Ladies Night
Okay, I've heard murmurs which indicate that some people are finding Ann Coulter stale, tired, and moribund. Her work, too. So, I'm presenting some fresh, new female talent for your consideration.
While I don't know if any of these ladies have long, blonde hair to swish, they do work cheaply, and produce wingnuttery that gets the job done. Like the Suave shampoo commercials used to say, "If you can't tell the difference, why should we?" Yes, the gimmick for today is that one of these columnists is actually Ann Coulter with a new name and a wig -- your job is to figure out which one.
1. First up is Judie Brown, "president and co-founder of American Life League, the nation's largest grassroots pro-life educational organization." Her latest Renew America column, "A case of mistaken identity," is about how she used to think that Bill Frist was a great guy, but now he's revealed himself to be nothing more than a common Nazi.
On July 29, Senator Bill Frist announced that he had "changed his mind" and decided to support human embryonic stem cell research. This physician-turned-politician claimed that scientists need to pursue the "truly magnificent, truly remarkable properties" of stem cells taken from days-old human embryos.
As a point of information, human embryonic stem cell research can only be done by killing innocent boys and girls in the embryonic stage of development. So while Frist claims this research will save human beings' lives, he ignores the fact that it always begins with a sacrifice of other human beings.
Sure, they're human beings who lack such basic human equipment as brains, but they're still innocent boys and girls (boys and girls without organs, poor things). And so, by supporting stem cell research, Frist is advocating mass murder, proving him to be evil, pretty much. (I guess the cat killing should have given us a clue).
Judie is also upset with the group "National Right to Life," because while they expressed disappointment in Frist's support of stem cell research funding, they said that it was "worth noting" that he came out against cloning. Judie thinks that they're traitors to the pro-life cause too, because it's just not enough to come out against cloning (because everybody hates those bastards, the clones!) -- we also need to hate baby-killer Frist.
My initial reaction to this was horror, which turned to anger, which turned to sorrow. ... How could NRLC say that anything is "worth noting" when a United States senator turns his back on the most vulnerable members of the human family and chooses to support their direct killing? Why pander to a clearly pro-death pronouncement by this Republican senator? Why not excoriate him for his abuse of power? Why not challenge his warped sense of science?
But now they have gone too far. They have publicly excused a man who is willing to permit the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings for the vacuous promise of "magnificent" research that is, at its core, unethical and immoral.
Yes, Frist is a monster, all right. Today he's excusing the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies -- tomorrow he'll be raising taxes. Think of that when he's running for President in 2008.
2. But Judie brought up an interesting point: that these pinpoint-sized blastocysts are "the most vulnerable members of the human family (so vulnerable that many of them never manage to implant themselves in the lining of the uterus, proving that Mother Nature is just as callous as Senator Frist when it comes to the lives of these innocent boys and girls). And yesterday, while doing research on Norman Podhoretz, I came across a column by quilt-designer Deanna Spingola ("Bush's war of terror, the neo-cons (Part Six)") which gives us a hint as to how we might help these vulnerable humans stick up for themselves.
What exactly did the Vietnam War accomplish? It divided our country and caused significant economic, moral, cultural and social changes. While the war raged in Vietnam there was also a battle at home. The Feminist Movement was pitted against the American family. The combination of World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Feminist Revolution impacted the American family. By the time the fifteen year Vietnam War was over, abortion was in and would ultimately take the lives of over forty-four million weaponless people.
Okay, Deanna's point seems to be that by embroiling our country in a non-essential war, our leaders (and the feminists) are responsible not just for the war casualties, but also for the deaths of all those killed by abortion. But I think that she's provided a solution to the situation that Judie identified -- see, the reason that the blastocysts are vulnerable is because they're unarmed! (Yeah, they don't have arms, but more importantly, they don't have guns.) I believe Jesus' General pioneered the idea of arming the unborn, but I commend Deanna for attempting to popularize it.
3. Next, let's hear from Jessica Anderson, a college student and "Concerned Women for America" intern. She's currently concerned about The Depravity of "Desperate Housewives."
Regrettably, Marc Cherry, Desperate Housewives’ openly gay series creator, and his writing staff, many of whom are also gay, seem to enjoy treating sexual immorality and dysfunctional behavior with flippancy. Though Cherry describes Housewives as designed “to entertain,” there is nothing entertaining about broken marriage vows, casual sex and a disdain for childrearing.
Um, fine -- Queen Victoria isn't amused. But did she even watch the show? Admittedly, I've only seen it a few times, but I didn't see any "disdain for childreading," only a humorous acknowledgement of the fact that caring for kids can be way harder than being a successful advertising exec.
Here's the only "anti-child rearing" evidence that Jessica cites:
Lynette, a career woman turned stay-at-home mom, said she hated her life and demanded a nanny for her out-of-control children.
Jessica concludes by informing us of the TV housewives we should be watching:
Unfortunately, the message perpetuated by Desperate Housewives is deplorably deceptive. June Cleaver and Carol Brady may be considered old-fashioned by some, but they could probably teach Susan, Lynette, Bree, Edie and Gabrielle a thing or two about marriage and motherhood—mainly that both are fulfilling and honorable, a far cry from desperation.
Jessica, Carol Brady had a full-time housekeeper -- so why is she any better than Lynette, who had the nerve to demand a nanny? And there's quite a bit we don't know about the Cleaver marriage -- are we SURE than June found it fulfilling? I mean, she DID have a son called "Beaver."
4. Now, let's hear from home schooling mom LisaAnn Swink. Her piece is called " CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF," and it's about how nobody should pay attention to Sheehan, who isn't special just because she lost her son in Iraq. After all, "the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss."
If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?
Of course, LisaAnn has lost no children in Iraq, so you can understand why she doesn't think that should count for much.
5. Now, here's Suzanne Fields with "The devil in the details of Holocaust images." Okay, Suzanne isn't new and/or fresh, but I wanted to highlight the following paragraph from her column from last week, which is about how James Dobson isn't the only person who recently made an unfortunate Nazi comparison.
Woody Allen made a reach, too, in an interview with der Spiegel, the German news magazine, trying to level the killing field in the name of moral equivalence. "So in 2001 some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis," he said. "And in my childhood, some Nazis killed Jews. And now some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. . . . History is the same thing over and over again." Woody is often funny, but sometimes he can be an oxymoron.
I'd like to think that Suzanne was trying to be funny, but there's nothing in the column (or her other columns) to support the theory that she has a sense of humor. So, I am forced to conclude that she's just stupid.
And those are the fresh, new faces of female wingnuttery. We expect we'll be seeing a lot more of them in the future. Or maybe we'll never hear from them again -- it's hard to say.
Anyway, which one do you think was really Ann Coulter? (No cheating -- you have to guess before checking any of the links.) Guess correctly and maybe we'll try to address Mr. Doghouse Riley's complaints about how "The Ultimate Wingnut Challenge" is unfair to non-Ann Coulters.
4:06:46 AM 
|
