The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Friday, December 31, 2010

February 25, 2004 by s.z.

Desperately Seeking Conservatives

On a day when everybody is talking about marriage, it's nice that young Judson "Cloned Pandas of Mass Destruction" Cox takes up the concerns of us singles. 
If you are single (which I am), Valentine’s Day is a reminder of just how difficult it is to find the right person. It is particularly difficult if you are conservative. For an example of why, think of the Super Bowl Halftime Show. If you found it offensive, the club scene would equally offend you. Moreover, you probably have little in common with fans of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake.
Yes, it's tough to be conservative and therefore unable to find love during the Super Bowl Half-time show like everyone else.  And if you found the show offensive, then it follows that you don't like "the club scene," popular music, or breasts, and therefore you will never find a mate, and will die alone and unloved.
Shared values are essential to forming long-term relationships, but it is difficult to identify people who share your values in a social setting. Politics just aren’t sexy (unless you are Ann Coulter), and they don’t make for good flirtation fodder. You will never find a collection of pick-up lines that includes, "So, what do you think about national defense?"
I'm starting to wonder if Judson is really serious in his search for love, because why would he expect to find his ideal woman (one who is offended by everything except national defense) by using pick-up lines?
But yes, politics ARE sexy if you are Ann Coulter, since for her it's like S&M, except that she doesn't have to be in the same room with the people she's trying to humilate, dominate, and hurt.  But sadly, nobody in (or out of ) politics finds Ann sexy.  Well, except for Judson, Ben Shapiro, and a few other pimply virgins who don't know what the adam's apple means (or who pretend they don't, so they don't have to confront what attraction to Ann means about them.)

There are also environmental challenges preventing conservatives from meeting. To begin with, if you are in college, you are pretty much up a certain malodorous creek without a paddle. Not only are most college students liberal, the atmosphere on campus tends to keep conservatives closeted for fear of retribution. You can join the College Republicans, but these groups are often smaller than a Sunday school class in Manhattan.

Okay, now I'm sure that Judson is just playing games with us, since he attends Liberty University, which should be chock o'block with comely Young Conservatives, College Republicans, and Young Abstainers Who Object to Breasts.
With each year you remain single after graduation, your odds of marrying become less likely.
If you're not married by age 22, you can pretty much forget it.
Much depends on your choice of career; if you go into education, public service, sociology, psychology, journalism or entertainment, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to meet another conservative -- much less a single one. You can try to increase your odds by joining political groups; however, conservative groups are usually made up of (married) retired people.
That guy who plays the lead in Mel Gibson's A Fistful of Jesus* chose a career in the entertanment field, and HE got struck by lightening.  That must prove something. 

But it is true that conservative political groups are usually made up of old, boring, ugly, married people.  Take the Republican Party, for example.
The temptation is to settle for a person who may not share your values. For liberals, there is little danger in marrying a conservative. Conservatives are generally intelligent, well humored, have good work ethics, save and invest, plan for the future and are family oriented. The worst thing liberals have to worry about is that their husband or wife may take their kids to church! For conservatives, the situation is very different. We have to worry that our children may be aborted without our knowledge or consent! Our liberal partners may give our hard earned money to communists, encourage our children to have premarital sex, use drugs, drop out of school, follow pagan religions or become homosexual!
That happened to a conservative friend of mine.  She was a junior in college, and knew that her time to find a husband was running out.  So, she married some guy whom she picked up a a half-time show by asking him what he thought about national defense (he thought it was nice).  Sure, he was a liberal, but she believed that her love could change him.  But she soon found out that while she was out delivering Avon, he was giving her hard earned money to Communists!  He was also encouraging their twin toddlers to have premarital sex, use drugs, follow pagan religions, and become homosexuals! 

She was shocked, as you might imagine.  But when she learned he had aborted their other children without her knowledge or consent, it was the last straw!  She had no choice but to have an affair with a married conservative who TOOK from the commies, instead of giving (he took both money and prostitutes).  And soon she was bearing his child, without the knowledge or consent of her husband.  I don't know what her married lover encourged his children to do, but their cousins are known for their alcohol and drug excesses.  And that man's name is . . . Neil Bush.  And now you know the REST of the story.

Anyway, Judson goes on to explain that some people do stupid stuff to meet other single conservatives, like getting hooked up by the Sean Hannity radio show.
Usually, it is a woman, who (regardless of age) is despondent because the only men she meets, who share her values, are her father’s age. It seems the feminists of thirty years ago were successful, and today’s young women are paying the price -- there just aren’t too many John Waynes sauntering across college campuses (except for me, of course!).
Thirty years ago, the feminists succeeded in their aim of aborting all the male conservatives and John Wayne clones, leaving young female conservatives no eligible mates except for Judson.  Damn that Gloria Steinem!
Having experienced this dilemma, I was shocked to find that online dating sites for conservatives are few.
How odd.  When I checked out the online conservative matchmaking sites, I was shocked to find that there are so many (learning of the existence of the Ann Coulter Dating Club was, all by itself, enough to floor me).  I wonder why Judson couldn't find them.
The only one I found was , a new website that opened Valentine’s Day of this year.
Okay, now we see the purpose of this column: Judson is shilling for RepublicanConnections.  No wonder he played up the difficulty of finding love during the Super Bowl Half-time show.
This site is different from non-ideological sites. Firstly, it is exclusive to conservatives. The owner makes every effort to evaluate each member profile and weed out liberals.
I visited the site.  At this point it just consists of the home page (a lame graphic of an elephant and a blurb that sounds suspiciously like Judson's paragraph about what a hardworking, moral, family oriented people the conservatives are), an application page, and a legal disclaimer which informs you of the scads of things for which RepublicanConnections is not responsible (including "personal injury or death, resulting from anyone's use of the Website or the Service").

Anyway, the questionnaire used to come up RC profile only asks six questions (gender, age, Political Party, religion and/or Denomination, Profession or Education Level, and "About Me").  Of those, you are only required to answer the first two.  So, it's entirely possible for a liberal (gasp!) to slip through the service's rigorous screening.   Thus,  you might fall in love and marry someone you met at the site, only to realize years later (after he donated all your money to the Communist Party and aborted your children) that he was actually a liberal.  And so you'd kill him and then be sentenced to death yourself, but RepublicanConnections would NOT be liable, since they said in their disclaimer that they wouldn't be.
Secondly, only members can enter the site - which prevents voyeurs. I particularly like the explanation of membership, that explains, "At, we only accept paid memberships; because, you get what you pay for, and only liberals expect to get something for nothing."
Well, that little jab should get the conservatives to cough up $20 a month, even though the service doesn't tell you many members they currently have (my guess: just Judson), doesn't let you look at any member profiles, and doesn't explain what you get for your money (except for a chance to submit your profile). 
I predict that will become a very successful business over the next year -- I signed up! The most successful businesses look for needs and fill them; they have done just that. This is capitalism at its finest, and humanitarianism at its most basic level -- the family.
As you might recall, a couple of weeks ago Judson was moaning about having to get up early and drive to his crappy job, where they made him do tiring and/or boring stuff all day in exchange for just enough money to pay the morgage on his crappy house and put gasoline in his crappy car.  So, I guess he decided that being an entrepeneur (AND humantiarian) was actually the way to the riches promised by the free market, and he quit the job at Walmart and put together a (crappy) conservative dating service.
For those of you who raised a lone glass in toast to this Valentine’s Day, I wish you well in your search for love. Let us persevere in our quest so that we may not drink alone next year. The greatest hope for our nation is that it will be comprised of strong families, who will raise conservative children. I, for one, think it’s time to start looking for love in all the RIGHT places.
Thanks for the thought, Judson.  And I in turn hope that you make back the $50 you invested in setting up this dating scam, and get at least one date out of it, even if it's with Rush Limbaugh.

*Check out TBOGG's list of titles for Mel's movie.  I think my favorite is "Crouching Jesus, Hidden Agenda." 
And while you're there, scroll up and check out The Bold and the Beautiful Bush Slogan contest (as suggested by Ben Shapiro).  I'm still working on mine, but I'm leaning towards a variation of the slogan Mayor Quimby used in the race against Sideshow Bob.  You know the one: "Vote Quimby: If you were running for mayor, he'd vote for you."  And of course, that made me think of the analogy Peggy Noonen used in the Wash Post chat (and her last column) to explain why people liked Bush, even though he was an idiot. 

So, my slogan idea is: "Vote Bush: If your house was on fire, he'd stand outside and direct traffic." 

5:16:07 AM    
comment [] trackback []

I Can't Believe It's A Law Professor      

The Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Journal" presents Mary Ann Glendon, "Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard," giving us some technical legally stuff in a piece entitled:
For Better or for Worse?
The federal marriage amendment would strike a blow for freedom
But since YOU presumably didn't attend Hollywood Upstairs School of Law too, let me rephrase professor some of Glendon's law jargon into regular English for you.
President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality and preserving democratic decision-making. 
President Bush's endorsement of a plan to write discrimination into the Constitution should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality, and don't want homosexuals to get any.  And if you don't welcome it, then you're probably a Commie.
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience," he explained, "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."
The President had to support the ammendment because a few judges and San Francisco officials forced him into it by making the fundies threaten to not vote for him unless he did.
Those judges are here in Massachusetts, of course, where the state is cutting back on programs to aid the elderly, the disabled, and children in poor families. Yet a four-judge majority has ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households, most of which have two earners and are not raising children.
The gays have everything: nice houses, fashion sense, and that "Will and Grace" TV show -- and now they want to take away the only thing that poor, disabled, elderly children of MA have going for them: the fact that they can get married and the homosexuals can't. 
What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children.
Gay marriage isn't about equal rights, it's about giving gays SPECIAL rights -- the special rights we give to married people.  Sure, that's the whole point, but, um, WE won't be special if they get to be special too.  And it wouldn't be fair if they got the benefits of marriage, but don't have to deal with the disadvantages: children.
That philosophy of marriage [that children do not need both a mother and a father, and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together], moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school.  They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse.  In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex.  Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.  
We give special rights to married people because they usually have kids.  Gays don't have kids, and so deserve no special rights.  But letting gays get married would mean that if they did have kids, then those kids would have two parents who are married to each other.  And that discriminates against OUR kids, who will be taught in school that those other families are just as good as ours -- and if we say they aren't, everybody will say WE'RE the jerks, calling us homophobes and such, and it's our children who will suffer.  Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.  
Gay marriage is religious discrimination, in that if our religion says that gays will burn in hell, then the government should back us up on this by not giving them rights.  Because if same sex marriages are legal, then ministers will be forced to teach their congregations that Jesus was gay, or they will be sued for slander.  I swear it's true -- I read it in a law book, or got a forwarded email about it or something.  Besides, they allow gay marriages in Canada, and look what happened to them!  Yes, everyone has to worship Satan, under penalty of death.  I'm pretty sure that's true.
Finally, there is the flagrant disregard shown by judges and local officials for the rights of citizens to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work and raise our children.  
We want to live, work, and raise our children in a country that discriminates against some of its citizens, and these rogue judges aren't respecting that.  In a democracy, they should have to do what we say.  "The customer is always right.  That's what everyone likes about us." -- Homer J. Simpson
Whether one is for, against or undecided about same-sex marriage, a decision this important ought to be made in the ordinary democratic way--through full public deliberation in the light of day, not by four people behind closed doors. That deliberation can and must be conducted, as President Bush stated, "in a manner worthy of our country--without bitterness or anger."
The important thing is: whether one is against, or undecided about same-sex marriage, our President is supporting an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

1:08:10 AM 

No comments:

Post a Comment