You May Get Vertigo On This Ride

…so please use the Grabar when entering and exiting the car.

In response to the recent assault by “tolerant” atheists, I am going to explain why it is necessary to maintain our Christian heritage in order to sustain our democracy.  This is for the benefit of the “scientists” who presume themselves the authorities on everything

Including the “proper” use of ”scare quotes.”

and who have penned tomes with such ostentatious titles as The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, God: The Failed Hypothesis, and other works that rehash the arguments from ages past.

I hear ya, lady.  I am so tired of these MIT types continuing to insist that Uranus didn’t really lose to the Titans on the battlefield, but was “stabbed in the sack,” when they ought to be home, looking for evidence of high temperature superfluidity in a fermionic condensate.

Judging by the comments in reply to my column “Letter to a Stupid Atheist,” I have to conclude that this is one of the most miserable groups of people on earth.

And touchy, too!  Jeez.

And as my adjective for them implies, they are not very smart, for there is no analogy between a female dog and a columnist, a claim they make through the name they call me in their blogs and letters.

Mary, no offense, but I find it hard to believe that any of these people really called you a columnist.

But more importantly, whenever they assault Christianity, we need to remind them of the foundations of their freedoms.  First, the fact that they live in a country founded upon a belief in “inalienable rights” imparted by their Creator should give them a hint.

Well, that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution, and it was written by a guy who wasn’t exactly a Christian, and I’m pretty sure he didn’t think Jesus was his creator.  But more to the point:

“Inalienable” (or “unalienable”) is a term borrowed from English common law. Some property rights were alienable (they could be sold or granted) and some were inalienable (they could only be inherited according to fixed rule). The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Frances Hutcheson (philosopher) in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755) based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is “unalienable.”

Hm.  “[P]rivate judgment,” “liberty of conscience.”  Sounds like the kind of crap they’d talk at a “free-thinkers meeting.”

The very notion of democracy is based on Christian principles—a historical fact, though one not really emphasized in our public school system.

Awfully prescient of Solon and his cronies to anticipate the teachings of Jesus by 600 years.  That’s nearly as clairvoyant as those Baptist cavemen in “B.C.”

But I noticed as I was reading an article in 1999 in The Atlantic Monthly by Francis Fukuyama: “In the West, Christianity first established the universality of human dignity. . .” Yes, the Greeks had a democracy, but it was not a democracy for women and slaves. It was the radical Christian notion of equality–that there was neither “Jew nor Gentile,” and that even prostitutes could repent–that forms the basis of our democratic values.

As opposed to all those women and slaves who flocked to the polling place in 1789.   Although I’m not entirely clear on how someone renouncing prostitution affects the availability of the franchise, except insofar as it presumably removes Karl Rove from the equation.

This of course presupposes the notion of sin

Of course. Wait–what?

or if you don’t like that old-fashioned word, imperfection. Christianity acknowledges the universality of human sin in addition to the universality of dignity. Therefore the Christian recognizes the limits of government because of the limitations of the (fallen) people who make up the government.

Or at least the present Administration.

The ultimate arbiter is God, not man the Scientist. Who is the ultimate arbiter for the atheist?

Simon Cowell?

Sam Harris? Richard Dawkins? Adolf Hitler? To whom will they appeal when they cannot decide their infernal debates?

For attractive female atheists, I recommend bikini Jello wrestling, two falls out of three.  For Sam and Richard, I would advise they settle their differences through some form of binding arbitration, and for Adolf, I would suggest consulting a Magic 8-Ball, since he was into that occult stuff.

The atheist, nonetheless, against all evidence, believes in the “progress” of science.

Whereas the clear-eyed observer can tell that science is actually moving backwards!  Look at the cover of the October, 1939 Popular Mechanics!  We used to have flying cars!  Robot butlers!  And elevators were replaced with personal pneumatic tubes!

He believes it can replace religion.

I think what you mean is, he “believes” it can “replace” religion.

And he believes that we are marching towards perfection.

After the last six years, I think it’s more likely that he’s stumbling towards the bar.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that. But what do we do before we reach perfection? Which scientist do we turn to to save us? How do we make decisions now?

Judging by the rest of your column, I’m guessing that “using the brain” isn’t an option.

Or if we mistakenly believe we have arrived at The Answer Through Science do we form our culture to that formula? But how do we know it’s perfect? Doesn’t each generation believe itself the most advanced? Didn’t the flappers? Didn’t the hippies? What do we do about the past generations that made mistakes?

Remember when the flappers tried to take over the world with their fleet of death ray-equipped autogyros and massive war zepplins, only to be foiled at the eleventh hour by the even more technologically advanced hippies, with their patchouli-powered personal jetpacks and Wham-O Air Blasters?

The atheistic world view, since it does not allow for sin, does not allow for forgiveness.

Well, it doesn’t allow for forgiveness by a god.  But I suspect that even the most committed atheist would probably accept an apology for returning your Garden Weasel a week late, if it was really sincere.

Instead, each successive generation smugly thinks of itself as more “advanced” than their predecessors.

For instance, the way Glenn Reynolds sneers at his parents’ analog, nanite-free bodies has made the last few Thanksgivings a little tense.

Grievances build up and with them a desire for retribution. Think about the demand for reparations, the young flocking to the despot Louis Farrakhan, the incessant “reminders” of “injustice” through music, art, and literature.

If there’s one thing I hate worse than injustice, it’s someone “reminding” me of it.  I don’t mind someone jogging my memory, I just wish they didn’t have to be so ironic about it.

The ruse has to be kept up. Revenge is called for, revenge even for the great-great granddaughters and sons.

Wait, wait.  How did we get from smug flappers who think they’re the pinnacle of evolution to angry Black Muslims slaughtering whitey for his failure to deliver 40 acres and a mule?

And thus we have groups who claim superiority—the opposite of the idea of equality.

Like, oh, I don’t know…certain Christians who think they hold the national pink slip?

The aggrieved form the privileged, and superior, group, and thus we have the ridiculous notion that a black person or a Native American “cannot be a racist.”

Hey, this is America – in this great land of opportunity, anybody can grow up to be a racist.  And often the host of a show on CNN Headline News, too.

Under the atheistic, secular view, only certain groups can be guilty of sin, and only certain groups deserve dignity.

Okay, you lost me again.  I thought the atheists didn’t believe in sin.

Such race-based favoritism is opposed to the Christian notion of fairness.

But as certain Christian theologians have pointed out, what do you expect from the Sons of Ham?

But atheists believe in the Power of Their Own Minds and reforming society to bring about a utopia.

Actually, I think you’re confusing atheists with Scientologists, but by all means, go on…

Their Own Minds have come up with affirmative action, as well as forced euthanasia to “alleviate suffering,” concentration camps, and communism.

Whereas Christians in the Bush White House have used Their Own Colons to come up with tax cuts for the top 1%.  (On the other hand, who knew that euthanasia could alleviate communism?)

Thus the state replaces God and those with the physical or economic power dominate. They all presume that this is the “general will.”

Um, I don’t mean to carp, but don’t those with the physical and economic power dominate now?  I mean, especially now? Just how big an atheist do you think Bush is, anyway?

Nonetheless, even as the systems presumably march on toward perfection, anarchists, who believe that they have the answer stir and fume.

Meanwhile, the Fabians, who believe that they have the answer, wash and wipe.

So in spite of the fact that virtually all conservative faculty members and texts have been eliminated in English departments, “resist and refuse” posters grace the doors of securely entrenched tenured radical English professors who make up hiring and curriculum committees. Somehow injustices still remain!

And I thought we were perfect by now!  Except for all the racist Native Americans, and revenge-seeking Blacks, and “advanced” hippies, and fuming anarchists.

And these radicals call for even more drastic changes, and finally anarchy. The fact that English professors cannot just stick to their jobs of teaching about the great literary traditions is evidence of the overweening hubris of the atheistic mind.

The Canterbury Tales is a gateway drug that leads straight to an anarcho-syndicalist collective.

As the youth, taught by these radical atheists, search and search and look into the void, they find that they—in spite of the arguments of the atheists—have a spiritual need. Schooled in relativism and multiculturalism, they turn wildly to such things as paganism or radical Islam to fill a vacuum. I’ve had a student tell me about pagan rituals involving the drinking of human blood. Indeed, stupid atheists are responsible for taking away the spiritual bulwarks against internal jihad in our schools.

“Yeah!  Why do they always have to ruin everything, with their stupid blood-drinking, and their vacuums and their internal jihads?  Dumb, stupid atheists…”

The atheist prides himself on his feelings of fairness and empathy but refuses to acknowledge the culture from which he has inherited these attributes. Such notions are as prevalent as the air we breath (thanks to Christians)

The Lord may have created the Earth, but he subcontracted the atmosphere to Jesus.

At one time, women could be stoned to death and babies and the elderly left exposed to die. To what will the atheist appeal when we dispense with such notions?

Well, thanks to our invasion of Iraq, religious- and sectarian-inspired stonings and honor killings of women are up in Iraq, so I guess that’ll show those atheists!

But as I stated in my previous column, atheists are stupid. As George Santayana said, “Wisdom is the first philosophy, both in time and in authority, and to collect facts or to chop logic would be idle and would add no dignity to the mind, unless that mind possessed a clear humanity and could discern what facts and logic are good for and what not.”

Dr. Santayana then nodded his head toward Dr. Grabar and discreetly coughed several times.

Well, the atheists are smart in a limited way. They can function at their technical jobs. But they cannot see or think outside of that box. They cannot do philosophy.

Okay, there was Nietzsche, but he only got a C+ in Philosophy.  His best grades were in Social Studies and Gym.

They are incapable of seeing that their empirical method is really just a limited function, for limited tasks. And that its limitation comes ironically (for them) from the notion that man’s knowledge is limited. Philosophy is the larger investigation.

Man, I’m telling you, that empricism jazz is for squares!  It’s a rocket to nowheresville!  Philosophy is where the action is!

But because of his limited vision the atheist is incapable of seeing beyond the material world; he sees society as a giant organism.

I see it as a large hat, or maybe an oversized bucket of grenadine.

He sees it in a Darwinian manner, sees the part for the whole and does not even know that Darwin himself recognized the limits of his investigation. To atheists the world is a big organism and they fancy that they know everything because they see the world as a big organism.

I can’t stress that big organism thing enough.

They do not know where this organism came from or what its ultimate purpose may be. Whether it’s the Big Bang theory or the reproductive habits of the amoeba, the atheist fancies that he has found the answer to EVERYTHING.

Except for why birds suddenly appear every time you draw near.

Someone needs to clear the atheists of their confusion.

And someone needs to clear the gutters before the next storm instead of sitting around all day obsessing about big organisms!

Posted by scott on Sunday, May 20th, 2007 at 8:33 pm.

36 Responses to “You May Get Vertigo On This Ride”

That was the MOTHER of all Take Downs, Scott!
I want to know what kind of “Doctor” would ever even think that this sounded right at all:
“They cannot do philosophy.”
The hell?! Does she even read what she writes? If I was grading her paper I would have circled that and wrote in the margin: “Do you mean that they cannot be philosophical? You’re thought process is sloppy. I blame your Christian beliefs.”

Left by maryc on May 20th, 2007

That was truly a thing of beauty, Scott. My tummy hurts from laughing.
You do realize, of course, that when it comes to organisms, size really does matter…

Left by Candy on May 20th, 2007

That was lovely. It almost makes up for the fact that a woman who believes everyone who’s a little different from her is going to suffer the torments of eternal hell–and that her loving and just and merciful god wants it that way–is badmouthing women who fuck men for a living.
Really, what the hell? These people baffle me. War is dandy, the death penalty is God’s will, but selling your body is so wrong that it gets used as the ultimate example of sinner–”even prostitutes can repent”?
A woman like Mary there, selling her brain, such as it is, for a living, should be a little less judgmental about those selling only their time.
And the columnist comment, of course, will have me laughing for days.

Left by D. Sidhe on May 20th, 2007

 

Yes indeedy, the Catholic Church is certainly an avatar of democracy, with all that “divine right of kings” and stuff. Of course Ms. Grabar probably doesn’t think Catholics are “real” Christians. What would you guess her position is on whether the earth orbits the sun or not?

Left by M. Bouffant on May 20th, 2007

That is one of the most incoherent essays I have ever read that wasn’t by Pastor Swank. This woman teaches college English?
Oh, by the way, you all should see me do philosophy. I have some sick ass syllogisms that will make your fucking head spin. You’ll have to go home and cry to mommy when I’m done doing philosophy on your sorry asses.
Sorry, but us philosophers like to talk smack.

Left by Mark S. on May 20th, 2007

That is one of the most incoherent essays I have ever read that wasn’t by Pastor Swank.

Word.
And, also, damnit, that exact thought occurred to me… that exact thought! And, it’s very, very true. Wish I had gotten here first. [pouts]
“Dr.” Grabar’s column sends many little trickles and rivulets of “teh st00pid” hither and yon, at random. Some don’t get very far before they peter out. Others merge into stronger streams that begin to erode the soil of dumbth and cut down into the bedrock of common sense.
This isn’t Philosophy.
It’s Geology.
For future reference, Ms. Grabar, if one wishes to write convincingly about a subject, it really helps to know a little, if only a very little, about it in the first place, rather than, oh, I don’t know… pulling stuff out of your stinkin’ ass! So, say you wanted to write about a class of people, let’s call them “gaytheists.” And, let us say that writings by these “gaytheists” were readily available on teh intertoobs and in public libraries. So, in reality, no one would have the slightest excuse to just make crap up about them…
…unless they were really lazy. Or idiotic. But, don’t worry–those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Left by Marq on May 21st, 2007

Thank you, Scott.
Well done.
If you & Mary ever decide to procreate, I want to be the annti-gawdmutha, ’cause that kid will TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
(insert Pinky & The Brain anecdotes here)
I didn’t bother going to read her original “column” (great line there, too, btw, Scott), ’cause frankly, I don’t need a purgative that badly. And I’m really not into bulimia. But please, PLEASE tell me that she is only a “teacher” at some online diploma mill, not at a REAL, actual, able-to-be-located-on-this-planet SCHOOL. Even one of those community colleges that Dumbya expects anybody who isn’t born with a silver coke-spoon in their mouth to “SETTLE FOR,” ’cause that’s HIS idea of “equal opportunity” — I seriously doubt that this mish-mash of neocon hot-button cliches would pass a freshman-level English comp course at even the lowest-on-the-academic-food-chain community college on the PLANET.
She knows her neocon cliches and “points”, ya gotta give her that. She just doesn’t have a fucking CLUE as to how to arrange them in anything even remotely resembling an argument or essay — hell, even a SENTENCE!!! Kinda like the dartboard process of composition — see how many stupid Limbaugh-esque catch-phrases and O’Reilly-style slanderous bullshit raving “points” you can fit onto three pages of double-spaced blather, and call that a “column.”
Anybody wanna guess where I’d like to aim the darts?
It always cracks me up when the dumbest of the dumbest of the most-inbred legacy twits resort to the fear-mongering drum-beats of their predecessors’ same old “THEY’RE TRYING TO RECRUIT YOUR CHILDREN TO THEIR DECADENT, SINFUL LIFESTYLE OF: a) homosexuality, b) feminism, c) democratic socialism, d) fair taxes on ALL tax brackets, e) anarchy, f) atheism, g) miniskirts and tube tops, h) reading books that don’t have pictures, i) all of the above” — don’t they think that anybody sees that shit for what it is by now? Or, and this is the truly depressing thought, are there enough naive/ignorant/idiotic sheeple out there who think that this is a “New” “threat” to their lifestyle/SUV/chirren/subdivision/etc.?
If so, don’t tell me, I’m bummed-out enough purely by the fact that this blathering-fucktard recidivist cunt is EMPLOYED AS AN ENGLISH TEACHER.

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on May 21st, 2007

Faith – You wouldn’t trust it to get your car fixed but you would trust it to guide you in how to live your life. That makes sense right?

Left by darkell on May 21st, 2007

Is a gaytheist someone who believes in Hermes?

Left by D. Sidhe on May 21st, 2007

This…thing teaches ‘writing?’ In college? Holy Sheepdoodle! I am left speechless and gasping. I thought I had read some amazing stupidity grading junior high essays. Those kids were pikers compared to this.

Left by Humbert Dinglepencker on May 21st, 2007

“Remember when the flappers tried to take over the world with their fleet of death ray-equipped autogyros and massive war zepplins, only to be foiled at the eleventh hour by the even more technologically advanced hippies, with their patchouli-powered personal jetpacks and Wham-O Air Blasters?”
Dammit, Scott, I want to see that movie! Git ta writin’!

Left by Thorlac on May 21st, 2007

Mary, no offense, but I find it hard to believe that any of these people really called you a columnist. Priceless, Scott.
Ooh, Annti, you must have been lifting rhetorical weights, because that rant was an Olympic-class powerlift of a rant.
And I find that a big organism releases tension and puts a smile on my face all day. Oh, that’s not what she meant?

Left by Rugosa on May 21st, 2007

That was some excellent smack, Scott. (I’d put an exclamation point there, but I’m exceeding my limit in the following graf.)
Grabar would be appalled by the teacher who tried to recruit me into the decadent, sinful lifestyle of proper English composition! How successful he was! How fortunate was I!

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on May 21st, 2007

…securely entrenched tenured radical English professors who make up hiring and curriculum committees.
Therein lies the hub of her anger, methinks. Important to note that she does, in fact, teach stuff – at an accredited university no less, Clayton State University, just south of Atlanta – but holds the title “Temporary Assistant Professor of English”, so not quite adjunct but definably non-tenured.
Maybe she’s just slumming as she waits for something at Liberty U or Regent to open up.

Left by Ugluks Flea on May 21st, 2007

So it’s a temporary assistant professor of English who produced that execrable paraphrase about Hutcheson? The one that seems to say an 18th century clergyman wrote English common law? The one whose sudden swerve at “One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions)…” suggests either some wingnutty religious origin for the argument or the unexpected appearance of a bunny on her keyboard? The one so incurious about word usage it can claim Hutcheson originated the distinction between “alienable” and “inalienable” despite the fact that they entered the language a century earlier?

Left by Doghouse Riley on May 21st, 2007

The really nice thing about living in a Christian utopia for strawmen is that you don’t have to worry about uppity strawwomen or strawslaves.
Someone please enlighten me to this concept of “Chrisitian fairness”. The Pauline version, where if you’re born a slave or a woman, too bad — life sucks, get over it? It’s not for you to try to change your circumstances. And what could be more fair than a woman to be submissive to her husband and obey him in all things? Or perhaps you prefer Peterine fairness, where God put Bush-class colons in authority over you, so praise God for those tax cuts for the top 1%.
And are fuming anarchists like fuming sulphuric acid? Cause that stuff’s really nasty. There’s gotta be a reason why the stoopid burns so fiercely.

Left by arghous on May 21st, 2007

So it’s a temporary assistant professor of English who produced that execrable paraphrase about Hutcheson?
Actually, Doghouse, that’s from Wikipedia, not from Grabar. Grabar is horrendous, but she’s innocent of that particular offense. (I’d say “sin,” but, you know, as an English professor — Grabar has us pegged! — I only believe certain people can be guilty of _those_.)

Left by FlipYrWhig on May 21st, 2007

For attractive female atheists, I recommend bikini Jello wrestling, two falls out of three.
Also for Christopher Hitchens.
anarchists, who believe that they have the answer stir and fume.
There is indeed stirring and fuming going on in this anarchist household, but it is not the answer, it is my breakfast.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on May 21st, 2007

Scott -
Yer hittin’ yer stride again brutha!
I suggest a new metric. This for batshit crazy: the Graybar.
Usage: That essay was estimated to reach a force of 6.5 GrB (Graybars).

Left by R. V. Dump on May 21st, 2007

Bonus points for every time a tome is penned, a door is graced, and a spiritual bulwark is taken away.
the atheist… sees society as a giant organism.
Right now I see society as a polyostomous self-devouring Lovecraftean monstrosity. I am wondering how much ergot there was in my home-baked bread.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on May 21st, 2007

Hilarious! Are you kidding me? This woman is certified to TEACH? I mean jeez, the smack-down is brilliant and had me literally clutching my sides laughing, but it’s sobering to think that this, um logic-and-fact-challenged “teacher” is standing in a classroom somewhere, sharing the effluvia of her pudding-like brain with impressionable youth. What a tard! No seriously, a complete loon.

Left by shane on May 21st, 2007

A smackdown worthy of Voltaire, Scott (or of S.Z., for that matter).
What fascinates me about the Grabars of our world (leaving aside this particular specimen’s inability to maintain her own train of thought or stay consistent with her own terminology for longer than a sentence or so), is their inability to imagine that it’s possible to be fair, moral, aware of one’s fallibility, and so on, without being whacked across the shins by the Big Stick of an Angry God.
Why can’t they imagine that? Huh?

Left by Li'l Innocent on May 21st, 2007

Because they possess neither the cognitive ability to “imagine” anything of more depth or consequence than corpulent little winged rugrats (“angels”/”cherubs”) or their Great Invisible Friend In The Sky and his Uber-Anglo Illegitimate Son Who Can’t Eat M&Ms, nor the intellectual capacity to comprehend anything that hasn’t been spelled-out for them by red-faced, frothing-at-the-mouth preachers, or Chick Tracts.

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on May 21st, 2007

“Inalienable” (or “unalienable”) is a term borrowed from English common law. Some property rights were alienable (they could be sold or granted) and some were inalienable (they could only be inherited according to fixed rule).
Yes, and according to Jefferson, who after all wrote the document, the English common law which was the basis of these rights pre-dated the arrival of Christianity in Britain, ergo our system is based upon ideas which arose in pagan Anglo-Saxon society. Put that in your clyster pipe Ms. Grabar.

Left by bidziliba on May 21st, 2007

Another lovely swim in the depths of perverted anti-secular thinking. If you’re in the mood for another one, go find the Doug Giles column from 05/13 at ClownHall. What do you make of a guy who can write this:
Jesus put it forcefully up fallen humanity’s tailpipe when He exposed why men reject the knowledge of God when He said, “Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. For everyone who does evils hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (Jn. 3.19-20).

Left by M.S. on May 22nd, 2007

Doug Giles never explains anything to my satisfaction. And his so-called money quote from Big J doesn’t explain why I always find all of the houselights at Casa Biscuitbarrel blazing away when I toddle downstairs at three a.m. for a restorative Diet Coke. All of my testosterone-charged fellow boarders have been doing eeeeevil, all right, but without the worry of eyestrain.

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on May 22nd, 2007

Good point about democracy in ancient Greece predating Christianity. Another fun fact: The US bicameral legislature was modeled after the Great Council of the Iroquois, founded by a warrior named Hiawatha several centuries before the arrival of Christianity on this continent. Some believe that Hiawatha has returned, a feat the other guy has yet to pull off.
Anyway, wasn’t Jesus referred to as the “King of Kings”, not the “Legislature of Legislatures?”

Left by trashfire on May 22nd, 2007

Wait — why is the US Senate/House not a rehash of British Lords/Commons but more like an Iroquois predecessor?

Left by FlipYrWhig on May 22nd, 2007

Listen, when Uranus takes on any Titan, Uranus is going to be in a scrape…

Left by actor212 on May 22nd, 2007

Is a gaytheist someone who believes in Hermes?
Hermaphroditos (child of Hermes and Aphrodite, origin of the term hermaphrodite), I’d say, or perhaps Antinous (hot male lover of Augustus who was promoted to a deity after drowning in the Nile), but he’s a bit more obscure.
Democracy is a Christian concept? Huh. I guess that whole hierarchy of priests and preachers and lay ministers and then “the rest of the hell-bound losers” is the result of a vote?

Left by Dorothy on May 22nd, 2007

[...]Antinous (hot male lover of Augustus who was promoted to a deity after drowning in the Nile)[....]

Promoted to being a god after drowning in teh Nile?!?!?!?
Nice work if you can get it.
But, seriously, does Augustus sound like anyone we know? “Another Medal of Freeance, Mr. Tenent? Take two-they’re free… to me, that is!”

Left by Marq on May 23rd, 2007

the Doug Giles column from 05/13 at ClownHall. What do you make of a guy who can write this:
Jesus put it forcefully up fallen humanity’s tailpipe
Okay, I’m finally thinking that Doug is a gay guy who posed as a fundie on a dare, and he’s getting seriously pissed at how long it’s taking for anyone to catch on.

Left by Ouroboros on May 23rd, 2007

I like how she thinks we need to be saved from perfection:
“And he [the atheist] believes that we are marching towards perfection. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that. But what do we do before we reach perfection? Which scientist do we turn to to save us?”
Heaven knows we can’t have any of that perfection crap down here!

Left by catnmus on May 23rd, 2007

They are incapable of seeing that their empirical method is really just a limited function, for limited tasks.
True that. All it can do is give you virtually endless new information about the natural world, living and non-living. And, of course, limited to inventing/producing things like all the synthetics in products she owns, the vehicles and their safety devices she uses, the medicines she (avoids apparently) takes, the appliances and electronics she uses and owns, the safety devices installed in her home and college, the development and safety of the food she eats, and the new products and patents that stimulate the economy, which generates state revenues that pay her salary so she can write rabid, horrible “english” and get fucking paid for it.
Philosophy. My mam and pap says “go there, thems where the peoples is. Thems where the jobs is”.

Left by Spirula on May 23rd, 2007

“And I thought we were perfect by now! Except for all the racist Native Americans, and revenge-seeking Blacks, and “advanced” hippies, and fuming anarchists.”
You forgot the flappers.
(or is that a euphemism – like coochie?) am so confused my head is numb.
Here I am worried about getting a job, and this person uses ad libs to write her, um, piece of, uh, well…
Well she got paid!!
Hopefully in rubles.

Left by monstruoso on May 24th, 2007

Deep Conservative Thinkers - Part 1

Our seminar will commence with a study of our new favorite professorial wingnut, Mary Grabar, whose latest column “Arrest all jaywalking history professors,” starts by applauding the arrest of a visiting historian for jaywalking, then uses that incident to springboard into an attack on Keith Ellison for using a Koran at his swearing-in ceremony without explaining that Thomas Jefferson used said book to fight pirates.

Seriously, that’s what her column is about. And yes, it makes almost as much sense as last week’s effort, “Dear Teach’: ‘I am macaca,’” which started by denouncing S.R. Sidarth for capitalizing on his “macaca” fame when he applied to a political science seminar, and ended by complaining that minorities are too often rich these days.

Anyway, here are the key passages from the new column – try to follow the logic.

But historians are guilty of more egregious forms of jaywalking—to use the apt metaphor: distorting history, and their roles as scholars. This group of “scholars” did something decidedly unscholarly at the meeting funded by their universities: they voted in a resolution against war, specifically the Iraq war. The panels consisted of the usual panoply of multicultural, anti-West advocacy, as well. And, thus, many of these scholars share much in common with newly elected Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison who has distorted history for his own purposes.

Banking on the public’s ignorance of history and the mainstream media’s complicity, Keith Ellison had Thomas Jefferson’s Koran taken out from the Library of Congress under security, for his swearing-in ceremony.

[...]

While the self-proclaimed intellectuals and profanity-spewing bloggers applauded Ellison’s “savviness,” those who know history and have retained the ability to smell a rat—but not crowned by the Left with Ph.D.’s or Pulitzer prizes–started spreading the truth about why Jefferson might need to refer to his Koran: he needed to know the enemy.

He needed to understand Muslim pirate slavers off the Barbary states who were pillaging villages and making slaves of non-Muslims: women as concubines and boys who were castrated.

[...]

What the arrogant Congressman is banking on is the ignorance of the American people—that we will take him at his word that Jefferson’s reading of the Koran proves him a “broad, visionary thinker”—i.e., one who would approve of Ellison’s agenda.

[...]

And a perusal of the jaywalking professor’s own nineteen books reveals a decidedly anti-Western stance. [...]
The privileged professors who live in a Marxist wonderland talk to each other in this way. But these inheritors of privilege are cut off from the demands and dangers of the real world—like economic uncertainty, physical labor, or contact with criminals or enemy combatants.

Deep thoughts indeed. So, if I might, I will now summarize Temporary Assistant Professor Grabar’s scholarly paper:

=============

A historian got arrested for jay walking (and rightfully so) — but all the historians at the conference should have been jailed for being against the war.

Also against truth and decency is Keith Ellison, who borrowed Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, thus making it appear that Jefferson owned a Koran, possibly because he was interested in other religions, when in truth Jefferson owned a Koran, undoubtedly because he was fighting pirates. Muslim Pirates with perverted sexual desires.

Historians never told you this, because unlike you and Mary, they are all rich bastards who live in ivory towers, and they never have to mow the lawn or kill enemy Muslims, such as Congressman Ellison. So, um, historians suck. And so do minorities. We should jail them all, because they’re all traitors!

================

I know you want to run out and write your own column now, but remember, kids, Mary has a Ph.D. and is a professional wingnut, and you aren’t, so you shouldn’t try this at home.

But let’s go back to Mary for the unvarnished version of her stunning conclusion:

We now have a Congressman who has rejected his heritage by a conversion to Islam, worked for Louis Farrakhan, was featured speaker at meetings of Islamic organizations with ties to terrorists, defended six imams staging a stunt, has been appointed the House judiciary committee where he proposes to ban racial profiling (in effect granting immunity to non-Caucasians), and with impunity has misrepresented a historical document.
So, I suggest a citizen’s arrest for all jaywalking historians—those who refuse to remain within the lines of truth—for the crime of attempting to lead into the hands of tyranny.

And that, kids, is how you wingnut. I hope you were taking notes, because it will be on the test. Oh, and if you missed class, Professor Mike Adams will shoot you like the dog you are.

Posted by s.z. on Sunday, January 14th, 2007 at 2:51 am.

35 responses to to "Deep Conservative Thinkers - Part 1"

Grabar is proving to be a fine wingnut. I especially loved the second to last paragraph where she equates opposing racial profiling with “granting immunity to non-Caucasians,” which has to be right, considering the racial makeup of our prisons. She also charges Ellison “with impunity has misrepresented a historical document,” but gives the reader no clue as to what historical document that might be, sort of a major transgression for an English professor to make, even if she is merely temporary. I also love how she couldn’t go to the trouble of giving a link to Ted Sampley Special Forces Vietnam veteran, but Ted might be pleased to know he’ll have an A waiting for him if he ever attends a class at Clayton State University.
If you want more hilarity, check out the second comment at the end of the column.

Left by Mark S. on January 14th, 2007

She’s like Peggy Noonan without the gravitas.

Left by D. Sidhe on January 14th, 2007

As a Bostonian, I consider jaywalking to be one of my fundamental rights as an American. A society that would jail* people for jaywalking is a society with dangerously fascist tendencies. An American should be free to look both ways and decide if the way is clear.
*in more mildly fascist jurisdictions, like California, don’t the streetcrossing police just give tickets?

Left by Buffalo Gal on January 14th, 2007

Can someone refresh my memory: Is this the person who thought her department head stole two cartoons from her office door?

Left by forked tongue on January 14th, 2007

Apparently, Jefferson got his Koran in 1765:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/01/
right_wing_absurdity_on_jeffer_1.php#more
But I\’m sure the motivation was his belief that 40 odd years in the future he might be called upon to lead a newly independent nation against pirates.
Come to think of it, 40 years from now I might have to lead a newly independent nation against pirates. Can anyone think of any good books I should read to prepare me for this task?

Left by Boo on January 14th, 2007

Keith Ellison is rejecting the heritage of people of african descent in America by taking up a religion whose adherents owned slaves? How many quakers are there in congress?
he proposes to ban racial profiling (in effect granting immunity to non-Caucasians)
I’m a little confused by this – does she think due process isn’t a sword and buckler for white folks or does she believe it is and simply think they should have it and non-caucasians shouldn’t? Are non-caucasians just too wily for caucasians to catch actually doing something wrong if we can’t pick them up in gill nets? Do you suppose it’s occurred to her that perhaps the reason we haven’t been able to catch the swarthy miscreants at whatever evil things they’re doing might just be that they’re not doing anything? Assuming in the face of no evidence to the contrary that they’re not doing anything illegal (which, I believe, the constitution – which I do believe is part of that heritage that we, unlike Mr. Ellison, have ostensibly held on to – does allow for), is telling people who are obeying the laws despite the fact that the society they live has significantly greater advantages for members of the majority religion that they don’t enjoy the protection of those laws likely to encourage them to continue to respect those laws?
How does this all impact on the whole it’s racist/sexist to Expect minorities/women to hold views which are not explicitly to the disadvantage of minorities/women trope so beloved of those minority/female right-wing pundits whose pet subjects happen just by complete colorblind/gonad neutral chance to be race and gender issues? Are race and gender back on the table now that they’re officially legal issues? Can I be the one who tells Thomas Sowell and that Malkin person?
Also confused: what’s with capitalizing “caucasians”? Are we actually talking about people from the caucasus here? Because me personally, I’m a white as the belly of a dead fish above the high tide line and my family is from considerably west of there.
I’m also a little confused that someone with such very strong views about color and personal appearance chose to do that to her hair, but that’s not really a legal issue.
I mean, unless it is. I have trouble keeping up.

Left by julia on January 14th, 2007

damn, I meant to close that tag. Sorry.

Left by julia on January 14th, 2007

There is some disputed evidence that North Americans were “pillaging villages and making slaves of non-Muslims: women as concubines and boys who were castrated” during this same period, excepting that the castrations generally involved those past puberty and was not intended to confer the social usefulness of a harem eunuch or a castrato, to use a more Christian, Eurocentric example. I advise the reader to be cautious, as, I say, the evidence is disputed or simply ignored, often by those educated in Georgia.
And would that I were young enough and bright enough for acceptance at Clayton State! Oh, to have been inspired by such a professor in my own sad student days, one who realized “that Mein Kampf was an example of propaganda that relied on logical fallacies”! All they ever told me about was Hitler’s mediocre footnoting.

Left by Doghouse Riley on January 14th, 2007

Gill nets. I love you, Julia, in case I haven’t mentioned it in a while.

Left by Doghouse Riley on January 14th, 2007

so in other words, Thomas Jefferson, using the Koran to fight pirates, is pro global warming? Al Gore will be so disappointed

Left by preznit giv me turkee on January 14th, 2007

And would that I were young enough and bright enough for acceptance at Clayton State!
Actually, it seems like Clayton State is the name for a continuing-education program — and, more to the point, judging by RateMyProfessors.com, the students don’t care much for Dr. Professor Grabar Ph.D., which reflects rather well on the student body.
I don’t think she has the same smugness as Adams, but she’s right up there on arrogance and meretriciousness. What a piece of work is Grabar.

Left by FlipYrWhig on January 14th, 2007

I particularly enjoyed Mary’s insinuation that borrowing the Koran from the LoC (“under security”) was some kind of extraordinary pilfering. Someone needs to tip her off on how often Lincoln’s Bible leaves the facilities… “under security,” of course.

Left by K on January 14th, 2007

preznit giv me turkee;
Everybody knows that only pirates who look like those in Disneyland prevent global warming. Or are you one of those Reformed Pastafarians?

Left by Mojo on January 14th, 2007

I suspect the pirates in question were eastern rite (the pirates who gave us ramendan). They probably dressed more like the extras in Alladin on Ice.

Left by julia on January 14th, 2007

As an actual practicing historian I plan on jaywalking this very week. When I reach the other side of the street I plan on dedicating my lawlessness to Dr. Grabar. I may even go and distort some history in her honor but it depends on how wicked I feel that day.

Left by Woodrowfan on January 14th, 2007

Damn that Mary Grabar!
Damn that tape loop she’s implanted in my mind, without my permission, that keeps replaying,
“Here comes my friend,
Privileged professor!
Her company’s always a stressor
But we sing a song
As we stroll along
Walkin’ in a Marxist wonderland”
Now, where the hell IS this “Marxist wonderland”? And what is it that gravels Mary’s titties about other professors? In what way are they “privileged”? Because they have tenure, and teaching assistants to mark papers, and she doesn’t? Are we getting warmer?
Also, if she’s so disdainful of “the Left,” why does she crave AND despise the validation that she believes that the Left grants?
And one more thing: during last summer’s campaigns, classy UVA student S. R. Sidarth demonstrated himself more of a true born ‘n bred Virginian than the former Sen. Geo. Felix Allen (R-Palos Verdes, CA) did. Mary Grabar can’t stand it that a concise three-word essay got Sidarth into JUSTIFIABLY FAMOUS PROFESSOR Larry Sabato’s seminar. So she had to waste a whole bunch of words on how uppity immigrants are, such as certain unnamed northern Virginia Hindoo.

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on January 14th, 2007

Thanks, that was so educational! I had NO IDEA that the Left crowns PhDs and Pulitzer Prizes. What’s next? If you want a car washed, you’ll have to go through Ted Kennedy?

Left by Tim on January 14th, 2007

Is Marxist wonderland anywhere near Boogie wonderland ? Like the next stop maybe ?

Left by Tim on January 14th, 2007

you know, those wingnuts should be careful about talking about the barbary wars too much, as someone is sure to bring up article 11 of the treaty of tripoli:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
this treaty was ratified unanimously by the senate in 1797. it kinda puts the lie to that whole “christian nation” meme that the wingnuts are so fond of, doesn’t it?

Left by will on January 14th, 2007

Mary Grabar sez: “Well, I’ve owned copies of Mein Kampf. Does that mean I approve of Hitler’s ideas?”
Uncle Mike sez: Nuf sed.

Left by Uncle Mike on January 14th, 2007

Thank you, Will.

Left by Kathy on January 14th, 2007

“Well, I’ve owned copies of Mein Kampf
“copies?” Plural? I’ll cop to having replaced a seriously dog-eared copy of Nine Stories — back when I was a fashionably alienated teen who smoked unfiltered cigarettes — after the cover fell off and the back pages started to secede from the rest of the book. But how many people — excepting maybe Rudolf Hess — have to retire their edition of Mein Kampf due to wear and tear?

Left by scott on January 14th, 2007

I’m with Scott on this. Copy, fine. Copies, we could have something creepy going on.
Also, here in Seattle, jaywalking used to be considered a character flaw on the order of littering and not recycling. (Those are still considered evil.) But even in the heyday of the anti-jaywalking years, nobody ever got *arrested* for it. Ticketed, sure. But even the guys who did it buck naked were arrested on weapons charges rather than the actual jaywalking.
To be perfectly frank, if some cop told me he arrested someone for jaywalking, I would assume the arrestee was a minority, just the same as arrests for breaking curfew or speeding.

Left by D. Sidhe on January 14th, 2007

Wait, “guys who [jaywalked]buck naked were arrested on WEAPONS charges”!
So, if they’re wearing pants, is it a “concealed weapon”?

Left by Bill S on January 14th, 2007

Well, no. It’s traditionally been a sword or a baseball bat or something like that. Difficult to conceal in any event. I believe they’re also generally charged with disrupting traffic and the like. I blame the coffee, really.

Left by D. Sidhe on January 14th, 2007

But historians are guilty of more egregious forms of jaywalking—to use the apt metaphor: distorting history, and their roles as scholars.
Wait a minute. The person who wrote that sentence has a PhD? In English??
You know, maybe grad school won’t be so hard after all.

Left by RobW on January 15th, 2007

So, does that make Bill S. a swordswallower? And, my specialty the home run (with bases loaded)?

Left by Marq on January 15th, 2007

Go ahead, Annti. I’ve given you the “straight man’s” line.

Left by Marq on January 15th, 2007

The privileged professors who live in a Marxist wonderland talk to each other in this way. But these inheritors of privilege are cut off from the demands and dangers of the real world
So professorship is inherited, along with wealth? Professors are the Paris Hiltons of the academic world? Damn, that puts a dampener on my own academic ambitions. I wish someone had told me before I started.
here in Seattle, jaywalking used to be considered a character flaw on the order of littering and not recycling. (Those are still considered evil.)
I got busted for jaywalking in Portland once… the cop was riding a bike, which didn’t seem very sporting. Me being a foreigner and not knowing any better, he let off me with a lecture on road safety. Perhaps it’s only historians who receive the full egregious panoply of legal sanctions… that seems fair enough.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on January 15th, 2007

Of course. One cannot “expect” of ignorant conservative rubes.
Hey, it looks like Doctor Professor Mary isn’t quite as dense as I originally suspected. At least she knows her limitations.

Left by Realist on January 16th, 2007

… and with impunity has misrepresented a historical document.
So, I suggest a citizen’s arrest for all jaywalking historians—those who refuse to remain within the lines of truth—for the crime of attempting to lead into the hands of tyranny.
Considering the wingnuts’ fondness for dry-humping the corpses of folks like G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis and name-dropping Roman stoic philosophers and historians, I think they’re going to be the first ones in the big house on this. (I’m sure there are other historical works that wingnuts are fond of jacking off with, but these are the ones I notice).
Whoa! Weren’t Jefferson and all the other Founding Fathers supposed to be imperialistic, slave-holding, hypocritical sexist pigs?
By our standards? Yeah. But that doesn’t mean they can’t also be a great thinker. See, that’s the thing about people — they can have more than one personality trait apiece. Jefferson wasn’t a god to be revered, he was a flawed human being in a flawed culture, just like all of us. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge his influence on America or believe in his ideals if we choose.
Although it would have been pretty fucking hardcore if Jefferson had fought pirates with the Koran, like some kind of badass interfaith early American superhero. Maybe if you open Jefferson’s Koran and say a trigger word, it fires laser beams or something.

Left by Jack of None on January 16th, 2007

and with impunity has misrepresented a historical document.
I just want to add that whenever I misrepresent a historical document — a regular event in the Bimler household — I am careful to use punity. Presumably that’s OK.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on January 16th, 2007

“We now have a Congressman who has rejected his heritage by a conversion to Islam…”
I feel sure that if a Muslim had converted to Christianity, become a Repulsican, and got elected to Congress, Mary wouldn’t be so upset about the heritage-rejecting bit….

Left by Tehanu on January 16th, 2007

“We now have a Congressman who has rejected his heritage by a conversion to Islam…”
Actually it’s more likely he was rejecting Mary’s heritage of slavery and segregation.

Left by Zoroastrian on January 17th, 2007

She quotes the jaywalking professor’s work thusly:
“[T]ime is the past: the future is just the past we have not yet experienced. If there is such a thing as future independent of experience, it can exist only in the imagination, and imagination, as soon as we are aware of it, becomes instantly part of the past. Time and history seem made for each other: mutually nourishing. Time is history’s subject-matter and history is the diet of time.”
after saying this:
And a perusal of the jaywalking professor’s own nineteen books reveals a decidedly anti-Western stance.
Say what?

Left by Betsy on January 17th, 2007

Meet the New Dr. Mike

Happy New Year!  I hope that 2007 brings much happiness to you and yours.  I can already promise you that if will provide no lack of wingnuts.

As evidence of my bold prediction, I thought that today we could meet a real up-and-comer, Town Hall columnist Mary Grabar.  Mary has a Ph.D. in English from the University of Georgia, is a temporary Assistant Professor at Clayton State University, and is an unpublished novelist and poet. She’s also interested in contra dancing, swing, and, of course, writing ”cultural commentary” for such fine third-tier online venues as “FrontPage News” and “Intellectual Conservative.”
 
Her moment in the wingnut sun came la couple of weeks ago when her Townhall column “The girls on The View“ was widely mocked by the SP blogosphere.  So, of course this week she followed up by quoting extensively from an email she purportedly received from a liberal meanie who criticized said column.  Mary also uses her piece to bash feminists, her academic colleagues, and Rosie O’Donnell, and to throw in a few gratuitous racist and homophobic comments.  So you can see why we think that she’s the woman that Dr. Mike has always wanted to be. Here’s Mary!

READER ADVISORY: this column quotes from a disturbed reader and contains some of the language typically employed by leftist intellectuals to express disagreement.
In my last column I suggested that one of the dangers of giving women the vote was that women would rely on themselves to make decisions. Among the dangers facing women are presidential candidates who suggest having “conversations” in response to the call for worldwide jihad. This woman, husband of former President Bill Clinton, went on a program geared towards progressive women, called “The View,” and hosted by what progressive women view as a male authority figure: Rosie O’Donnell.

Yes, one of the biggest dangers we women face is potential presidential candidates who suggest more dialogue and international cooperation to deal with the problem of terrorism.  And because this kind of thing might even sound appealing to us, Mary has certainly proven her previous thesis that we shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and that Rosie O’Donnell is a lesbian.

Anyway, we’ll skip the part where Mary subjects her alleged correspondent to a Mike Adams-esque third degree, and rejoin her where she plans for her new, glittering wingnut future.

But I had many nice comments and suggestions, too. Several commentators suggested a talk show called the “Right View,” with panelists like Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and yours truly. That’s quite an idea. I don’t believe that this country has had a Slovenian-born American talk show host. 
Which set me to thinking: who would I invite?

I have no idea.  But with a panel like that, who needs guests!

I would have some strong principled men on the program, like Congressmen Tom Tancredo, who has firmly stood against illegal immigration, and Virgil Goode, who has called for ending diversity visas that give preference to Muslim immigrants (a Clinton legacy). These two are the men who care about women enough that they don’t want to see us raped by Mexican gangs or forced to wear the hijab.

I don’t know how to respond to that except to say that I’m glad that Tom and Virgil are apparently the only two men who want to protect us women in this fashion.

I think I would also follow the format of women’s talk shows (like Oprah) and invite some victims.On one segment I would have women harmed by feminist men. I would have women like myself who have been shouted down by long-haired hippies who claim they bravely marched and “changed the world” and ended the Vietnam War, and tell me and President Bush’s daughters to go fight in Iraq.

Yeah, when will daytime TV start showing us the REAL victims: women who have been shouted at by hippies!

I would have college teachers like myself who have been victimized by female department heads who mandate that we place on our syllabi the objectives of “gaining a better understanding of race, class, and gender.” And for a public flogging I would put on the stage the male intellectual castrati who follow orders of such female bosses.

This would be must-see TV!  Imagine the drama when we meet an English instructor who was brutally victimized by her boss’s syllabi!  (If only they could also bring in Marie Jon’s’ tentacles, it would be the most intense talk show EVER!)  But I would suggest saving the flogging of the college castrati for a late-night special (or for sweeps week), because otherwise they might incur the wrath of Brent Bozell and his minions.

Men in days of old could smell the danger of a female take-over, whether at the pulpit, at the lectern, or the battlefield. I would have men who will knock away the cookies that are brought by the department head to meetings—the woman who uses an e-mail signature line from bell hooks, lives in a multi-million dollar high rise condo, and will not let you mention anything positive about Western civilization in the classroom. I will have men who will put those little pimp-tweeb rappers in their places and not let them talk about women the way they do. These men will take over English departments and fire any mush-brained Ph.D. who puts the lyrics of Tupac Shakur on her syllabus as a selection of “poetry” or asks for travel funds to present a paper on “fat studies.”

Right on!  And with the cry of ”NO MORE COOKIES, EVER!”, Mary’s no-women-or-rappers-in-English-departments revolution commences.  And it will be televised, if only in Mary’s erotic daydreams.

Posted by s.z. on Monday, January 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm.

37 Responses to “Meet the New Dr. Mike”

so does she refer to herself as “Assistant Professor Dr Mary Grabar, PhD?”

Left by preznit giv me turkee on January 1st, 2007

The standards at the University of Georgia’s English Department must have really deteriorated if this nut could get a Ph.D. there. I notice, though, that she’s only a “temporary” assistant professor at Clayton State (where? Oh, a “senior” division of the University of Georgia at Atlanta — sounds like she couldn’t get a job outside the system that gave her the Ph.D.) which must mean that she hasn’t received tenure yet — and judging by the sort of friends on the faculty she obviously doesn’t have, I doubt she ever will.

Left by Basharov on January 1st, 2007

Dr. Mike’s gonna have to come out for the next round SMOKIN’ if he hopes to contend with Dr. Mary. Of course, he could just tell her to STFU ’cause she’s a woman.

Left by Spalpeen Hammer on January 1st, 2007

Hey, Tom, Virgil. Do you guys smell what I’m smelling? Damned if it isn’t one of them phat studies professors come to take over the department.

Left by J— on January 1st, 2007

You said “New Mike Adams”. I note that doesn’t mean “improved”.
I will say, though, that while Mike Adams always leaves me wanting to kick him in the balls, Mary is incapable of producing such a reaction. But that’s about the biggest difference.
Should it be considered progress when a woman proves she can be as big an asshole as a man?

Left by Bill S on January 1st, 2007

It continues to amaze me that hippie English professors are apparently the most powerful people on Earth, judging from the way these conservative folks go on about them.
I’ll bet the bit about the department head’s cookies is the key to unraveling this woman’s psyche. Did her boss invariably bring chocolate chip cookies WITH nuts when Mary G. repeatedly and specifically told her that she only likes them WITHOUT nuts? What oppression! And now poor Mary is forced to spend her days fantasizing about a group of manly white men who will throw the cookies on the ground because they will not accept free food from such brutal tyrants! And the cookies probably weren’t even any good anyway, so there!

Left by sophronia on January 1st, 2007

I would have college teachers like myself who have been victimized by female department heads who mandate that we place on our syllabi the objectives of “gaining a better understanding of race, class, and gender.” And for a public flogging I would put on the stage the male intellectual castrati who follow orders of such female bosses.
Wow, a blanket claim of victimization (and by a woman who appears to hate seeing *other* women attain power) for being told to do something that seems like quite a good idea, and she also slurs her male colleagues by calling them castrati just because they do what the boss wants? She manages to be victim and abuser in one paragraph. And she got a PhD at a reputable university? Shows what passes for intelligence in this country.

Left by mndean on January 1st, 2007

Goddamn quote brackets don’t work here. I quoted her paragraph above. Sorry, but they do work most places I go.

Left by mndean on January 1st, 2007

the REAL victims: women who have been shouted at by hippies!
Hey, my kid shouted at me (“You’re not the boss of me!”, followed by a slammed door), but he’s too young to have been a hippie. Does that mean I don’t get to be a real victim? Oh, the humanity!

Left by Tehanu on January 2nd, 2007

The hippies were probably shouting “Mary, stop knocking the cookies on the floor you asshole!”
I would love to see the Malkin, Ingrham and Mary version of the View but I am pretty sure it’d be cancelled during the first airing for lack of interest and would never clock in at a full hour.
Plus, the right already has the Chatty Cathys of Fox & Friends. Lordy, those hens like to squawk with white Christian glee.

Left by Marco on January 2nd, 2007

hi, this woman is weird-silly. i’ve read milton, st. paul and aristotle as well. except for st. paul, cannot recall any of the blatant misogyny she attributes to the others; perhaps other commenters can point in that direction … i would be curious.
mary really, really wants to preserve the identity of the father, and in a sad and desparate way … i think she’s a golddigger. but that’s just me.
happy new year,
cc

Left by CastroConvertible on January 2nd, 2007

I would have men who will knock away the cookies that are brought by the department head to meetings….I will have men who will put those little pimp-tweeb rappers in their places and not let them talk about women the way they do. These men will take over English departments
Hm….sounds like Dr. Mary is having an affair – or just an unrequited crush – with a visiting lecturer from Liberty University.
This sounds like the best satirical academic fiction since Richard Russo or James Hynes!
And what’s pimptweeb, anyway?

Left by g on January 2nd, 2007

Dang. Forgot to close the tag

Left by g on January 2nd, 2007

As always, it’s the conservative English PhD’s who suffer most. Poor things.
It’s been said before, but it’s worth repeating, “Shut up bitch and go bake a pie or something.”
I normally avoid such displays of misogyny, but honestly I couldn’t in my wildest dreams match this.

Left by histrogeek on January 2nd, 2007

“If you’re a feminist, that’s great. If you’re not a feminist, you should kill yourself.”
–Margaret Cho
I will never understand women who ASPIRE to reach the status of victimized, secondary human. I was raised by a liberal mother, a woman who gladly associated with hippies in Vietnam protests, who had a Ms. Magazine subscription throughout the 80s, and taught her children that the only limits to our hopes and dreams was ourselves. Not gender, not sexuality, not anything. The concept of a woman wishing herself into a submissive status simply because she is a woman — and then expecting every single other woman to do the same — is so entirely alien a concept to me that to even contemplate makes me insane. Just like Cthulhu.
That being said, it would be a hoot to see all these “right” women on a talk show together. Although they better have a man directing and producing it, for as we all know, women are incapable of doing anything themselves outside of the kitchen and the bedroom. Are you sure Mary’s not writing from Stepford?

Left by Johnny M on January 2nd, 2007

I will have men who will put those little pimp-tweeb rappers in their places and not let them talk about women the way they do.
I mean, really. How dare they speak disparagingly of women!
In my last column I suggested that one of the dangers of giving women the vote was that women would rely on themselves to make decisions
Pimp-tweeb, heal thyself.

Left by FlipYrWhig on January 2nd, 2007

Mary Grabar on RateMyProfessors.com.

Left by FlipYrWhig on January 2nd, 2007

Johnny M: With female anti-feminists, there’s generally two different kinds: upper class and lower class. The upper class ones like Ann Coulter, Wendy Shalit, and Phillys Schefley (sp) don’t have to worry about earning a living because they got money to keep them in comfort and could probably snag some rich husband who will eventually wise-up to her sexual manipulations (that Shalit and Schifley like to advice using) and start fucking the maid who won’t demand expensive presents in exchange for physical love. Feminism enpowers the lower-class woman (as well as the upper) and that’s what scares the pampered anti-feminists because it might mean the men in their lives will start demanding that their women do more than act like pampered little shrews. Not to mention that elitits hate the idea of the little man having any kind of happiness\power and same goes for the female elitists.
Now lower-class anti-feminists are a different story. These women actually have to work for a living and are stuck being the beasts of burden that feminism helps prevent them from being. Most of these women are so beaten down and dillusional that they don’t know any better than the misery their lives are. And some of those that realize it, believe that their suffering makes them better women than those sinful liberated ones or that they actually have power which they truely never had.

Left by Yaoi Huntress Earth on January 2nd, 2007

I would have men who will knock away the cookies
That would be an interesting program, though more of an anti-cooking show than a talk show.
One week — knocking away the cookies.
Next week — throwing the pavlova to the floor.
Third week — flinging the canapes into the audience, with an expression of disgust.
You don’t see that on Oprah!

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on January 2nd, 2007

Mary Grabar on RateMyProfessors.com.
Left by FlipYrWhig on January 2nd, 2007

The fact that she seems to have put her OWN picture on that site (click thru some other profiles, notice a derth of something?) suggests she’s on a mission to break into the right wing’s Harpy Corps, along with Coulter, Malkin, Schafley, KatO’Beirne, etc. – afterall, no pub is bad pub! However, she might find hitting the bigs quite the task, since the minors are already crowded with the likes of lil’ Debbie snackcakes Schlussel, Marie Jonapostrophe, that “Those Arab looking musicians carried a McDonalds bag into the airplane bathroom” lady, etc.
See? We needed a Battle of the Wingnuts last year to thin the herd a little, so little saplings like Mary Grabnar could grow up to be as batshit insane as she could be, free from too crowded a media habitat. I look for great things (well, I guess opposite of great… maybe, “teh suck”?) from Grabnar’s hammer in the future!

Left by Ugluks Flea on January 2nd, 2007

On one segment I would have women harmed by feminist men.
I would love to hear some examples of the specific harm that “feminist” men do that “non-feminist” men do not.
I would have college teachers like myself who have been victimized by female department heads who mandate that we place on our syllabi the objectives of “gaining a better understanding of race, class, and gender.”
So is it OK for male department heads to issue that mandate? And what if that mandate came from higher up than the department head? Like the academic dean or university president? Or even (gasp!) the state board of education or the regional accreditation body?
And for a public flogging I would put on the stage the male intellectual castrati who follow orders of such female bosses.
Don’t be sexist, Mary! Female teachers who follow that order should be flogged, too! (See, the females were “victimized” by the order, but the males were Vichy surrender-monkey collaborators, apparently.)

Left by Dorothy on January 2nd, 2007

Ugluks, to be fair, I don’t think she had to be the one doing the uploading. Since the pages on RMP are monitored by students at the colleges, one of them could have found a headshot for her and plugged it in. But your thought did occur to me too.

Left by FlipYrWhig on January 2nd, 2007

On behalf of the University System of Georgia, I’d like to apologize most profoundly. Sometimes, folks slip through the cracks. Hey, even George W. Bush got a college degree.

Left by ACG on January 2nd, 2007

Men in days of old could smell the danger of a female
Was that the original title to the Cramps album and they trimmed it down?
As a UGA alumni, I weep.

Left by Spirula on January 2nd, 2007

the woman who uses an e-mail signature line from bell hooks, lives in a multi-million dollar high rise condo,
Yep, if there’s one thing that’s a huge problem in academia, it’s all those English professors who live in multi-million dollar condos!

Left by Constantine on January 3rd, 2007

From ratemyprofessor:
“This is the worst class I have ever taken at CSU. This teacher is both boring and confusing and for a student, that’s a deadly combo. The material is pretty interesting but somehow she makes it boring.”
I guess I’d rather study pimp-tweebs

Left by g on January 3rd, 2007

Ugluks: How about we go the Battle Royale route? Give them all metal collars, put them on an island with a random weapon (from a fork to an uzi), and have them fight to the death. Now throw random danger zones which cause the collar to explode if you stand on them and three days to be the last one standing. All kidding aside, I’d never wish this on anyone in the real world, even wingnuts.

Left by Yaoi Huntress Earth on January 3rd, 2007

I don’t believe that this country has had a Slovenian-born American talk show host.
If her first language is Slovenian, we should cut the lady some slack. Judging from the declamatory style, she seems to have learned English by reading Walt Whitman, but she’s still doing better than certain other apostrophe-abusers whose first language is simple gibberish.
male intellectual castrati
Despite that, I still want to hear more about the female castrati.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on January 3rd, 2007

male intellectual castrati
Despite that, I still want to hear more about the female castrati.
Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on January 3rd, 2007

—–
Herr Doktor: ich liebe dich!

Left by Tehanu on January 3rd, 2007

Ugluks: How about we go the Battle Royale route?
(video presenter pulls out axe)
Oooh…this one is SUPER LUCKY!

Left by Johnny M on January 3rd, 2007

Herr Doktor Bimler: Wait, Walt Whitman was gay, she couldn’t have learnt from him.

Left by Yaoi Huntress Earth on January 3rd, 2007

By grabars hammer.
aimai

Left by aimai on January 3rd, 2007

[...]and is an unpublished novelist and poet.

Ruh roh!

Left by Marq on January 4th, 2007

So, if her little make-believe talk show came to be (somehow!), am I correct in sussing out that she, herself, would be the only guest… ever!?! Huh. Of course, the University would have no choice but to fire her ass. Why?
‘Cause she’s a woman.
And, after a period of plummeting ratings, MSNBC some TV channel would have to fire her ass off “The Wingnut PU” (or, whatever she called it). Why? Well, not because of the stinky ratings–no, because they’ll figure out that she’s a woman. They’ll fire Malkin and Ingrahm, too, but Ann Coulter can stay, if they hire “her.” Ann’s probably a little too “high rent,” if you know what I mean, and I’ll bet you do! In fact, no place will hire her.
Why?
Because she’s a freaking woman, that’s why!!
So, once she’s stuck at home, being a baby factory, I’m sure she’ll finally be happy.
P.S.–Mary, babe? Nobody’s twisting your arm to vote. So, don’t. You’ll be happier, and more importantly, I’ll be happier. Thanx!
.
.
P.P.S.–Oh, Mary? Please make sure to never wear a hijab. ‘Cause, if, by some awful turn of events, you were gang-raped by a group of swarthy Mexican men, it would only truly become a tragedy if you were wearing a hijab at the time.

Left by Marq on January 4th, 2007

I would love to see the Malkin, Ingrham and Mary version of the View but I am pretty sure it’d be cancelled during the first airing for lack of interest and would never clock in at a full hour.

Yeah, but just think–the “Complete Series” DVD would probably come in at under five bucks!

Left by Marq on January 4th, 2007

The danger to conservatives (and the survival of this country) is the voting bloc of single women, i.e., those who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor.
People like Condoleeza Rice?

Left by The Kenosha Kid on January 6th, 2007

And what male gave this lump permission to leave the haus?

Left by TF-MA on January 10th, 2007