I used to work in technical support for a 24/7 call center. One day I got a call from an individual who asked what hours the call center was open. I told him, “The number you dialed is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” He responded, “Is that Eastern or Pacific time?” Wanting to end the call quickly, I said, “Uh, Pacific.”
- Anonymous
Welcome to this week’s parade of intellectual and moral rigor mortis. As usual, there were no shortage of candidates, and, as usual, I wish I could spotlight them all. Sadly, our idiocracy is full to overflowing with the ignorant, the self-righteous, the hypocritical, and the intellectually/morally/theologically challenged. I’d be here all week trying to sort things out.
Without further ado, here’s the creme de la creme de stupid. Don’t try this at home, kids; this sort of silliness is best left to professionals…or the truly, deeply brain-dead.
Mamie Sonnier: It’s always amazed me that one must procure a license to hunt, fish, drive, own a business, etc., and yet any knuckle-dragging biped with functional plumbing can make a child. I don’t know what the answer to that dilemma is, but the reality is that some folks simply lack the minimum mental acuity that should be a prerequisite to have children. Ms. Sonnier just went to the head of the class.
Moss Bluff Elementary School in Lousiana, in an effort to streamline lunch payments, is investigating implementing a palm vein scanner program. Being a history major, I’m not smart to tell you how it works, but the idea seems harmless enough. Hey, it’s not like the school is talking about implanting a microchips in the butts of their students. Ms. Sonnier, though, is convinced that the school has more nefarious intentions in mind.
Sonnier told KPLC-TV that she was angry and disappointed by the program, as the scanner violates her beliefs. She contends that if the scanners actually make it to the school cafeteria, she’ll be transferring her kids to another school.
“As a Christian, I’ve read the Bible, you know go to church and stuff,” Sonnier said. “I know where it’s going to end up coming to, the mark of the beast. I’m not going to let my kids have that.”
It would be far too easy to deconstruct Ms. Sonnier’s incomplete and wholly inaccurate theological hallucinations, but it’s patently absurd to think their her progeny will come home from school one day with “666” stamped on his or her forehead and a microchip in their butt.
While I respect her right to hold such opinions as she chooses, I don’t think it’s too much to expect that Ms. Sonnier actually exercise a few brain cells while forming those opinions. Then again, she’s a Christian, so she knows ALL about this stuff, right?
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO): There’s aggressive ignorance. There’s self-righteous arrogance. Then there’s Todd Akin, for whom mere words would be inadequate for describing the intellectual and moral black hole he appears to have made his hobbit hole and primary residence.
I know; choosing Akin was really a no-brainer, eh? It would appear that Akins’ chief transgression was in giving voice to what is actually the GOP platform.
Being fervently anti-choice is one thing. The flavor of patriarchal cluelessness displayed by Akin when it comes to issues surrounding abortion is truly, deeply disturbing in its arrogance and self-righteousness.
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.
“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
To say that Akin represents everything that’s wrong with the GOP and today’s Conservative movement would be an epic understatement. His ignorance, arrogance, and insensitivity is stunning, particularly coming from a politician who, if elected, would be representing a constituency that’s approximately 50% female. There are times when it’s evident a person lacks the self-awareness to recognize just how truly ignorant and arrogant they are.
This is one of those times.
Dave Catanese: Not long after Akins swallowed his Cole-Haans, Politico reporter Dave Catanese took to Twitter to defend Akins.
Ok, I’m gonna (ask for it) & defend @ToddAkin for argument’s sake. We all know what he was trying to say…. Poor phrasing, but if you watch the intv @ToddAkin meant to convey that there’s less chance of getting pregnant if raped.
Really? We all know what Akins was trying to say? Uh, the fact that I don’t puts the lie to Catanese’s lame and reprehensible defense of Akins. Akins was displaying his world-class ignorance, arrogance, and insensitivity to women who’ve been raped and denying the fact that pregnancies can and do occur from rape. How is that even remotely defensible?
So maybe. Just maybe, @ToddAkin didn’t really mean ‘legitimate.’ Perhaps he meant if ‘someone IS really raped’ or ‘a rape really occurs’
Since when is a journalist in the business of divining what a politician means? Akins’ words were undoubtedly a reflection of his true feelings on the matter. He didn’t stop to consider his words; if he had he might have thought better of it. What Akin said was consistent with other statements he’s made during the campaign and during his years in Congress. He’s a front-line foot soldier in the GOP’s war on women (a position he shares with Paul Ryan)…and yes, I believe he meant every word of what he said.
Catanese, in his clumsy defense of Akins, only revealed himself to be every bit as clueless, insensitive, and misogynistic.
Yeah, right; WHAT Liberal Media??
Tony Perkins: Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council (FRC), appears intent on demonstrating why the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated FRC as a “hate group.” The shooting that occurred at FRC’s Washington headquarters was tragedy enough, but Perkins compounded the tragedy by turning it into an opportunity to score political points. In a performance as reprehensible as it was disrespectful, Perkins blamed the shooting on the Obama Administration.
What I would call an attack on religious freedom is trickling down in our country. It’s not just isolated to the administration but it’s as if the President and his administration’s indifference towards religious freedom has really created an open season all across this country…. I think as we witnessed this past week at the Family Research Council, clearly linked to that same atmosphere of hostility that’s created by the public policies of an administration that’s indifferent or hostile to religious freedom and groups like as I mentioned the Southern Poverty Law Center that recklessly throws around labels giving people like this gunman who came into our building a license to take innocent life.
Classy, eh??
Let me see if I understand Perkins correctly; because groups like FRC aren’t allowed to spread their doctrine of hatred and discrimination disguised as religious belief, the bigots and zealots are actually the true victims. Right. That’s some world-class chutzpah and arrogance, eh?
Oh, and did I mention that Perkins wholeheartedly supports Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” law? Hey, it’s what Jesus would do, no??
And you wonder why I have such a distaste for modern Christianity? I realize that Gandhi said this many years ago, but it’s every bit as true today:
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA): There are those whose dickishness stands out like a merit badge, and they wear it with the outsized pride of the bigoted and self-righteous. There are those who are recognized as ignorant, intolerant dicks over the course of a career spouting insanity and nonsense as if it’s the most natural thing in the world. Then there’s Steve King, whose epic dickishness seems to ooze from every pore of his body. Whether it’s saying something inane and acting as if he’s an unquestioned authority on whatever the matter at hand is, or demeaning those who dare to think, act, live, love, and/or believe differently, King has proven himself to be a douchebag of the first order. I say that not because I disagree with him (though I most certainly do, and on virtually any subject), but because King is Michele Bachmann with a penis…and doesn’t THAT make for a frightening mental picture?
Over the years, King has said some truly stupid and mean-spirited things. He’s compared immigrants to dogs, and he’s wanted to sue the federal government to force them to deport the children of illegal immigrants. I could go on, but why? The man’s a walking, talking, knuckle-dragging homage to the intellectual and moral black hole that is the Tea Party.
Now King has outdone himself, stating that multicultural groups are aggregations of people “who feel sorry for themselves.”
I went to the Iowa State website and […] I typed in “multicultural” and it came back to me, at the time, 59 different multicultural groups listed to operate on campus at Iowa State. It started with Asians and it ended with Zeitgeist, so from A to Z, and most of them were victims’ groups, victimology, people that feel sorry for themselves and they’re out there recruiting our young people to be part of the group that feels sorry for themselves. […]
And then, you’re brought into a group of people that are-have a grievance against society rather than understand there’s a tremendous blessing in this society.
Right; if only they could be more like good, God-fearing, Conservative, Christian American patriots, like…well, like Steve King. White makes Right, after all, eh??
Janet Mefferd: If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times. I have no problems with Christians who honestly endeavor to live the teachings of Jesus Christ- you know, love, charity, tolerance- and represent themselves as someone for whom Christianity is a way of life. There are many Christians out there who do exactly that. They live the teachings of Jesus Christ, they reach out to the poor, the sick, and the needy, and they work to make this world a better place. I admire people like that.
Then there are “Christians” like Janet Mefferd, a self-righteous, holier-than-thou wingnut who seems to think the Christ speaks directly to, and through, her. Mefferd wouldn’t recognize love, charity, and tolerance if they showed up with the baby Jesus on Christmas Eve. Now Mefferds has convinced herself that the problem is that groups who disagree with the Radical Religious Right have too much free speech.
I was reading through for example what the Human Rights Campaign had posted the day before the shooting and they had a whole list there that was very inflammatory about the Family Research Council, ‘they want to export homosexuals from the US’ and ‘they equate homosexuals with pedophiles’ and all this stuff. I thought: if you were somewhat of an unstable person and you read this sort of stuff and you were in line with what they believe I think it could drive somebody to violence. So we’re back to the question of, to what degree should there be public pressure on some of these gay rights organizations to tone it down?
Certainly, last week’s shooting at FRC’s Washington headquarters was a terrible thing, regardless of the politics and/or theology involved. But the Human Rights Campaign bears no responsibility. Nor does the Liberal Media, Barack Obama, non-Christians, Muslims, or any other bogeyman that Mefferds and her ilk might conjure up.
And isn’t interesting that Mefferds has no problem with the hateful anti-gay rhetoric that she and others on the Rabid Religious Right blithely toss around as if their words were ordainted by God Almighty. The problem, from Mefferd’s point of view is one of balance…and by “balance,” I mean that she and those who think like her should be allowed to spread their hate freely and without impediment, while those who speak on behalf of equal rights and marriage equality should be forced to be more circumspect in their speech.
Move along, people…no self-righteous religious hypocrisy here….
Christine O’Donnell: Far too often, media talking heads allow Right-wing political figures to blithely toss words like “Marxist” and “Socialist” into conversations, particularly where the President is among the topics. The political figure in question is almost never challenged to define what they mean by “Marxist” or “Socialist.” The fact is that most of those who regularly engage in such language couldn’t define either term at the point of a bayonet…not that such a lack of knowledge evers deters them from impugning those they disagree with.
Name-calling is in most cases an indication that a person has no more facts or well-considered arguments to offer on a topic. O’Donnell perfected this tactic in her unsuccessful run for a Senate seat in Delaware in 2010. Over the intervening two years, O’Donnell has endeavored desperately to keep herself relevant and ensure that she gets plenty of face time. Fox News Channel is usually happy to oblige, but any time she appears on other, less reliably friendly media outlets, the question isn’t IF the train will go off the rails, but WHEN.
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien finally called out O’Donnell, asking her to define “Marxist.” O’Donnell never directly addressed O’Brien’s request, which is probably just as well; it’s highly unlikely that O’Donnell could divine the difference between Karl and Groucho.
Perhaps some folks just assume that merely by virtue of uttering the words, any claim they make is ipso facto true. And I guess some folks just shouldn’t be allowed to be interviewed on national television without adult supervision.
