Yesterday history occurred: Neckbeard threw for more than 2 touchdowns in an opponent's stadium. This is what is defined as a pass-happy attack in Chicago. As long as we keep winning 34-7, though, I'm pretty ok with the outcome.
Everyone got in on this one, as they should have. Playing the Lions is really just about stat-padding until they wash the Millen stink off their franchise. Alex Brown was a monster, Forte ran and caught and did not fumble - all three indicators that he is not Cedric Benson - and Kali caught a TD pass, which is a nice change from having to weave through all 11 defenders himself.
That's...that's all I've got on the game. What? When the Bears play well, there's not much to say. They didn't squeak it out despite 4 turnovers like they did against the Eagles, and even though the Lions are in the NFC North, they're not really a rival. To be a rival they'd have to play football, and not Whiny Bitch Brigade, which I'm told is what the Cubs are playing these days (my love for Chicago extends into Soldier's Field and a little bit into Skokie, and that's about it).
Meanwhile I'm halfway through my conservative reading, and what I've learned most is how conservatives think of liberals. Jonah Goldberg is very much caught up in what liberals and conservatives use to name their policies and selves. His argument, if I understand it correctly, is to say that all of the things that liberals today hate, and refer to as fascist? They started out as left-wing ideas. That leads to the fear of conservatives, which is that all those awful policies will come back under the guise of contemporary liberal politics. "See?" Goldberg says, "All those things you hate about us? Well, well, you did them first, so there! Thbbbbpttttt."
The problem is the difference in the way liberals and conservatives look at the past. Liberals, or progressives, are constantly looking for change, and new ideas, for good or bad. They tend to give less weight to the past, and historical evidence. Conservatives by definition are on the other side of the coin. They like how things were, and aren't all that big on change - hence, "conservative." And that's what makes them racist, or chauvinist, or what-have-you - because racism and sexism and prejudice were all okay in the past. And if you want things to be the way they were, and not change, then you have to answer for all those things you think are so great.
I really thought I wouldn't make it through Ann Coulter's book. I admit I never brought it out of my house. I was embarassed to carry it, even though it's a library book so she didn't get any royalties or anything. I didn't know that "If Democrats..." was basically a greatest-hits collection of her pull-quotes on everything from Bill Clinton to abortion. So in structure it was not unlike a book by George Carlin, or Jerry Seinfeld.
Brother A and I talked about who would be Bizarro Ann Coulter, the left-wing equivalent of her fire-breathing anti-choice madness. All we could come up with was David Cross, the stand-up comedian.
But here's the thing: Ann Coulter is not funny. She thinks she is, but she isn't. So the outrageous things she says are just insane and inflammatory, as opposed to the crazy things David Cross says that are jokes, and thus laughed at.
There are a couple reasons I came up with for why Ann Coulter isn't funny:
1) She's hot. Not drop-dead model style, but I have no problem saying that I would have sex with Ann Coulter. She's got a great body. She can yell whatever crazy crap comes into her head while she's naked, and it wouldn't matter much, because she probably looks pretty good naked. And therefore, she's never had to be funny until she wanted to be for her career, or to get on TV. And now that she's trying, it doesn't really work. Less talking, more nudity, Ann.
2) She's religious, and completely unconflicted by it. You can be a religious comic. Wasn't Bill Hicks a reverend? Doesn't Stephen Colbert go to Mass every week? But those guys are conflicted about their religion. And if they're not, their personae have no problem mocking religion in general, and sacrificing some seriousness for laughs. Coulter, though, has no sense of humor about religion, or Jesus, or the Catholic church. That's why it's not funny when she says that Bill Clinton should die - according to the Bible, she's completely right to say that. That makes her religious; it also makes her not funny.
3) She seems sincere. If she doesn't actually believe what she says, she'd almost be better off being more transparent about it. But I don't believe she's insincere, because then her entire career would be a performance piece, a work of art to rival any of the great masterpieces of human history. Hers would be the Taj Mahal of performance art. And she's just not that good. And therefore, again: not funny.
4) She goes back to the same well too often. Ann Coulter has three jokes: Bill Clinton and blowjobs, Ted Kennedy and drunk driving/murder, and liberals are godless traitors. Boring. Mix it up, Ann! If you're too predictable, then you won't be funny. Unless your audience is staring at your boobs. But fortunately for us liberals, we've been rigorously trained by our coconspirators the feminists not to stare at womyn's chests while we're talking to them, so your powers have no effect on us.
And maybe that's why we don't think you're funny.