In a recent post, I criticized blogger Ann Althouse for an ethics commentary misfire, along with the error of not allowing readers to comment on it, and thus point out where her analysis went wrong. I would not want to leave the impression that this was typical of Althouse in any way, or discourage any reader here from sampling her generally fascinating and well-written observations. Luckily, today she delivered a post which I would put among her best, a measured and deft take-down of Slate’s often silly feminist blogger L.V. Anderson, for a classic diatribe dripping with manufactured accusations of gender bias in a news story where none exists.
This is the real Ann Althouse, and you should read the entry, here.
___________________
Graphic: Oceansbridge
Ethics Alarms 
Among the many good lines in the Althouse posting: “She switches to I know this sounds like bullshit mode because she knows it sounds like bullshit.”
Hahahahahaha
I liked that one too.
So the writer totally Trayvoned the whole scenario?
That’s a good word, and we should come up with a good defonition of it, and use it.
Trayvon, v: to cynically use a convenient and available event to further a political agenda or ideological position by distorting the facts and ignoring the elements of the event that undermine the desired message, often with resulting harm to innocent parties.
How’s that?
I’d say that covers it thoroughly and concisely. Brilliant!
“…and available (news or current) event (often tragic) to further a political agenda…”
Perhaps the immediacy of the event is entirely covered by the word: “available”. The often or usually tragic aspect is what gives the whole thing punch, so it seems it should be noted somehow.
Plan on using this word frequently, as it is a favorite, and effective, strategy of the left.
Of course, I guarantee at the virulently anti-Zimmerman gotta-be-guilty-of-something discussion groups they’ve coined the term Zimmerman which they believe (falsely) means to utilizes systemic racism and legal loopholes to commit crimes against minorities and subsequently avoid conviction on unfair technicalities, often indicting inherent flaws in the system
She’s a fiery writer, isn’t she? Just not very entertaining.
Well, she is a law professor. For a law professor, she’s entertaining.
I guess for Anderson, when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.