Alan Fine's Allegedly Violent Past
UPDATED: Speaking of blowing his stack and abuse against women--Concerned Engineer's been banned. So it's going to take everyone's comments some time before they appear, because the moderation is on. This is the first ever time that I have ever had to ban anyone, but I will not be called (or allow JanieBelle to be called) "evil in a cute body." My boyfriend reads this blog. Out of bounds. What Christian morality! I never called him names, evil, ignorant, "depraved," or anything else.
And I'll bet that he never cried at anything I said.
---
Scrape the burnt spots off of Alan Fine's campaign--it's toast.
What kind of monster beats his wife while she's pregnant?
Now Alan "It's About Character" Fine wants the Star Tribune to yank the story. After calling everyone under the sun a liar (after initially saying in the police report that he didn't remember the incident--sound familiar?), he's worried that the story will hurt his campai--uh, his relationship to his son.
Wow. The guy really doesn't have a clue. If he wants to convince us that he was wrongly arrested, then acting like an angry divorced wife-beater by beating up on his ex-wife's reputation ("liar"), the motives of his former father-in-law (who himself is a judge!), and on reporters for doing their job isn't the way to go about it.
Alan Fine could have come out with this himself, and then explained it calmly. Alan Fine could have owned up to this long ago in a rational fashion before he even ran for office. Alan Fine could identify this mysterious unnamed person who supposedly can corroborate his version of things. But Alan Fine is doing an excellent job of convincing me that he can remain neither calm nor rational when confronted with the simplest of questions, but only blow his stack and spout off about some specious "witness" of his. (Who is it, Karl Rove?) Which doesn't exactly make me feel comfortable giving him any political power.
If he indeed acted as the Star Tribune article alleges, Alan Fine should be happy that he has a son who's still alive! If he's worried about explaining to his kid why he beat his ex-wife while his son was in the womb, I suggest that that's his problem, and not the Star Tribune's.
As a survivor of an abusive relationship myself, no way would I feel safe calling his office for a damned thing if this nutjob were to be elected (which, fortunately, is all but guaranteed not to happen now). I can just imagine how livid he would get at the slightest request (his wife asked him to help her change a diaper, can you imagine, what a ball-breaker), considering the anger management issues that he obviously has. Sorry, Alan. The story rings a little too true for me. Especially after your racist, violent diatribe against Keith Ellison. That scared a lot of people.
And I'll bet that he never cried at anything I said.
---
Scrape the burnt spots off of Alan Fine's campaign--it's toast.
What kind of monster beats his wife while she's pregnant?
Now Alan "It's About Character" Fine wants the Star Tribune to yank the story. After calling everyone under the sun a liar (after initially saying in the police report that he didn't remember the incident--sound familiar?), he's worried that the story will hurt his campai--uh, his relationship to his son.
Wow. The guy really doesn't have a clue. If he wants to convince us that he was wrongly arrested, then acting like an angry divorced wife-beater by beating up on his ex-wife's reputation ("liar"), the motives of his former father-in-law (who himself is a judge!), and on reporters for doing their job isn't the way to go about it.
Alan Fine could have come out with this himself, and then explained it calmly. Alan Fine could have owned up to this long ago in a rational fashion before he even ran for office. Alan Fine could identify this mysterious unnamed person who supposedly can corroborate his version of things. But Alan Fine is doing an excellent job of convincing me that he can remain neither calm nor rational when confronted with the simplest of questions, but only blow his stack and spout off about some specious "witness" of his. (Who is it, Karl Rove?) Which doesn't exactly make me feel comfortable giving him any political power.
If he indeed acted as the Star Tribune article alleges, Alan Fine should be happy that he has a son who's still alive! If he's worried about explaining to his kid why he beat his ex-wife while his son was in the womb, I suggest that that's his problem, and not the Star Tribune's.
As a survivor of an abusive relationship myself, no way would I feel safe calling his office for a damned thing if this nutjob were to be elected (which, fortunately, is all but guaranteed not to happen now). I can just imagine how livid he would get at the slightest request (his wife asked him to help her change a diaper, can you imagine, what a ball-breaker), considering the anger management issues that he obviously has. Sorry, Alan. The story rings a little too true for me. Especially after your racist, violent diatribe against Keith Ellison. That scared a lot of people.
posted by Kristine | Sunday, October 08, 2006
20 Comments:
What an asshat. There ought to be a law stating that a pathological inability to take responsibility for your own actions will automatically disqualify you from running for any elected office or holding any appointed office.
And exactly how much narcissism does it take to publicly whine that the local newspaper won't run your editorial? Is there any word on what this editorial was about? How poorly written, hectoring, unsubstantiated, intellectually lazy and/or ethically repugnant was it that the paper refused to run it?
I think that this is it.
Ya know, were I a Republican I don’t think that I would use the word “exposed” anymore—nor “girlyman.” Bleeeehhhh…
For anyone who's just joined, Joshua is referring to Concerned Engineer...
May I say, I'm really sorry that I didn't defend you guys from him--although you're all pretty good at defending yourselves! (Especially you, JanieBelle, crap, I'm glad you're on our side.) I cannot believe that he thought I had any obligation to stick up for him. I said emphatically that I was not baby-sitting this blog. I'm not Bill Dembski, but if CE doesn't like being called names, he should take it elsewhere (and he can say whatever he wants about me elsewhere short of defamation, but he can't get drunk and trash my place without being kicked to the curb). He called you guys a lot of names himself (and he started it, anyway) and said a lot of crazy-ass things, and I'm supposed to defend him?
I'm so pissed that I wasted eye-water on him, but what a creep. That statement in particular weirded me out. I should have banned him long ago, but frankly, I can take a lot of humiliation! ;-)
Up to a point.
But no, I don't think all engineers are nutjobs, Joshua. Several of my cousins are engineers. If they're crazy, it's because they're related to me!
I'm sorry I egged him on, Kristine. I thought it would be helpful for him to show his true colors, which he did.
I also held out hope (I'm a sucker that way) that he might see what a hypocritical, hateful and deceitful excuse for a philosophy he was pushing.
Call it a brainfart.
Sorry he made your eyes leak. Talk about "mean-spirited".
I've been a little busy lately so I apparently missed something. I've had a few goes at ConEng myself here, at my blog, and I've had to read through his drivel at PZ's place once or twice and he always seemed about a millimeter away from going fully-troll but never quite crossed that line. Until now, apparently.
Sorry to hear that he upset you. If they're so sure that they're right, why do the god-munchers always go so ballistic? Isn't there something in their religion about being nice to others?
I thought that he could be reasoned with as well.
Duh!
Guess who’s knocking at my door!
“I don't know if this comment will be approved or not, but I'll give it a shot.
”Janiebelle said, "Ok, maybe Dan implied it, but I'm saying it. The dude was fucked up in the head and Fundy Christians are responsible."
”And I'm the one making irresponsible comments? I'm the one who needs to be moderated?”
Can’t resist an evil cute body, I guess. But he didn’t even bring flowers.
CE, surely you aren’t that cluess. Or are you? You are banned for that “evil in a cute body” comment, and you know it. Now you’re acting like my ex-boyfriend after I broke it off (*ring* “Hello?” “Kristine it’s me. I know you told me it’s over, but don’t hang up!” *Click*). The fundy Christian who subsequently stalked me for three years!
It's sad how alike you guys are.
The shooter of the Amish kids was fucked up, duh. Fundy Christians are responsible for fucking kids in the head about sex, anger, violence, women, and “ya just gotta obey” ideas about authority. Your behavior here is a prime example.
I’ve had it with your “Shalom/you’re going to hell/but I can help you/what a bunch of evil heretics” rot. There is no hell, unless it’s reading your interminably off-topic posts. The other trolls have at least stayed on topic, which is why, if you care to notice, I never banned them.
You came here and took over and I didn’t do that with my exactly 2 posts on your blog (which said nothing about you—or is that the problem?). One of those posts was me defending myself against your “I hope you’re not leading men into sin” comment. What a dork I am! Why should I justify myself to your filthy mind? Come to think of it, I’m pissed off about that, too!
I am the queen of delayed reaction.
So yes, you’re banned, babe. Don’t like it? Here’s your chance to feel sorry for yourself. You started it by bringing up abortion (my post wasn’t about abortion) in the first place and calling JanieBelle (an by extension, all pro-choicers) an “evil heretic.” You got what you wanted. If I want a fundy around to try to make me feel guilty and blather about my “hard heart” I’d move back to my hometown. So, go. There are other blogs, and plenty of other “hypocrites” to save when you should be paying attention to your alleged wife.
Your stalker ex-boyfriend was a fundy Christian? Color me shocked. Shocked, I say.
As for “I hope you’re not leading men into sin”? I hope you ARE. Sin by their definition is rather delicious. It's like chocolate.
I'm leading a woman into "sin". Or she's leading me, whichever. Is that ok? We're going to lead men (yes PLURAL ON BOTH COUNTS) into sin too, as soon as we get around to it. Lots of them. All kinds of "sin".
Non missionary position "sin". Public "sin". Multiple partners of both genders "sin". Maybe non-missionary position, public, multiple partners of indeterminant genders "sin" repeatedly.
Keep an eye on your front lawn, we'll be the ones in the middle of the flesh pile with nothing on but our smiles.
Wait 'til you get a load of our idea of a Halloween costume party.
Dream a little dream of THAT!
Well, he didn’t start out with the fundy stuff right away—I suppose you could call him a charismatic, because he believed in speaking in tongues, all that crap. It had nothing to do with religion at first; he never talked about it, then he became possessive, wanting me to be around all the time (he had no qualms about living together BTW), wanting me to quit my job, wanting me to quit school, not see friends, break off with my family, worrying about “seeing me in heaven,” etc., and he crossed a physical line, so I walked out. That cost me.
I learned a lesson, or have I? I seem to become a target of people like that—not necessarily always fundies, but possessive users. I’ve had to set down some limits for various people who horn in all personal, co-workers, even strangers on the bus, whatever.
And at my blog!
From now on I will be more vigilant.
Dorko man’s exact quote was: “I have no problem with belly dancing provided that it is not done in a lewd way. Anything that would intentionally tempt men to be unfaithful to their spouses would seem out of line.”
I mean, where did he get that? From his own brain. Nowhere else.
I'm kinda thinking that the onus of acting responsibly is on the the married man and not on the lewd belly dancer.
It's hard to respect a man who can't find motivation for acting morally in the face of temptation when he's married and professes to be a person of faith without trying to place the blame somewhere else. Sounds guilty to me...
Well, the point is, it lewdness doesn't have anything to do with it, so why does that occur to anyone?
It's just a non-western art form. We are talking about a conservative culture (though the dance predates Islam). Men dance, too. Not every culture defines dance as the dancer keeping the torso perfectly silent and waving arms and legs around like s/he's trying desperately to break out of plastic wrap.
To others, a ballet dancer lifting a leg and exposing the underside of her thigh could be seen as lewd. (John Ashcroft comes to mind. Now there's a fun guy--no dancing at all, not even tap.)
Guilty or not, CE's little dance here is over, for sure. I don't care how unfair he thinks it is. It's gotten way too divisive and emotional in the comments (which I now see was his probable intent) and frankly, we all have lives.
Nyah, if your belly dancing ain't enticing men AND women to think lustful thoughts about you, I think you need more practice. But what do I know?
Anyways, he was obviously a nutjob. Glad you got rid of him. I hope your current partner has a healthier appreciation of a half-naked beautiful woman shaking her hips around. Assuming, of course, that you're only HALF naked when you entertain him privately.
;)
None of our business, no need to respond.
:)
Well, he came over and started accusing me of misquoting him a while ago, so he got banned by us for making you cry.
He is now subject to the Big Green Marker.
Just so y'know.
I think that you've got me wrong - I'm not insinuating lewdness on your part or as a part of belly dancing in general. I agree that the lewdness is not a factor here and taking a shot at you for being a dancer is just ridiculous in any case. I was only making a point about CE's inability to appreciate who should assume responsibility for particular actions. In the case where a person succumbs to temptation, at least half (and I think that it's a great deal more than that) of the blame should be on the part of the tempted, IMO.
I'm all for dance and music, foriegn and domestic, old and new. And you're really better off without that clown around anywho.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't implying that you meant that, PiGuy. I was still ranting about Dorko Man. I will stop now.
Good show, JanieBelle. He is seriously creeping me out.
About the Minnesota Democrats Exposed link, I can't help noticing that the person who runs the blog did some work for Michelle Bachmann, a creationist lunatic.
By the way, you're in good company - you can list yourself together with Jessica Valenti of Feministing, another blogger who got rammed by a conservative idiot for no good reason (Jessica's sin was to go to a blogger lunch with Bill Clinton and stand in front of the Clenis).
Oh, yeah, I saw that about Jessica Valenti, what gives? Much ado about nothing! Existing while having breasts? Don't get it...
Oh, yeah, I saw that about Jessica Valenti, what gives? Much ado about nothing! Existing while having breasts? Don't get it...
Smart, pretty, young, feminist women are a direct and credible threat to everything that people like Ann Althouse and Dr. Helen hold dear: fascism, oppression, enforced stupidity, and authoritarian religion.
Those last two things are almost indistinguishable, of course.
Smart, pretty, young, feminist women are a direct and credible threat to everything that people like Ann Althouse and Dr. Helen hold dear
And the frustrating thing about it, the more that Jessica replied, the more little "faults" Ann'n'Helen found. They must have been starved for her attention.
Post a Comment
<< Home