came to the art of information control.
But now the feminists’ Orwellian methods have been outed for all to see (www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf ):
- Make propaganda-like claims about a fabricated “consensus.”
- Play definitional word-games with terms like “abuse” and “violence.”
- Rely on biased crime surveys.
- Use a single outrageous incident to reach an absurd conclusion. (Example: If we really want to stop the violence, we need to pass a law that requires potential golf-club wielders to submit to criminal background checks.)
- Slant your questions to support a pre-determined conclusion.
- Purge the data on violence perpetrated by females.
- Refuse to approve studies that study male victimization.
- Misconstrue the results of prior research.
- Publish “fact sheets” that claim to debunk abuse myths, but in fact expand on them.
- Instigate legal action against researchers who challenge the good ol’ girls network.
- Resort to cheap-shots, name-calling, and motive-questioning.
- Engage in strong-arm tactics.
Just as a group of brave climatologists refused to be intimidated by the global warming thugs, the family violence field has its truth-tellers as well: Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire, Richard Gelles at the University of Pennsylvania, Michelle Carney at the University of Georgia, Miriam Ehrensaft at Columbia University, Donald Dutton at the University of British Columbia, and Denise Hines at Clark University.
All these years, the domestic violence lobby has been sullying the atmosphere with its gaseous assumptions, foggy logic, and over-heated rhetoric. When will the media blow the lid off of this story?
11 responses so far ↓
1 survivor // Dec 8, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Do you actually believe that all of our pollution and asphalt isn’t severely damaging the planet? I mean that just makes common sense. But common sense doesn’t seem to matter much anymore.
I saw the guy who received the “smoking gun” email re climate change interviewed on CNN this morning. His explanation made sense to me, but the radical right won’t care. They just want the corporations to be allowed to continue belching out poison so that they can make a buck.
As far as the “propoganda” in terms of abuse — as I’ve stated consistently — if you were as willing to work as hard to stop violence against both genders as I am — then maybe we could get something done about it. Instead, you want to play the men v. women game. If everybody thought like you, I wonder who would have kids?
2 jlukas // Dec 8, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Read the comment on the other thread. If this is all you’ve got to say, I’m not impressed. Here’s the consensus, which you’ve once again failed to address here:
1. Make propaganda-like claims about a fabricated “consensus.”
2. Play definitional word-games with terms like “abuse” and “violence.”
3. Rely on biased crime surveys.
4. Use a single outrageous incident to reach an absurd conclusion. (Example: If we really want to stop the violence, we need to pass a law that requires potential golf-club wielders to submit to criminal background checks.)
5. Slant your questions to support a pre-determined conclusion.
6. Purge the data on violence perpetrated by females.
7. Refuse to approve studies that study male victimization.
8. Misconstrue the results of prior research.
9. Publish “fact sheets” that claim to debunk abuse myths, but in fact expand on them.
10. Instigate legal action against researchers who challenge the good ol’ girls network.
11. Resort to cheap-shots, name-calling, and motive-questioning.
12. Engage in strong-arm tactics.
You’ve also failed miserably to even comment on the 50 DV myths. I remain unconvinced and unmoved, especially by your moniker.
3 survivor // Dec 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm
You would never be convinced of taking a different position. This is your passion and you do not want to be confused by facts — any more than those who want to pretend that pollution and paving over half the planet is no problem at all.
I haven’t seen the 50 DV myths and don’t intend to go looking for them.
I get it. The evil women are doing bad things to men and they’re using the government to do it. That’s your story and you’ll stick to it until your last breath.
I think evil people do evil things to the people in their own homes — and I don’t care which gender does it “the most.” I know you hate that I won’t play your twisted little tug of war. Must really frustrate you.
4 jlukas // Dec 8, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Weak….
Those are a DIRECT contradiction to what is PRESENTED by the DV Industry, whose “facts” and statistics you accept. If you are TRULY for fair treatment for all, why wouldn’t you at least take a look and TRY to debunk ANY of them?
That is not my position and I have stated often enough that I wish this website wasn’t even necessary. You, in turn, are all for increasing these laws, which are fraught with problems. Why would you not wish to clean this up first before moving forward? Why does over 40 years worth of CLINICAL RESEARCH differ so drastically from what is reported by the Industry?
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Therein, you will discover the truth. Apparently, your denial of your belief system continues to lie to you and is your acceptable “basis”.
5 survivor // Dec 8, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The only “laws” that I have supported is the one you call the “frequent flyer” legislation where sentences would be made at least comperable to auto theft for repeat DV felons. Even, FDC (or whatever his initials are) agrees that it is much more difficult to get a criminal conviction, so please don’t try to tell me that those folks are just victims of vendictive wives. Of course, to hold people to the same level of accountability for crimes against persons as we do for crimes against a man’s best friend (e.g., his car) might be “unfair” in your opinion, but I happen to think it is the least we can do to try and separate repeat predators from their former and future victims. If you really cared about protecting victims from the violence, I think you would agree with me.
6 jlukas // Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Then, why can’t these cases be held in criminal court using actual assault laws?
Take a look at the myths and see just how badly the gender-feminists have butchered the truth. You can’t do it, can you?
Why does over 40 years worth of CLINICAL RESEARCH differ so drastically from what is reported by the Industry?
7 survivor // Dec 8, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Because other than sexual assault (sure you agree that sexual assault is primarily male on female, or does the CLINICAL RESEARCH dispute that, too??) — the vast majority of simple assaults are one-time stranger on stranger situations. You know, like a mugging or a good old fashioned bar brawl. When you live with the criminal the assaults are repeated AND the criminal usually has a lot of other ways to control/intimidate the victim (including whether or not he/she is “allowed” to report the crime). I made the argument about the reason we have specialized gang crime legislation and prosecutors since witness intimidation is so pervasive in those crimes as well. Why don’t you get that?
Still waiting for your answer about your intentions re my employer. Just can’t bring yourself to admit that you were, in fact, trying to threaten/intimidate me, can you??? But old habits die hard. It just slipped out and now you’re caught.
8 survivor // Dec 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm
And, for the record, ALL felony and misdomeanor DV crimes are heard in CRIMINAL court.
9 jlukas // Dec 8, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I’m just tired about your bitching about it as it has nothing to do with anything in here. I INTEND to put an end to it. Rob is his name, right?
As for the rest, you’re grasping at straws now. This is YOUR “evidence”? You’ve failed to look at what has been presented, instead opting to include straw man debates as your basis, totally ignoring that plea bargains and violations are held in civil courts. You have also dismissed other relevant information by other posters regarding this very subject, stubbornly clinging to your flawed “belief system”, which furthers my claims that scientific basis has nothing to do with these laws and emotional feelings from unstable sources drive this industry.
1. Make propaganda-like claims about a fabricated “consensus.”
2. Play definitional word-games with terms like “abuse” and “violence.”
3. Rely on biased crime surveys.
4. Use a single outrageous incident to reach an absurd conclusion. (Example: If we really want to stop the violence, we need to pass a law that requires potential golf-club wielders to submit to criminal background checks.)
5. Slant your questions to support a pre-determined conclusion.
6. Purge the data on violence perpetrated by females.
7. Refuse to approve studies that study male victimization.
8. Misconstrue the results of prior research.
9. Publish “fact sheets” that claim to debunk abuse myths, but in fact expand on them.
10. Instigate legal action against researchers who challenge the good ol’ girls network.
11. Resort to cheap-shots, name-calling, and motive-questioning.
12. Engage in strong-arm tactics.
WADVPress
10 Mariner // Dec 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“Do you actually believe that all of our pollution and asphalt isn’t severely damaging the planet? ”
I don’t think you will find anyone that will disagree that pollution isn’t damaging. But it’s a question of scale. For instance, remember the L.A. smogs? Go there now and the air is pretty clean. Why? Force industry to change and that is exactly what happened. Take a look in your neighborhood, look at the roofs, years ago they would be clean, now lichen, which is pollution intolerant, grows. Is man responsible for all pollution? I doubt it primarily because just one volcanic eruption can spew far more pollution into the atmosphere than man makes in a year.
No one really knows what the ambient temperature of Earth should be. I know during the Roman occupation of England, they had vineyards in Northumberland – today it is way too cold to grow much at all. Monks in the Middle-Ages in York had vineyards, not so today, too cold. The south of England has vineyards that have to be covered. All this indicates that at one time, England was much much warmer. Vikings had a thriving colony in Greenland, when it was green in the middle ages. Must have been a lot warmer then.
In conclusion, I’d say that there are many people with a vested interest in promoting a global warming myth for financial gain. Notice the slight shift now, now they say Climate Change.
I do think that there should be no let up in the curbing of pollution though and I promote that in all my business interests. I will admit to that being for financial reasons though, get ahead of the game and it’s less costly.
11 survivor // Dec 8, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Please note that you used the word “force” industry to change. I was around when Congress passed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. My father, a die-hard Republican who I loved dearly, was 100% opposed to it — but even as a child it made sense to me. I totally understood that the factories would never stop belching out all that poison unless somebody “forced” them. We lived near what we called the TNT Plant. I remember one day that my sister’s nylon stocking (a pretty new thing back then) actually melted on her legs while she was waiting for the bus. You’re right that volcano’s blow out a lot of “pollution” — but it is pollution the earth created and the earth can cope with. That is NOT true for plastics, chemicals and MASSIVE amounts of carbon, etc.
Trying to convince the entire world that we all need to be better stewards of the planet is no easy task and most industries (much less governments) will not voluntarily do what is necessary.
So, perhaps the world won’t end in 2012, and maybe Global Warming isn’t the crisis that Al Gore says it is. But what is the “down side” if global industry actually decides to clean itself up?
I just don’t understand how reasonable people could claim that human activity isn’t destroying more than it is creating and that if we want future generations to benefit from the glorious world we enjoy — then we have a moral obligation (no matter what the “science” might be) to take much, much, much better care of it.
I wish that you were motivated to curb pollution because it’s the right/smart thing to do, but even if it is 100% money-based — GOOD FOR YOU!
Leave a Comment