The plot to prove that women are idiots

Okay, which of you dudes is responsible for this? I admit that it’s as well-concealed as it is pernicious, and somehow as subtle as it is obvious. But some enterprising and politically connected misogynist or group of misogynists out there has done a remarkable job of ensuring that no woman will ever be elected president of the U.S., at least not one from the Republican Party.

So far, I have seen three women make some degree of noise, in obvious deed if not in word, about running for president next year. These three include serial train wreck Sarah Palin, bug-eyed lunatic Michele Bachmann, and now Tea Party psychopath Sharron Angle, who proved so unhinged in the end that she could not even defeat wildly unpopular Democrat Harry Reid, himself a whack job, in a Senate race in a Wild West state a few months ago. Were this trio placed in the same 8′ by 8′ windowless room with an open door, it is unlikely that their combined efforts would allow them to exit within an hour’s time and without walking into at least nine walls between them first.

Angle remains perhaps the least well studied of this cretinous coterie so far, so I’ll mention her only. She visited New Hampshire this weekend primarily for the purpose of helping promote a creationist film, imploring a small audience in Concord to consider both “sides” of the evolution “debate”:

“Why can’t we present both theories to our children and let them choose?” Angle said of creationism. She said that when she taught grade school, she taught children the “entire spectrum” of theories, including creationism and evolution.

The answer to her first question is obvious to those who recognize that her fond recollection of her “teaching” days is an admission of lawbreaking. Teaching creationism in public schools has been formally forbidden since a 1987 SCOTUS decision, Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the court found (i.e., was patiently forced to reiterate) that advancing the mythology of any religious sect by couching it as science violated the Establishment Clause. That it plainly violates sanity is obviously not enough for the religiously ill, and the fact that it’s illegal also doesn’t hold much water. Christians will lie, flaunt laws, play by their own rules, and engage in whatever treachery is necessary in order to see their parochial nonsense shoehorned into the public sphere. They believe that their cause is a set of divine mandates which trumps any and all secular laws. This is as old a story as it is nauseating.

But that’s just the beginning of Angle’s lunacy. I doubt I have to even mention that she opposes all abortions, including those involving known cases of rape or incest; that she is against same-sex marriage; and that she doesn’t think church-state separation is written into the U.S. Constitution. She also thinks the Department of Education should be eliminated, that the U.S. should withdraw from the United Nations, that women with children should not work outside the home if the father does, that water should not be fluoridated, that health insurers should not have to cover mammograms or colonoscopies. She foments the long-debunked myth that abortion is linked to increased risk of breast cancer, not that she appears concerned about breast cancer. She’s wildly pro-gun, thinks anthropogenic global warming is a myth, wants to do away with the tax code, and says that Reaganomics is the best thing to ever grace the United States. And on and on.

You’d think that even half of these positions would cripple the aspirations of any serious presidential candidate out of the gate, right? Perhaps they will, but in these times it’s hazardous to underestimate how many genuinely brain-dead voters there are out there. Look at the comments below the Concord Monitor article, which are not only loopy but so disconnected from the topic at hand that one wonders if the Fudders aren’t using some kind of weird browser plug-in that renders every Web page in the form of a fictitious Obama speech about forcing all Americans into gay marriages with Muslim Mexicans who want to abolish NASCAR.

Yet despite this palette of startling incompetence and ignorance, Angle is not noticeably nuttier than Bachmann. Palin, though more criminal than crazy, would stand a better chance than either at securing the GOP nomination, although that has been extremely unlikely from the start and only grows more so with each revelation about her shady doings. In any case, it appears that someone out there is intent on conveying the idea that women like these are the best and brightest minds available in terms of meaningful leadership in America, and if that’s the case, God must indeed hate women as much as his library implies.

  1. #1 by jim on February 27, 2011 - 10:00 pm

    First, I don’t understand the comment about “teaching both sides to the children and letting them choose”. Not the obvious part about the fallacy of there being two equal sides, but rather the part about letting the children choose. Since when do we let children in school “choose” what is correct and true? Is this some manner of perverse democracy? I can imagine the following: “OK kids, time to learn how to multiply. We can either do it this way (shows kids proper multiplication) or we can just say that every answer is 3. Whaddya think?”

    Second, while visiting relatives in another city recently, I read about a local meeting attended by some tea party members. It seems that some of them weren’t too keen on Palin any more, but several did like Bachmann. In fact, one of them said something that was so nonsensical that I thought my head might implode: “She’s (Bachmann)like a Palin with a brain.”

%d bloggers like this: