Ms. Magazine: Rush Limbaugh is “Like The Taliban”

On its web site, Ms. Magazine recently posted an article in which it bizarrely compared Rush Limbaugh to the Taliban. The author of the article, Marcia Ann Gillespie, wrote,

No, they are not the Taliban. No, our internal terrorists aren’t named Osama bin Laden. Our homegrown terrorists have names like the Lambs of God and William Pierce (author of the Turner Diaries). And then there are the Jerry Falwells who clutch their holy books while spewing hate speech, blaming and damning and demonizing feminists and homosexuals for this assault on America. Or Rush Limbaugh who routinely and obscenely labels people who believe in the social, economic, and political equality of women and men — as the dictionary describes feminism — as “feminazis” on America’s airwaves. No, they are not the Taliban, but like the Taliban, the demonization and oppression of women to save us, or purify the race, or preserve the family, or uphold patriarchy is central tot heir beliefs. And like the Taliban, many of them use religion to justify their words and actions.

First, although he holds to some utterly disgusting views, it is a bit odd for Gillespie to label William Pierce a terrorist since he has never been convicted of an act of violence to my knowledge. Pierce certainly writes racist, inflammatory books and gives speeches that advocate violence, but as far as I know he’s never engaged in an act of violence or terrorism.

It was odd that Gillespie mentioned Limbaugh after first mentioning Falwell, because her comments about the radio commentator are just as absurd as were Falwell’s nutty claims that the terrorist attacks occurred because America had turned its back on God by allowing homosexuality and abortion.

Limbaugh is quite clear that “feminazi” applies to the leaders in the pro-abortion movement. Such euphemisms are repugnant, but Gillespie herself is engaging in precisely this tactic when she compares Limbaugh to the Taliban. Or, as kids on the playground might retort, takes one to know one.

The scary thing is that Gillespie refers to Limbaugh’s use of the term “feminazi” as obscene, which may just be rhetoric, but may actually be meant literally given that she characterizes Falwell’s comments as “hate speech.” It’s a bit incongruous to see someone decrying the Taliban while turning around and endorsing the idea of hate speech, which is much closer in accordance with the ideals of the Taliban than is Limbaugh’s euphemisms for abortion advocates.

Source:

Ms. responds to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Marcia Ann Gillespie, Ms. Magazine, undated editorial, 2001.

Pornography Is Just Like Terrorism — It Destroys a Society

The Salt Lake Tribune ran a profile recently of a Utah group that calls itself Women for Decency. Formed earlier this year, the group campaigns against pornography, which its director, Janalyn Holt, seriously compared to the 9/11 terrorist attack. According to Holt,

The parallels between [smut and terror] are uncanny. Pornography destroys families. It’s not a one-time shot like an airplane flying into the World Trade Center. But little by little, blow by blow, it can be just as destructive. We are getting bombarded on all sides.

High on the list of pornographic publications that are terrorizing the United States are Better Homes & Gardens, which ran a Spiegel ad showing a woman leaning against a naked man, and, of course, women’s magazines like Cosmopolitan and In Style which are typically displayed at supermarket checkout counters. Women for Decency is participating in a nationwide campaign to persuade supermarkets to put covers in front of Cosmopolitan, Glamour and other magazines.

Women for Decency recently met with Utah’s porn czar, Paula Houston, who herself has been on the job for eight months now. What’s she been up to while drawing her $80,000 salary?

Aside from viewing a lot of pornography, Houston told the Associated Press that she’s fielded about 1,500 complaints about pornography. Most of the complaints, however, stem from advertisements and magazine covers. As an example, over 1,000 Utah residents signed an Internet petition against a Victoria’s Secret ad which featured a nude women strategically covering her breasts with her hands.

Legally, of course, Houston can’t do much about such vile filth, but like Women for Decency, she thinks that pornography kills families by spreading the idea that sex might occur outside of marriage,

It portrays a mindset that people buy into — of objectification, of not having a primary relationship. Pornography promotes free sex and that’s not good for marriages or families. I absolutely believe the only way to stem the tide is through grass roots efforts and understanding the law.

Meanwhile, Andrew McCullough, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, made the astute observation that, “She’s harmless enough, but it’s a terrible waste of taxpayer’s money. She is not doing anything important for society. She is making people feel good.”

Or, at least, trying to prevent people from feeling good.

Source:

Women uniting for war on porn. Mark Eddington, The Salt Lake Tribune, October 14, 2001.

After eight months, Utah’s ‘porn czar’ handles 1,500 complaints, instructs others on laws. Catherine S. Blake, The Associated Press, October 15, 2001.

Magic Nuudles Rock My World

Okay, they’re not as cool as Legos, but we’ve been having a lot of fun at my house with Magic Nuudles. These things look sort of like colored packing peanuts, but they’re made out of corn starch.

When you apply a little bit of water to the edges, the pieces sizzle like they’re being melted with acid, and then two of the pieces can be connected. They form a somewhat solid bond pretty quickly, which hardens to an acceptable level after 10 or 15 minutes.

The really cool thing, though, is the price. The manufacturer sells a giant bag of 12,000 of these things for $99.95. My daughter and I could do some really cool things with 12,000 of these suckers (as my wife’s eyes begin to roll).

Emma and I are going to be stuck at home for about two weeks when she has surgery in November, so I’m thinking we can build a castle out of these things in the middle of the living room.

Can Darwin and God Be Reconciled?

The latest issue of the New York Review of Books has an interesting article by Frederick C. Crews in which Crews slams various books which attempt to reconcile religion and Darwin. As Crews notes, it has become fashionable for scientists and religious leaders to try to stake out some sort of middle ground where both God and evolution co-exist, but usually such a meeting of the minds is possible only by downplaying the most important implications of either belief system.

On the other hand, Crews himself ends up regurgitating the secular religious view of humanity as a destructive species responsible for “overpopulation, pollution, dwindling and maldistributed resources, climatic disruption, new and resurgent plagues, ethnic and religious hatred, the ravaging of forests and jungles, and the consequent loss of thousands of species per year” responsible for numerous “transgressions, not against God but against Earth itself and its myriad forms of life.”

Early in his piece, Crews dismisses claims by neoconservatives that evolution undermines traditional morality and leads to a weakening of social bonds, but just can’t help himself but provide what is little more than a parody of problems that neocons see with natural selection.

This is a fairly common theme in non-academic atheist thought. On the one hand, Christian morality and ethics comes in for a withering attack. On the other hand, however, many secular thinkers offer moral views which are far more repugnant than anything offered or implied in the New Testament.

Crews reminds me of some particularly fanatical Christians my wife ran into several years ago (college campuses, for some reason, attract these sorts of folks). My wife’s friend was pregnant and after a brief discussion, it came out that these folks believed that anyone who died without believing in Jesus — including infants — was barred from salvation.

This is a pretty repugnant view, but it is little different from Crews’ formulation in which what my four-year-old daughter really needs to understand is that she is a dangerous and disruptive animal who lives in a society that lives outside the natural grace of its own local ecosystem.

Where Is the Outrage at Animal Rights Terrorism?

In an excellent article about terrorism, Ron Schara wonders where the outrage is over animal rights terrorism. As Schara notes, nothing that the animal rights extremists have pulled off so far comes close to what Al Qaeda did on September 11, but the goal is largely the same — to create an unending sense of fear in those targeted.

As Schara notes,

These [mink farm raids] are the acts of people with a cause and a terrorist-like fervor who believe their view of animals justifies almost any violence against the enemy.

To animal terrorists, the enemy is anybody who raises animals, eats animals, hunts animals, wears animals or uses animals for research of any kind, even for humanitarian reasons.

And yet, as has been documented amply on this web site, there is still no serious prolonged national discussion about such terrorism, even though the number of such acts really started to climb precipitously in the mid-1990s. Schara writes,

Where is the outrage?

You can’t find it on the editorial pages. You can’t find it in the court rooms or police stations. Seldom are such cases solved and rarely are arrests made of mink or rat releasers.

Why aren’t animal rights organizations more forceful in condemning the actions of extremists or aiding in their arrests? Isn’t sympathizing or protecting animal terrorists just as deplorable?

One would think so, but groups that openly advocate and defend animal rights terrorism, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, not only are never held accountable for those views, but remain media darlings in the eyes of the media ignoramuses who would almost certainly not let PETA slide if it were advocating violence against abortion doctors or defended the burning of a black church. But apparently, the lives of medical researchers and farmers just don’t make it on the media radar screen.

Source:

Different terrorists can make their mark. Ron Schara, Star Tribune, October 7, 2001.

SHAC Unsuccessfully Tries to Pressure Shell

For a brief period at the end of August and beginning of September, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was actively trying to pressure Shell Oil to stop doing business with Huntingdon Life Sciences, but didn’t get very far.

In the first week of September, 15 animal rights activists chained themselves to concrete-filled oil drums on the road leading to a Shell oil refinery in the United Kingdom. The protest forced police to close the read, causing disruptions during rush hour traffic near the refinery.

The interesting thing was that a SHAC spokesman, Joseph Dawson, was obviously frustrated by SHAC’s inability to pressure Shell to withdraw its business from HLS. Dawson told The Guardian,

The list of companies who have pulled out because of this sort of action is endless. We have tried to reason with Shell. We offered to do it the nice way and speak to them but they basically put the phone down on us so now this campaign has to be stepped up.

Dawson seemed shocked that a company might actually resist his group’s harassment and ignorance. Good for Shell.

Source:

Animal rights activists blockade refinery. The Guardian (UK), September 4, 2001.