SOVIET ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA* — Relatively speaking, Mark Levin, about whom I ranted for far too long, is a pretty swell guy. Contrarily, Debbie Schlussel takes the damn cake for irredeemability. Levin, I think, is tremendously misguided. Schlussel is, at best, batsh*t crazy. No, seriously:

As an attorney, Schlussel represented University of Michigan students in a lawsuit against the University when it hosted Al-Arian as a speaker at a radical conference (a conference urging divestment from Israel) on campus, exposing him and other radical speakers, and putting them and their supporters on campus on the defensive.

Below, I linked to her cry for help veiled as an asp bite in the late Bob Novak’s ankle; that’s just the very crazy tip of the loony iceberg. With Levin, I felt the need at least to explain why certain things that he says bother me. I think that simply quoting Ms. Schlussel suffices to reveal what a terrifying(ly bigoted and close-minded) Lilith she is.

The “conservatives” who support Whole Foods are the same ones who look the other way in other areas when someone they like on some issues is a jihad-enabler. You know who they are. They’re the same ones who praised Jew-hating HAMASnik Robert Novak, promote Jihad Darrell a/k/a Darrell Issa (Hezbollah’s favorite Congressman), and lamented Sami Al-Arian/Islamic terrorist buddy Henry Hyde, because a conservative’s pan-jihadism can be overlooked in a convenient dose of double standards and hypocrisy.They’re group–not critical–”thinkers.”

But, unlike them, I look beneath the surface of silly, shallow talking points and principle-free partisan knee-jerking. And I’m not upset that Whole Foods is being boycotted. In fact, I love it. It’s a great episode in poetic justice for a store chain that helps fund and promote jihad and anti-Semitic/anti-Israel radio programming. And now they’re getting what they deserve . . . from their own crazy ideologue.

Normally, FPM–David Horowitz’s outfit–is right on the money in the fight against jihad and Islam’s attempted usurpation and elimination of our freedoms. But with this nauseating, lying article, by FPM Managing Editor Jacob Laksin (who calls this jihad-enabling liar, Novak. a “superb journalist”), they have given up all moral high-ground on this issue.

Never again can FPM be taken seriously when it criticizes the likes of Jimmy Carter, Cynthia McKinney, and sundry others (including Barack Obama) for reaching out to and praising HAMAS. Because FPM’s newly-anointed late hero, Robert Novak did the same, and they’ve chosen to look the other way because he’s “our anti-Semite, our pan-jihadist.”

(Aside: Ms. Schlussel would benefit immensely from a remedial grammar course.)

If you enjoy “Mad Men”–as I do–that means you’re probably either a woman or a gay man (male designers love the show). Yes, for me, it’s a guilty pleasure, mostly because I like the early ’60s clothes and sets and the eye candy of the very hot (but uber-liberal) Jon Hamm who plays the suave and dapper protagonist–more like anti-hero–of the show, “Don Draper.” But let’s face it, it’s a soap opera no less than “Desperate Housewives,” with the addition of period clothing, hairstyles, furniture and news events of the early 1960s woven in.

And let’s be honest: while the show is entertaining, it’s anti-male. It’s written for women. All of the men–especially lead Don Draper–are boozy, smoking lecherous, womanizing, cheating, bigoted jerks (except–per leftist orthodoxy–the closeted gay and the civil rights activist), and the women–even the ones who sleep around–are the sympathetic “victims.” I always assumed the show’s writers were women or gay men.

That’s why it came as no surprise to me when I read the Wall Street Journal profile of the show’s writers–seven of nine of whom are women (and one of the male writers is married a female writer, so he doesn’t count)–and the Journal’s note that “Mad Men” has had more women direct the show than most TV shows do. The show’s portrayal of straight men in a nuclear family–regardless of the era–can only be the work of feminist women or gay men (as “Desperate Housewives” is–creator Mark Cherry is openly gay). And in this case, it’s the former.

Draper is using a fake name (his real name is Dick Whitman, but he stole his current moniker off a dead fellow Korean War soldier in his unit), his mother was a hooker (he’s the product of her union with a john), he was abused by his religious Christian stepfather (there’s that anti-Christian theme that’s like crack to Hollywood writers), he was a used car salesman, he was in a fake first marriage his wife doesn’t know about, and he’s had four affairs/four different women in two seasons of the show.

Jeering FOX News is pretty commonplace amongst the various segments of the “alternative Right” and paleoconservatism. Perhaps some of the criticism isn’t always fair (but, often enough, I reckon that it is). Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure that allowing any show on your network to bring this woman on as a credentialed “conservative commentator” destroys any credibility, whatsoever, that you may have possessed. This woman isn’t a conservative; you can’t love the government as she does and be one. This woman may not be sane. By her logic, Russell Kirk was no conservative (see section four).

And Mad Men is a damn fine program.

*It’s downright depressing that, as we feared and fought off the “Red Menace”, we so ably mimicked the Bolshevik degradation of the public realm with dreary, soulless buildings, like those here in Crystal City, where I’ve spent the last week.

Filed under: Uncategorized