Right-wing blogs attack Lara Logan after tragic incident

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Right now, I'm truly disgusted and ashamed of people within my own party who are either blaming Lara Logan for the brutal rape and assault that she endured or chalking it up to karma.

Two blogs - The Gateway Pundit and DebbieSchlussel.com - have both taken different but equally awful approaches to discussing what happened to Lara Logan.

First, a portion of the entry from Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit:

Lara Logan is lucky she’s alive.
Her liberal belief system almost got her killed on Friday. This talented reporter will never be the same.

Why did this attractive blonde female reporter wander into Tahrir Square last Friday? Why would she think this was a good idea? Did she not see the violence in the square the last three weeks? Did she not see the rock throwing? Did she miss the camels? Did her colleagues tell her about the Western journalists who were viciously assaulted on the Square? Did she forget about the taunts from the Egyptian thugs the day before? What was she thinking? Was it her political correctness that about got her killed? Did she think things would be different for her?

[Source]

Next, the entry from Debbie Schlussel:

As I’ve noted before, it bothers me not a lick when mainstream media reporters who keep telling us Muslims and Islam are peaceful get a taste of just how “peaceful” Muslims and Islam really are. In fact, it kinda warms my heart. Still, it’s also a great reminder of just how “civilized” these “people” (or, as I like to call them in Arabic, “Bahai’im” [Animals]) are...

[Source]

Schlussel also posted an update after receiving reaction on the entry:

The reaction of the left to this article is funny in its predictability. Sooo damn predictable. Of course I don’t support “sexual assault” or violence against Lara Logan, and I said that nowhere here. RIF–Reading Is Fundamental. Your premature articulation is a problem. I did say that it warms my heart when reporters who openly deny that Islam is violent and constantly promote it get the same kinds of threats of violence I get every day from Muslims. Because now they know how it feels. They aren’t so dismissive of the threats when those threats are directed at them, instead of at us little people. And yet they still won’t admit that THIS. IS. ISLAM. Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this “revolution” by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about.

Hoft chose a more "misogyny-on-parade" approach, focusing on her looks and asking condescending hypothetical questions about why she was there, as if her presence gave anyone the right to touch her in the first place. Schlussel, on the other hand, seems to imply that Logan's abuse was deserved based on an allegedly naive attitude about what the people were like and how they'd treat her.

It seems people have taken a casual attitude about rape in the past few years, and that's really bothersome. No wonder rapes go unreported in the world, when you have morons like these playing the victim-blame game.

EDIT: Seems it gets worse when you read the rest of Schlussel's entry:

So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows. Or so we'd hope. But in the case of the media vis-a-vis Islam, that's a hope that's generally unanswered.

This never happened to her or any other mainstream media reporter when Mubarak was allowed to treat his country of savages in the only way they can be controlled.

Now that's all gone. How fitting that Lara Logan was "liberated" by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the "liberation."

Hope you're enjoying the revolution, Lara! Alhamdilllullah [praise allah].

[Source]

I want so badly to punch Debbie Schlussel in the face over and over and over again...

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Democracy will only make it worse for women. Sexism is popular and democracy is up with popular.

Or should I say

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I heard sexism isn't all that popular with the ~50% of people who are women.

Re: Or should I say

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Actually many of 'em seem to have gotten on board the internalized misogyny wagon just fine.

Re: Or should I say

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Slaves also tend not to complain too much to their masters about being slaves and internalise that vision of themselves. That's not an argument that slaves should be kept in slavery of course.

And whether or not that vision of themselves would persist if they were given the choice to make it otherwise, is another thing, and the point of contention I think.

Re: Or should I say

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually slave societies always feared servile wars and were paranoid as all Hell. The Slave South was in a lot of ways more like Israel than like what US culture is thought to be. Unless you're Nebris, nobody thinks a gender rebellion is going to happen anytime soon.

Re: Or should I say

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Of course we shouldn't expect every ill of Egyptian society to be fixed immediately, or even that other ills won't arise under democracy. T

hat's not what its about. It's the general ability of democracy to rectify those ills, eventually, that people trust in. Rightly, in my view.

Re: Or should I say

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually the Egyptians have had a movement like this once before. British invasions suppressed it at gunpoint and ruled Egypt for the next few decades. For some damnfool reason the usual reaction of people who see a revolution in progress and are afraid of it is to invade the strongholds of the revolution. Genre Savviness never appears to apply in real life. And if Israel decides to be the Saddam in this scenario.....

Re: Or should I say

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

They've got a nice religion to take care of their brains whenever they wonder what to do, don't they?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I still don't understand the huge emphasis on "democracy". I would think free speech is more important, or at least as important.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

People raised in the western tradition see these completely distinct concepts as weirdly inseparable. I don't really get it.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Ask yourself, what's the point of free speech in and of itself?

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

It feels good and people want it. It sometimes helps people get other things they want, and sometimes it is democratic means which make that possible. If that's what you're angling for, let me just agree hastily with the premise, before maintaining that they remain separate concepts, however nicely we may think they work together.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Communism, fascism, theocracy and a such have rather poor records when it comes to free speech so it does tend to work better with democracy.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I don't see how that follows. I think there are many who would argue that oppressive governments need a state-controlled press to maintain power.

So... long-lasting oppressive government -> lack of free speech. And contrapositively, free speech -> (eventual) lack of oppressive government.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Free speech is important because without it, the government can conceal the truth from the people.

Democracy is a system whereby, once duly informed of the truth (to their own satisfaction), the people can impel government to obey their will. It's nice to know the facts, but something altogether different to do something about it.

There are other means of course, (like protesting in the streets until your dictator either shoots you or is forced to do it your way) and democracy is far from perfect, but I think democracy is the best system available. I'm pretty sure the Egyptians as a whole agree that democracy is the best system to get what they want; which is the important thing.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I'm not knocking democracy, I'm knocking the lack of free speech, though Spaz Own Joo perhaps hit it (people think it comes automatically with democracy).

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well of course we do, we pretty much all live in democracies. In principle of course the 2 can be seperated.

But there's also a fairly good argument, that if you want to give everyone an equal voice and make decisions based on what the majority want (which seems to be what people in Egypt want), the simplest way to do that is to present decisions to the people, devise a way for them to indicate their preference (like writing on a piece of paper and sticking in a box), then count up all the preferences and declaring which way you are going to go on the issue.

Or if that's too difficult because there is so many people and so many issues to decide, instead you get them to do exactly the same thing to regularly choose people they think best represents their position, and then get those representative to do all the sticking things in boxes for them.

Sound like anything you know about?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Elections do not necessarily mean a democracy, at least not as we considerate it. Venezuela and Gaza HAD free elections, neither place seems to be exactly what we in the west call a democracy.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Sure, which is one of the reasons why free speech is so important as an accompaniment to democracy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem with that is there can be "free speech" in the sense that the Soviet Union was a federalist republic with full freedom of religion.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Has that been the trajectory of most democracies which arose from sexist societies?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Well the trajectory from raping women and beating them for talking back has to be up however shallow.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Do you mean that such abuse has increased or decreased in democracies?
Sorry, I'm not clear on that point.