Maureen Dowd Two Minute Mock
Return of the Lesbian Wannabe Witch
January 15, 2004
by Bernard Chapin
“Ding
Dong the wicked witch, the wicked witch is”…alive? Apparently so,
which may surprise many a reader because Maureen Dowd hasn’t been
heard from since late November. Just when we thought she had permanently
quit journalism and decided to run a school for urban bitchery, she
decided to churn out new propaganda.
I decided to write her a welcome back letter on the behalf of everybody at Mensnewsdaily.com so she wouldn’t feel neglected. Ah, so many narcissists, so little time.
Here’s what I emailed (try not to read this at work due to the possibility of your weeping from it pulling on your heart strings):
Uncle Bern saying hi, Big Mo.
Hope the cellulite surgery, facelift and retoxification went well.
We were concerned at Mensnewsdaily about you and are pleased you’re back. You were correct in defying your psychiatrist’s orders and returning to work. We don't need any more people on disability leave. I read your new column and see you're still a partisan liar-- which is good. After all, the truth would fit you like a pair of spandex shorts. Keep writing and identifying for the general population that the "crazy left" exists and that The New York Times is a cabal of American-hating criminals.
Your mate [yeah right!],
Bernard Chapin
Her comeback album, or column, as the case may be, is called “Tizzy Over Lezzies”
It celebrates two of her favorite topics: lesbianism and the bashing George W. Bush. First she begins by rejoicing that Bush, just like Maureen perhaps (because we’re all just like Maureen—aren’t we?), might be concerned about putting on weight due to problems with his knees. Then she provides more truth that we might expect out of one of her gossip columns when she states, “the Democrats seem puny wandering around Iowa. And more Americans are pronouncing themselves pleased with Mr. Bush.”
Mo couldn’t be more right. I think she is coming to terms with the fact that she’ll never be Howard Dean’s Communication Director because he’s going to get stomped like a fire ant at a summer barbeque in the upcoming election.
Yet, her worthy observations are merely a ruse to get our attention before a tidal wave of whining begins. She credits Bush’s popularity with the populace as being based in our own stupidity. You see, what dummies like the majority of our countrymen fail to understand, in Mo’s upperclass opinion, is that Bush has yet to solve all of our problems so he has no value as a leader. She blames him for not finishing off Osama (how does she know?), Al Qaeda, and that Iraq is not yet completely pacified. Miss Dowd also seems to resent that we descended into terror alert during the holiday season.
Her critique revolves around Bush not being a perfect president, which he is not. Of course, he’s done far better on all counts than any Democratic president would have done. Does she imagine that one of them would be stronger on national security? Certainly not, but Bush has, just like the American people, failed to live up to her ideals.
In actuality, a president who met with her approval would quickly add a Department of Peace (ala Kucinich) and attempt to turn guns into butter. They would forever avoid mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama, or terrorism in general in the hopes that time would erode them away or that our enemies would be intimidated by a policy of “engagement.”
The motto of Miss Dowd and her kind is “why pay when you can play and play?” Life is a soda, “drink it up,” and then cross your fingers that dictators and radical regimes will do the same. When they do not, blame a future or past conservative administration for your loses. Then offer concessions to your tormentors at once.
Maureen is incapable of saying, “Saddam is gone and the world is a better place” because she could care less. She may have thought deeply about it and concluded, “What does someone that icky have to do with me anyway?” She couldn’t give a damn about the thousands and thousands he tortured and murdered. No, to her Bush is the evil one, although he allows her to character assassinate him twice a week.
Saddam is so twenty minutes ago! Why should our trendy elite care at all?
She then mentions Bush’s fundraising and derides his pandering to constituencies, yet Bush is an amateur in raising cash in comparison with his predecessor. Besides, unlike William Jefferson Clinton, the funds he receives are from actual Americans as opposed to couriers fronting for the rulers of the People’s Republic of China.
I wonder if Maureen ever reflected on why foreign intelligence services were so eager to raise funds for a Democratic president? Might it have something to do with the fact that Democrats are too sophisticated and drenched in nuance to worry about the banal concept of separating friend from foe? Yes, it seems Clinton, Gore, and Dean are above that sort of thing. How Wal-Mart of me to even bring it up.
Then she serves us a standard leftist lie: “Mr. Bush has decided to offer legitimacy only to those dispossessed groups in American society who may be politically useful to him.” First of all, what groups in America are dispossessed? Everyone, at a group level, is succeeding in this land. Although, from a Manhattan apartment it must be easy to imagine that they’re not and that every person one doesn’t employ as a servant is starving to death.
Second, Bush clearly wishes to represent all Americans. If he were only representing people like me he would have used his veto fifty times in a row by now. Believe me, this guy wants everyone’s vote.
Third, this “dispossessed” distortion is awful suspicious to me. The Democratic Party is the only organization I know of that willingly tries to dispossess our citizenry. They bait blacks and Hispanics into hating our country. Blacks Americans, if separated out from the rest of our population, are independently one of fifteen strongest economies in the world. Yet Democratic operatives strive to spin every middle class dwelling into a high-rise project, and an obesity epidemic among the poor is reinterpreted as continuing starvation in our inner cities.
The Democrats have created the notion of “dispossessed” but they hate it when the groups that once suffered oppression now succeed. It robs then of votes. They will find out about this in November.
Then she gives a warm, lascivious French (it’d have to be with a NYT employee) kiss to lesbians and gays in general. Wait until you read this:
While Republican strategists argue about whether to turn some poor gay couple who got married in Vermont into Willie and Willie Horton, or just use the issue in targeted spots in bluenosed red states so the president doesn't seem bigoted, the culture is racing ahead.
I break in here to highlight a couple of things. First, notice the strawman argument. If you object to gay marriage then you equate gays with being criminals like Willie Horton. No conservative I know has ever done this, and her mini-point by mentioning Horton is that Bush will use the gay marriage issue to influence the election. Why shouldn’t he? If he does then we can credit it to public disapproval of the way our culture is massaging itself onwards.
Second, she dismisses those who disagree with her about gay marriage as being bluenosed (Websters--“person who advocates a rigid moral code”). In this light, gay marriage is normal and those who disagree with it are abnormal. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most Americans tolerate gays in all their shades and shimmer, but predominantly we want marriage preserved for a man and a woman.
Third, she cannot miss an opportunity to slam red state citizens. In case you’re wondering, red state Americans are those who hail from states that supported Bush in 2000, and if you’re from such a state then you’ve lead a charmed existence because city dwellers like me are burdened by the irrational left on a daily basis. Although, I wonder if Maureen’s low opinion of red state Americans would improve if she knew that I, and Mike LaSalle, hail from the blue states of Illinois and California. I have a feeling we’ll never know.
My fourth point concerns his comment that culture is racing ahead. Clearly it is but what she leaves out is that its destination, if not altered, will be total nihilism. Culture’s progressing, just like socialism did, towards a huge ditch brimming with acid.
Next, she says, with the euphoria that could only come from an incredibly bitter heterosexual:
Women kissing women, often as a way of turning on men [Yea! Break out the confetti!] has become such a staple of entertainment that by the time Madonna and Britney did it on stage, it seemed more stale than shocking.
I’m sure the scene was not shocking for Miss Dowd. She probably video-taped it and tried to have it played at Times Square in the hopes of convincing more women to give up on men and try their best friends out instead. Although to me, the three way with Skankulera was quite shocking. How could it not surprise one the way in which older women try to corrupt and destroy those who are younger and prettier? Misery loves company and that’s why Madonna and Menstral Dowd, would like nothing better than to see Britney ruin her life and become a jaded has-been.
More revelry follows:
The Washington Post reported on Sunday that lesbian love had swept high schools here: "You can see this new trend on Friday nights outside Union Station, sweethearts from high schools around the Washington area, some locking lips. . . . These girls pack Ani DiFranco concerts and know Tatu lyrics by heart. Their attention is usually directed exclusively at each other, but not always: a group of girls at a private school in Northwest Washington charge boys $10 to watch the girls make out in front of them."
Wow, that’s great! Somebody should write a column about it. This is undoubtedly a true story and only confirms the fact that radical feminism has denigrated our culture to the point where it’d make more sense to start from scratch. Maureen is exultant over the radical’s victory as will receive great consolation at the end of her lonely days from the knowledge that others are as tortured as she.
These young girls have been raised in an environment of immediate gratification and they do not know the price they may yet pay for self-destructive behaviors. There is always a ledger and future suitors will undoubtedly consult it. After these girls are done with their experimentation, who in the world would f---ing want them? I know I wouldn’t.
Men, here is your enemy, watch her brag:
Long regarded as the least glamorous of all minority groups, lesbians are now cover girls [Well, not real lesbians anyway]. Showtime has a vampy new program about lesbians in L.A. called "The L Word." That landed Jennifer Beals and its other sexy female stars seminude on the cover of this week's New York magazine, with the headline "Not Your Mother's Lesbians." (I didn't know my mother had lesbians.) A cross between "Sex and the City" and a Budweiser ad, "The L Word" features women sitting around the table at a restaurant, tartly dishing about dating, grooming and getting pregnant [Now that is really deep–call Roger Kimball.] But with these very unflannel "lezzies," the search for "fresh meat" and "new blood" is confined to one sex, babies come through sperm-in-a-cup, the waxing discussions are even raunchier [You know saliva’s dripping from her mouth as she writes this], and the weary, worldly bon mots are along the lines of "Lesbians think friendship's another word for foreplay."
Well, I think we know humans would have died out long before the Bronze Age if friendship were another word for foreplay. Somebody better watch Maureen’s schnauzer because I suspect the friendly little fellow’s getting the lapdog service as we speak. Finally, she ends her ramble with the profane:
It's hard to figure, but America seems ready to embrace W. and the L word at the same time. The new L word, that is.
Okay, so “lesbian” will replace “love” as the new L word. What a healthy prognosis for our society! This should give 97% of the population a good reason to dismiss the claims of Maureen and her clique of radicals at The New York Times forever.
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM!
Bernard Chapin is a writer in Chicago.
