As the end of the month nears, it’s time for the next elimination round in our April Madness “Moron of the Month” competition, featuring the Northern Division.
We begin with Michelle Obama, nominated for the newest narcissistic dumpster fire episode of her struggling podcast. She opens strong, by simultaneously playing the race and victim cards:
“We don’t articulate, as black women, our pain. Because it’s almost like nobody ever gave us permission to do that.”
Now I’m not going to pull a Lizzie Warren, and claim that though I appear to be a white guy, I actually identify as a Cherokee warrior, or a black woman. (#wemustneverstopmockingher) Because that would be stupid.
And I can’t claim an extensive and far-reaching knowledge of black women in general. But from what I’ve seen and experienced, I know that if somebody asked me to identify an ethnic and gender cohort who are known for being shrinking-violet, passive types, I would not instinctively say, “Black women!”
In fact, if you asked me to name which gender generally tends toward a stoic, not-wear-their-pain-on-their-sleeves behavior, I’d say males.
If you pushed me to choose the most stoic ethnic group among women, I’d say Russian women, though I’m not sure why. I just picture them sitting in a crumbling, freezing apartment, wearing clunky shoes and an itchy, heavy dress the texture of a horse blanket for people, at a wobbly wooden table with legs that are different heights, sipping from a bowl of ice-cold beet soup, and not complaining.
But even if I could be convinced that women in general, and black women in particular are loathe to complain or share their pain, I would still never believe that Michelle 0-freaking-bama ever displayed that tendency. Because she has been complaining non-stop since the day she walked onto the national stage.
There’s a reason that her secret service code name was “Scowling Wookie.” True story. (By the way, Barack’s code name? “Pete Buttigieg.” You know why.)
If you still doubt me – and how dare you? – listen to this excerpt from a few minutes later: “As black women, we are so easily labeled as angry and bitter!”
She said, angrily.
Holy cats. If I never hear someone preface a statement with their race and gender again, it will be too soon. But if you insist on doing the tired old, “As a [insert defining modifier here] [insert second modifier here]…” at least bring some variety to the table! For every 100 “As a Hispanic woman…” toss in an occasional “As a third-degree Mason with an extra finger on my right hand…” or “As a philatelist with eyes that are slightly different colors…”
Have some consideration for the listener, you boring, identity-politics hack!
Also, gosh Michelle, I wonder how YOU ever got stereotyped as angry and bitter? I’m sure it was unrelated to you saying that until your annoying husband got elected, you’d never been proud of your country. And I’m sure it had nothing to do with the bone-jarring hits you used to dish out when you roamed the middle as a blitzing linebacker for TCU.
I’m almost convinced that she acts like this because she believes that Americans like their first ladies the way they like their coffee: bitter and black.
Let’s skip ahead in the transcript a few minutes, and see what new topic she’s onto now: “…that the first label they put on us, as black women, is that we ARE angry…”
Ugh. Really? Okay, let me skip forward say, 20 more minutes. (By the way, I just looked at the red bar on the bottom of the screen, and this episode goes on for an hour and 9 minutes! Good lord! To anyone who’s ever complained that my columns are too long, hang your head in shame!)
Okay, dropping the cursor on the red bar again…now: “…and going to therapy, just to work all that out. Like, what happened that 8 years that we were in the White House? What did that do to me, internally, my soul. We made it through. We got out alive! I hope we made the country proud. My girls, thank God, are whole. But what happened to ME?”
Man-oh-manischevitz! “What did it do to me internally?!” That’s something people who survive a mine collapse ask! “We made it through? We got out alive?!” That’s what guys said after the Bataan Death March.
I’ve had enough. I’ve heard that her podcast is doing very poorly, and I can see why. But I checked, and this insufferable woman has got 149,000 subscribers. For a new podcast featuring someone as famous as she is, that’s lousy.
But if I can borrow a phrase from Michelle, how do you think that makes ME feel? Even though I’m not a celebrity, I’ve been producing top-notch columns for you people for 8 years, and my WordPress site (Martinsimpsonwriting.com) has only 276 subscribers!
And before you remind me that if I’d only give in to the constant stream of requests to post some tasteful nudes of myself, I’d quickly have way more than 149K subscribers, I will tell you all for the LAST time: I want people to subscribe to my site for my mind, not because I’m a tantalizing bit of eye candy!
What I’m trying to say is that, as a white, male, hilarious genius with a firm jawline and a dusting of mild, adult-onset asthma, I think…
Oh, forget it.
On to the second MOM candidate: Ben and Jerry.
Regular readers will remember that I wrote about the lefty ice cream company in late March, when their TDS-suffering CEO Dave Stever was fired by Unilever, the giant corporation that bought B&Js 25 years ago.
Now they’re back in the news, because Ben and Jerry (or Mao and Jerry, or Ben and Lenin) are mad, and they want to buy the company back from Unilever. They’ve been trying to gather investors, but it seems like the old commies are having difficulty finding capitalists to join forces with them.
Unexpectedly!
The stories I’ve seen about the attempted buy-back point to a very odd arrangement, in which Unilever has owned the company for decades, but still had a relationship with B&J that involved tolerating their customer-alienating politics, and contributing $5 million a year to the Ben and Jerry Foundation, which advocates for causes like defunding the police, keeping men in women’s locker rooms and white people out of “positions of power in society,” cheerleading for abortion, and returning the US to the Indians who had stolen it from other Indians just before whitey got here.
After years of increasing tension, Unilever has finally lost patience. They told B&J that the business is not for sale, announced a July name-change to The Magnum Ice Cream Company, and issued an ultimatum that before they would continue to contribute to the B&J Foundation, they’d require an audit of it.
Ben and Jerry seem strangely unenthusiastic about that idea, perhaps because they’ve handled their foundation with all the competence and honesty with which the Clintons handled their foundation, or Jeffrey Epstein handled his Epstein Foundation for the Support of Wayward Under-Age Girls.
The WSJ summary of the story says that, “After tolerating decades of radioactive politics, Unilever appears keen to decontaminate Ben and Jerry’s.”
That sounds about right. Let’s give the final word – the final laughably clueless and self-indicting word – to Ben Cohen: “Ben and Jerry’s is a company with a soul.”
Yes it is. And you literally sold that soul to a ginormous corporation for a king’s ransom 25 years ago, you capitalist pig in a Stalinist sheep’s clothing.
I hope the new flavors from your brand are “Reagan Rocky Road,” “Elon Musk Mint,” and “Ayn Rand-berry,” and that you choke on them.
Our last nominee is Mother Jones, for their April 12th story entitled, “Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs are Environmental Villains.”
I’m as shocked as you are by this. Because I can’t believe that moldy old Mother Jones is still around, either!
But it is, and apparently it hasn’t lost a step since its halcyon days of 57 years ago, when it was advocating for Timothy Leary, Ho Chi Minh, and hairy armpits on women. And now that Nixon is dead, those lefty fossils have turned their ire on the real existential threat: dogs!
I probably don’t even have to tell you what they hate about God’s greatest gift to mankind, because you can already guess. They claim that “the environmental impact” of dogs is “more insidious than is generally recognized.”
I’ll bet. Since considering anything about dogs “insidious” is ridiculous.
You should reserve the word “insidious” for only the worst of the worst things in life. Like communism, pedophilia, or the increasing popularity of soccer.
Not dogs, you idiots!
They say that dogs “pollute waterways.” But do you know what else pollutes waterways? Skinny dipping with your super-gross white-guy dreads, Mother Jones writers!
They say that dogs disturb and kill shore birds. But consider this, shore birds: Dogs don’t have wings, and you do! So either flap your freaking wings and fly, or else be a lazy but tasty snack, Jonathan Livingston Seagull!
They don’t like the carbon dioxide that dogs produce…but I can’t help but notice how all the lefties at Mother Jones continue to obnoxiously inhale and exhale, while ignoring the agonal breathing of Mother Earth.
They object to the environmental damage caused by dog feces, and yet they don’t have anything to say about either the human feces that covers their Mecca, San Francisco, or the fact that their president pooped on the Pope. Which is probably why he died recently.
I mean the Pope, not Biden.
Or do I?
The article does mention a few benefits of dogs, including their contribution to the physical and mental health of their owners, and also their “vital roles in conservation work, such as in wildlife detection.” Leave it to Mother Jones to make even a compliment to dogs sound pointless.
“Wildlife detection?” What does that even mean? And I thought you just said that dogs are often detecting the hell out of shorebirds, and that that was a very bad thing?
I don’t need to defend dogs, but I will touch on a few benefits anyway. They’re beautiful, loyal, and in the case of Aussie Shepherds, majestic and brilliant. They can chase down and maul criminals and terrorists. They can detect drugs, but then refrain from snorting all of those drugs and getting addicted and end up picking up bags of cash from corrupt foreigners to give to their awful politician fathers, like some laptop-losing degenerates I could mention.
They’re also great for the health of your children. Because by carrying gross stuff into your house and then romping with your kids, they strengthen the kids’ immune systems, and prevent them from turning into frail bubble-boys raised on participation trophies and trigger warnings, and then either dying young because they touched a peanut, or – worse – turning into an obnoxious soy-boy DNC Vice Chair.
Dogs are better than many people, and all of the staff at Mother Jones, and if there’s not a feasible way to release some of the first newly non-extinct dire wolves into their offices, I have a Plan B.
We tell them that we have a new breed of dog that is carbon-neutral, non-feces-producing, non-polluting, and gluten-free. And then we introduce them to…wait for it…
Robot Flamethrowing Dogs!
Please register your choice of the Northern Division options in the comments.
Hamas delenda est!
Martin Simpson 