December 16, 2004 by s.z.

Townhall Review

Bringing you the finest wingnuttery that the Heritage Foundation's stable of geldings has to offer.

1.  Ben Shapiro

In a column entitled "Act like a man, Kobe," the manly Ben gets on Kobe's case.  (See, Kobe talked trash about Karl Malone for allegedly hitting on Kobe's wife, but since Kobe cheated on her, who is he to object to anything anybody else might do to her?)  But Ben's real wrath is for those damned feminists who told women not to marry Ben.

The truth is, the feminists don't really care what Kobe Bryant does, as long as he doesn't rape anybody.

Yup, that's it, pretty much.

They don't care because they don't ask men to be gentlemen. That's not their agenda.

No, it isn't -- their agenda is about equal rights for women.  Two for two, Ben! 

Men can cheat as much as they like; after all, marriage means nothing. It's just a "patriarchal institution," as ardent feminist and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it in an appearance at Harvard Law School last month.

BTW, did Ben ever mention that he attends Harvard Law?

But anyway, at that appearance last month, I heard that Justice Ginsburg said, “The definition of marriage has changed many times in our history.  All of those changes have made marriage more of an equal union.”  So, it doesn't sound like the theme of her remarks was dissing marriage (even gay marriage).  You wouldn't be misquoting or misinterpreting the Justice like you reportedly did to your UCLA professors in your book, would you, Ben?  Because I bet Harvard Law doesn't approve of that kind of thing.

Men can act like pigs, as long as they don't violently assault anyone. And conversely, women deceived by their husbands aren't victims, as long as they aren't raped or harassed.

Yeah, that's probably Ruth's (and the Supreme Court's) general view on the matter -- I guess those 3 months in law school haven't been totally wasted.  However, since you don't seem happy about it, maybe the law isn't the right field for you, Ben -- unless your aim is to be one of those rouge judges you wrote about last week, who can hypothetically do almost anything, including criminalizing adultery, and outlawing pigginess.

Radical feminists in the 1960s and 1970s preferred to degrade women rather than upgrade men.  To that end, they ignored the vehicle of marriage, which is specifically designed to force men into a higher morality.

Because, as everyone knows, men are promiscuous, sex-obsessed pigs, women are pristine, asexual madonnas on pedestals, and marriage is the institution which FORCES men to be monogamous and forces women to close their eyes and think of England.  Gee, Ben, I can't see why you aren't hitched yet.

So when Kobe Bryant's wife is cheated upon, and then again when she is allegedly harassed and her cheating husband decides to protect the little woman, the feminists have no sympathy, since matrimony means nothing to them. But when Kobe's Colorado vamp rape accuser complains that she didn't consent to Kobe's advances, the feminists rush forward to protect her.

Ben, I can't speak for "the feminists" (much less for the radical feminists of the '60s and '70s), but I would guess that they feel that the Bryant marriage is none of their business, but that getting justice for an alleged rape victim is.  Is it your position that it's more important to chastise men for adultery than it is to prosecute them for rape?

Kobe Bryant should be the poster boy for the women's movement. He's the kind of guy they promote. He isn't bound by the conventions of that "sham" institution called marriage, and he only has consensual sex.

Ben, let me ask you a question: is Ruth Bader Ginsburg married to a Kobe Bryant?  Doesn't her husband seem to treat her well?  Don't they seem happy together in their equal union?  If so, couldn't it be that maybe you're wrong about the kind of man the "women's movement" promotes?

Too bad he isn't a real man -- real men don't treat women like garbage.

No, they don't.  And real men don't need to keep mentioning that they attend Harvard Law School.

 

2.  Mike Adams

First Amendment defender Dr. Mike has two articles out this week.  The first is called "The Robert Jensen deportation fund," and it advocates deporting a journalism professor for saying bad things about the war in Iraq.

Robert Jensen (rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu) is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin. He is also the author of "Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity." In an article written for The Austin American Statesman, Jensen recently claimed that “The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing.”

While Jensen was careful to say that the loss of American lives is not to be celebrated, he insulted our soldiers deeply by saying that their deaths “haven't protected Americans or brought freedom to Iraqis.” [...]

When I was first sent a copy of Jensen’s article, I was flabbergasted. I immediately tried to think of ways I could oppose the professor in his efforts to demoralize our troops and defeat our nation in a time of war. But, now, I’ve had a change of heart.

As of today, I hereby announce the establishment of the new Robert Jensen Deportation Fund. Once the fund has enough money to buy Jensen a one-way ticket to Iraq, we can contact Iraqi insurgents to let them know he is on his way to help defeat our troops.

Based upon my reading of Jensen’s work, I can tell that he is a brave revolutionary warrior. There is no sense in keeping him here in the evil American Empire, seething with anger against our troops. We should do everything within our power to help him bravely face those troops in combat. After all, he is the one who says that we should be “courageous” and “dismantle the American empire.” I look forward to seeing him face off against some of the Marines that he has tried to demoralize with his anti-American rhetoric. Good luck, Professor.

Based upon my reading of Dr. Mike's work, I can tell that he is a brave patriotic warrior.  There is no sense in keeping him here, at a keyboard, when his fervor for helping the demoralized troops could be put to more practical use by sending him to Iraq, where he can put his gun where his mouth is, so to speak.  I look forward to seeing him face the same dangers and hardships that he wants the troops to deal with in his name, for that way he can show Jensen how wrong he is the desirability of ending the war.  Good luck, Dr. Professor, Ph.D.

It is no laughing matter when we imagine the outrage Jensen’s diatribe must bring to the hearts of the brave men and women who serve in Iraq. They risk their lives to preserve our constitutional rights. Sadly, some will die preserving a coward’s perceived right to commit treason.

Dr. Mike, I doubt the brave men and women have ever heard of Jensen (or you, for that matter), and if they have, I bet they have more important things to worry about.  And I have to say, for a criminology professor who got his Townhall gig for claiming to champion free speech, you don't seem to know much about the crime of treason, or about what freedom of speech entails.

Mike's second piece, called "Naked men, female impersonators, and alumni donations," is about how he and his whole clan were forced to read two of those free gay newspapers.  Grandma especially enjoyed them.

Dear UNC-Wonderland Board of Trustees:

As the proud parent of a recent graduate of UNC-Wonderland (UNCW),

Dr. Mike has a child who just graduated from UNC-Wilmington, where Mike teaches?  How nice!  This alleged son can hang out with Dr. Mike's wife Krysten, who graduated from UNCW a couple of years ago!

I want to thank you for providing such interesting reading material for those of us attending post-graduation ceremonies last Saturday in the university union. Because of the long graduation ceremony, the departmental reception for sociology graduates was postponed for about forty-five minutes. During our wait, we really needed something to read.

Because, heaven knows, a family can't be expected to talk to, you know, TALK to other for 45 minutes!

After unsuccessfully searching the union lobby for a copy of the local newspaper, we came across a whole stack of the most recent issue of Queer Notes. I know that the school provides free copies of the magazine as a part of “project B-Glad.” In keeping with the university’s emphasis on diversity, a stack of another gay magazine, The Front Page, was also provided for our reading enjoyment.

And the school forced the family to read the papers, which turned them all gay.  The end.

No wait, there's more!

Our family was thrilled to see a picture of half a dozen female impersonators in an advertisement for a “theatrical style drag” production. We plan to take our son there as a graduation present.

Mike, while your son would probably enjoy it, if you want to see the drag show, just go.  You don't have to keep coming up with these lame excuses to do the stuff you want, like surf for porn, see dirty movies, have gay trysts, etc.  You're an adult, after all.

Grandma really liked the picture of the nude man who was mooning the camera as part of the gay stripper advertisement on page 24.

I'm sure she did. 

Grandpa thought the article on Gay Pride Day in Bombay was particularly informative. He thought it was really moving to see how they bonded with the “queers from Calcutta” in a show of Asian queer unity.

Hey, I talked to Grandpa and he says you're a damned liar, Mike.

We didn’t see the previous issue of Queer Notes, which contained a picture of two naked men engaged in sodomy. But we saw enough to know that this is a serious university spending public funds on a diversity mission that benefits us all. That is why we intend to give UNC-Wonderland all of the financial support it deserves.

Enclosed is a check to the university for $0.02. After reading the garbage you buy with my tax dollars, I just needed to put in my two cents worth.

Mike has my vote for one of Pandagon's 20 Most Annoying Conservatives of the Year.  I think you can see why.

3.  Ann Coulter

Ann seems to have started her holiday partying already, because this week's column makes even less sense that usual (you didn't think that was possible, but Ann proves that it is).  It purports to be about how Mark Geragos and Bob Shrum suck, but when you are the Lizard Queen, you don't actually need topics.

Speaking of O.J., I keep hearing TV commentators say the Scott Peterson jury was influenced by the O.J. jury. Besides the fact that the jurors themselves say O.J. never crossed their minds until the press started asking them questions, the comparison is absurd. Among the burdens liberals have placed on blacks is the nutty idea that all blacks are obliged to defend the worst elements of their race.

White people don't feel a need to defend Jeffrey Dahmer or Scott Peterson. Go ahead, kill him. If we did, the Judgment at Nuremburg would have ended in a hung jury. In fact, the biggest dilemma we usually face after a case like Scott Peterson's is, "Lethal injection, or Old Sparky?"

Ann claimed earlier that she "leapt for the channel clicker" whenever Scott Peterson's name was mentioned on TV, but I guess in that second it took to leap, she kept hearing the commentators say that the Peterson jury was influenced by the O.J. jury.

Of course, what those commentators probably meant was that the Peterson jury was influenced by perception brought out by the O.J. trial that the police can be incompetent, and that the defendant in a big media-circus trial might not be guilty after all.  However, I never heard anyone say anything about the Peterson jury/O.J jury connection, so maybe Ann just imagined the whole thing. (I'd say that I must leap faster than Ann when it comes to avoiding Peterson case mentions, but after having seen Ann dodge those pies, I can't claim to be in her leaping league.) 

But in any case, I'm pretty sure that Greta Van Susteren never said anything that implied that the Peterson jury was going to acquit Scott because they felt that us white folks have to look out for each other since we're always being held down by the man.

So, I think it's time for Ann to face the fact that she has entered Peggy Noonan territory (which we'll try to get to tomorrow, btw), and she should start asking the dolphins for insights.  Because the columns provided by the sea life would have to be better than the ones Ann comes up with on her own.

4.  Dennis Prager 

Dennis offers the novel proposition that "Those who put up [Christmas] decorations make society better."  How do they make society better?  Well, um, by showing everybody that we like Christmas.  You know, it's like giving your wife a birthday present, or flying the flag -- and since hippies don't believe in that kind of stuff, it must be beneficial to society.

Ask your wife if she would feel equally loved and appreciated if you never gave her a card or gift on her birthday, your wedding anniversary or Mother's Day. After all, if you really believe that feelings need not be manifested in any formal, ritualistic way, why bother with a card or gift on her birthday? Presumably you love her just as much on that day as any other, so why engage in card waving?

So see, if you don't put up Christmas decorations, Jesus won't know that you love him, and it will hurt his feelings, which hurts society.  Even if you're Jewish, like Dennis.

5.  Chuck Colson 

Chuck is the latest conservative Christian pundit to enthuse over Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons because of its insights into all the steamy (but ultimately unfufilling) sex that college girls are having these days.

However, Chuck has come up with a novel spin all his own:

Wolfe is one of the best and most insightful writers of our time. I don’t recommend you read this book, however, because it is graphic and vulgar—though, as expected, beautifully written.

But the real point is not the novel itself; it’s the message. Wolfe has given our culture a warning shot across the bow.

In other words, Wolfe is such a great writer that it's recommended that you don't read his novel, but instead just accept the message gleaned from it by moralists like Chuck.

Anyway, that's Townhall for this week -- deserving its own level of hell, if not all the spots on the "20 Most Annoying Conservatives" list.

3:53:49 AM