There are times when I honestly feel that Andrew Schlafly and his little right-wing hate-blog, Conservapedia, are playing to their audience… i.e. those that turn up to laugh at their special brand of crazy. I’m sure that by now it must have sunk into even his mind that the conservative masses aren’t using his baby as their go-to source of info. Then again, given how Conservapedia is supposed to replace video games, newspapers, Facebook, etc, etc… one has to wonder just what does go through what passes for his mind.
The latest examples are a great illustration that Schlafly probably isn’t taking things too seriously anymore. Well, either that, or he’s so batshit insane that sharp objects should be kept out of his reach.
French Open… a liberal plot?
First up, we have the mens final of the French Open tennis – and it should be a humdinger. World No. 1, Novak Djokovic, is bidding for the Grand Slam. Opposite him, Rafael Nadal is looking to break Borg’s record of 6 Open titles. Two sportsmen at the pinnacle of the careers, battling for supremacy.
In the real world, anyway.
In Schlafly’s mind, it’s the conservative versus the liberal. You see, apparently Nadal is agnostic, whereas Djokovic is Eastern or Christian orthodox, and tends to make the sign of the cross whenever he wins. Needless to say, you can guess who Schlafly is supporting.
#1 tennis star Novak Djokovic, a devout Christian who makes the sign of the Cross in glory to God after big victories, is two sets away from becoming the first player in 43 years to win four consecutive Grand Slam tournaments.
Of course, what Schlafly didn’t mention was that at the time, Djokovic was two sets to one down, although he had just won the 3rd set and was a break up in the fourth. Also… why is it only “big victories”? Is that just an example of Schalfly’s awful writing style, or doesn’t God help Djokovic win the little matches?
Anyway, at this point in the match, something happens that we tend to associate more with Wimbledon – rain. It’s a clay court and open to the elements, and any normal, reasonable person could see that the players should go off and the covers should go on.
Needless to say, Schlafly is no normal, reasonable person. Or else he is genuinely playing for the crowd. How else can you explain this comment:
Djokovic would have clearly won if the umpire did not interfere and suspend play. Nadal was getting demolished — having lost eight of the last nine games — and was down a break in the fourth set. Is it possible the umpire who stopped the match is a liberal?
There’s no “clearly” about it – Djokovic was still losing. However, the last sentence sums up Schlafly’s worldview perfectly – everything is one vast, liberal conspiracy, designed to bring the fine, upstanding conservative citizens down. Everything. Including the rain in Paris.
In typical style, Schlafly doesn’t know when to stop either.
Nadal has to break Djokovic’s serve twice in the fourth set to win it. So it seems a fifth set is highly likely, and Djokovic may be able to continue his momentum to win at that point. Will the ump intervene again if it looks like the conservative will win?
Schlafly must live in a very scary world, beset on all sides by weird conspiracies. One has to wonder if he genuinely believes that the umpire is some sort of liberal mastermind, ensuring that the conservative hero loses. Gawd help him if he ever watches a cricket match. Not that he’ll ever understand the LBW rule, mind you.
Oh yes, and Nadal did break twice to win the fourth set and the match. I’m guessing Djokovic’s God must have been off duty on Monday.
A final postscript to all is was that Djokovic lost because “the French establishment don’t like him making the sign of the cross.” In fact, the whole affair reminds Schlafly of how third-rate quarterback Tim Tebow was treated, when Denver wisely dumped his ass.
Another new conservative “word”
I’ve written before about Schlafly’s ridiculous attempt to show that the English language is becoming more conservative over time. For those of you unfamiliar with this, Schlafly’s methodology is to choose words that he feels are conservative – such as aerobics, transistor and charisma – and as long as he chooses double the number of words in each successive century, the language is becoming more conservative. Needless to say, his “best new conservative words” also contain a great many phrases… and he’s never mentioned the “worst or mediocre new conservative words.”
Anyway, it seems as if Schlafly was stuck for a word to slot into the 18th century to complete his entirely made-up doubling of conservative words. What does he choose?
As in the abbreviation for ante meridiem… you know, the time between midnight and midday. And even that’s a cop-out. You see, the abbreviation A.M. seems to have been around since 1762, but the usage of ante meridiem in time, dates back to the 1560s.
As always, his reasoning behind choosing the abbreviation (sorry, are we using best new conservative abbreviations now) is… odd, to say the least.
“A.M.” (1762) — adopted for the hour of day based on Latin much as “A.D.” was adopted to count years — completes the perfect doubling by century for Best New Conservative Words: 29-58-116-232.
So because they use anno domini (in the year of the Lord) for common era, which I can understand a religious wingnut like Schlafly seeing as conservative, the equally Latin ante meridiem, must also be conservative. It doesn’t even make sense – AM only applies for the hour day, between midnight and noon. What about PM? Surely post meridiem must meet the same criteria to qualify as conservative? Actually, it doesn’t – you see, it would appear as if P.M. came into use in the 1640s… which would play merry hell with Schlafly’s made up list. Therefore, he can safely ignore it.
However. for the final word on why this man is either terminally insane, or the best parodist the internet has ever seen, we need to have a look at him defending his choice of word:
While you’re right that the “A” in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the “A” in A.D., the popularity of “A.D.” could have led to the popularity of “A.M.
I don’t think I can stress the underlined word enough. With that simple “could” Schalfly demonstrates that the whole thing is based on what he decides is conservative or not. There’s no scientific approach (surprise, surprise, seeing as it’s Conservapedia we’re dealing with), merely Schlafly stating that something is conservative, and with the help of the parodists and his spineless sysops, it becomes so. He himself doesn’t even have a clue.
Of course, Schlafly is the gift that keeps on giving, especially when he tries to explain his reasoning behind his latest made-up bullshit. For example, he justifies his made-up list of “best new conservative words” by saying:
Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.
Well, yes, except for that the “pattern” consists merely of you choosing words that you want to fit your little paradigm. There is nothing scientific about the process and there’s certainly no underlying pattern… unless you take Schlafly’s ongoing mission to make the rabid right look even more ridiculous into account. Also, note the “great discoveries” bit – clearly our Schlafly is not a modest man. Then again, we are talking about the man, who took his made-up figures and crafted Conservapedia’s law.
Clearly he’s on shaky ground and is having trouble talking his way out of ridicule (remember, we’re talking a Harvard educated lawyer here) because once again he falls back on the old “Well, they used A.D. therefore A.M. had to become popular.”
“Most Latin abbreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that “A.M.” did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to “A.D.”
Sure Schalfly, Latin abbreviations didn’t catch on. How about: any degree you can think of, such as B. Lit… or even Schalfly’s own (likely bought with Mummy’s money) J.D.; circ.; e.g.; et al.; etc.; i.e.; ibid.; no.; p.d.; p.a.; per cent; R.I.P.; stat.; vs?
I’m still waiting to find out why P.M. isn’t conservative. I’m guessing we’ll never know.