Home / Culture and Society / A Tale of Two Traveling-Sisterhood Ideological Vipers

A Tale of Two Traveling-Sisterhood Ideological Vipers

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Just who exactly are these scumbag-ette sisterhood vipers? Well one is the “queen of mean” and the other, well, she’s just “mean.” In fact both of them fall in the category of a variation of a quotable phrase by Maureen Dowd “we are in era of Republican Mean girls” (in her recent article, “Playing All the Angles” in the New York Times on 10/16/10). In turn Michelle Malkin (on Fox News 10/21/10) quoted and characterized Ms. Dowd as “catty, nasty and mean.”

But I want to begin with just “Ms.” rabidly “mean” here. I am of course speaking of Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. This woman I surmise has been rabidly mean since childbirth, and somehow I suspect before that too. And this far, far leftist viper saves and stores up all her venom and hisses and dishes it out solely for Republicans, Christians and conservatives with her (and that of Ms. Dowd’s) special emphasize on Republican women and of course, the Tea Party.

In fact, both Ms. Dowd and Ms. Maddow have been dishing out and walloping a dollop of pure, unadulterated “catty, nasty and mean” on a daily and weekly basis for almost the last two years now. So as I figure it, it’s high time for them to take a walloping dollop of comeuppance with their own medicine, and to wit, eat a little, nay, make that a whole lot of crow.

You see attacking conservatives and Republicans, Christians and Catholics, both male and female, appears to be their life’s mission. To demean, vilify, delegitimize and disgrace the former, is truly their life’s work and makes their day both happy and gratifying which believe it or not, is my mission too, but only it is she and her ilk who make up my target, and yes I guess, my life’s work too.

But let us return solely to Ms. Rabidly Mean. Her modus operandi as I see it, is a not so subtle combination of “gotcha” yellow journalism and the head drop, eyes darting around, and body coil of a viper before it strikes viciously with its venomous loaded questioning of “isn’t it true therefore, ergo, ipso facto, igitur, hoc propter hoc, that you are a conservative, a Christian and a Republican guilty of the supreme, capital crime of hypocrisy through the sheer, utter sin of believing in the evil nonsense you do, and the sheer fact of your breathing, having a pulse and being alive and existing at all? Aren’t you thoroughly guilty as charged? Aren’t you, aren’t you!?”

But how did she become this hissing, smarmy and snarky, leftist snake? For surely it did not occur over night nor in the space of a day. Well just as Ms. Dowd “psychobabble” analyzed all those Republican Mean girls, allow me to do likewise herein.

As I see it, Ms. Maddow reminds me of a type of girl who I knew in every class I had in elementary school. (And for that matter, Ms. Dowd, a similar type but not quite as petty, in junior and senior high school.) This girl was one hell of a little package of nasty envy and rather mean-spirited jealousy and contempt for all the other children, but especially so as directed and channelled against all the other little girls.

(Forget the little boys for they weren’t, in her eyes, even worthy of being held beneath contempt.)

You see, dear readers, Ms. Maddow was not as pretty and cute and as sweet as all the other little girls, nor friendly nor sociably acceptable and “in” as they were as well. So little Miss Mean sought out her Medea-like message of vengeance upon all the other pretty, adorable and cute little girls by developing a rather venomous and acerbic, acidic tongue which she apparently has achieved to more than a farthings-well perfection.

For you see, she was plain and again not as pretty nor adorably attired nor as liked and popular and socially acceptable as all the really cute and pretty other little girls were. But because she thoroughly stewed in her own little witch’s brew, you know: “Double, double toil and trouble, Fire burn and cauldron bubble,” and “Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog.” In her psyche and soul, that plain girl, in actuality that ugly little duckling, meaning Ms. Maddow, was nicer, smarter and much better than the other little girls; so she therefore had to develop a means not only to keep up with them, but she also had to viciously destroy them. For nothing less would do.

You see, it was not enough just to simply destroy them with her bitter tongue, but she had to crush, humiliate and utterly annihilate them through vicious innuendo, gossip, rumors and plots. Well, evidently she has grown up but she hasn’t changed, in fact she has truly become an expert professional at envy, jealousy, gossip and vicious innuendo, smear and ad hominem attack. Nice going Rachel, you’ve finally developed into an all grownup woman. Mazel tov.

Now as for Ms. Dowd, the Queen of Mean, she appears to have, in her own words, been one of those pretty girls whom Rachel also despised and plotted and intrigued against. But even pretty girls who seemingly have it all, can be utterly contemptuous and viciously spiteful towards other pretty girls.

So Ms. Dowd in that article of hers (in the New York Times) claims victimhood, for you see, the other girls were the sort (do I smell innuendo and vicious smear here?) who would “steal your boyfriend” and “spray paint your locker,” etc..

Well I assume the difference here between the Queen of Mean and Ms. Rabidly Mean, is that at least Ms. Dowd had a boyfriend worthy of stealing and that the spray-painting of her locker was truly worth the effort for all the psychic satisfaction and joy it provided.

In this last respect I surely can understand why Rachel not only despised and hated all the other children, but also waged an unholy war against them with a bitter vengeance. For she too was not even worthy of being held beneath contempt, nor having her locker spray-painted. Poor baby.

Powered by

About Irvin F. Cohen

  • Roger Nowosielski contacted me and asked for a rude remark in the comments space to be removed. That done, for coherence sake a swathe of other comments that flowed from that moment have had to be removed. Sorry for any momentary confusion that may cause any of you.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Thank you Ruvy!!! Finally a sane, reasonable, rational comment – without all the petty, self-absorbed, self-promoting, self-interested squabbling and pompous, internecine sniping!!!


  • Sorry, but who is Gonzales?

  • Ruvy

    I actually enjoyed this article! I don’t care who wrote it. A 3 page disembowelling of two self-important women is always a pleasure to read.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I thought Hunter S. Thompson was dead already….

  • If you think Newsom is the extreme leftist, you should compare him with Gonzales who barely pulled an upset.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Four score and seven nano gazillion parsecs ago, (roughly five minutes) and over three hundred plus threads too, our beloved blog-o-critter forbears brought forth lil’ ol’ moi, me, myself and I dedicated to the proposition that most blog-o-critters were supposed to be equal and free of censorship so in their infinite wisdom they allowed me to enter into blog-o-critter-land in order to create a more perfect blogosphere

    and so thusly, entered lil’ ol’ moi, me, myself and I in order to provide a more fair and balanced, and more importantly, a more lively and animated discussion for prior to the arival of lil’ ol’ moi, me, myself and I, the discussion had become, insipid, lifeless and moribund, staid and uptight, very murky and nebulous, and full of typical commie-lib and commie-symp and worse, Wildean (as in Oscar) and Fabianesque, progressive, gradualist, socialist and New Age Marxist, intellectual masturbation [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    and if you recall fellow blog-o-critters I was quite reluctant to stray from that straightjacket of rather silly and phony rectitude of harumph, harumph, conform, conform and dare not upset the apple cart or else well even then quite very early on, I humbled myself and pleaded “hey give me a break. I’m on my best behavior here.” but you avenging erinyes (or euphemistically and quite ironically so eumenides) hounded me so very viciously and so quite tepidly I began with what were in essence simply a few rather mild words of angry, but again, rather mild, vulgar and crude obscenities, but what at first were a litany of rather mild expletives, at your goading and provocation, of course, grew into a tsunami of rather foul four letter words and variations upon that theme thereof, therein so it became a deafening chorus of strophe and antistrophe [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    but then came push-back from within the land of blog-o-critters
    with censorship, implied and enforced, and even self-imposed, and I was forced to retreat, as wide swaths of my posts were routinely and ruthlessly snipped and excised, or entirely cut out and made to disappear altogether, so I retreated into the realm of highly clever and shrewd, but highly sanitized, rather arcane and esoteric euphemisms in the outer reaches of sh-sh-sh don’t say that, euphemism-world

    so now after three hundred plus of your rather uninspired and insipid and banal, jaw-jaw-jaw, worthless intellectual masturbation ruminations in stark contrast to my exceedingly brilliant and very lively insults and vicious and vituperative expletives deleted, we have indeed now come to a crossroads, whether we as an insignificant, suppurating pimple in the domain and realm of the blogosphere on the great plane of the fat ass of the very unholy netherworld of the internet, shall stifle and silence with censorship or the threat of censorship, lil’ ol’ moi, me, myself and I [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] and so therefore, the mere threat of censorship shall force [Edited] me and [Edited] thee to silence ourselves in an icy mist of grey.

    Fading fast… gotta take mee spin-itch.

    Stay tuned…I assure you there is more.

  • Rachel Maddow is a effing rhodes scholar. It’s so amusing that some guy is trying to insult her with sexist trite. Rachel maddow is mad because she isn’t as pretty as other girls? the writer of this article fails epicly.

  • Newsom really is the ‘extreme’ leftist Obama is often caricatured as being. He is an extraordinary looking guy, it’s true. As you can imagine, I was ‘drooling’ over Rachel’s talent and intellect, not her looks. But I think she’s pretty, too, or at least very striking looking — though that is totally beside the point.

  • This article has no reason to exist …

    It’s raison d’etre is to provide entertainment, which it has done quite successfully. “Figuring” is not required.

  • Just because something is labeled satire [or in the case of the Gavin Newsom article, later purported to be satire; I think the author was putting us on by pretending it was] — doesn’t make it real satire, and certainly doesn’t make it humorous. This article has no reason to exist, and draws zillions of comments anyway, including from me. Go figure.

  • I’m not making allowances. Just surprised anyone takes anything the guy says seriously, especially when he expends so much effort spinning his wheels.

    “Even Dave Nalle, who edited that blog, didn’t realize it was humorous until I pointed it out.”

    It wasn’t humorous after you pointed it out.

    “Everyone is reacting as if Irvin meant for this to be taken seriously.”

    You are mistaken again. I don’t take him seriously.

  • I seem to be the designated director of everyone else’s attention to an article being tongue-in-cheek. Remember Danny Vollmer’s recent Gavin Newsom: The Epitome of What Every Man Should Aspire To Be? Even Dave Nalle, who edited that blog, didn’t realize it was humorous until I pointed it out.

    And now we have the present piece by Irvin F. Cohen. Unlike his two previous Blogcritics entries, which were vaguely classified as “Opinion in Politics,” this one is expressly labeled “Satire in Politics.” Yet you still don’t get it! Everyone is reacting as if Irvin meant for this to be taken seriously.

    I know, I know. I will now get lectures from the same old same olds about how if it isn’t funny, it’s not satire. But, honestly, when it comes to humor, you guys haven’t a clue.

  • Arch Conservative

    I just read a poll showing Alan Grayson down by seven points in Florida.

    Marco Rubios is going to squash Crist like the cockroach he is………..

    Paul Hodes and Carol Shea Porter in my home state about to be thrown out on their asses…………

    Pleasant dreams all……….

  • As to Rachel, she does have a mean streak. Whether it’s traceable to her childhood experiencea is debatable. It’s a fair hypothesis, to say the least. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Well, there is Rand Paul. But again, not rude, just tense because he didn’t like the questions.

    Also, satellite-feed long-distance interviews have a built-in delay between Q&A that can turn them into train wrecks. Both the Robinson and Paul interviews were conducted this way.

  • Rachel Maddow is the smartest, most articulate of all the opinion-heads on MSNBC and Fox. Not even a close contest.

    She’s also remarkably civil for a cable-TV opinion-head. Perhaps Mr. Cohen is reacting to her already legendary inteview with Oregon Tea Party House candidate Arthur Robinson. It was Mr. Robinson who turned the interview instantly tense and loud. Rachel was insistent, but not rude.

    Even her more recent “walk fast” interview with Joe Miller in Alaska could not be described as ill-mannered.

    So what’s this article actually about?

  • Arch Conservative


    Well I share the author’s disdain for Maddow, she doesn’t get my dander up nearly as much the likes of Joy Behar or Jeannine Garofalo, two of the most reprehensible (in every sense of the world) people walking the planet.

  • Nice show, Jordan, BTW, It tells more about yourself than I ever wanted to know.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade arch conservative,

    I actually had a much more basic, crass and crude term in my soul, but did not employ such lest the vengeful and capricious and arbitrary Gods of “edited-out” cut, snip, excise and censor into oblivion come crashing down upon my head and shoulders.

    In actuality SCUMBAG-ETTE was part of the original title which however did make it to the first graff – thankfully.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear Doctor commie-lib, etc., etc., Dreadful (you know the drill – up against the wall maternal fornicator and prepare yourself for some mee-narr-rity justice – wait, wait a minute, that’s not the drill i had in mind. Scratch that. But to the point)

    Dr. Dreadful are you saying that I am guilty of the fallacy of the straw man or the “straw man fallacy” as it is mostly known? Is that it? Cause, no, I never heard of that. I really don’t know what your fornicating talking about. But if it is, look here, it ain’t me, it’s all them other maternal fornicators.

    Nevertheless, to show you my good bonafides and absolute, intellectual honesty herein, I will cross my heart and hope and pray that someone other than me is smote down and or just shrivels up and dies. Will that suffice for thee? I mean aren’t we being a bit too demanding here?

  • Arch Conservative

    How can someone actually write a three page article discussing Rachael Maddow and not use the word androgynous even once?

  • The following far-right, [Edited] self-righteous rhetorical tactic is often seen here at BC and has already been employed in this article and subsequent, for want of a better word, discussion:

    1. Make argument.
    2 Wait for first few comments.
    3. Claim that argument is watertight and that no-one has, will or can refute it in any particular.
    4. Ignore it when someone does.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Hey STM (whatever the fornication that stands for, to reiterate the question)

    Yeah Dude, methinks you got this one right… nice going

    But don’t let that get to your [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] head [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]!

  • Jordan Richardson

    A party? Please, Alan.

    A party is just a socio-cultural manifestation of the political class structure defined through a Foucaultian lens vis-à-vis the working class something something and reworked within the framework of the dialectic model utilizing, but not withstanding or neglecting, of course, the absolutely spurious nature of, say, hanging out by the stereo.

  • STM

    Al: “However, now [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Irvin F. Cohen has materialized out of thin air”.

    Well, possibly not out of thin air. Cleverly cooked up, perhaps …

    Nice going, though Irv … only three pages!

  • Roger (#8), you take everything so seriously. I bet you’re no fun at all at a party. Or maybe you’re still suffering from the flu? If so, here’s hoping you get well soon.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear Roger, [Edited]

    Let’s see, you don’t hate me nor do you hold me in contempt.

    I’m a little confused… does that mean you love me?

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Please note blogcritters,

    That first and foremost I am not me, but am rather him. That, I Alan Kurtz, have created this loathsome, detestable character Irvin F. Cohen, this much desired noble and compelling fictional persona that I could only dream of for myself in my wildest imagination; solely in order to gin up interest in my own personal, overweening loathsomeness and overwhelmingly despicable nature, heart and mind, and very lowly, nay, make that lowliest soul.

    So second, I, Allen Kurtz do hereby reclaim my rightful place to being truly the most loathsome, reptilian, lowlife, scumbag critter in all of Blogocritterland. So please, reconsider, and do not allow this upstart figment of my deranged imagination to beat me at my own game. Please, Please, pretty please with sugar and spice on it, and I’ll even throw in ten bucks to boot. Oh, alright, you drive a hard bargain, I”ll make that 20 bucks and to show you what a decent sort I truly am, I’ll give you the super-duper, sech-a-deal, Jewish, double, super, absolutely going out of business, crazy Irv, deep-deep-deep Jewish wholesale, reduced for quick sale, clearance absolutely must go, price of only $ 2.99! That’s right, if you vote for me as the most loathsome and detested blog-o-critter in all of blog-o-critter-land I’ll give you all of $ 1.99. So vote for me…or die or go fornicate yourselves up your collective anuses, in your ears, in your nostrils under your arms, in your mouths, between your toes and wherever your masculine, erect phallus will goeth or reach or fit.

  • Alan, you’re just vying for attention. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Shit. For the past few months, my BC bio has maintained that I am “Running Unopposed for Blogcritics’ Most Hated Writer of 2010 Award.”

    However, now [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Irvin F. Cohen has materialized out of thin air to challenge me for that coveted prize. It’s damned discouraging. I worked and slaved all year long to earn the Most Hated Award, submitting over 100 articles published on BC from January through October. Yet here comes Sergeant Slacker, with a grand total of three blogs over the last two weeks, and I seriously feel him breathing down my unleathered neck.

    I appeal to the many BC regulars who have taken such pleasure in vilifying me throughout 2010. Please, I beg you, remain loyal in hating me above all others! Do not be swayed by a latecomer, no matter how much you may despise him! I am the most deserving of your malevolence. Vote for me as Blogcritics’ Most Hated Writer of 2010!

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Dear Arch ConscienceStain,

    I’m at a loss and a bit of a quandary too, for you see I’m a conservative and therefore am rather slow on the uptake…

    But what pray tell did you say?

    Or am I just too ignorant, stupid and gullible to understand your highly nuanced, complex and sophisticated brilliance [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]? Don’t answer that, cause that’s a rhetorical question. You do know what a rhetorical question is, don’t you?

  • Arch ConscienceStain

    There, I Said It!

    and Said It, and Said It, and Said It, and Said It, and Said It, and Said It, and Said It, and Said It, and Said It!!!

  • I would have thought that Olsen’s and Dawn’s departure would bring about a significant improvement.

    I was wrong. When the cat is away, the mice will play.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    The author obviously hasn’t watched Rachel Maddow very much…because if he had, he’d know that vicious insults are NOT her modus operandi…and he’d also know that what the vast majority of what she does is expose hypocrisy using EVIDENCE, publicly-available video/audio/print/text from reputable sources.

    If he watched Rachel Maddow, he’d also know that (unlike the pundits on the Right) she doesn’t accuse this or that person of being Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Marx/Lenin…which is something that nearly every single pundit on the Right (with the possible exception of George Will) seem to do every week, if not every day.

    No, Mr. Cohen, this retired Navy man has seen both sides of the story. I used to be very much like you…until I began to see that the facts didn’t back the rhetoric of my Republican party back in the early 90’s. The final few years in my Navy career I was the token liberal on a ship chock-full of conservatives…but I stood my ground because I’d rather be right then popular.

    I know you’ll probably claim to have watched Rachel Maddow and know both sides of the story and you probably really believe that you do…but I lived your side of the story for a lot of years, and while I see the title of ‘Marine’ as an honor for anyone, I assure you that you don’t know both sides of the story.

    I refer you to this website for you to begin checking what you’re seeing on Fox News. It’s a Media Matters site – you know, the place that the Right tells you is a leftist tool and Thou Shalt Not Go There – and check the list of five hundred and eighty-two pages, each containing ten to fifteen documented inaccuracies, context-changes, misquotes, and outright falsehoods broadcast by Fox…all for the Glory of the Right.

    Read that list and you just might start to wonder (like I did) about how much you and your compatriots have been manipulated by those you support. Or you can refuse and stick close to that grape Kool-Aid dispenser that tells you how unAmerican it is to not follow the Republican line that has moved so far to the right that even Nixon, Bush Sr., and even Reagan (whom I still hold as one of the best presidents ever) would be labeled ‘socialist’ and drummed out of the party.

    Your move.

  • Just one example of said meanness would have gone a long way to making your point. Unfortunate that an editor didn’t bother to ask that of you before publishing.

  • blossom

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    i can’t remember the last time i read something so lacking insight and truthfullness

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]