Today, Opinion Journal wrote about author Anne Lamott, whose recent article in Salon was filled with uninformed and unhinged commentary.
The left-liberal Webzine Salon has become something of a clearinghouse for rage against Alaska’s governor. The latest contribution, from one Anne Lamott, actually uses the H word:
I sat outside a 7-Eleven and had a sacramental Dove chocolate bar. Jeez: Here we are again. A man and a woman whose values we loathe and despise–lying, rageful and incompetent, so dangerous to children and old people, to innocent people in every part of the world–are being worshiped, exalted by the media, in a position to take a swing at all that is loveliest about this earth and what’s left of our precious freedoms.
When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, “Don’t you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?”
And he said, “Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian.”
I have been in a better mood ever since, and have decided not to even say this woman’s name anymore, because she fills me with such existential doubt, such a sense of impending doom and disbelief, that only the Germans could possibly have words for it.
What’s hilarious about this is that, except for the obligatory “or She,” Lamott and her unnamed interlocutor fit exactly the stereotype people on the left typically hold of conservatives, and religious conservatives in particular: smug yet insecure, dogmatic and intolerant and filled with hate and rage. Even Lamott’s descriptions of Palin more aptly describe Lamott in the act of describing Palin!
Amusing is the notion that a liberal would discuss God at all, much less assume that God is capable of “hate.”
Those who wear the mantle of compassion are the same people whose disagreement can reach levels of viciousness that is rarely seen among conservatives. Impatient with the democrat process of voting, they have turned the judiciary into a substitute legislature in order to force their preferred policies into law, specifically laws on religion. They disrupt any expression of the birth of Jesus on public ground; they have succeeded in banning anything remotely Biblical or prayer-related in public schools; they have portrayed voluntary prayer or even moments of silence as evils akin to witch burning in Salem; they have gone to court over the presence of the Ten Commandments on public ground. This anti-Christian crusade has been fueled for decades under a severely twisted understanding of the First Amendment and voluntary ignorance of the Framers’ intent.
But when convenient, people like Lamott assume that God not only takes sides in these matters, but “hates” those who dare disagree with liberal assumptions. They refer to Jesus as a “liberal” as if the politics of 2008 could ever describe anyone from a two thousand year old culture. (Nevermind the fact that Jesus would likely have problems with infanticide on demand, the open demonization of anything religious, or the elevation of the State over God.) They place bumper stickers on the back of their Volvos with the word “CO-EXIST,” each letter incorporating a symbol of each of the major religions. Jews and Catholics have not been setting off bombs lately. Hindus and Buddhists don’t blend into crowds, stroll into Sbarro’s or (Jewish) wedding receptions and set off bombs either.
Lamott’s other statements are too difficult to leave unanswered.
While Republicans are people whose values she “loathes and despises,” does anyone seriously believe that Lamott has an even superficial understanding of what Republicans believe or think? Disagreement is understandable, but anyone who “loathes” and “despises” conservative values is uninformed and/or unhinged.
Republicans are also, Lamott believes, “lying, rageful and incompetent, so dangerous to children and old people, to innocent people in every part of the world…”
Lamott appears to be unaware of “lying, rageful and incompetent” Democrats who have lied incessantly about the President over nearly 8 years, about the reasons for invading Iraq, and about the War on Terror generally. She ignores those who have openly rooted for our defeat; whose economic illiteracy is a pre-requisite for their admission into the party; whose policies have raised gas prices substantially (and subsequently the costs of food and ignited food riots in poor countries); who refuse to permit increased drilling; who have pushed environmental energy policies that have made basic goods more expensive while contributing nothing positive to the environment; who have engineered the recent bank meltdown; who have for decades forced those same banks to issue mortgages against common sense, against free market ideals, and on the basis of racist assumptions…
“Dangerous to children”? Thanks to liberal policy which portrays babies as punishments, the most dangerous place for a child is in utero.
“Dangerous to old people”? Supporting a behemoth socialist health care as liberals do is indeed danger to old people.
“Dangerous to innocent people”? If you consider Al Qaeda “innocent,” then yes. A Republican and the U.S. military have liberated 50 innocent million Muslims from tyranny, rape, torture, fear, and abuse. Whom have Democrats and liberals liberated? Ever?
Most ridiculous is Lamott’s assertion that McCain and Palin are “worshiped” by the media. Must I list the ways McCain and Palin have been attacked by the media?
It’s difficult to comprehend how a publisher would find Lamott’s high-school essay worthy of publication. Apparently, if you say the right (er, Left) things, then anything can be published.
Just follow the party line, Anne.
Filed under: Crazy liberals , Anne Lamott, arrogance, Crazy liberals, over-rated writers
