(NOTE: I read The New York Times Opinion section so that others don’t have to. While I could write something every day that mocks the lunacy there, I decided to just highlight a few of them once a week. I’ll also offer one from The Washington Post so they don’t feel left out. I provide the actual headline from the op-ed and go from there. Enjoy.)
Predictably, the ongoing tantrum that is the Opinion section of The New York Times was STILL flooded with digital tears over the news that Roe v Wade might be overturned. All three selections from the Times for this column reflect that. Thankfully, WaPo provided some ridiculous for its contribution last week.
To the nonsense we go!
1. The Push to Silence Protesters Over the Roe Decision
This alt-reality offering from Jamelle Bouie wanders so far afield that it’s a wonder that a missing person report wasn’t filed.
First, on what planet is anyone really trying to silence the protesters? They’re being encouraged by both the Democratic elite and prominent voices in the corruptocrat mainstream media. Sure, we’re complaining about it here on the right but we aren’t mounting large-scale counter-protests or trying to round them up in paddy wagons (I’m of Irish descent so I can still say that). This is a narrative that Bouie is weaving on his progressive fever-dream fantasy loom.
My old friend and colleague over at HotAir John Sexton pointed out a recurring flaw of Bouie’s writing:
I don’t think anyone is surprised that Jamelle Bouie believes protests at the Supreme Court are justifiable. His unwillingness to engage with any of the actual arguments against it is also not surprising. https://t.co/awli2oZngt
— John Sexton (@verumserum) May 14, 2022
If you say, “Activity X is illegal,” Bouie will respond with something about the oppressive nature of traditional folk dancing garb in Poland in the 1600s.
And that’s on one of his more logical days.
2. Too Much Church in the State
Maureen Dowd is back with another entry gone wrong from her therapy journal. Our girl Mo is trying to provide a most concerned Catholic‘s perspective on the fact that there are so many conservatives on the Court who share her faith. She lays out what I’m sure she thinks is a very good case for her special insight, but it all unravels because of one point: a professed Roman Catholic who is defending abortion has utterly and completely lost the thread.
Her wistful example of how Catholic politicians should think is laughable:
We have no one in the public arena like Mario Cuomo, who respected the multiplicity of values in an open society and had the guts to wade into the lion’s den at Notre Dame in 1984.
“The Catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic democracy — who is elected to serve Jews and Muslims, atheists and Protestants, as well as Catholics — bears special responsibility,” Cuomo said. “He or she undertakes to help create conditions under which all can live with a maximum of dignity and with a reasonable degree of freedom; where everyone who chooses may hold beliefs different from specifically Catholic ones — sometimes contradictory to them; where the laws protect people’s right to divorce, to use birth control and even to choose abortion.”
In that list of Cuomo’s, it’s only the atheists who would be largely pro-abortion.
Liberal Catholics are forever trying to sell gray areas to an institution that has been saying “no” to them for two millennia.
We’ll leave this section with my immediate response to this article:
I can assure you that the legal and ethical crises that plague this country aren’t happening because there’s too much religion.
— SFK (@stephenkruiser) May 15, 2022
3. If Roe Goes, Could Birth Control Be Next?
Hoo-boy, there are so many straw men here that this article should be condemned as a fire hazard.
This, of course, is a retread argument that Democrats have been trotting out for a very long time.
And it’s never been remotely fact-based.
Because pro-abortion people don’t believe that they’re killing babies, they can conflate it with a host of issues, while those of us opposed to it are singularly focused. It’s the safest bet you will ever make that I interact with more conservatives in a day than the writer of this article will in the next five years.
I have never once encountered an anti-abortion conservative who advocates for banning birth control. To the contrary, I think we’d all prefer that the left stops breeding altogether.
We just don’t want them to kill babies to make that happen.
Postscript: George Washington University needs a new name
This is a woke word-barf written by a college commie who is too stupid to understand context. Stop trying to cancel American history, you emotional weaklings.
The real world is going to hit this kid like a never-ending ice bath when he graduates.
This was fun, let’s do it again real soon.
Like next week.