"The girls say when they cried, Klaudt gave them a beer and told them to toughen up."
May 19, 2007 6:54 PM   Subscribe

Scandalfilter: Former South Dakota legislator Ted Klaudt is arrested for raping his own foster children, along with a legislative page.
posted by bardic (118 comments total)
 
What does it say about me that my first thought was "Who the hell cuts that man's hair!!!!!??????"
posted by miss lynnster at 6:57 PM on May 19, 2007


WaPo on South Dakota's attempt to ban all abortions last year, which would have outlawed them even in cases of rape or incest.
posted by bardic at 6:58 PM on May 19, 2007


This is why we should not elect freepers to public office.
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:00 PM on May 19, 2007


And even worse, my second thought was "Hey! He looks like Francis."
posted by miss lynnster at 7:00 PM on May 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


According to the comments in the first link, he was released on personal recognizance. Unbelievable.
posted by bardic at 7:02 PM on May 19, 2007


The dark side of Family Guy.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:02 PM on May 19, 2007 [3 favorites]


My first thought was "he must be a republican."
posted by oddman at 7:02 PM on May 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


My first thought on seeing that guy's picture was, "Oh yeah, child molester. Guilty."

What an awful man. I'm glad he's not going to be around any more kids.
posted by Mister_A at 7:03 PM on May 19, 2007


On non-preview: Released? Jeezus. I just skimmed and I didn't see that part.
posted by Mister_A at 7:04 PM on May 19, 2007


miss lynnster: "What does it say about me that my first thought was "Who the hell cuts that man's hair!!!!!??????""

I thought exactly the same thing.
posted by octothorpe at 7:06 PM on May 19, 2007


As an aside, Texas just passed a law authorizing the death penalty for child rapists, joining seven other states. Unfortunately South Dakota does not appear to be among them.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:06 PM on May 19, 2007


Score another one for the Republicans, I guess.
posted by kosher_jenny at 7:09 PM on May 19, 2007


Sheesh, my Dad probably knows this guy. I'll have to ask him about him.

Any verification that he's been released from any sources besides comments?
posted by roll truck roll at 7:13 PM on May 19, 2007


Apparently, as a lawmaker, he was big on gun ownership rights. If he did what he's accused of doing, he'll hopefully swallow one.
posted by bardic at 7:16 PM on May 19, 2007


what does it say about me that my first thought was "he sure has egg on his face now!"
posted by Hat Maui at 7:17 PM on May 19, 2007


Yep, Republican.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:20 PM on May 19, 2007


If he did what he's accused of doing, he'll hopefully swallow one.

Eh, I don't want him to get off that easily. Life in federal "pound me in the ass" prison would be preferable.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 7:22 PM on May 19, 2007


Reading through the affidavit made me sick.
posted by k8t at 7:22 PM on May 19, 2007


He co-sponsored a bill honoring the operator of the page program for all her hard work.

'Scuse me, gonna go vomit now.

And yeah, if found guilty this should be a mandatory life without parole situation. If he's actually out on bail while suspected of multiple child rapes the judge should be institutionalized.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:27 PM on May 19, 2007


he'll hopefully swallow one.

I hope not ; if he is guilty (which I can't neither confirm nor deny) then he is quite a poster boy for abuse (I guess of all kinds ,sexual being maybe the most prurient one) and he needs to live to pay for his abuses. Death is too convenient, a few hundred hours of analysis to understand what leaded him to enjoy this kind of feticism, what kind of culture breeds such a person.
posted by elpapacito at 7:28 PM on May 19, 2007


Republican family values
posted by hortense at 7:28 PM on May 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


Check out this photo of him. How did they NOT know he was a deviant.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2005/mbrdt250.htm
posted by PreteFunkEra at 7:30 PM on May 19, 2007


My first thought was "he must be a republican."

Mine, too.

What gave it away for me that he was a republican? The story was an fpp at metafilter.
posted by flarbuse at 7:34 PM on May 19, 2007 [9 favorites]


Was he active in the legislature when the anti-abortion bill was passed? Did he vote for it? Just curious.

PreteFunkEra, you can't tell a molestor from a picture.
posted by jokeefe at 7:34 PM on May 19, 2007


What gave it away for me that he was a republican? The story was an fpp at metafilter.

What, do you think if he was a Democrat we'd all be making excuses for him? I don't think so.
posted by jokeefe at 7:37 PM on May 19, 2007


This guy is extraordinarily disgusting, even given the current crop of GOP officials.
posted by amberglow at 7:42 PM on May 19, 2007


Oh man, if I read this correctly, he was one of the co-sponsors of a joint resolution with the Senate that "at the next general election held in the state, the following amendment to Article VI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, as set forth in section 2 of this Joint Resolution, which is hereby agreed to, shall be submitted to the electors of the state for approval.
���� Section �2.� That Article VI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
���� ��28. The policy of South Dakota is to protect the life of the unborn child from conception until birth. Nothing in this Constitution may be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof." Text here: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/SJR2p.htm
posted by jokeefe at 7:48 PM on May 19, 2007


According to the comments in the first link, he was released on personal recognizance. Unbelievable.

Just enough time for him to fall on his own sword. Here's hoping he'll do the noble thing. That, or he'll be fallin' on all kinds of swords when he gets to prison.

If that isn't the face of a child molester, I don't know what is. Woah, stereotype.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:48 PM on May 19, 2007


Sorry about the formatting-- looked okay in preview.
posted by jokeefe at 7:49 PM on May 19, 2007


XQUZYPHYR writes "If he's actually out on bail while suspected of multiple child rapes the judge should be institutionalized."

Why? As far as I understand it, the qualifiers for bail are, basically: "Will they commit another crime while on bail?" and "Will they flee?" This guy is despicable, but I certainly doubt he'd go raping anyone while on bail, so what's left is "will he run?" I have no idea, but I don't find it so incredibly unlikely that the judge should be institutionalized for it.

flarbuse writes "What gave it away for me that he was a republican? The story was an fpp at metafilter."

jokeefe writes "What, do you think if he was a Democrat we'd all be making excuses for him? I don't think so."

No, but it probably wouldn't be posted here, either. If it were posted, yeah, we'd be jumping all over him. We're certainly not upset at him for being a Republican rapist, but for being a rapist. But if he weren't a Repub, it probably wouldn't have been posted in the first place.

(None of that is a complaint about this post. I'm groovy with it.)
posted by Bugbread at 7:51 PM on May 19, 2007


I certainly doubt he'd go raping anyone while on bail

Why do you doubt that? Do you think he'll suddenly stop just because he's out on bail?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:54 PM on May 19, 2007


Civil_Disobedient writes "If that isn't the face of a child molester, I don't know what is. Woah, stereotype."

I was expecting more "moustache and brown tinted glasses". Like monju_bosatsu said, that picture looks less like a stereotypical child molester than a stereotypical Peter Griffin.
posted by Bugbread at 7:54 PM on May 19, 2007


What, do you think if he was a Democrat we'd all be making excuses for him?

oh, but a democrat could never do something like that
posted by pyramid termite at 7:55 PM on May 19, 2007


Klaudt, a Republican who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1998, is a farmer and rancher.

South Dakota paid him to raise the foster children he raped. To think tax dollars went to pay this criminal as a representative.

Interesting the children did not turn to this creep's wife and tell her, a second grade teacher. Sad. The foster child ended up telling her biological parent, who reported the betrayal to the authorities.

"You could have knocked me over with a feather," she said. "I thought I knew him." Typical statement for people who are tricked by a pedophile's camouflage.

"Ted Klaudt was telling the girl she would be sent to juvenile prison, would not graduate and would not be able to come home if she didn't recant the story."

More like OutrageFilter. Reading the Affidavit [pdf] it's plain that he was a pathological liar, conning, stingy bastard, as well as a stalker pervert. What a frikkin monster. ugh. May he get when he deserves the rest of his life in prison.
posted by nickyskye at 7:57 PM on May 19, 2007


What gave it away for me that he was a republican? The story was an fpp at metafilter.

*ahem* There are some conservatives here. Should any Democrats be jailed for such behaviors, well, you know, they should feel free to post about it.

But yes, the first thing I did when I hit the link was command-f and then typed "Repub.." and it came right up, and I thought "Of course he was republican." It makes me sad more than anything. I was pretty much raised Republican (in Alabama in the 70s no less), and I have some very good friends that steadfastly hold on to their affiliation with the party. It's not a bad party, but it's attracting stupid, stupid horrible people. If that doesn't change, then yes, FPP posts on metafilter deriding stupidity will continue.
posted by smallerdemon at 7:59 PM on May 19, 2007 [4 favorites]


A Democrat didn't do this for fuck's sake. There is no equivalency here.

But if a Democrat did do something like this, he'd be equally guilty of child-rape. However, he wouldn't be guilty of the extreme hypocrisy of bible-thumpin', flag-wavin' cretins who do the very things they continually lecture the rest of the country about.
posted by bardic at 7:59 PM on May 19, 2007


Blazecock Pileon writes "Why do you doubt that? Do you think he'll suddenly stop just because he's out on bail?"

I don't think so for sure, no. I know jack-shit about the guy. But I think it's a possibility. From my understanding, his rapes have all been of acquantainces/family. And he did it when there was no legal suspicion on him (to his knowledge). If he raped someone again now, it would almost certainly be discovered (unlike, for example, if he raped strangers, where it might never be found out). As crazy as he is, it doesn't seem like the kind of craziness which would make him think "yeah, I'm out on bail, and under heavy suspicion, and people are coming out to bring charges against me, but I'm sure I can get away with it again under all this scrutiny".

Again, I'm not saying he wouldn't. I don't know. But with this little info, I certainly don't see any overwhelming evidence that the judge is crazy for granting him bail. Maybe it was a good call, and maybe it was a bad call, but we certainly don't have enough information to tell.
posted by Bugbread at 7:59 PM on May 19, 2007


We're certainly not upset at him for being a Republican rapist, but for being a rapist.

False dilemma, perhaps? It's being pointed out he's a Republican probably because of his hypocritical legislative activities — in this case, taking away medical care options to women under the guise of "protecting children", while at the same time raping children. We've seen this kind of behavior before with Foley, Livingston, Finkelstein, etc.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:01 PM on May 19, 2007 [1 favorite]


I knew he was a Republican only because his party affiliation was not in the headline of the story.
posted by jamjam at 8:02 PM on May 19, 2007 [13 favorites]


bardic wrote: According to the comments in the first link, he was released on personal recognizance. Unbelievable.

Presumably the judge believes Klaudt will appear for his trial rather than attempt to flee. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me. The guy has friends and family in the area, a business, plus some real estate. He's not going anywhere.
posted by ryanrs at 8:03 PM on May 19, 2007


What does it say about me that my first thought was "Who the hell cuts that man's hair!!!!!??????"

Ah, see I saw the picture on this page first and thought "what a fat man"

According to the comments in the first link, he was released on personal recognizance. Unbelievable.

I read about this earlier, and it said he was sitting in jail. I wonder what made him think he could get away with it.
posted by delmoi at 8:05 PM on May 19, 2007


However, he wouldn't be guilty of the extreme hypocrisy of bible-thumpin', flag-wavin' cretins

are you SURE about that?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:06 PM on May 19, 2007


Presumably the judge believes Klaudt will appear for his trial rather than attempt to flee. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me. The guy has friends and family in the area, a business, plus some real estate. He's not going anywhere.

Plus he's like 900 pounds (and butt ugly). He'd be hard to miss if he ran away, and the story is already all over the airwaves.
posted by delmoi at 8:06 PM on May 19, 2007


Blazecock:

Yes, sorry, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying he's being singled out unfairly or anything like that. He's being singled out for doing bad stuff while also being a big hypocritical prick. That's groovy, and makes a more interesting MeFi article than just some random guy in Topeka who rapes kids. All I meant was the very pure and true statement: "I knew he was Republican because it was posted on MeFi". Nothing deeper than that.

If you want to analyze why that is true, then perhaps it would end up being something like "I knew he was a Republican, because it was posted on MeFi, and it was posted on MeFi because it had something more than a straightforward child-abuse/rape case, but had the additional layer of being about someone who is a prominent figure (a politician), and who has made his career based on supposed moral superiority, which makes the topic more interesting to people. The "moral superiority" banner is usually hoisted by Republicans. Thus, a post about a child-rapist politician is likely to be about a person who pretends moral superiority, thus likely a Republican. Thus, a post about a child-rapist politician is likely to be about a Republican. Thus, if one sees a post about a child-rapist politician, one has a greater than 50% chance of being correct if one thinks the politician is a Republican. Hence, I saw this, and thought, 'It's on MeFi, so it's statistically likely that he's a Republican."

That's all.

Don't mean to be so darn wordy, but I think people are misinterpreting why I said "I knew he was a Republican because it's on MeFi" as being some sort of indictment of the post, or of MeFi.
posted by Bugbread at 8:10 PM on May 19, 2007


Yes, quite sure.

to the point where you couldn't even read the lead paragraph?

The Democratic leader in the South Dakota Senate says a Sioux Falls consultant under contract with the party is advancing a pro-choice philosophy on abortion at the expense of Democratic candidates for the state Legislature who oppose abortion.

but it's that willful ignorance again, isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:13 PM on May 19, 2007


To sum up, we hate him because he's ugly, fat, and has bad hair, and we hope he either commits suicide or gets thoroughly raped his ownself in prison.

Oh, and he's a rapist.
posted by hermitosis at 8:13 PM on May 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


Legisative page job description: The successful applicant will be female and share a hotel room with creepy boss
posted by longsleeves at 8:22 PM on May 19, 2007


You left out "hypocrite."
posted by zippy at 8:24 PM on May 19, 2007


23A-43-4. Factors considered in determining conditions of release to be imposed.
In determining which conditions of release will reasonably assure appearance, a committing magistrate or court shall, on the basis of available information, take into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against the defendant, the defendant's family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mental condition, the length of his residence in the community, his record of convictions, his record of appearance at court proceedings or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court proceedings, and the risk that he will flee or pose a danger to any person or to the community.
Source: South Dakota Criminal Procedure, Chapter 23A-43 (Rule 46) BAIL
posted by ryanrs at 8:25 PM on May 19, 2007


Wow. pyramid, you found the one Democrat who isn't pro-choice, and that means we must hate him as much as we hate a child molester.

Please. If that's all you've got you may as well dust off the rock you crawled out from under. Thread derailment attempts should at least be artful.
posted by dhartung at 8:29 PM on May 19, 2007


Ah. The South Dakota bill outlawing abortion was HB1215. Klaudt voted Yes on the bill. The text of this bill is here, including the elimination of the provisions for rape or incest.
posted by jokeefe at 8:30 PM on May 19, 2007


Of course he was opposed to abortion - aborted fetii don't grow up to be molestable teenagers.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:32 PM on May 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


Looking at those conditions, ryanrs, it looks like:
Nature of Offence - Bad
Circumstances of Offence - Unwarranted, thus bad (as opposed to, say, a person on trial for manslaughter in self-defence, which would be warranted circumstances, and thus not bad)
Weight of Offence - Bad
Family Ties - Incredibly bad
Employment - Good
Financial Resources - Good
Character - Tough call. Of course, anyone committing this kind of crime would be bad. However, in general (i.e. relating to things other than the crime), probably good.
Mental Condition - Probably good (except, of course, as relates to these crimes. I.e. he's a rapist asshole dick, but he's not a schizophrenic, etc.)
Length of Residence - Good
Record of Convictions - Good (I believe)
Record of Appearance at Court - Good (I believe)
Risk of Fleeing - Dunno
Risk of Posing Danger to Community on Bail - Good (I believe)

So it's a toss-up. Getting bail seems viable. Being denied bail also seems viable. Neither choice seems outlandish or worthy of judge institutionalization.
posted by Bugbread at 8:35 PM on May 19, 2007


dhartung writes "Wow. pyramid, you found the one Democrat who isn't pro-choice, and that means we must hate him as much as we hate a child molester."

Eh? No. At least, that's not what I'm reading Pyramid as saying. Someone said "a democrat wouldn't be guilty of extreme hypocrisy", and pyramid is saying "he might, depends on the guy". Not "here's a guy who is pro-life. Hate him like a child molester!!"
posted by Bugbread at 8:37 PM on May 19, 2007


(That's why you should generally avoid phrases like "X wouldn't Y" - because there's almost always an exception. "X probably wouldn't Y", or "X is nowhere nearly as likely to Y" or the like are almost always far more accurate.)

(Note that I don't say "always", but "almost always" - I'm putting my own advice in action!)
posted by Bugbread at 8:38 PM on May 19, 2007


Bugbread, when did matthowie make you fourth mod?
posted by bardic at 8:41 PM on May 19, 2007


"It's not a bad party, but it's attracting stupid, stupid horrible people."
That really is the problem. You have the old school blue blood party avoiding their inevitable decline by posing as populists and recruiting every snake handlin', white robe wearin', baby fuckin' weirdo that they can scrape out of the sewer and calling it "traditional values".
posted by 2sheets at 8:42 PM on May 19, 2007 [4 favorites]


Wow. pyramid, you found the one Democrat who isn't pro-choice

On January 30, 2007, Rep. Mary Glenski, a Sioux Falls Democrat, joined several other legislators at a press conference at the state capitol to announce plans for another statewide ban on abortions, but unlike the previous attempt, one that would add rape and incest exceptions.

actually, several democrats voted for that abortion ban

Thread derailment attempts should at least be artful.

i'm simply correcting your mistaken opinions with facts ...

" Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site."

whether you want to admit you're wrong or not, i've already proved you so ... good night
posted by pyramid termite at 8:46 PM on May 19, 2007


Someone said "a democrat wouldn't be guilty of extreme hypocrisy", and pyramid is saying "he might, depends on the guy".

A Democrat wouldn't be a hypocrite for being against abortion.

A Republican who is against abortion isn't necessarily a hypocrite, either.

However, a Republican who is against abortion to protect children, while simultaneously raping children, is a hypocrite.

Pyramid's comment does not make reference to a child-raping, anti-choice Democrat.

Therefore, pyramid's comment has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:47 PM on May 19, 2007


Bugbread, when did matthowie make you fourth mod?

being threadnanny is a voluntary position.
posted by Hat Maui at 8:53 PM on May 19, 2007


Some Democrats are pro-lifers, especially in a state as red as SD.

What the hell is your point?

I'm sick and tired of the Republican false-equivalency game. Coulter calls people faggots and ragheads. "Well ZOMG Michael Moore called Bush stupid!"

Republican creepo rapes children, allegedly. "Well ZOMG a Dem voted with the Republicans on the abortion law!"

Idiot.
posted by bardic at 8:55 PM on May 19, 2007 [4 favorites]


What gave it away for me that he was a republican? The story was an fpp at metafilter.

What gave it away for me was the fact that he rapes little girls.

Not really kidding here. Of all the sex scandals involving prominent Democrats in the past few decades, most have been simple straight adultery (Clinton, Hart), or gay adultery (McGreevey), or at worst a gay relationship with someone barely over the age of consent and in an unequal power relationship (Studds, whose "victim" never spoke a word against him). It's getting predictable.

All Republicans might not be child molesters, but there's something about that party that attracts the seamier elements of society.
posted by Epenthesis at 8:55 PM on May 19, 2007


bardic writes "Bugbread, when did matthowie make you fourth mod?"

Last month.

Blazecock Pileon writes "A Democrat wouldn't be a hypocrite for being against abortion.

"A Republican who is against abortion isn't necessarily a hypocrite, either.

"However, a Republican who is against abortion to protect children, while simultaneously raping children, is a hypocrite."


Right. Someone said "if a Democrat raped kids, he wouldn't be guilty of hypocrisy as a family-values kinda guy". Pyramid is saying "he would if he were this guy".

Now, that whole damn argument is hypothetical. Pyramid's initial statement is hypothetical, bardic's reponse is hypothetical, and pyramid's response to that response is hypothetical. Neither one has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Both pyramid and bardic are derailing, based on jokeefe misunderstanding what Flarbuse commented. And then you and I are derailing by discussing this further. Whee!

(It's like a football game, with the play-by-plays. I feel like Madden.)
posted by Bugbread at 8:59 PM on May 19, 2007


Hat Maui writes "being threadnanny is a voluntary position."

I get paid in gift cards.

Or, more accurately: it bugs me when people misinterpret eachother. When that happens, I try to clarify that. Sometimes it works out. A lot of times, people want to misinterpret eachother, so they get pissed at me. And sometimes I try to correct a misinterpretation, and it turns out the interpretation was correct, and I was the one misinterpreting. Which is why the gift cards are nice: they take off the edge.
posted by Bugbread at 9:02 PM on May 19, 2007


[a few comments removed -- get a room you two.]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:08 PM on May 19, 2007 [1 favorite]


Someone said "if a Democrat raped kids, he wouldn't be guilty of hypocrisy as a family-values kinda guy".

Here's what pyramid termite asserted initially:

oh, but a democrat could never do something like that [raping children]

Citing an example of an anti-choice Democrat does not make that person a child rapist. Pyramid's initial derail is what is classically called a false equivalency. You are perpetuating this falsehood.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:10 PM on May 19, 2007


well, it's obvious that i'm not allowed to defend myself with factual posts in the face of opposing ad hominems such as "idiots", so i guess i'll have to shut up
posted by pyramid termite at 9:13 PM on May 19, 2007


get a room you two

Huh? pt regularly follows me into threads and shits upon them. Feel free to send him a note about this jessamyn. I can assure you the attraction isn't mutual.

bugbread, there is nothing hypothetical about me pointing out that we're talking about a pedophile, who happens to be a Republican. Please feel free to make an FPP about a semi-prominent Dem lawmaker who is under arrest for child rape.

Beyond that, please consider taking part in threads that interest you directly, rather than your infinite capacity for tedious language games. A derail is a derail is a derail, and I'm apparently not the only person who's tired of your act.
posted by bardic at 9:16 PM on May 19, 2007


Blazecock Pileon writes "Pyramid's initial derail is what is classically called a false equivalency."

Yes. That's what I was talking about here:

bugbread writes "Pyramid's initial statement is hypothetical, bardic's reponse is hypothetical, and pyramid's response to that response is hypothetical. Neither one has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Both pyramid and bardic are derailing"

I am in total agreement with you on this. Pyramid Termite made a false equivalency. Bad. Then Bardic took the false equivalency and ran with it, making an unprovable declarative ("If this theoretical rapist Democrat existed, he wouldn't be a family-values hypocrite"). Then Pyramid Termite made another unprovable declarative ("If this theoretical rapist Democrat were this guy, he would be a family-values hypocrite"). Then people misinterpreted this to mean "you should hate this Democrat for being a family-values person, just like you hate child rapists".

When I said Pyramid Termite was being misinterpreted, I didn't mean to say he was right, just that what he was saying that was wrong was not what people thought he was saying that was wrong. What you, Blazecock, saw wrong in what Pyramid Termite said was accurate. What Bardic said was...well, just kinda random (how can you talk about what a person who doesn't exist would or wouldn't do?). What Dhartung saw wrong in what Pyramid Termite said was inaccurate.

So, in short:
You think what Pyramid Termite said was wrong because of X.
Bardic thought what Pyramid Termite said was wrong was because of some unknowable thing.
Dhartung thought what Pyramid Termite said was wrong because of Y.

I agree with you, disagree with Dhartung, and have no idea how to address Bardic's bit.
posted by Bugbread at 9:22 PM on May 19, 2007


so, teen girls are dumb enough to fall for that "egg donation" shit? teen girls enter his motel room and comply when "instructed to undress completely"? what a bizarre story. what bizarre teen girls. and what a bizarre picture.
posted by quonsar at 9:23 PM on May 19, 2007


it's obvious that i'm not allowed to defend myself with factual posts

You actually have a number of options:

1. You can find and present an example of a child-raping, anti-choice Democrat, which you have not done so far.

2. Or, you can retract your unsupported assertion with a measure of grace.

3. Or, you can get used to a lot of people pointing out how your assertion appears to be a false equivalence, and why, therefore, it is a common, tired derail.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 PM on May 19, 2007


metafilter: rubbing out the fibroids
posted by quonsar at 9:27 PM on May 19, 2007


bardic writes "bugbread, there is nothing hypothetical about me pointing out that we're talking about a pedophile, who happens to be a Republican."

Nope. That's groovy.

So why did you take Pyramid Termite's derail and run with it? Blazecock did well with saying "That's a false equivalency". Boom. Accurate, on point. You, instead, started talking about...what hypothetical democratic rapists would or wouldn't do?

bardic writes "Please feel free to make an FPP about a semi-prominent Dem lawmaker who is under arrest for child rape."

There ain't none, far as I know.

bardic writes "Beyond that, please consider taking part in threads that interest you directly, rather than your infinite capacity for tedious language games. A derail is a derail is a derail, and I'm apparently not the only person who's tired of your act."

You enjoy running with derails. That bugs a lot of folks. But you continue to do it. I enjoy making sure people's arguments are logical (whether they're correct or not). That bugs a lot of folks. But I continue to do it. We both enjoy doing things which annoy others. Neither of us enjoys it because it annoys others. That's just an unfortunate by-product.
posted by Bugbread at 9:31 PM on May 19, 2007


(Actually, bardic, I'm getting a bit off-track here. I have no substantial argument with what you posted. It was a hypothetical situation in response to a false equivalency. That's neither here nor there. My beef was just with dhartung's misreading of a bad Pyramid Termite argument as being a different and worse bad Pyramid Termite argument. I think the adrenaline from all the "go away bugbread" got me into a defensive mode where I ended up attacking you, bardic, more than I intended, and I apologize.)
posted by Bugbread at 9:34 PM on May 19, 2007


If that isn't the face of a child molester, I don't know what is. Woah, stereotype.

During the late 1950s, my mom worked in the box office of a Detroit-area movie theater. She said the cops came in quite regularly and then walked out with some guy in cuffs who'd been accused of "bothering" young people in the audience. According to her description (she said they all looked the same), every one of those arrestees looked like this guy.
posted by Oriole Adams at 9:36 PM on May 19, 2007


But if a Democrat did do something like this

to map this in Democrat terms, this would be like Rep. Jefferson having run on a platform of not keeping bundles of cash hidden in major household appliances.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:44 PM on May 19, 2007


so, teen girls are dumb enough to fall for that "egg donation" shit?

This is an unintended consequence of not having sex ed. It's a lost easier for a creep to pull this type of stuff with a girl or boy who doesn't know the basics about their own body.
posted by bardic at 9:54 PM on May 19, 2007 [3 favorites]


I honestly did not intend this to turn into a giant derail. I just meant to say that I thought dhartung was misinterpreting a bad argument as an even worse argument. If any of y'all think this warrants more discussion, let's take it to MetaTalk or email.
posted by Bugbread at 9:56 PM on May 19, 2007


Speaking of pedophiles, when the going gets tough for them on this side of the border they just get their chickenhawk trolling web sites hosted up in Canada. Nice to know there are web hosts who specialize in nothing but pedophile sites up there. Love the quote regarding why prey on young girls -- "The main thing, I think, they're cute, a lot cuter than women."
posted by MAYORBOB at 10:05 PM on May 19, 2007


Klaudt then stated that "maybe I did some things I shouldn't have," according to a court affidavit.

It's only about political parties because one of our mainstream machines seems to attract more folks with a sanctimonious rape, pillage and plunder neo-conventional attitude.

I think rampant narcissism is not good.
posted by taosbat at 10:09 PM on May 19, 2007


bugbread typed "If you want to analyze why that is true, then perhaps it would end up being something like 'I knew he was a Republican, because it was posted on MeFi, and it was posted on MeFi because it had something more than a straightforward child-abuse/rape case, but had the additional layer of being about someone who is a prominent figure (a politician), and who has made his career based on supposed moral superiority, which makes the topic more interesting to people. The 'moral superiority' banner is usually hoisted by Republicans. Thus, a post about a child-rapist politician is likely to be about a person who pretends moral superiority, thus likely a Republican."

Remember, people, we're talking about a man representing an extremely rural district in state politics. You really can't talk about that level of politics using the same terms you'd use to talk about the national political sphere.

Although Klaudt's views likely fall more-or-less in line with the South Dakota Republican Party's platform, that's not what got him elected. What got him elected is his standing in the community and voters' estimations of his character. In this case, voters were dead wrong.

In fact, it's possible that he wasn't even elected after primaries. some counties in South Dakota don't even have Democrat nominees. Seriously.

Having worked with at-risk kids in South Dakota, my biggest question while reading the affidavit was what color skin the girl has.
posted by roll truck roll at 10:10 PM on May 19, 2007


Also, has anyone emailed him yet?
posted by roll truck roll at 10:14 PM on May 19, 2007


what a bizarre story. what bizarre teen girls. and what a bizarre picture.

Too many fish, not enough pants.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:27 PM on May 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


Arguments: Tedious language games.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:56 PM on May 19, 2007


Did anyone read the affadavit , which describes the events in much more detail? It is mind-blowingly weird reading.
posted by banishedimmortal at 12:14 AM on May 20, 2007


How strange. A man is accused of raping some girls, and suddenly torture is a fine thing to advocate. Of course, under the cloak of your dearly beloved "Pound them in the ass" prison, so it isn't exactly state-sanctioned, just state-look-the-other-way. So that makes it okay, right?
posted by Goofyy at 12:16 AM on May 20, 2007


How strange. A man is accused of raping some girls, and suddenly torture is a fine thing to advocate.

I must have missed it. Where was torture advocated? Ctrl+F turns up nothing...

Of course, under the cloak of your dearly beloved "Pound them in the ass" prison

Oh. Wait. So rape = torture now? Hrm. Ok, well, I guess I can see how that works...

The train of thought works something like this (assuming he is guilty of course):
1. Man rapes some girls.
2. I hope he gets raped up the bum in prison.

It's not so much "strange" as it is "fitting."

Unless, of course, I'm completely misunderstanding why you used such an inflammatory buzz word as "torture," in which case I apologize.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:35 AM on May 20, 2007


Oh, then. It's sure a good thing he didn't torture them.
posted by roll truck roll at 12:47 AM on May 20, 2007


Oh. Wait. So rape = torture now?

Torture is the deliberate infliction of physical or mental pain, so yes, rape is torture, regardless of whether or not you think it's a fitting punishment.
posted by cmonkey at 1:21 AM on May 20, 2007


...from the article:

Klaudt is in the custody of the Corson County Sheriff, and is on his way to Deadwood...
posted by rmmcclay at 1:53 AM on May 20, 2007


bugbread wrote: So it's a toss-up. Getting bail seems viable. Being denied bail also seems viable.

How right you are! It seems that Corson County released him on personal recognizance, but Hughes County felt he was a threat to the public and demanded 10% of a $100,000 bond.

Source: Ex-lawmaker accused of rape leaves jail after posting bond.
posted by ryanrs at 2:34 AM on May 20, 2007


What a fat piece of Republican shit. I hope jail is a nightmare. Until he dies.
posted by spitbull at 5:55 AM on May 20, 2007


The train of thought works something like this (assuming he is guilty of course):
1. Man rapes some girls.
2. I hope he gets raped up the bum in prison.

It's not so much "strange" as it is "fitting."


If rape is so awful, why would you want there to be more of it? Hatred and vengeance are terrible, non-productive things to nurture within yourself. If he did it, segregate him from the rest of the population for the rest of his life and be done with it.
posted by Scoo at 5:55 AM on May 20, 2007


The Affidavit is kind of blackly comic:

"A.M. also advised that Klaudt printed a form off the internet which Klaudt claimed he had got from 'Terri' for A.M. to fill out regarding the egg donation. A.M. indicated there was no heading on the form so she was not sure whether it did in fact come from 'Terri'."

In other words, she submitted to all kinds of horrible things involving speculums and ky jelly, not to mention "breast exams" and "uterus checks' without doubting his bona fides, but presented with a form which has no heading she says "Hey - I smell a rat!"

Poor kid.
posted by tiny crocodile at 6:36 AM on May 20, 2007


For those who hold the "prison rape is bad" position (which I agree with, btw) demanding the logic for, "I hope this rapist gets raped in prison," I think I can supply some answers. Revenge, poetic justice (if not actual justice), and consignment of the damned.

So I know that he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know that our prison system institutionalizes rape. I know that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

But I want this sick rapist to burn in fiery torment forever, and I don't even believe in hell. I'm aware that this may not be right, that it might even be ethically abhorrent. But this empty bastard raped his children. I want him to suffer.

So, you know, there's tension. And when I'm not worked up about it, I'll do what I know is the right thing: vote and work for candidates who support prison reform (Bueller... Bueller...). But if we ever win that policyobjective I'm going to know that as a direct result of my actions Klaudt is sleeping better at night, and maybe I'll need a drink to stomach that.
posted by Richard Daly at 7:20 AM on May 20, 2007


Add me to the list of people who are not at all surprised that he's a Republican. And I suppose the guy's not that bad of a flight risk-- all the cops would have to do is put out an APB for Peter Griffin, and they'd have him in a matter of hours. Seriously, the resemblance is uncanny.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:22 AM on May 20, 2007


Add me to the list of people who are not at all surprised that he's a Republican.

No kidding; this is just the latest in a long line of Republican sex scandals, including Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, John Young, Wayne Hays, Gerry Studds, and Mel Reynolds.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:55 AM on May 20, 2007


"Klaudt says when he cried, Bubba gave him some bug juice and told him to toughen up."
posted by sfts2 at 8:14 AM on May 20, 2007


You know how I can tell you're a Republican? It's your hideous elephant tie.
posted by Egg Go Boom at 8:18 AM on May 20, 2007


My heart goes out to the victims. May the guilty be punished and all that. This kind of thing makes me wonder what the hell happened in that guy's life that made him capable of doing what he did. I believe that over half of all child-molesters were molested as children themselves. Which is very saddening. I hope that those children are able to overcome their hardships and that that man is able to confess to the truth of the matter and get the help he needs. Assuming he is guilty, of course.
posted by Green With You at 8:56 AM on May 20, 2007


so, teen girls are dumb enough to fall for that "egg donation" shit? teen girls enter his motel room and comply when "instructed to undress completely"? what a bizarre story. what bizarre teen girls. and what a bizarre picture.

Honest to God. These are teenagers. Foster kids. Living with a man who had an enormous amount of power over them, physically and financially. Who was much older. Who was a freaking legislator. Who we know was capable of making threats (and I doubt the ones in the article were the first). How many teens will ask questions in that situation? How dare you call them "dumb"? Or were you the one shining example of a teen who always saw through adult bullshit and never got fooled, conned, or manipulated? Because I don't buy it.

These kids have enough problems without being jeered at by internet jerks for the crime of letting themselves be victims. Jesus.
posted by emjaybee at 9:29 AM on May 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Not to mention that these girls are part of the messed-up, whacked-out foster system we have to begin with. These are not mature, poised, successful young women, they're damaged human beings who were exploited and manipulated in the worst possible way. They were not just raped, they were mind-f##ked.

Yes, I'd say that constitutes torture.
posted by misha at 12:35 PM on May 20, 2007


From his Wikipedia:

While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders, including "community safety zones" where sex offenders are not allowed to reside or enter zones within 500 feet of schools, public parks and swimming pools. He also co-sponsored the bill that required South Dakota to be included in the National Sex Offender Registry, a bill that requires the Department of Social Services to inform parents about abuse or neglect involving their child who is under the state's care, and a (defeated) bill that would have prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to high school students.

Lots of irony here.
posted by k8t at 1:58 PM on May 20, 2007


what does it say about me that my first thought was "he sure has egg on his face now!"

That you're an Adam and the Ants fan?
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:16 PM on May 20, 2007


If rape is so awful, why would you want there to be more of it?

Richard Daly explains it better than I could, and for that I thank him.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 3:01 PM on May 20, 2007


I've said it before and I'll say it again: subsidise sex workers for the ugly, and we can end rape in our lifetimes.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:05 PM on May 20, 2007


I've said it before and I'll say it again: subsidise sex workers for the ugly, and we can end rape in our lifetimes.

That's a quaint and myopic idea which might work if the only reason men raped women is because they were hard up.
posted by jessamyn at 3:13 PM on May 20, 2007


Maybe an exclamation mark at the end of that would've worked better...
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:27 PM on May 20, 2007


There is some research that says that there is some correlation between internet pornography availability and reduced rape rates.

"Using state-level panel data from 1998-2003, I find that the arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape incidence. However, growth in internet usage had no apparent effect on other crimes. Moreover, when I disaggregate the rape data by offender age, I find that the effect of the internet on rape is concentrated among those for whom the internet-induced fall in the non-pecuniary price of pornography was the largest – men ages 15-19, who typically live with their parents."

link
- not sure if accessible to those without university library subscriptions.
posted by k8t at 3:30 PM on May 20, 2007


And another article, making a similar argument about anon. post office boxes.
posted by k8t at 3:55 PM on May 20, 2007


This is the second legislative page scandal in South Dakota in less than a year. Both involved incidents at the hotel rooms of the Legislators. Maybe now is the time for the fox to stop guarding the hen house.

What a sad commentary on the morals of our political leaders. Pathetic "eye for an eye" justice has been mentioned in this thread several times, but perhaps this is our time to consider how our political apathy and dysfunction has led to such abhorrent manifestations as this creep and anything else you want to tack on.
posted by limmer at 4:33 PM on May 20, 2007


Universal castration at birth is the only sure-fire method to end the rape of women. Have some cojones people and don't settle for anything else.
posted by allen.spaulding at 4:39 PM on May 20, 2007


It is amazing how many people who are elected to represent the people are also child-molestors. WTF is up with that?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:34 PM on May 20, 2007


Desire for power at any cost is almost a requirement to attain elected office. I imagine that psychology correlates rather strongly with the population of those that force themselves on children, likely out of a narcissistic and burning desire for control.
posted by Richard Daly at 7:23 PM on May 20, 2007


Universal castration at birth is the only sure-fire method to end the rape of women. Have some cojones people and don't settle for anything else.

How could we have cojones if that whole "universal castration" thing actually flew?
posted by the_bone at 8:17 PM on May 20, 2007


posted by allen.spaulding Universal castration at birth is the only sure-fire method to end the rape of women. Have some cojones people and don't settle for anything else.

When balls are outlawed, only outlaws will have balls.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:32 PM on May 20, 2007


I'm from South Dakota.

That affidavit makes my blood boil.

Time for some serious change.
posted by killThisKid at 7:36 AM on May 21, 2007


Conspiracy of Silence
posted by hortense at 7:37 PM on May 21, 2007


« Older Rambo 4   |   wigan casino Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments