« We Demand a Committee, a Representative Committee, a Committee of Investigation | Main | Priorities »
Taxicab Confessional
By Jeff Fecke | June 5, 2007
I left work and hailed a cab. That may seem unusual, given that I worked in Mendota Heights, but no matter; a hack pulled up and motioned me inside.
“Eagan,” I said, “and step on it.”
“No problem,” said the driver, whose picture identified him simply as Johnny. “Say, Mac,” Johnny said, “do you want to know who I just can’t stand?”
“Who’s that?” I asked.
“Dr. Mike S. Adams. Sweet Chocolate Jesus, what a moron that guy is.”
“Really? Why’s that?”
Johnny coughed noisily, and continued. “Look, it’s not that he’s a crazy wingnut with some serious mommy issues — that describes everyone from Jonah Goldberg to Swiftee to George W. Bush. It’s that he just makes up fake quotes to justify insane conclusions that don’t make no sense,” he added, making sure to emphasize the no so I would understand and convey that his was but the simple voice of the American people.
“What do you mean?” I asked.
“Well, take a look at this quote from his latest ramblings at Townhall:
Recently, a bright, young, conservative woman told me I had gone too far in my criticism of feminism. She even said my harsh criticism of feminism “almost made her want to be a feminist.” In addition to being dead wrong she may be in danger of becoming a liberal.
The “you almost make me want to be a feminist” statement reminds me of one I heard from a young liberal woman after a speech I gave in Spokane, Washington. The livid lib was upset because I referred to college professors who support speech codes as “dope smoking hippies who dropped too much acid in the 60s.”
“I mean, what a moron.”
“Well, he didn’t necessarily make it up,” I offered. “I mean, I suppose there could have been a couple women who fit those descriptions…vague though they were.”
“Sure, sure, and I’m the frickin’ tooth fairy,” he said. “But listen to what he says next:
By implying that a large amount of acid was required to make sense of the speech codes, I was simply making a joke. I was also drinking wine that night before the speech but that’s okay because the audience was Catholic.
It is predictable that a liberal would approach me after a speech and say “I’m now more liberal because of your harsh comments about professors who use acid.” By stating that I reinforced her liberalism by using offensive language (read: by making her even angrier) she simply reinforces my true definition of a liberal:
One who suffers from an emotional disorder that renders him, her, or it unable to appreciate humor.
“First of all, remember that the boldface there was in the original. And second, I mean, come on, Adams! You’re the guys who came up with the Half Hour News Hour. We’ve got The Daily Show and Colbert. Case closed.”
“So you’re saying Adams just made up some humorless strawfeminist so he could argue ex nihilo that liberals aren’t funny?”
“Not just that, but he made a lame joke about drunken Catholics in the process. But Bill Donohoe won’t be complaining, I bet — not to get off on a tangent.”
“Of course,” I said.
“But if you think that’s bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet,” said the cabbie. “He uses that strawfeminist to start bashing women. To wit:
Putting aside my disdain for a “conservative” who contemplates moving to the left because my comments have caused “offense,” I have come to the firm conclusion that I’ve not been nearly harsh enough in my treatment of feminists. And today I plan to start treating them the way they deserve to be treated.
“Sounds like an MRA to me. Of course, I’m just a simple, completely-not-made-up cabbie.”
“That is pretty bad,” I agreed. “Is there anything more you’d like to hold forth on?”
“Indubitably. Now, maybe, just maybe, there were two women who said what Adams said they said, sorta. I mean, it’s possible. Not likely, but possible. But this next thing…well, read for yourself:
My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn’t be able to sleep around.
At the heart of his support for Darwinism was a desire to get God out of the picture by any means whatsoever. And his desire to get God out of the picture was in turn motivated by his desire to copulate with as many people as possible without feeling guilty. I wonder whether some untenured psychologist would dare to publish a paper called “A Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Human Devolution.” I think we all know the answer to that question.
“PZ Myers said he was lying about ever talking to that guy, and of course he was. I mean, hell, I’m just a hack, and even I would know to recommend people go to the TalkOrigins site if they want to see a huge body of evidence written for a layperson. And I’m just a cabbie. I don’t have a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology or nothin’. Any Ph.D. worth his salt could tick of about eleventy billion different pieces of evidence for evolution, from the overlap between morphological changes and DNA changes to the incredible work being done in evo devo.”
“What about the guy fooling around on the wife?” I asked.
The hack snorted derisively. “What, you mean the part where Adams quoted one of those evolutionary psychology ‘just-so’ stories that explain why men like to rape women while women really don’t like sex? Yeah. I’m sure that’s exactly how the conversation went.”
“So you think women like sex?”
“If they don’t, you probably need to work on your technique. Anyhow, get a load of what Adams says next:
As I think about the candid remarks of the freely fornicating biologist, I am reminded of a sociology professor’s response to a film showing an ultrasound of an abortion being performed on a fetus during its so-called first trimester of development. Without addressing the issue of when life actually begins she pleaded for the preservation of a woman’s right to choose by reminding people that a woman who gets pregnant “might not know” or “might not even like” the man who got her pregnant.
The similarities between the remarks of the freely fornicating biologist and the slut-sympathizer-slash-sociologist are analytically indistinguishable. And the remarks of the latter are a grim reminder that the feminist mantra that a “woman has right to control her body” is not a reference to the fetus at all. It is simply a reference to her own body and her desire to share it with those she “might not know” and “might not even like.”
“Wait a second,” I said. “Is it me, or did Mike Adams just argue that we need to end abortion because if we do, women will stop sleeping around?”
“Bingo! And don’t you love the part where he talks about a woman’s right to control her body like that’s a bad thing?”
“Yeah. I always thought having control meant having control, and the ability to make good or bad decisions.”
“Yep. And Dr. Mike also missed one other possible meaning from the straw-sociologist who he’s misquoting.”
“How so?”
“Well, if a woman is pregnant by a man she doesn’t know or doesn’t like, what does that say to you?”
I thought for a minute. “She was raped.”
“Could be. Women have been known to conceive from rape, right?”
“Adams doesn’t even entertain the possibility,” I said, as much to myself as the protean driver.
“Bingo. But he uses this fractured, tortured, false-on-its-face logic to make the biggest leap since we invaded Iraq on bogus WMD charges.
Given that a) feminists who defend abortion invariably fall back on the “right to control her body” argument and, b) this argument is invariably motivated by nothing more than lust, the following re-definition of feminism is in order:
Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.
“Beautiful, huh?” said the cabbie. “First, feminists and pro-choicers don’t ‘fall back’ on the ‘right to control her body’ argument. That is the argument — that women, better than anyone else, have the right to do with their bodies what they please. And b is beside the point — who cares if a woman made a bad decision due to lust, it’s not like men don’t — but more than that, the rape possibility proves it isn’t a given. It isn’t ‘invariably motivated’ by anything other than the desire to see women not be forced to give birth against their will.”
“Kind of blows his premise out of the water, doesn’t it?” I said.
“Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. Of course, it’s not surprising he lies in his argument; he lies about what people have said, what they mean, you know even if all these people exist, they didn’t say anything remotely like what he said they said.”
“So does Adams try to defend this?”
“As well as he does in the rest of his article:
Those who would quibble with my assertion that all feminists commit murder do so based on the mistaken assumption that a woman must have or actually perform an abortion to commit a murder. That isn’t so.
Charles Manson never actually stabbed or shot any of the five people at the Tate residence. Nor did he stab either of the LaBiancas the following evening. His conviction on all seven counts of murder was due to his choice to enter into a criminal conspiracy with the very people who did, in fact, directly commit the murders.
Whether they have ever had or performed an abortion themselves, all feminists today are voluntarily involved in a movement whose principal issue/goal is abortion on demand. And this meeting of the minds renders the term “baby killer” equal applicable to both the committed and casual feminist alike.
We sat in silence for some time. Finally, I said, “Sweet Chocolate Jesus, what a moron that guy is.”
“You’re right,” said the cabbie.
He dropped me off at my apartment, a little wiser. I waved to him as he departed, just your average everyday hack who just happened to pick me up in his cab. It sure was lucky timing; it was his wisdom that helped me complete this post. And I didn’t even have to resort to simply linking and saying things like, “Amanda and Jill have much more.”
Topics: Abortion, Feminism, Hacktackular!, Sexual Assault | 4 Comments »
June 6th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Intelligent Taxi Driver Picks Up Progressive Blogger…
Jebus, I never knew taxi drivers could be so damn intelligent. And don’t get me started on the shear luck of a progressive blogger getting into this man’s taxi. Seriously, I want Jeff Fecke’s luck.Technorati Tags: Politics, Humor, Political Humor,…..
June 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
[...] Jeff Fecke: Taxicab Confessional [...]
August 25th, 2008 at 1:36 am
[...] Ah, Mike Adams. You remember Mike Adams; he’s the UNC-Wilmington professor who singlehandedly devalues my friend’s brother’s college degree, the idiot who once argued that we should end abortion so women will stop having sex. [...]
August 25th, 2008 at 1:38 am
[...] who singlehandedly devalues my friend’s brother’s college degree, the idiot who once argued that we should end abortion so women will stop having sex.Well, Mike Adams is back. Truthfully, he never went away, but he writes at Townhall, so his [...]