Scariest Animal Wears A Gold Cross
If you don’t already know something about Laura Ingraham, you’re on your own. I’m not going to do the dirty work of introducing you to her. The Google has more than enough material for you to familiarize yourself with Laura Ingraham’s overflowing fountain of hate.
Feel the hate . . .
Laura is a hater of such epic proportions that Bill O’Reilly was forced to describe her most recent flight of immigration policy fancy as—wait for it!—draconian. And if BillO thinks it’s draconian, I’d say that Laura’s skating dangerously close to Nazi-caliber social engineering.
But Laura’s hate is not reserved for uninvited guests from south of the border. Laura Ingraham is an equal opportunity hater—she hates gays-who-aren’t-her-brother, African-Americans, Muslims, “illegal aliens,” feminists, The Left, Hillary Clinton and, basically, anyone who isn’t a young, Aryan-American, Dartmouth-educated lawyer.
Besides, what would Laura Ingraham do for a living if she suddenly stopped hating everyone? How would she support her three adopted immigrant children? Oh, you didn’t know? Why yes, Laura adopted a Guatemalan girl, who, I’m assuming is far superior to the generic Guatemalan children streaming across our borders to flee extreme violence in their homeland,
Ingraham also adopted two Russian boys. I’m assuming that she will want all of her children to be classified as US citizens, however much she doesn’t want to allow any more birthright citizenship to take place. Which is an interesting perspective for someone whose maternal grandparents were newly-arrived Polish immigrants—and, later, naturalized Americans. Doing away with birthright citizenship would have left Laura’s mother and millions of other “American” offspring of immigrant parents in a bit of a pickle.
I’m also assuming that Ingraham was, for some reason, not interested in adopting American orphans despite the fact that she doesn’t hesitate to urge young American women to eschew abortion under any circumstance.
But Laura Ingraham has a track record of spewing one thing and doing another because she is a member of an exclusive American Club who embrace an “Only In My Backyard” mentality about social justice.
It’s OK for Laura Ingraham to bring immigrant children into the country but it’s not okay for them to arrive here with their own families, under their own steam, without Laura Ingraham on the selection committee.
Ditto, her “evolving” views regarding homosexuals.
In the late ‘80s, while a coed at Dartmouth, Ingraham became the first female Editor-in-Chief of the Dartmouth Review and promptly used that position to express her contempt for gays.
She allegedly secretly taped meetings of a Dartmouth LGBT student group, later publishing the transcripts and the names of the officers in The Review. Jeffrey Hart, the faculty adviser for The Dartmouth Review described Ingraham as having “the most extreme anti-homosexual views imaginable”, claiming “she went so far as to avoid a local eatery where she feared the waiters were homosexual.”
That’s some serious sociopathy for a teenage undergrad but that ugly episode evidently didn’t tarnish Ingraham’s memory of her tenure there. In a 2006 anniversary article extolling the virtues of The Review after 25 years, Ingraham crowed:
The Review made me who I am.
But when gayness came knocking at her own backdoor in the person of brother Curtis and his partner? that was different.
In 1997, Ingraham wrote an essay published by The Washington Post in which she stated that she changed her views after witnessing “the dignity, fidelity and courage” with which her gay brother Curtis and his late companion coped with AIDS. Ingraham said that she regrets the “callous rhetoric” of her youth, and now supports some legal protections for homosexuals.
“Some” being the operative term . . . [In 2009, with a packed field, GLAAD voted Ingraham one of the top-ten most anti-gay pundits in America.]
Ingraham said that until her brother’s ordeal she didn’t understand the urgency for AIDS funding, the problems gay couples face with insurance and the emotional strain of continuing discrimination.
Fair enough—but what’s wrong with this picture? Ingraham is being paid by national media outlets to investigate, cogitate and comment on just such issues . . . to be a thought leader, to take her audience on a deeper dive beneath the surface of the news. Doesn’t journalistic integrity demand that people like Ingraham fully investigate all aspects of those subjects that she takes on? or is her world view so myopic that she can only respond positively to those things that touch her directly? and cavalierly dismiss all of the myriad things that happen to “other people”?
If that’s the case, that strikes me as a significant failure of empathy which, of course, is the hallmark of the narcissist. And, unfortunately, the musings of a narcissist have extremely limited practical applications.
So, I think I’ll just go back to ignoring Laura Ingraham . . . but that doesn’t mean I don’t empathize with her. Especially with her efforts to hasten the GOP’s extinction.