read the "New York Times" everyday. Among New York City
"intellectuals", this is tantamount to a confession which
may forever lose me credibility. But it's just too long, and whenever
I have it, I feel compelled to read every single article in every
single section, which ends up taking up approximately two hours--time
which could be spent much more constructively, like watching "Law
and Order" re-runs on the A&E Channel. Plus, I love the "New
York Post", even though I know it's a reactionary rag with crazed
columnists. I was recently visiting friends in New Jersey, and I was
amazed at the way in which the local newspaper actually printed, well,
news. "The New York Post" has lost all pretenses to being
anything other than what it is--a tabloid. For example, the tragedy
of a bride being murdered by her ex-boyfriend on her wedding day was
mentioned among many other articles in the "Times"; but
I knew it would snag front page attention for almost a week in "The
Post". On Sundays, it has unique little columns, like a single
guy writing about his life of misery; I enjoy reading "Ask the
Vet" even though I don't own any pets, but my favorite is "guy-gercounter",
a weekly poll which might as well have been conceptualized by the
late, great Ed Wood, Jr., The Eternal Master of Pure Lunacy. In it,
an arbitrary man agrees to subject himself to be stopped on the street,
photographed and rated by a selected panel of arbitrary women who
work in professions ranging from salesclerk to music video producer,
on his personal grooming and general sex appeal. They can categorize
him anywhere from "No Chemistry", "Not Even Close"
to "Oh, baby!". I'm glad the Numerology Lady is gone, however.
In her entire year-long or so tenure, she gave only one cheerful weekly
forecast. I used to send her e-mails saying, "Could you change
your perspective and look on the sunny side of the street occasionally?
You're depressing New Yorkers with these doom and gloom forecasts,
and we tend to be depressed enough already."
love to hate "The New York Post", particularly it's right-wing,
smarmy columnists. Some months back, I got into an e-mail catfight,
the likes of which would have made Aaron Spelling proud, with Meredith
Berkman, who appears to be distinguished only by the fact that
other than having interviewed fellow braggart Kathie Lee Gifford for
"Redbook", she is...Oh My God, Meredith,
please tell us every single detail, just as if you, too, were a Hollywood
morally-bankrupt "Opinion" piece, "And Then I Heard
the Heartbeat", Meredith
"shares" the fact that she had been a life-long pro-choicer,
until she became pregnant with her first child and heard the baby's
heartbeat and saw it's image on a sonogram. Presented with this tangible
evidence that the fetus was actually a person, she felt fiercely protective
and wondered how she could ever even hypothetically contemplate aborting
it! This epiphany, she claims, made her "pro-choice with an asterisk".
that you simply cannot be "pro-choice with an asterisk".
You're either pro-choice or you're not, and if you write about your
new-found ambivalences, you're giving fodder to Right-to-Lifers who
will in all likelihood gleefully re-print your column in their literature
and use it as an excuse to bomb more abortion clinics and murder more
doctors, patients, employees and bystanders.
I felt like this article was a diss to the zillions of women throughout
history who have had babies before technological advances like sonograms
allowed them to see the image of their fetuses. Is Meredith
saying that because previous generations of mothers didn't have access
to state-of-the-art obstretical equipment, they couldn't "bond"
as closely with their unborn children? Heck, my mother didn't even
know she was having twins until after my older brother Alan was born,
and then, ten minutes later, along came Jeff. Does this mean that
she loved them any less, had less maternal instincts during those
strategic nine months? Yet my mother, who gave birth to four children
without acting like a martyr, saint, or movie star, has also remained
a lifelong pro-choicer. Are adoptive or foster parents less loving
parents, and should their love for their children influence their
views on abortion? If a technological advance is enough to push someone
out of the pro-choice camp, I'd say they were never too firmly entrenched
in there to begin with.
because, frankly, I think the whole column was just an excuse to boast
about her pregnancy, (hopefully, she can creatively one-up her fellow
columnarcissist, Susan Brady Konig, who "pre-wrote" the
birth to her third child a week before the event actually occurred--making
the infant somewhat akin to Jesus Christ, who was born before his
birthday--see later reference in rant. Well, Susan, that was so very
thoughtful of you because all The "Post" readers, especially
yours truly, were ever so fascinated!!! A woman giving birth--call
Eyewitness News, this has never happened in N.Y.C. before!). Can I
stand the suspense of waiting for Meredith
to apprise readers of the birth, the early days of motherhood, yadda,
yadda, simply because it's Rule Number One in The Narcissist's Handbook?
I recommend that both Berkman
and Brady Konig call Burrelle's and purchase a tape of George
Carlin's memorable HBO Special, "You Are All Diseased",
so they can listen raptly to his brilliant take on yuppie parenting
in the 90's. But, like with the remote control, which enables me to
change channels, with Meredith,
I also have an option...I can stop reading her. And if I ever stop
being addicted to "The Post", I can always get my share
of sleaze from "Salon". A top news story entitled "You've
Got Male", in which author Michael Alvear asks the question,
"How did AOL become the bathhouse of the Internet? (Size Matters)"
treats us to a quote from a public relations expert and AOL chatroom
devotee who proclaims, "I can have dick delivered to my door
faster than a pizza." (One hopes there is a person attached.)
compelling even than the "Post's" triumph in finding men
who will permit themselves to be dissected by a panel of vicious,
merciless and plain-out meanie-headed women judges: "he needs
to work out more to be able to pull off wearing those tight pants--he
looks flabby"; "his jaw is too square for that funky buzz-cut--looks
pretentious", (are the guys overly optimistic, exhibitionistic,
do they secretly suffer low self-esteem, or are they just looking
for fashion tips from chicks?) was the random poll they conducted
about the "Millennium", which is basically the subject of
my rant. The question posed was whether the recent spate of earthquakes,
hurricanes and other natural disasters was related to the upcoming
"Millennium". Every single person (ranging from college
kids to middle-aged professionals) replied "yes". Many otherwise
smart people I know also believe that "The X-Files" is not
merely a creation of network television, but a prophecy: come the
Year 2,000, aliens will land. To which I always reply, "Then
why didn't they arrive in 1,000 A.D.?"
is disingenuous on my part, since I don't believe in a "Millennium".
For starters, there's the issue of why anyone who isn't a Christian
should consider the birth of Christ as the beginning of "the
first calendar". Why shouldn't time have officially begun when
the first hominids appeared on the earth? Why would the birth of Christ
have any relevance to the millions of Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus,
Buddhists--or any other religious or non-religious group? And supposing
that everyone agrees to use this Christian calendar nonetheless: I
called the New York Public Library Information Service and was informed
of the following facts: The Random House Dictionary states that the
Christian Calendar is based on the Birth of Christ (B.C.), and yet,
according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Christ was born from between
four to seven years BC Excuse me? He was born before his birth? Okay,
since he was ostensibly born to a virgin mother, this, too, seems
feasible. But here's my point: if there is a scientific discrepancy
over exactly WHEN Christ was born; how accurate is our calendar? It
seems like the evidence is overwhelming that the "Millennium"
already occurred sometime between 1993 to 1996. Who knows? My point
is: If this is the case, would everybody just CHILL OUT already? If
the Aliens are disguised in the form of Meredith Berkmans, you can
just send them a series of logical e-mails and trust me, they will
Meredith Berkman Pregnancy Watch and the Biblical Literalists
you think the trend of www.everything-on-earth-becoming-a.com is making
people more nervous than they already are? It reminds me of elementary
school, where they would show us educational films in "assembly"
about how, in the future, automation would make human labor obsolete,
making us all wonder, 'Then, why bother growing up?' Perhaps the Internet
has already taken over our lives, but must we be reminded of this
fact 24/7? In any event, never let it be said that I do not live on-line,
so kindly check out my bi-monthly rants at: http://www.Matahariette.com.
predicted in Rant #1, "The 'Millennium'", in a recent column,
"I'll Take That Epidural", Meredith
Berkman, the "New York Post"'s silliest columnist, (a
Herculean feat), "shared" with her readers by updating us
on her pregnancy. The gist of her "opinion piece" was that
women oppress other women by pressuring them to have natural childbirth
and by guilt-tripping them if they opt for painless deliveries. Oh,
poor, sensitive Meredith,
so vulnerable to peer pressure!!! If anyone I knew, was related to,
or anyone anywhere had the incredible audacity and rudeness to even
suggest the method in which I should deliver my unborn child, you
can be assured I'd tell them to www.mind-your-own-fucking-business.com!
Isn't the goal to actually HAVE THE KID, not to focus obsessively
over its delivery?
an old episode of the classic t.v. show "Northern Exposure"
summed up Lamaze. In it, Maggie O'Connell (Janine Turner), the well-meaning
optimist, tricks Dr. Joel Fleischman (Rob Morrow), the pragmatic man
of medicine, into lecturing at a clinic for expectant mothers and
their mates. Joel says, "Ladies, here are the four words you'll
need to know when you go into labor: I WANT MY EPIDURAL!" Irritated,
Maggie tries to teach everyone Lamaze breathing techniques, but later
in the episode, a woman's contractions begin, and despite Maggie's
patronizing New Age Advice, the incipient Mom screams out, "I
want my epidural!" Case fucking closed.
you are thinking, 'How can this Hariette Ranter find time to write
if she watches so much television?' Maybe I'm adept at "multi-tasking",
as long as I'm given a "head's-up" that a project I'm working
on is "green-lit". I proudly espouse the position that well-written
television shows (current and on reruns) are superior in quality to
anything I read in all the generic j-school glossy magazines (see
upcoming J-School Rant) which proliferate like roaches, or most webzines,
with exceptions, like Cyber Corpse. Let me not even discuss the cinematic
atrocities of 1999, which may be rant-worthy if I can force myself
to recall all those tedious, ludicrous, wasted hours. No, I refer
specifically to "Oz", "Law and Order", "Sex
and the City", "The Sopranos", "The X-Files"...and
in reruns, "Homicide", "Northern Exposure", "Seinfeld",
"The Equalizer" (wouldn't we all like to be Robert McCall
for a day and tell someone, "My name is Robert McCall. You are
going to do exactly what I tell you to do in the next five minutes
or you will be very, very sorry, indeed"And everyone always does
it!). And since Saul Bellow's son is writing a book about nepotism,
might I plug my cousin Jonathan Katz's animated comedy, "Dr.
Katz: Professional Therapist"? I wish "Wiseguy", "Miami
Vice", "Crime Story", "E-Z Streets" and "thirtysomething"
were still on. I was nothing less than devastated when Patricia Kalember
said in "TV Guide" (hey, it's a better read than "Esquire")
that she had always hated her role as the cranky Susannah Hart from
"thirtysomething". I worshipped Susannah and her refusal
ever to capitulate to other people's expectations and behave politely,
or even moderately socially, even when she was an (infrequent) guest
in their homes. In "Beauty and the Beast", under-utilized
but consistently compelling actress Jo Anderson, playing Detective
Diana Bennett, who lived alone in a secretly-located loft, was constantly
breaking dates with her boyfriend, even forgot her own niece's birthday,
and was generally rude and unaccommodating, gave everybody a hard
time. When she finally agreed to take on the case of who killed Catherine
Chandler (Linda Hamilton), I was jazzed. Every week, I wondered giddily,
'When will Diana discover that Catherine's mystery love, Vincent,
was actually half-lion?' More importantly, 'Is Vincent and Catherine's
baby leonine or human?' Now, THERE was a celebrity baby I actually
gave two shits about.
brings us back to the "New York Post", and mediocre columnists
trying to transform themselves into celebrities by tediously telling
us about their pregnancies. Meredith
Berkman's fellow columnarcissist, Susan Brady Konig, recently
wrote about how strangers make rude comments to her because she has
more than two children (this pre-dated her riotous account of cleaning
up an old house she's moving into to accommodate her brood). Did someone
recently pass a journalism law mandating that women are only permitted
to write about maternity? "Like, duh, hello", I seem to
remember a rather wide-spread feminist movement, spurred on by the
publication of Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" in
1963. No wonder a Lesbian friend recently called me a "breeder".
At the time, I pissily retorted, "I don't cast aspersions on
your sexual preferences, so would kindly not criticize mine using
terminology derived from the Aryan Nations." Upon reflection,
perhaps "homegirl" just reads more newspapers and magazines
than yours truly: what else are women writing about other than "breeding"?
"Girlfriends", It's a "Ladies Home Journal" World!
In an edition of the Sunday "New York Post", there was an
interview with Marilu Henner, which I read because I was in an Ed
Wood, Jr. kind of mood. In it, I learned this fact: "A few years
ago, she also hosted a documentary, 'We're Having a Baby', that followed
her second pregnancy right through the 4 a.m. delivery - all of which
was televised." Coincidentally, I saw that there was going to
be an e! cable t.v. special on the perky actress in "TV Guide".
In it, Marilu, filled with what she called "Hennergy", said
(not verbatim, but this was the general idea): that she had decided
to make the documentary so that other women could observe the processes
of pregnancy and childbirth, thus de-mystifying them. Liar! She just
wanted to brag about her baby like every other Narcissist in America.
While she did not reveal what John Leguizamo refers to as the "vaginga"
in his Emmy-winning HBO Special, "Freak", there was a scary
moment when the baby's head began to crown while Ms. Hennergy sat
on the toilet. "Oh my God!" she screamed. Now I'm worried
that if I have a baby, I might not make it to the hospital in time
and it will fall into the toilet bowel and drown!
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY WOULD ANYONE CARE ABOUT ONE SINGLE DETAIL
OF MARILU HENNERGY'S PREGNANCY? In the e! special, I also discovered
that she wrote a book "sharing" her very own parenting techniques.
Since the majority of American women can barely afford to pay for
decent day care for their children because they're underpaid and overtaxed,
why would they listen to the advice of a zero-charisma former television
sitcom actress who can afford countless nannies, elite private schools,
organic produce... The Narcissism disease is knocking off women with
the intensity of the Body-Snatchers. But, wait, I'm being www.unfair-to-my-sisters.com.
In the November 8th issue of "The New Yorker", a new father,
John Seabrook, published an opus defending the practice of his ten-month-old
son "co-sleeping" in his marital bed. This oppressive drivel
could have been contained in a mere paragraph: "The United States
Consumer Products Safety Commission's chairwoman, Ann Brown, published
a study in October, 1999, saying that 64 infant deaths are caused
yearly by babies sleeping in their parent's bed (they either get smothered,
strangle in the bedding, or drown in waterbeds). Yet in 1997, 2,705
infants died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and many experts,
such as James J. McKenna, a biological anthropologist at Notre Dame
University, suggest that 'solitariness may conspire with infantile
deficits to increase infant risks.'" Case fucking closed! If
you want your baby to sleep in your bed, the percentages justify that
you can do so without feeling guilty about it. But that's not what
Seabrook REALLY wanted to write about (and write...and write...and
write). He wanted to wow us with his closing paragraph, about how,
despite the sleep deprivation "co-sleeping" has induced,
he continues to practice it because otherwise "...what I would
miss is the sight of my son's face just as he is waking up...And then
there is this smile, a big, radiant grin provoked by nothing more
than the mere presence of another day." What killer Anne Lamottian-calibre
imagery!!! What a unique and original concept! Perhaps salon.com really
is "The New Yorker of the Internet", because the creatively-challenged
John Seabrook would be a perfect pick to start a new column, "Fathers
Who Don't Think". LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ALIKE, I IMPLORE YOU,
PLEASE STOP BRAGGING ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE NO ONE
CARES!!! WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW YOU OR
YOUR BABIES!!! We care about our own children, our friend's children,
our nieces and nephews, but not about your anonymous offspring. All
babies smile, coo, gurgle, throw up, spit up...maybe Baby Seabrook
wakes up feeling happy because he has just moved his bowels. It only
takes a village to raise a child when you're living on a kibbutz.
(Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, Esq., First Lady and superstar lawyer
wrote a book about "breeding", not a tome of brilliant legal
insights, damnit.) The giant peapods are stacking up in the backs
of trucks across the land, inspired by Anne Lamott, whose child-rearing
frustrations she candidly discusses in salon.com, even though she
outs herself as an emotional and physical child abuser according to
the statutes of the California Legislative Analyst's Office; Seabrook;
Henner; Demi Moore's "controversial" "Vanity Fair"
pregnancy photo; Brady Konig and of course, Meredith
"Call Eyewitness News, I'm Pregnant" Berkman.
attempt at breederly wit conceivably be lamer: "I'm convinced
that mothers are pregnant for nine months so they have time to organize
their closets." In her most illogical column (so far), "Not
the Usual Celebrity Split" she analyzes the decision to divorce
by Howard and Alison Stern, noting that her husband was wisely unfazed
when she tearfully informed him, "Howard's getting a divorce!"
while eating a bowl of soggy Cap'n Crunch. "Now I'm not saying
that Howard and Alison Stern were role models," Berkman
muses, "I've never met them, so I wouldn't know." Gee, Meredith,
I sometimes enjoy Howard Stern's radio show and agree with his contrary
takes on current events, but I think you would have to be www.totally-out-in-the-ozone.com
to even speculate on whether the Sterns were "marital role models".
Howard Stern grew livid and spewed vitriol to the press when Kathie
Lee Gifford wrote him a letter of condolence--he'd probably jerk off
tree-waster. Let's examine Howard Stern, alias Fartman, who in all
probability would not describe himself as "compassionate".
He hosts a nightly television show on e! in which he encourages an
assortment of not terribly bright but always desperate and pathetic
young women to disrobe on national television, telling them how much
he'd like to sleep with them, insulting their intelligence while complimenting
or criticizing their physical attributes...in-between constantly complaining
about the unsatisfying sex life he had with his wife and how he had
to use a vibrator to get her off. (I can only imagine the hellish
school experiences of the three Stern daughters: "Eww, gross,
your daddy talked about finger-fucking your mommy in the dedication
to his book!") When I try to conjure up marital role models,
the Sterns would rate about as highly as John and Patricia Ramsey.
actually continues on this train of thought, "But the public
death of a private marriage is a sad spectacle with a ripple effect
that has very little to do with fame: We feel for the broken family
in question, and cherish the family we have at home." Yes, hearing
the news of Howard Stern's marital break-up made me weep profusely!!!
I could barely bring myself to surf the Net, which I do more than
ever since I've cancelled all my magazine subscriptions, except for
pretending to diss "our culture of celebrity worship", Meredith
Berkman proves again that she's the biggest autograph hound around.
I believe that Ed Wood, Jr. is hiring "New York Post" columnists
from Planet Solaranite, along comes the www.not-as-attractive-as-she-claims-she-is-according-to-her-photo.com
Amy Sohn (oooh, catfight...down, boys!) who formerly had a column
in the "New York Press" where she constantly whined about
how she could never get laid, yet somehow failed to inspire my empathy,
since it's really not that difficult a task, and who completely alienated
me as a reader when she meticulously "shared" all the details
of expelling a large turd at a potential lover's apartment (sorry,
Amy, I just personally really "didn't want to go there").
It was not her lackluster yet megalomaniacal prose that occasioned
my infrequent readings of Sohn's "Gee I Met Another Cute Guy
But He Didn't Want to Fuck Me" columns, nor the fact that "New
York Press" is free: no, it was pure fascination on my part that
someone so eager to give up the vaginga could be so consistently "clueless"
about succeeding in her quest. Also fixating on Howard and Alison
Stern's break-up, in one of her "New York Post" columns
"Stern's Not-So Private Parting" (perhaps it was a typo
that should have read "Farting"?) Amy quoted an anonymous
woman who said that "whenever she and her boyfriend fought, she
took refuge in the fact that Howard and Alison stayed together, but
now she felt hopeless." Yet the newest columnarcissist never
explored the obvious issue: why should anyone compare her own relationship
to that of a celebrity's? And if they do so, shouldn't she go get:
an ego, a shrink, "a life", a "reality check"?
Wacko Jacko, publish a book about "parenting"...a 20% discount
to all NAMBLA members!!!
ask myself which is more frightening; salon.com; Anne Lamott; Meredith
Berkman; the world in general; people who believe in The Millennium
(according to a recent "Newsweek" article, this encompasses
most Americans, who are convinced that the world will end in the year
2,000) or The Biblical Literalists.
10th, 1999, "N.Y. Times" reporter James Glanz, in an article
"Science vs. Bible: Debate Moves to the Cosmos" revealed
that last August, a furor occurred over the Kansas School Board's
vote to "remove evolution from its education standards."
This decision was apparently influenced by "a handful of SCIENTISTS
whose literal faith in the Bible has helped convince them that the
universe is only a few thousand years old." (On October 17th,
an international team of REAL scientists airlifted an unearthed almost
fully intact, frozen woolly mammoth, from the Siberian tundra, estimated
to be 23,000 years old. They were co-funded by television's The Discovery
Channel...hmmm, what was their agenda? On November 1st, 1999, a a
dead coelacanth fish was discovered in a fish market in Indonesia,
fascinating the fossil folks, since the original coelacanths originated
approximately 16 million years ago. The discoveries keep coming: on
November 4th, paleontologists found the bones of a previously unknown
dinosaur, a 60-ton giraffe-like creature 110 million years old.) But
if the earth is only several thousand years old, then all these sneaky
scientists must be zealously inventing these facts, and clandestinely
manufacturing these fossils, bones, humongous footprints, etc., collectively
conspiring through the decades, utilizing the same creative verve
and intensity with which Holocaust deniers claim that Nazi death camp
photos are faked and Holocaust survivors are liars. And all those
college courses I avoided because I thought science teachers were
geeks--little did I know that they are the true artists of our age!
Re-create a fake T-Rex? I couldn't even come up with a decent Halloween
Earth Creationists", as they are also called, have invented their
own theories to explain how cosmic history could be condensed into
mere thousands of years.
the expunging of the Big Bang Theory", wrote Glanz, "the
board also took out references to the hundreds of millions of years
of Earth's geologic ages and modified sections on using the slow decay
of radioactive elements to measure the age of fossils and other rocks."
theory relies on a peculiar feature of Einstein's equations which
predict that powerful gravitational fields can speed the progress
of time (as in, time seems to go faster when you're having fun?) and,
in effect, makes clocks run at different rates in different places."
Russell Humphreys (a nuclear weapons engineer at Sandia National Laboratory)
has concluded that "the earth is close to the center of a structure
related to a black hole, in which gravity is especially intense, so
that billions of years could pass in deep space while only a few thousand
years went by on Earth."
"Dr." Humphries makes NUKES? Sandia is a U.S. Department
of Energy National Security Laboratory. Humphries believes the world
is only 2,000 years old, but he's using the most advanced technologies
ever invented to zestfully help destroy this new, young, fresh planet.
Sandia, a Lockheed Martin Company, leads the market in manufacturing
supercomputers, an intrinsic component of nuclear weapons. Incidentally,
the Lab was investigated by Congress when nuclear secrets were leaked
to the Chinese. A techno-wizard who has decided to reject all rational
scientific evidence because of his religious "beliefs"?
Does anyone else find this dichotomous? Monotheist extremists should
not be allowed to create weapons of mass destruction!!! A certifiable
schizophrenic responsible for my "national security"? Are
we all feeling as nervous as yours truly?
theory can even be reconciled with the existence of the Bible,"
writes Glanz. ("Even"? Wouldn't that be the whole point
of creating such an imbecilic and delusional concept?) "According
to another 'scientist', Dr. Hugh Ross,"... six days of Genesis
could stand for six long periods of time." (Like six periods
of 776 million years, "Doc"?)
have a science or engineering degree, but wouldn't this imply that
the ancient Africans, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mayans,
Jews, Romans never existed...or that they only existed in the past
2,000 years? I'm currently reading a book about ancient Mesopotamia,
but according to the Biblical Literalist Boys, its author, who examined
all those artifacts discovered in archaeological digs must be demonically
possessed, because he claims that their culture existed in The Fourth
Millennium, B.C. Somehow..."I don't think so"... "I'm
down with his program." This author seems rational and his evidence--"ancient
art, from temple architecture and palace reliefs to cylinder seals
and filigree jewellery", as well as "accurate and readable
modern translations of the extensive Sumerian and Babylonian literature"
is persuasive. My pick for "Nutjobs of the Year" would be
Humphries and Ross. Since we know these anti-evolutionists don't accept
the evolution of the hominids dating back 5 to 6 million years ago,
expliquez-moi the almost-but-not-quite-human-looking skull of The
Tautavel Man, (too large for him to wear zee beret) discovered in
France in 1941, and estimated to be 450,000 years old. Oh, je comprend!
Since he was French, he must have had joie de vivre, and les cloches
et horologes must run really fast in that hedonistic country, making
Monsieur Tautavel about 500 years old (?) on the Biblical Literalist
scientists everywhere: mainstream scientists, physicists, astronomers,
cosmologists, etc., such as Dr. Jerome Friedman, a physicist at M.I.T.
who won the Nobel Prize in 1990 for collaborating in the discovery
of "quarks", are understandably appalled, infuriated and
distraught over the potential spread of such unadulterated idiocy,
according to Glanz. But Kansas City Board Member Steve Abrams, a VETERINARIAN
is blase, saying there were "legitimate scientific doubts about
whether the universe is more than several thousand years old."
A Nobel winner's views versus a vet's? Hey: No contest!!!
Board Member, John W. Bacon, profession not disclosed, said, "I
don't understand what they're squealing (like...pigs?) about. Millions
or billions of years ago...I wasn't there, and neither were they."
they gave the Nobel to the wrong man! Dr. Jerome Friedman, please
surrender yours to John W. Bacon, who has invented an entirely new
system of logical thought process. NOBODY WAS THERE, SO NOBODY KNOWS
NOTHIN'! Therefore, the earth could well be anywhere from 130 (the
approximate age of the world's oldest survivor) to infinity years
Fruit Loop fanatics really so far removed from the mainstream, with
national polls showing that the majority of American citizens not
only believe in biblical millennial revelations, but also in the existence
of angels and devils? I never thought of "Reader's Digest"
as the contemporary "Ramparts", but in its final issue of
"The Millennium" a "noted historian", Paul Johnson
re-assures his readers that Christian churches currently have one
billion followers, and possibly two, so that if Jesus Christ were
to re-surface in the "Third Millennium" he would "Hear
the same injunctions he addressed to the common people of Judea almost
2,000 years ago." Thanks, Mr. Johnson, and the relevance of your
soothing remarks to the non-Christian world is...?
American adults were taught the Bible when they were children. As
Johnson remarks, "nearly half of all Americans attend places
of worship." Why continue believing it as if it were The Gospel
as adults? They are onto Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny (hopefully)
so why, why, why are they still convinced that Adam and Eve were in
a garden, and a TALKING SNAKE (which language did it use?) told Eve
to tell Adam to eat an apple? Every time I try to read the Bible,
I just skip over to the Corinthians, which is so gorgeously poetic,
but nonetheless, I obsess, 'What about the dinosaurs? How come the
Bible never mentions the dinosaurs?' Did Adam and Eve look around
and realize they were naked and surrounded by dinosaur corpses? Are
the Biblical Literalists saying that all those dinosaur footprints,
bones, and re-constructed skeletons are only 2,000 years old, or that
the only dinosaurs that ever existed were the digitalized creations
in the movie "Jurassic Park" and its sequel? Drs. Russell
and Ross, I must insist that this seems www.highly-unlikely-to-the-point-of-you-should-have-your-
degrees-retracted.com. But maybe Call Eyewitness News, I'm Pregnant
Meredith Berkman, whose brains have clearly become addled by eating
too much Cap'n Crunch, might become a convert.