No matter how lamebrained of a proposition is deigned to be the warm discussion topic of the day in a media-centric world, you will always find a liberal, usually a well-known one, to defend it to its absurd ending.
This afternoon’s volunteer liberal flopadoodle is the curmudgeonly essayist Robert (Harrumph) Scheer. He was publicly canned a couple of years ago by the Los Angeles Times for too often falling into a thicket of confused thinking with his rambling, unfocused columns.
As a gift to readers with midget memories, the permanently angry Mr. Scheer returns to remind us of his crazy-glue reasoning with all the joy that accompanies the return of cancer.
He defends Hateful Helen Thomas, the proudly anti-Semitic commentator in Washington who was forcefully retired the other day on the eve of her 90th birthday for saying the Jews should be thrown out of Israel because they are occupying Arab territory.
He says that while her remarks were wrong, she has been unfairly criticized ever since because look at all of the good deeds she has done in her life, demonstrating again why a liberal’s favorite word in the whole dictionary is “but.”
As you may know, Hateful Helen’s videotaped remarks have been treated as the flukiest hiccup (as in, “well, yes, but”) in a “brilliant” barrier-breaking career that has made her a hero to women on every planet.
Isn’t She a Doll?
Or at least a model to every woman who hisses when she awakens in the morning and trumpets her despisal of Jews.
Where has Mr. Scheer been? I thought the liberal media was going to give Hateful a new first name, “St.”
If he missed the news, Mr. Scheer must be Osama’s roommate in a distant cave without television reception and newspaper delivery. The liberal-loaded American media has been fierily defending the hateful old hag ever since the damaging video was made public last Thursday. Ms. Thomas’s vulgar remarks are rooted in her Lebanese heritage. The kick in the stomach in his argument is that Mr. Scheer is a Jew, a carefully masked nugget that he periodically withdraws from his pocket, whenever he deems it politically useful.
I would have been willing to listen to a counter-proposition from Mr. Scheer, but either he forgot or could not think up one. Oh.
Like many liberal commentators, he lights a fire and promptly walks away. Liberals hate to intellectualize. They prefer to scream. Tracking his zaggy thinking, he drives from Los Angeles to New York by way of Sweden.
Memory a Little Flabby, Bobby?
Mr. Scheer contended that Ms. Thomas has been treated unfairly (still drinkin’, Bob?) in the aftermath, but he fails to show how. It is not that he was unconvincing. He never tried. This is what is so maddening about liberals.
Mr. Scheer’s convoluted, crisscrossing contentions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/on-the-vilification-of-he_b_605573.html) demonstrated that he is as wobbly-legged and confused as the day the Times threw him out.
He still knows how to write an eye-catching lead, though: “The media tirade against Helen Thomas is as illogical as it is hysterical,” was his first sentence.
Provocative and vague enough to lure you inside.
Like many discharged liberal journalists on the left, the bitter Mr. Scheer routinely uses his inner rage to jealously spout at still-employed journalists instead of laying out a cogent argument accessible to normal people.
If he had crafted his essay with a pen, we would have noticed that Mr. Scheer behaved the way a drunk does when confronted by a deserted six-lane freeway after dark.
Not until I reached the deadly bottom of his essay did I deduce that Hateful Helen was just a red herring for him.
Still plying fiction, in his fourth sentence, Mr. Scheer said:
“Suddenly this heroic woman who broke so many gender barriers and dared to challenge presidential arrogance was reduced to nothing more than the stereotypical anti-Israel Arab that it is so fashionable to hate.”
It is pregnant with promise. But, like all good, little liberals, he believes in abortion, even committing it when he wants.
You figure he is onto something juicy, don’t you? But (there is that nagging word again) his essay soon melts into another dose of scheer nonsense.
Hateful Helen and the torrent of media tributes to her are not what is vexing Mr. Scheer.
Camouflaged in his 14th sentence is the reason Mr. Scheer needed a handy fig leaf like Mount Helen to smokescreen a longtime point of harangue that he has been pounding:
“What I don't understand is why this basic respect for human rights doesn't apply to the people who call themselves Palestinian and who are illegal immigrants not as a matter of birth but only in the political calculus of those who find their indigenous presence at best an inconvenience and at worst an insolvable threat.”
Gad, how liberals love perceived underdogs.
A longtime self-loathing Jew, Mr. Scheer, you see, reasoned that the self-inflicted bonfire around Hateful Helen gave him another excuse to shlep for the Palestinians. They do not have any advocates except 99 percent of the liberal media and 99 percent of world governments. By contrast, Israel has…let me get back to you on that.
