I think Hugh Hewitt demonstrated exactly how Mitt Romney shouldn’t handle the Mormon issue. As Ducky blogged about earlier, Peggy Noonan made joking reference to Mormon temple garments and Hugh Hewitt took it upon himself to get offended on behalf of Mormons. What Noonan said seemed harmless enough to me, so I checked the comments on Hugh’s post to find a number of Mormons saying that it was way out of bounds to talk about their temple garments because they considered them sacred.
I’m sorry, but you can’t say, “Yes, we have special underwear, but it’s sacred so you shouldn’t talk about it!” and expect the average American to respond “Oh. Okay.” and leave it there. I had heard passing derogatory references (I’m guessing left-wing blogs that are anti-religion in general) to special Mormon underwear, but I was never curious enough to look into the issue until I saw Mormons getting all fussy about the subject. Then I had to know.
I suspect Romney (who is by far my favorite of the current Republican big three) already knows this, but if the issue of temple garments gets brought up in a public forum and he, instead of just chuckling, gets as offended as Hugh Hewitt, that will be it for his campaign because everyone will be talking about Mormon temple garments and there will be nothing but sacred underwear jokes on late night shows for at least a week. That will be hard to recover from.
UPDATE:
Just to clarify, saying that it was a bad idea for Hugh Hewitt to make an issue of Peggy Noonan’s joke doesn’t mean I actually thought the joke was funny or that I don’t think it was a cheap shot.
Archive of entries posted on 18th May 2007
Matthew Ebel – LIVE in concert
Matthew Ebel is out on tour.
Oh, and he’s going to be streamed LIVE at 7:00PM Central Time tonight.
If you have no idea who he is, well, I suggest you check him out.
He’s really good.
Plus, this being a somewhat right-wing conservative Christian humor site, well, Matthew has his Christian influences to his music.
Keep an ear out for “I Know You’re There” – it is a kickass song.
What We Think
John Hawkins has another poll of right-wing bloggers on the issues. The one I found most surprising is we would most want to be President if we had to choose from the Democrats’ big three (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards). Check it out, yo.
Horrible timing. Just horrible.
(crossposted from mountaineer musings)
I’m a huge Caller ID lover. It’s the greatest creation since Fred Thompson’s DNA. And before we got a digital phone, we didn’t have it, so I basically never answered the phone; everything went straight to voicemail. Frank did not understand this.
FRANK J.: The phone is ringing; why don’t you answer it?
SARAHK: BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S SAFE!
Then we got a digital phone after months of me needling him about cheaper phone bills.
SARAHK: Nyah nyah nyah. $40 a month for just call waiting? That’s craaaaaazy!
FRANK J.: You’re crazy.
SARAHK: THAT’S BESIDE THE POINT! THE DIGITAL PHONE IS $20 CHEAPER, AND WE GET ALL THE FEATURES!
FRANK J.: WILL IT SHUT YOU UP?
SARAHK: MAYBE!
FRANK J.: MAYBE’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME! LET’S SWITCH TO [THE DIGITAL PHONE]!
SARAHK: Yay Caller ID!
Frank still didn’t get why I was so happy with Caller ID. He was just glad it shut me up, somewhat. I still griped when he answered the phone.
SARAHK: Who is it on the phone?
FRANK J.: Um… 800 Service.
SARAHK: Then why are you about to answer it?
FRANK J.: Because the phone’s ringing.
SARAHK: Do you know anyone named 800 Service? Is that some relative I haven’t met?
FRANK J.: No, but what if it’s important?
SARAHK: You didn’t win the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. We’ve never entered. So it’s either the Florida Blood Centers, a sales call, a call from the Republican party asking for donations, and until they get their act together, the answer there is a definitive NO, it’s someone else asking for money, or it’s the Men’s Wearhouse trying to collect on that phony bill that we don’t owe them. So… why did we get Caller ID if you’re still just gonna answer the phone without looking?
FRANK J.: To shut you up.
SARAHK: It’ll never happen. And if it’s someone who knows you and needs to talk to you, they have your cell phone number.
Still he didn’t get it. Until now. See, now he’s home all the time, and the phone rings about ten times a day, and it’s always either 800 Service, someone named Courthouse Square who always hangs up on us and seems incredibly surprised if we answer, or my mom. We answer when my mom calls, because we like her, and if we don’t answer, she’ll just call my cell phone anyway.
FRANK J.: I can’t believe it! It’s 800 Service again!
SARAHK: They want your blood. [Most times, 800 Service leaves a message saying that they would love for Frank to donate his super-awesome blood.]
FRANK J.: I can’t believe they call so many times!
SARAHK: Now you know why I never answered the phone and wanted caller ID. I was home all day with the phone ringing off the hook and never knew who it was.
Well. Now Frank is completely on board with Caller ID. But occasionally we’ll get a very persistent caller. For a while it was Men’s Wearhouse. We got fed up, called their American number, used the “h” word with them (harassment), and funny thing — we just got a $0 statement and a letter stating that all derogatory references have been removed from our credit report. The blood bank is another persistent one, but we understand, because Frank is a good donor and has a good blood type (I can’t donate because of my epilepsy stigma, even though I’ve never had a convulsion or anything close to one), and with the tornadoes here last year, they really need him.
Today I decided to do something different and answer the phone. 800 Service has been calling all week and not leaving messages. The blood suckers always leave automated messages, and Men’s Wearhouse is taken care of, so I wanted to know who was calling. Frank walked in the door just as this happened, so he caught the tail end of my horrible timing issue. Here’s how it went. Oh, just know this: I talked to my sister for a long time last night and subsequently left the phone off the charger.
Ring! 800 Service. Again. Ok, fine. I’ll just answer it.
SARAHK: Hello?
800S: Hello there! How are you doing today?
SARAHK: I’m good. How are you?
800S: I’m blessed, thank you for asking! I’m such and such from the Navy Veterans, and I have to tell you, it’s great to talk to you, everyone I’ve talked to today has been very rude, and you sound so nice–
SARAHK: [MY PHONE WENT DEAD.] NO! COME BACK!
FRANK J.: What happened?
SARAHK: The phone went dead, and the Navy vet was saying that everyone’s been rude to him all day, and he’s so blessed, and I sound so nice, and then the phone went dead, and he’s gonna THINK I HUNG UP ON HIM! NO!
FRANK J. [laughing]: Who was that? What did the Caller ID say?
SARAHK: 800 Service!
FRANK J. [laughing]: Why did you answer it?
SARAHK: Because I was going to tell whoever it was to stop harassing us! But it was the Navy Vets, and I would have told him no in a nice way, but now I can’t because he won’t call back, because he thinks I hung up on him.
FRANK J.: You have to blog that.
Frank is always getting onto me for leaving the phone off the charger, and now that Navy Vet is going to think I HUNG UP ON HIM!
I’m so ashamed.
Glorious Day! Fred Thompson Acknowledges Our Existence
Fred Thompson has a letter on PJM thanking us bloggers for all the support. I can only assume it’s aimed mostly at me.
Underwear: Boxers, Briefs, or Temple?
Hugh Hewitt seems to have taken offense to something written by Peggy Noonan.
“While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear–boxers, briefs and temple garments.”
What say you IMAO readers. Do you agree or disagree?
Please sound off in this IMAO reader poll.
How to tell if you have a lazy Slinky
Friday Catblogging
Since it’s Friday, I thought I’d spread the joy of humor-free, apolitical Friday Catblogging to IMAO (aka “I-MEOW”).
Not that it matters, because Jerry Falwell said that the AntiChrist was male, Jewish and alive.
I meet all three criteria, so I might as well turn in my application, right?
Anyway, it’s time for… for… um… er…
MPAA Adds Islam As Film-Rating Factor
(AP) Following the Motion Picture Association of America’s recent decision to take a more negative view of tobacco use in movies, the MPAA today announced that depictions of practicing Islam will also come under greater scrutiny. However, some critics said the move does not go far enough to discourage teens from taking up the degenerate religion.
MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said his group’s ratings board, which previously had considered kids wearing bomb belts in assigning film ratings, now will take into account Koran-waving and other Muslim kookiness by adults, as well.
That adds Islamic rituals to a list of such factors as sex, violence and language in determining the MPAA’s G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 ratings.
Film raters will consider the pervasiveness of jihadist propaganda, whether it glamorizes terrorism, and the context in which the Islamic behavior appears, as in movies set before 9/11, when Islam was marginally less despicable.
Some critics of Hollywood’s depictions of Muslim insanity in films have urged that movies that show any aspect of Islam be assigned an R rating, which would restrict those younger than 17 from seeing them.
“I’m glad it’s finally an issue they’re taking up, but what they’re proposing does not go far enough and is not going to make a difference,” said Tori Titus, spokeswoman for Americans Against Dhimmitude, which opposes film images of Islam that might encourage young people to start worshipping a psychotic, bloodthirsty, Mood-God.
Glickman disagreed, saying a mandatory R rating for Islam would not “further the specific goal of providing information to parents on this issue.”
“Although,” he added, “it might be nice to discourage film-makers from actively kissing the enemy’s ass.”
Islam in movies with a G, PG or PG-13 rating has been on the decline, and the “percentage of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of Imam-approved methods of slaughtering innocents declined from 60 percent to 52 percent between July 2004 and July 2006,” Glickman said.
Of those films, “three-fourths received an R rating for other reasons”, he said, “since it’s almost impossible to depict a Muslim without also showing him happily murdering children in Allah’s name.”
“That means there’s not a great amount of films in the unrestricted category as it stands,” said Joan Graves, who heads the ratings board. “We’re not saying we’re ignoring the issue. We’re trying the best way possible according to what we’ve learned from parents to give them information about what’s in a film.”
“In short,” she summarized, “if it contains Islam, it’s boring, stupid, and evil. Don’t waste your money.”
Descriptions on sex, violence and language that accompany movie ratings now will include such phrases as “glamorized Islam” or “filthy, murdering terrorists robotically obeying their pedophile prophet,” Glickman said.
If rated today, a film such as 2005’s “V for Vendetta,” which features a homosexual fawning over a Koran, would have carried a “politically correct pandering to Muslims” tag but probably would have retained its PG rating because it takes place in an idyllic future where Islam has been wiped from the face of the earth, Graves said.
Titus said film raters should be as tough on Islam as they are on bad language to minimize the effects of on-screen Koran-babble on children, including her own 5-year-old daughter.
“I don’t want her using bad language, but last time I checked, she’s probably not going to die from that,” Titus said. “If Islam becomes acceptable because of these images she sees in movies, chances are she’s probably going to die early from that. Mostly likely from being stoned to death in a soccer stadium for not wearing a burka.”
While Titus’ group wants tougher ratings restrictions, the MPAA is not without its supporters.
“By placing this sick, twisted, maladaptive ‘religion’ on a par with considerations of violence and sex, the rating board has acknowledged the public-health dangers to children associated with glamorized images of a toxic and lethal belief in Islam,” Barry Bloom, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said in a statement.