His interview with Stephen Baskerville demonstrates that he just doesn't get it.
Last week, Fox New’s feminist Alan Colmes made the mistake of interviewing Dr. Stephen Baskerville, author of the highly acclaimed book Taken Into Custody, on his syndicated radio show. Baskerville recently published an article titled “Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children.” Despite the universal acceptance of Dr. Baskerville’s analysis on the state of marriage, Colmes was unable to wrap his head around even one of Baskerville’s thoughts.
Alan Colmes launched into the interview attacking Baskerville point-blank on his latest observation: there is an impromptu marriage strike by men in America. Colmes got it backwards, thinking that Baskerville was launching a marriage strike.
Perhaps Colmes might have come to the interview ready to intelligently talk marriage issues had he scanned Stephen’s book before careening into the interview. This should come as no surprise: house feminists are at their best when they know nothing of what they are talking about. If they knew what they were talking about, they wouldn’t be feminists.
Since Colmes didn’t know enough about Baskerville’s article to have a thoughtful discussion about why men are backing away from marriage in droves, he launched into a series of half-baked questions about Baskerville’s positions on gay marriage, divorce, and other issues. Baskerville never got to finish a complete sentence in answer. Never mind that every show host who graduated from a real school of broadcasting knows that only one or maybe two items can be actually discussed in a half-hour radio segment.
Expecting Colmes to get anything right is asking far too much. He backed the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse rape case nearly to the bitter end, just like the Gloria Allred wannabees at CNN did.
In fact, he may still be the last person alive who has not realized the world is actually real. Take Colmes' position on same-sex marriage. He thinks that gay marriage will not impact the institution of marriage. Maybe Colmes never bothered to read the latest data on AID rates in America, which are 50% higher than the CDC had estimated, or realized that gay men have 800% more sex partners than heterosexual men do. Can Colmes imagine what would happen to marriage if any two women could marry and leave men with nothing more than child support orders and prison? Perhaps the institution of “higher education” Colmes attended only taught transcendental meditation while not inhaling?
Need I mention that Colmes has not yet realized that abortion is the killing of babies.
So what is wrong with barnyard feminists like Alan Colmes? Feminists are avowed members of a cult, which by hookers or crooks became dominant in western culture. Cults indignantly believe things that are absolutely not real. That is why FOX does not let cult masculist leaders of Al Jazeera or CAIR host a talk show. And it is why Mike Savage has a very popular show.
With feminist cult prophets like Alan Colmes at Fox News, who needs Air America?
davidrusher@swbell.net
http://www.dadsnow.org/ACFC-MO/
Read more articles by David R. Usher
Need we also mention that Colmes believes that it's a coincidence that 99.999999999% of the terrorists are "terrorists who just happen to be Muslim"?
Comment by sedonaman | December 5, 2007
Mr. Usher's headline reads as though this is some kind of recent phenomenon, when the truth is that Colmes has never made much sense. His sole purpose seems to be primarily that of feeding Sean Hannity inane remarks to respond to. It is as though Fox deliberately looked for the most feeble representative of the left to represent that perspective.
Reminds me a lot of the Senate.
Comment by Steve Sabin | December 5, 2007
I do not believe that Alan actually believes what comes out of his mouth. It has to be an act. No one would try to defend the positions that he takes. I think it hurts the liberals in this world to allow a spokesman like him represent their point of view. As for Sean, he doesn't seem to have had an original thought come out of his head or mouth. He is clearly a parrot. While his points are defensible and make sense, he, like Alan, seems to think that by talking over the person that he is talking to, will make him right. Let the person make his point and then expose him for the idiot that he is. It's really simple but I don't think either of the boys are up to it. Of course if the person just wants to make a speech then go to commercial, can them, never invite them back, and possibly then, the show could become a marketplace of ideas.
Comment by hvance | December 5, 2007
Steve Sabin, hvance:
They are there to feed each other. Just look at the format. I quit watching them and O'Reilley because they are "shout shows" intending to inflame their audience, not provide an intelligent discussion. They devote such a small amount of time to a story that each guest has to compete to get his point across at the expense of the audience.
Comment by sedonaman | December 6, 2007
Sabin: No problem with me of your analysis of the show. I was trying to make the point of how Fox could improve the show. I don't think Alan or Sean can be helped. As for O'Reilly, he could certainly take my advice a point driven discussion, not the shout-over method of trying to prove one's point. At this point Bill is guilty of reading too many of his press clippings.
Comment by hvance | December 6, 2007
Sedona — you took the words right out of my mouth. I can't stand political prattle in the guise of intelligent commentary.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 6, 2007
Phil:
Thank you for your kind words.
Comment by sedonaman | December 6, 2007