• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!



    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Archive for the 'With Dr. Mike' Category

Dr. Mike Makes the (Local) News!

Posted by s.z. on November 30th, 2010

Shorter Dr. Mike: “A black female student failed to ‘get me,’ but did get uppity with me.”

Or, How I Joined a Black Soriority and Helped Fight Racism and Sexism.

This column is the story of a black female grad student who didn’t understand that nobody should take Dr. Mike seriously, or talk to him, or pay him any mind whatsoever (except to mock him, if desired). So, one fine day she called to tell him she didn’t approve of his (sarcastic) column in which he said that if he were President of UNC, or King of the World, or something, he would abolish the Black Student Center, on the grounds that racism has been vanquished, and if blacks don’t agree, it just proves the conventional wisdom that they are stupider than whites. (Actually, I can’t remember his justification for abolishing it, but undoubtedly it was something “non-P.C.” and mean-spirited and stupid.)

Anyway, he was rude and obnoxious to the woman, and the media did a story about it, which ended up being an enormous victory for Dr. Mike, in that now even more people think he’s a dick, but they do agree that he has the constitutional right to be one.

Here’s a condensed version of the column.

Many African American Cultural Centers actually impede diversity by turning black students into racists and segregationists. … I did not know at the time that I was going to hear a woman half my age lecture me on the importance of tolerance and diversity. … Sitting in my office getting a lecture on tolerance from someone half my age was bad.

And the lesson to be learned from this is: Dr. Mike is OLD!

And here are a few other bits from the column that were of interest (but probably only to me, as Dr. Mike is getting kind of tedious).

Author’s Note: Please take the time to vote in the local ABC affiliate’s First Amendment poll.

Yes, please do take the time to vote. I voted “Don’t know/ don’t care.”

When the black alumna called she said she had read my recent column “If I Were President.” She wanted to know whether I was really going to abolish the African American Center. At that point, I already knew we were in for an educational conversation. These days, college graduates are not well-versed in satire. As an art form, it is swiftly becoming extinct.

Maybe the real problem is that Dr. Mike’s columns are not very artful. (Seriously, dude, maybe it’s not that everyone else is stupid, maybe your satire just isn’t that good.)

Next, she dropped this bombshell: “I will be in touch with your supervisors.” She even promised to drive in from out of town to set up personal meetings with them.

(Author’s Note: Ironically, both of the administrators she promised to contact are defendants in a First Amendment lawsuit pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Oral arguments in Adams v. UNCW are scheduled to begin on January 25th).

Ironically, Dr. Mike, who styles himself as a First Amendment Warrior, still seems to believe that the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but it should make laws requiring universities to promote unqualified professors who bitch and moan a lot about being oppressed.”

Shortly after that, the local media decided to get involved. The TV cameras rolled out to UNCW’s African American Center in order to get this footage of a young diversity expert giving his take on the situation. Notice that he confidently asserts that my speech is way outside the mainstream – so much so that it is “inappropriate” to suggest that I represent the university.

Yes, Dr. Mike really does believe that he’s just saying what everyone else thinks.

The WWAY website (a local TV station) ran a poll, which I am thankful to have won by a ratio of eight-to-one. That is significant because my percentage of support greatly outnumbers the local and national white population. Yet this young diversity expert will probably never acknowledge that his own views are seen by most as “incredible, to say the least” and “inappropriate” at an institution of higher learning.

If you check the poll, you’ll note that the question is only if Dr. Mike’s comments are protected by the First Amendment or not. Nowhere is there even a hint of “Is Dr. Mike right about how Black Student Centers promote racism, and should it be illegal for girls half his age to try to lecture him on tolerance? (a)Yes, or (b) HELL, YES?”

So, what the heck is the point of “my percentage of support greatly outnumbers the local and national white population”? Is he implying that black Americans don’t believe in the First Amendment? Is he bragging about how his lumpen Townhall supporters (who undoubtedly voted on his behalf) greatly outnumber the local black population? Does he believe that the First Amendment is All About Him? Or is he just really, really stupid?

Note that the WWAY survey was worded in such a way as to steer the results in a certain direction. A better poll would have asked “Does Scott Pickey understand that the First Amendment only protects offensive speech because inoffensive speech does not need protection? Yes or No.” Or “Is Scott Pickey a) an objective journalist? Or, b) a political commentator like Mike Adams?”

An even better poll would have asked “Dr. Mike? (a): Don’t know; (b) don’t care.”

Story Time, With Dr. Mike

Posted by s.z. on October 15th, 2010

“Email me, will they? Well, I’ll just kill myself! Then they’ll be sorry!”

Today Dr. Mike shares with us the fantasmagorical story of Eight Straight Suicides.

Officials on college campuses across the nation are alarmed at a wave of recent suicides involving Christians who have been harassed by homosexual activists. The main stream media isn’t covering the story so, as usual, I have taken it upon myself to do their jobs for them. None of the following eight cases have been covered by any of the three major news networks.

Probably because, you know, the Christians weren’t actually harassed and they really didn’t commit suicide. But hey, anything for a rhetorical point and a column.

Let’s cut to the most tragic case of all:

Mike was a professor in North Carolina. The director of the local LGBSTQQCCISA (Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, completely confused, indecisively-sexed, and allied) Center kept sending him emails promoting LGBSTQQCCISA issues. The director of the LGBSTQQCCISA Center admitted that she did it to provoke him. He felt bullied. So he killed himself.

Finally, a Dr. Mike story with a happy ending and an inspirational moral!

But it was just a joke.

These eight cases are all true except for one thing: The Christians who were bullied by gays and gay activists are all still alive. Not a single one has committed suicide.

Because they are a superior race!

Anyway, kids, the point here is that if you are a college professor who writes hateful things about a group, and then somebody from that group sends you perfectly civil news releases about issues that you disagree with, if you feel provoked, then it should be just as newsworthy as if you were a child or teen who was criminally bullied and publicly shamed until you took your own life. And the fact that the MSM doesn’t treat it as such just proves that liberals control EVERYTHING and they are MEAN and IT’S JUST NOT FAIR!

And yes, of course the natural response to Mike’s cry for attention would be to tell him to go ahead and jump, but since he suffers from some kind of mental disorder (sure, he’s a sociopath, but he also shows signs of narcissim, borderline personality disorder, paranoia, and Dick Head disease), that wouldn’t be very nice. So, we can just hope that his past-due intervention causes him to accept the help he needs so much.

Dr. Mike: Like Lemon Juice to a Paper Cut

Posted by scott on October 6th, 2010

As most any boy who’s grown up in America has learned, usually from the amplifying piehole of a doughy, red-faced, middle-aged Field Marshal-manqué shouting himself hoarse on the greensward of a Junior High athletic field, the best defense is a good offense; and nobody tries to be more offensive than the Unpromoted Professor, Dr. Mike Adams.

With five recent cases of gay teens who were bullied to death — and those are just the ones that have gained national attention; a lot of kids who are tormented for being gay never report it, even in a suicide note, because they haven’t, or can’t, come out to their families — Dr. Mike saw the chance to add insult to tragedy.  Because the problem with today’s bullies — even those who persecute other kids into an early grave — is their lack of follow through.

Many bullies take the death of their victim as a sign they’ve gone too far and should maybe back off; some, if they’re not complete sociopaths, might even experience flashes of horror and regret.  And this is precisely where Dr. Mike’s unique perspective comes in handy.   Why stop abusing your victim just because he’s dead?  What are you, a quitter?  Besides, it’s not like he can hit you back now, which makes attacking the dead almost as safe as Dr. Mike’s own preferred mode of single combat: writing slam books about imaginary lesbians.

Just Swastikas

Note: Dr. Adams will be speaking this Wednesday (October 6th) at UNC-Charlotte. The speech, which is free and open to the public, will start at 7 p.m. in the Student Union Theater.

Why is Dr. Mike speaking at UNC-Charlotte?  Well, because people at the school where he teaches, UNC-Wilmington, seem to be on to him.  Still, admission is free, which is a pretty good deal, considering Hitler charged his fans 35 pfennig a pop for the nosebleed seats at Nuremberg, and 5 reichsmarks for t-shirts and hats.

Plans for National Coming Out Day are going well all across North Carolina – especially at UNC-Charlotte (UNCC). Conservative students at UNCC are planning a Conservative Coming Out Day in response to National Coming Out Day.

I sympathize with closeted conservative youth.  It must be hard to tell your parents you’re an idiot, especially when they’re paying your tuition.

I will be there to offer a diverse perspective on an important issue that has been largely ignored on our nation’s campuses. My speech will highlight several pending cases, which show that homosexuals are not the principal victims of civil rights violations in this country. Instead, they are the principal perpetrators of civil rights violations in this country – especially on our college campuses.

The main problem with the “best defense is a good offense” philosophy seems to be the “good offense” part.  Claiming that gays (who, according to folks like Dr. Mike, are a teeny tiny percentage of the population) are somehow enforcing an apartheid regime on the straight majority is a tough sell, especially when each day seems to bring yet another depressing news story about iron-heeled gay teens driven to take their own lives by their taunting, violent victims.

Jim Crow ain’t what it used to be.

After my speech, there will be a reception where I will be asking that camouflaged cupcakes be served to all in attendance. I am asking the College Republicans to provide camouflaged cupcakes in order to highlight an interesting case that is developing at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) where plans for National Coming Out Day are not proceeding very smoothly.

Dr. Mike, his nose to the wind, has sensed the pheromones of a fellow homophobe, and popped a bigot-boner.  As  nature intended.

City officials in Indianapolis are investigating a bakery that refused to take an order from an IUPUI student group seeking rainbow-colored cupcakes for their National Coming Out Day. A spokesman for Mayor Greg Ballard said city officials are conducting an investigation into a bakery, Just Cookies, which declined to take the order.

I trust Doghouse Riley will correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe Mayor Ballard is a Republican, so if nothing else, the Cirque du Soleil-style contortions — even if merely rhetorical — should be entertaining.

After the so-called diversity group ordered the rainbow cupcakes Just Cookies co-owner David Stockton told them theirs was a family-run business. He also explained that he has two young, impressionable daughters and, therefore, thought it was best not to make the cupcakes.

Then the government got involved. “Whatever this gentleman’s personal views are, it cannot interfere with the providing of a service or allowing someone to buy their goods,” said an official of the local government.

That’s good to know. I’m sure some Nazi group would love to visit the local Jewish tailor and have him make them all Nazi uniforms. And the Jewish merchant should definitely be forced by the government to provide services to members of a political movement seeking to destroy him.

All I can say is, if you’ve hatched an evil scheme to destroy a baker by buying a large number of cupcakes from him, then you’re the crappiest Nazi since Colonel Klink.  Of course, neo-Nazis aren’t covered by the Indianapolis anti-discrimination ordinance, while LGBT people are, and the bakery rents space in a city-owned facility, so the government is kind of obliged to investigate allegations that one of its tenants is violating one of its laws.

Of course, comparing gays to Nazis is unfair to the Nazis. The Nazi party doesn’t have much of a presence on America. But the Gaystapo certainly does.

If only the Nazi Party had been as ruthless a perpetrator of civil rights violations as the gays, the Third Reich probably would have committed suicide after years of constant bullying by Jews.

In the wake of the IUPUI cupcake controversy, a student told a local Fox News station “I don’t want to topple anybody at all. I just think it’s important we ask ourselves and Just Cookies asks themselves why they made the statement, why they’re making these choices and how it’s ultimately affecting their business and the community as a whole.”

What an arrogant statement! Everyone knows that such behavior is dictated by an anti-gay gene. Homosexuals are not the only ones who can dodge criticism by making phony genetic arguments unsupported by evidence. I should know. I was born with the sarcasm gene.

And an extra chromosome.

Indianapolis city officials are working to determine whether the rainbow cupcake order was refused because the bakery couldn’t provide the desired product or because something else was at play. I can save them the time and money involved in any continuing investigation by telling them there is something else in play. That “something else” is called religious liberty.

I assume Dr. Mike will be standing strong with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as he rallies support for the construction of Park51.  Although perhaps the Professionally Plateaued Professor would prefer if they built the Muslim community center and mosque on city-owned land.  Makes a stronger First Amendment statement.

Our Founders fought to preserve religious expression, including freedom of conscience, because they knew it was vital to the preservation of our nation. They thought it was so important they put it in the Bill of Rights just before the parts about sodomy and abortion. Oh wait! There’s nothing in the Bill of Rights about sodomy and abortion. Sorry about that. It must be my sarcasm gene, which actually is capable of being passed on from generation to generation.

Unless, like Dr. Mike, you’re shooting blanks.

UPDATE: In comments, and over at his place, Doghouse Riley explains that, just like the Monster in Monster-A-Go-Go, “there was no cupcake.”

Dr. Mike Hates Speech

Posted by scott on September 9th, 2010

A correspondent pointed me to Dr. Professor Mike Adams’ latest attempt to reach out and touch America’s downtrodden with his prehensile sphincter, adding that I might also enjoy, “his column from last week, in which he’s clearly titillated by back tattoos.”  But two Dr. Mike columns in a single week is every bit as punishing as posting consecutive Ann Coulter photos, and it’s especially bad when he’s titillated; so let’s just take a brief inventory of the back tattoo citations:

My Guns Are Pretty (And Safer Than Your Tattoos)

Ordinarily I’d complain that this title made no sense, even by Dr. Mike standards, but last week a tattoo artist at LA Ink accidentally blew his head off, like Hemingway, while cleaning his Bizzy Buzz Buzz.

There’s nothing more annoying than getting a complaint about my gun collection from a feminist with a tattoo on her lower back. I don’t let anyone irresponsible get near my guns so that no one gets killed. When the feminist lets irresponsible men near her tattoos there’s a better chance that someone’s getting aborted.

I didn’t think the needles were that long.

All kidding aside (was I kidding?)

It’s often hard to tell, but since it wasn’t really funny, I’m going to say “yes.”

If this is a problem for the aforementioned feminist then I must remind her that she doesn’t really need a tattoo on her lower back.

Lobbying Congress for a limit on the number of guns I can own will cause me to retaliate by a) Lobbying Congress for a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have, and b) Lobbying Congress for a limit on the number of tattoos a person can have.

If you want a war, I’ll give you a war.

You know, Dr. Mike can wave his little gun collection around all he wants, that doesn’t scare — Duck! He’s gonna LOBBY!

Just keep tattooing your lower back, sleeping around, and aborting innocent babies.

And keep reachin’ for the stars.

Well.  That was a nice, skeevy warm-up.  Everybody feel like you’ve been inappropriately touched by a whiskery hobo whose nether regions reek of equal parts piss, spilled MD 20/20 and a crust of smegma as thick and moldy as the rind on brie?  Excellent!  Then we’re ready to plunge in…

My Hate Speech Conviction

Over the summer, I was convicted of anti-gay hate speech. The most incredible thing about it was that I never set foot in Canada. The conviction happened while I was in Colorado. But the offense took place almost 15 years ago.

This is just like the opening pages of Les Misérables, where convict Jean Valjean is released from the Bagne of Toulon after serving nearly 20 years for the crime of stealing bread for his starving family, except in the modern retelling, Dr. Mike emerges from the Faculty gymnasium steam room after a long, disturbing, and somewhat tingling schvitz with two muscular, well-groomed young men who weren’t interested in hearing about his gun collection, and he was forced, by society, and by the cruel perversion of justice that is the law, to go home and write “FagGORTS!!11!” in his slam book.

In the 1990s, a friend of mine announced that he was divorcing his wife because he had decided (after a couple of unhappy marriages) to pursue the gay lifestyle.

As we know from close textual analysis of the Adams canon, Dr. Mike’s work is full of mythological creatures — tongue-tied lesbians, easily-flummoxed feminists, time-traveling hippies, gay men turned straight, and women of any orientation who would seriously consider sleeping with him — and like all fictional creations, they are reflections of their author.  Sometimes, however, Dr. Mike’s column is a roman á clef,  the characters thinly veiled individuals from his own life; for instance, there was the time he wrote about his friend, “Scott,” who had left the church, and who Dr. Mike was trying to bring back to Jesus (Scott was his ex-wife’s maiden name).

So here we have Dr. Mike, whose wife divorced him, talking to a “friend” (probably a composite of several guns he owns), who has responded to his failed marriage(s) by going gay.

I think we should take this entirely at face value.

My decision to support him was born out of ignorance.

Say what you like about Dr. Mike’s decision-making; at least he has a process.

Not only was I harboring the illusion that there actually was such a thing as a gay gene. I was also ignorant of the fact that gays could be successfully cured through therapeutic efforts.

So Dr. Mike has actually become stupider than he was in the 90s.  This is an interesting and eloquent refutation of evolution; sort of like if Matt Weiner followed up Mad Men by creating She’s the Sheriff.

My decision to label my own verbal support of his lifestyle choice as “hate speech” makes sense only after one becomes educated about that lifestyle.

And how did Dr. Mike become “educated about the lifestyle,” while simultaneously becoming more ignorant about biology and the patent medicine de-homoizer industry?  Well, apparently he pulled one of those Black Like Me undercover deals, and got right to the bottom of things.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 82% of all known sexually-transmitted HIV cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact.

Dr. Mike would also like to round up and quarantine “kissing cousins” after an outbreak of mononucleosis in his home town.

Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for over 60% of all syphilis cases.

That’s a shocking figure, arrived at by including prison populations:  “Additionally, a substantial proportion of early syphilis cases is from correctional facilities, in which high rates of reactive serologies and disease are known to occur, particularly in areas experiencing heterosexual syphilis epidemics.”

Intellectual honesty is all well and good, especially in an academic, but there are times when an intellectual white lie is simply more polite.

Some will say that homophobia is the indirect cause of such numbers. They claim that fear of stigmatization keeps gays from seeking information before they become ill and from seeking medical help afterwards. But, clearly, that is not the case.

I’m beginning to see why that committee at University of North Carolina-Wilmington which denied Dr. Mike promotion to full professor suspected that his Townhall columns may not have always met the strictest standards of peer reviewed sociology.

In cultures where homosexuality is more accepted the numbers are worse.

And which cultures is he talking about, where homosexuality is “more accepted”?  Dr. Mike doesn’t say, so I’m going to guess Culture Club.

Most gays become angry when someone tells the truth about the health consequences of their lifestyle choice.

Since “rolling your eyes” is not necessarily a sign of anger, I’m going to assume Dr. Mike is employing that same facial recognition software the TSA wanted to use to find people thinking about terrorism at the airport.

The reason they get angry over the facts is because their conscience convicts them. When I came to realize that I helped make it easier for my friend to pursue his unhealthy lifestyle my conscience was convicted.

…and sentenced to 25 years to life in solitary confinement at a maximum security facility, which is why no one has seen it since.

No sane person could ever posit that the act of rectal sodomy is safe, normal, or healthy.

So Catholic school girls aren’t just freaky  — they’re psychotic.

The rectum is a one-way street. It is a sewer meant for the expulsion of poison.

I’m still amazed at the speed and precision with which Dr. Mike is able to type while squatting over his keyboard.

Treating the rectum as a sex organ is damaging to the health – especially for the recipient of such abuse. That is why it is an act of hate, regardless of whether some choose to call it “love.”

And don’t get Dr. Mike started on the clitoris!

But the gay lifestyle has never been about love.

The history of poetry from Sappho on, notwithstanding.

It should go without saying that women have greater emotional needs than men

…because if he says it, people might demand that he actually defend it, and that kind of thing rarely goes well, and eventually Dr. Mike will just burst into tears.  And nobody wants to see that.

…while men have greater physical needs than women. They need each other to balance one another out.

He, horny but indifferent; she, needy but frigid.

Dr. Mike pities you homos, with your emotionally low-key partners engaging in constant hot sex.  Life is just one big Brokeback Mountain with Vulcans to you poufs, isn’t it?  ISN’T IT?

And that is why when two men are together the physical aspects of the relationship spiral out of control to the point of compulsion.

Um, Dr. Mike?  These thoughts have escaped your head; we can actually see them.  You might want to back away from the computer until your pulse rate slows a bit.

Dr. A: a Case Study

Posted by s.z. on July 28th, 2010

Greetings, esteemed colleagues. As a public service, it’s now time to perform a psychiatric diagnosis of somebody you’ve never treated. You know, like how Robin of Berkeley and all those other alleged mental health workers on the right do. Our subject is one Dr. Mike A. (To preserve his anonymity, we won’t use his whole name, but we do have to use his academic title or he has a hissy fit.)
Subject is a middle-aged, divorced college professor who has recently suffered a professional setback. He exhibits anger, a lack of empathy, problems interacting with others, and general jerkiness; his claims of superiority over others seem to be a fragile construct to protect him from his secret fears of his own lack of worth.

What follows are notes from his most recent session:

“The Eunuch Horn”
Dr. A. spends the whole session criticizing one Kate Bornstein, whose writings on transgendered issues are apparently frquently used in “Sociology of Gender” courses. Subject becomes incensed over the idea that one’s brain can reflect a different gender than that of the genitals that supposedly God gave one.

Subject readily accepts Bornstein’s assertion that there is a “gender pyramid,” and states that “the factors that help one climb to the top of the hierarchy include “Being white, being a citizen of the USA, being a Protestant-defined Christian, being heterosexual, [...] possessing a well-formed, above-average-length penis, a pair of reasonably-matched testicles, and at least an average sperm count.” What he strenuously objects to is the idea that one should “dismantle the pyramid altogether” by refusing to accept the idea that these factors make one superior. [Why is this idea so repugnant to Subject? Does he suspect that he doesn't possess some of the qualities that would raise him to the top of the pyramid but hates the idea that one can challenge these cultural preferences?]

Here are some of Subject’s words:

It’s not at all surprising that Bornstein’s readers are asked to contemplate what their God-given gender assignment does for them. In higher education, the focus is always on them. It is certainly never on God.

Dr, Mike’s point apparently being that if God gives one male genitalia, then one is flouting God’s will by changing this. Dr. Mike never addresses the issue of whether children born with cleft palates should just accept their God-given mouth without complaint, because resorting to surgery would show their lack of accord with God’s will.

In the past, I have offended some transgendered persons by asking these two questions: 1) Does the act of removing a man’s penis make him into a woman? 2) If your answer to #1 is “yes,” does re-attaching it to his forehead make him a unicorn?

Those two questions are my little way of asking the transgendered community whether there is any limit to their delusional belief that they can simply be whatever they perceive themselves to be. Their “reassignment” of mental illness – saying that others who oppose them suffer from “trans-phobia” – supplies the answer.

Dr. Mike’s emphatic declaration that the transgendered are mentally ill for not being content with the body they were born with seems too angry to simply be an intellectual critique of an idea that he doesn’t agree with. What else is going on here?

Clearly, today’s “intellectual” is unwilling to admit that a man who thinks he is a woman is mentally ill. But what about the man who thinks he is God?

And what about the man who is positive that he knows God’s will? Why does Subject feel that trying to match one’s self-perceived gender with one’s body is playing God? Why is the idea of sexual-reassignment so threatening to Subject?

Before long, “intellectuals” will side-step the issue. There will be no contradiction between being human and not-human. We will have rebelled against “God” as a perfect classification.

Dear colleagues, I suspect that there are many issues that we could address. So, below the fold you will find a very brief review of Subject’s previous 15 sessions.

Subject, Dr. A.


The Portrait of Dorian Mike

Posted by s.z. on July 3rd, 2010

Scripto worried that Dr. Mike was looking a little run-down and off his feed in his official photo. So, here’s a candid shot of him, which demonstrates that the strain of hating everybody in the world really is starting to get to him. Dr. Mike is probably having his food tested for poison before he dares to eat now, and undoubtedly seeing imaginary insects all around him. Say, do we know where he was when Dr. Robin’s sparkly bug was squashed in Berkely?

Dr. Mike Suddenly Realizes He's Speaking to an Empty Classroom

Onward Christian Soldiers, Carping As To War

Posted by scott on July 2nd, 2010

You may remember that back on May 12, Dr. Professor Mike Adams filed his last column for Townhall, bidding a reluctant but bitter farewell as he went on retreat to Manitou Springs, Colorado, where he intends to write a book and grow a parasitic Native American demon on his neck.

Of course, many WO’C readers predicted that Mike had simply reached the “Good-bye Cruel World!” stage of the Classic Internet Troll Tantrum, and would inevitably be back the following week as though nothing had happened.  Sure enough, Dr. Mike’s resignation from online punditry proved to be as real as the many triumphant tongue-lashings he’s administered to gays, lesbians, feminists, hippies, atheists, and his own co-workers and superiors at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.

But it is true that he’s fled town in the wake of his failed lawsuit against UNC-W, and is spending the summer teaching at Summit Ministries Sleep Away Camp for Christian Kids Who Never Have Sex and Therefore Won’t Attract the Attention of an Axe-Wielding Serial Killer.  And what godly lesson, you may ask, is he imparting to America’s Taliban-in-training?

Revenge! Specifically, that it’s a dish best served cold, on white bread with mayonnaise — or Miracle Whip if you’re watching your cholesterol –with corn-on-the-cob, side salad, or shoestring potatoes. Revenge is also served with a choice of milk, juice, coffee, Mr. Pibb, Orange Fanta, or our own Bottomless Glass of Iced Tea.

I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has given me a powerful tool to use in my war against the godless. Earlier this week, the Court ruled that a public university may require all student organizations to admit any student as a voting member or officer. The decision applies even to a student who is openly hostile to the group’s fundamental beliefs.

As you probably noticed, Dr. Mike is in a sectarian snit about CLS v. Martinez, which held that student clubs at Hastings Laws School which seek official recognition (a meeting place, a cut of student fees) have to abide by the school’s anti-discrimination policy.  This seems like such a basic question of fairness that even the Roberts Court (although not Roberts himself, nor Alito, Thomas, or Scalia) decided that the Christian Legal Society had no First Amendment right to state-funded bigotry; but to Dr. Mike, this means war, and from the Risk board on the card table in his room at the Super 8 Motel in Manitou Springs, he plans his campaign.

So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism.

They’ll form a sort of vigilante group, like the Regulators, or the Anti-Bald Knobbers, one which, I predict, will go down in history as the Prick Posse.

Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist-haters willing to join atheist student groups across the South. I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.

Like all of Dr. Mike’s brilliant ideas for agitprop theater (blending embryos into smoothies and serving them to poor black people in public housing projects, or drilling through the skulls of rescue cats outside the Womens Resource Center to punish PETA for ignoring abortion), this one will never get beyond the huffery and puffery of his Townhall column.  This is probably because Dr. Mike is at his best when confronting illusory antagonists (he was probably the only kid on his block who had an imaginary enemy); real people just don’t seem to be as cooperatively and conveniently inclined to slink off in shame after being bitchslapped by one of Dr. Mike’s patented Joe Friday comebacks.  Real people tend to talk back; they might even fight back, which would be totally unfair if Dr. Mike didn’t have one of his 178 guns with him at the time.  At the very least, real people would almost certainly deviate from the carefully written scripts Dr. Mike provides for these encounters with his moral and intellectual inferiors.

But if he ever were to finally put one of his provocative schemes into operation, it would probably be this one, since it involves only his students running the risk of getting yelled at or arrested.

My friend, and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President, Greg Lukianoff has a different take on this recent Supreme Court decision. He says “FIRE will continue to fight for the rights of expressive campus organizations to form around shared beliefs and for the principle that the College Democrats have the right to be Democrats, the College Atheists have the right to be atheists, and the College Christians have the right to be Christians.” But I disagree with Greg. As a member of the dominant majority, I recognize the power of Martinez to destroy campus dissent.

And I like it. I like it a lot.

It’s not like my own life isn’t a mess, so far be it from me to criticize anyone who’s arrived at a workable modus vivendi, but it seems there’s one major disadvantage to being the kind of man who’s so emotionally warped and stunted that he can only feel alive by forcing his enemies to reciprocate his bile and loathing:  what if, no matter how obnoxious you are, nobody cares?  I mean, I’m not saying Dr. Mike isn’t the hardest working hater in show business, but at least from my end — and I suspect this is true for a lot of us around here — his passion is unrequited.  True, he can occasionally make me feel a brief frisson of disgust, but hatred is just too much of a commitment, and I could never expend the energy he does, constantly seething and formulating elaborate battle plans for pissing off people he doesn’t know, and would never have the nerve to speak to in person.  I guess I’m too lazy, or maybe I just lack the Divine Spark.

The majority opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was authored by Justice Ginsburg. She held that Hastings’ policy is constitutional. That means the same policy that has been used against a Christian group in San Francisco can now be used against heathen dissidents in the Deep South.

Well, Dr. Mike may have to go a bit further down the map to find the Deep South these days, and that may be part of the reason he’s devoting the summer to teaching young Christian pranksters how to follow in his dropping-filled footsteps.  North Carolina isn’t exactly the heathen-hatin’ Old Catawba it used to be, and which Dr. Mike clearly yearns for; they voted for Obama in 2008, and their governor is a woman and a Democrat (which is just adding insult to vaginery, since he’s already forced to labor ‘neath the spike heel of a female chancellor).

Justice Ginsburg was not impressed by the argument that the policy allows students hostile to a group’s core tenets to disrupt the group’s mission, or even destroy the group altogether. Ginsburg claimed that such concerns are “more hypothetical than real.” But I intend to make such concerns a reality for the unbelieving heathens.

I don’t know how those kids at Summit Ministries feel, but if my spiritual advisor had talked like a supervillain, I probably would have attended Sunday School a lot more often.

The majority opinion stated that denying recognition to groups like CLS is permissible in part because groups denied recognition may nevertheless avail themselves of other means of communication, such as social networking sites, to reach fellow students. That means an invading group can turn a smaller, weaker group into second class citizens on campus. That’s what I intend to do to those groups who do not believe in God.

I don’t really see the point of this exercise, since there’s a good chance these groups already believe in assholes.

If they don’t like it they can go to hell. That’s where they’re eventually going anyway.

If Jesus is sitting in heaven, looking down upon us, I suspect He feels about Dr. Mike’s efforts on His behalf the same way the McDonald’s Corporation would feel about a franchisee who responded to complaints about obesity and junk food by adding freshly severed rat tails to each order, because they’re low in fat and calories and hippies should just shut up.

The Court acknowledges that such “accept all comers” policies may not in fact be desirable for maintaining robust debate on public college campuses. I concur. And I like it that way. I do not robust seek debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.

“Because God knows my ex-wife never did what I told her to.”

The Court’s majority opinion does not consider the constitutionality of non-discrimination policies as applied to belief-based student groups. Instead, the Court held that public universities like Hastings may only deny the right to freedom of expressive association to religious student groups like CLS if they deny this freedom to all groups.

So my campaign will conform to this opinion by first ensuring that there are no belief based groups on southern campuses.

I wondered why Dr. Mike was only going to subject the South to his remote control jackassery, but no doubt he expects that in the Old Confederacy he and his meeting-disrupting apostles will be greeted as liberators.

We won’t be able to discern the specifics of their beliefs by reading their constitutions. But we’ll be able to get the gist of what they’re up to by simply knowing the name of their group. Then we will seek to destroy groups whose names are even remotely suspicious. If I see any words like “atheist,” agnostic”, or even “free-thinker” I will know they are a group of godless heathens. Then we’ll move in for the kill.

Speaking of moving in for the kill…in the comments of our piece on Dr. Mike’s Fauxwell Address, reader RobNYNY observed of the Perpetually Unpromoted Professor:  ”It was that same ‘Integrity‘ column in which he bragged about intentionally gut-shooting a boar, which he then lamely claims “crashed” somewhere out of sight. Gut-shot animals can live for days. The only right thing to do is to track the boar down and kill it, as a mercy to it, and a safety precaution to others. This story alone is enough reason to shun him professionally and personally.”

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito observed that the Martinez majority has provided public universities with “a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.” Alito is right as usual. After we get rid of the heathens we’ll turn our weapon on the gays, the blacks, and the feminists. We might even go after the Italians, too.

What? You mean you weren’t serious?!

Ouch.  It’s like suddenly finding out that there was no giant, no monster, no thing called Douglas to be followed. There was nothing in the tunnel but the puzzled men of courage who suddenly found themselves alone with shadows and darkness. With the telegram, one cloud lifts, and another descends. Astronaut Frank Douglas, rescued, alive, well, and of normal size some 8000 miles away in a lifeboat.

I guess the joke’s on us.

Spiking Dr. Mike. Farewell and Adieu

Posted by scott on May 13th, 2010


I’ve often wondered if Dr. Mike Adams is simply a needy provocateur, lighting up a string of fizzling rhetorical firecrackers in a bi-weekly bid for attention; or if his bold, assertive lack of empathy is sincere, and he’s just an unusually bald-faced sociopath. Well, in today’s column, Dr. Mike betrays a previously unsuspected vulnerability, and I’ve finally realized that despite all his crass, insulting bluster, he actually is capable of feeling a deep, and deeply moving, pity for himself. Yes, Dr. Mike is going through a change of life, and he’d really appreciate it if we’d drop everything while he makes an important — even historic — announcement.

Chapter 639: Conclusion

As you are surfing the Internet this morning, I am in a car driving west somewhere between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains.

Dr. Mike is keeping his location vague to throw off Obama’s Predator drones.

The particular column you are reading right now is the 639th I have written since I became a columnist for Townhall in September of 2003.

Really? It feels like more.

It will also be my last.


Well, this is something of a shock, especially for us. World O’ Crap was established one month before Townhall handed Dr. Mike a byline, and s.z. discovered his unique voice no more than a month or two later. In the interim I’ve waded through scores of his columns, first as a devotee of Wo’C, and later as a contributor; in fact, I doubt his fans have followed his work as closely as we have, and I think we’re owed an explanation!

My first column for Townhall was called “NAMBLA: Coming to a Campus Near You.”

Actually, you know what? I’m good. Best of luck, Dr. Mike!

In that column, I argued that the diversity movement had gained such momentum – ironically, from not being subjected to competing ideas –

How are you ever going to learn to think for yourself if you’re not willing to stand up for uniformity?

– that it would not be long before pedophilia was accepted and actively promoted on our nation’s campuses – all in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity.” That time has now arrived.

I’m not certain how Dr. Mike knows this, but I’m pretty sure that by crossing state lines he’s compounding the felony.

My most recent column included a revealing email exchange with a university administrator.

That would be this column, “How to Win Friends and Manipulate Hypocrites,” in which Dr. Mike wrote to the “Advisor of the LGBTQIA Office at a university we will call The University of No Civility Whatsoever (UNCW). Her name has been changed to protect her from the consequences of her own poor decisions.” Poor decisions such as being willfully, stubbornly gay, even in the presence of a studly Associate Professor of Criminology.

Dear Jane Doe: I am interested to know how the speech “Gay, lesbian, and queer individuals with a Christian upbringing: Exploring the process of resolving conflict between sexual identity and religious beliefs” will handle such an obvious conflict between Christianity and homosexuality.

On [sic] must either a) turn away from the sin of homosexuality or b) commit the additional sin of altering the scriptures to justify one’s own sinful conduct.

Which alternative will your speaker recommend?

Dr. Mike’s colleague doesn’t care to answer his pop quiz, and reminds him that the last time they corresponded, he surprised her by publishing her emails. She closes with a quote: “People pay for what they do, and still more, for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay for it simply: by the lives they live.”-James Baldwin.

But Dr. Mike will not be ignored. Nor will he have fancy-talkin’ Negroes thrown in his face — especially ones he’s never heard of.

I would like to request that the UNCW LGBTQIA Office extend an invitation to Mike Haley, a former homosexual, to come give a speech at UNCW. Mike would be able to provide some balance to what your center intends to do; namely to lead people into a lifestyle that is bad for their physical and emotional well-being.

Will you consider hosting Mike or will you only host people who are going to promote homosexuality?

I am not a follower of James Baldwin but I do believe it is unethical to withhold information, which could lead people out of the trap of homosexuality that ruins so many promising young lives.

Mike’s colleague says 1) She won’t speak for the lecturer, 2) If he’s so interested he can buy a ticket, 3) She’s never heard of ex-gay Mike Haley, and 4) Dr. Mike is perfectly free to sponsor the guy himself. Her response is not well-received:

You are refusing to host or sponsor a speech by Mike Haley because you believe we have enough ideological balance on the issue of homosexuality here at UNCW.

Please respond in writing.

And later:

Jane, you have simply lied when you have stated that you know don’t know Mike Haley other than what I say about him. Previously, you claimed a familiarity with my oeuvre and I have discussed Mike in a previous column

You know, I claim a familiarity with Dr. Mike’s oeuvre, and I’d be hard pressed to pick the Mike Haley column out of six hundred and thirty-eight other pieces that are so alike in tone and subject matter that they’re less essays, and more a form of repetitive motion injury.

Anyway, the Unpromoted Professor closes by writing himself a letter of recommendation (“My tactic of exposing lying public officials in order to expand the marketplace of ideas is very effective. That is why my columns are the height of ethical discourse”), then threatens to harass her again next week.

Careless readers of that column considered it to be somewhat mundane and unenlightening – perhaps even petty.

Because, if nothing else, Dr. Mike’s work is remarkably consistent.

The more careful readers noticed that, in one of the administrator’s emails, she included a quote by James Baldwin, which said “If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality.”

Of course, when Baldwin made that statement he was not a “boy.” He was a grown man suggesting that pedophilia is not a disease but, instead, that opposition to pedophilia is a disease. I disagree.

Says the teacher who married one of his own students.

That’s why I’m a follower of Jesus, rather than a follower of Baldwin or Muhammad.

And that’s why Jesus is always looking nervously over his shoulder, and frequently changing cabs.

In several hundred nationally published columns Mike Adams said: “The University of North Carolina does not protect free speech.”

In response, the university said: “You don’t have a right to say that.”

And, sadly, the court agreed saying that because I mentioned my column in my promotion application, it was now a part of my “official duties.” And that means the First Amendment no longer prevents the university from discriminating against me for my beliefs.

For those who may be tuning in late, let me quote a very clear and concise explanation of Dr. Mike’s failed lawsuit against his own university, written by a commenter Jeffrey Kramer at Whiskey Fire:

1) Adams presented [his Townhall] columns as evidence of his “research,” i.e. as fulfillment of one of the requirements for promotion to full professor.

2) The faculty said that these columns were not scholarship, and didn’t serve Adams’s case.

3) Adams then said that when the university rejected his application, it showed they were engaged in viewpoint discrimination (because they didn’t like the conservative views expressed in the columns).

4) The judge said that according to the law, you can only sue for viewpoint discrimination if the views expressed are not part of your job. (So, for example, if you are a speechwriter for a liberal Democrat and you’re fired because you keep on writing speeches which express conservative Republican principles, you have no discrimination case.) But Adams was plainly asserting that he did regard those columns as part of his university work, since he was presenting them as evidence of how well he was performing his university-mandated research duties!

5) The judge went on to say (my non-lawyerly translation from legalese follows) that Adams was guilty of first degree chutzpah for trying first to say “I want you to evaluate these opinion columns as evidence of my scholarship” and then, when the work was negatively evaluated, turning around and saying “how dare you judge me on the basis of these opinion columns; that’s viewpoint discrimination!”

It seems that Dr. Mike — by turning out hundreds of fact-free, wingnutty screeds, while failing to write any scholarly works in his field — has managed to both publish and perish. But like his native South, he vows to Rise Again!

My attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund have appealed the case to the 4th Circuit. And we’ll go to the Supreme Court if we lose there.

“I’ll never succumb! I’ll never surrender! In the meantime, I better quit my column.” But Dr. Mike wants you to know that he would’ve got away with his plan to pass off warmed over FoxNews talking points and tongue-lashings administered to imaginary lesbians as original scholarship, if it hadn’t been for those meddlin’ pedophiles!

Of course, I don’t have to tell you that the Faculty Senate has remained silent on the issue of my pending appeal. They’ll never say my columns are protected free speech unless they start featuring pictures of naked little girls. But I can’t bring myself to provide comfort and pleasure to pedophiles. Call me old fashioned.

Well, it’s about the only thing I haven’t called you.

And, since this column is not protected by the First Amendment, I must bid you farewell.

Good night, sweet prince. And a flight of douchebags sing thee to thy rest.


Posted by scott on April 7th, 2010


I had a rather lengthy and involved post ready to go last night, but it appears to have escaped into Gibsonian cyberspace, so I guess that’s a bit of a lucky break for you guys. Casting about for a replacement, I tried just transcribing my piteous, wracking sobs, but it gave SpellCheck a tizzy, so instead, let’s just see what Dr. Professor Mike Adams is up to…

Ah, being a weapons grade jerk — excellent!

The Wall of Hate

This week, April 5th through 8th, my university is doing something really neat.

Whenever Dr. Mike talks like Gidget, it means he’s about to pull one of his stunning, 180 degree rhetorical reversals with a bridge out and a crotch-lift, followed by a singlet snap and an optional self-tittytwist. Remember your safe word.

A bunch of organizations – including the NAACP, PRIDE, and the Black Student Union – are sponsoring a “Breaking Down Hate” week.

How nice of them to bring everyone Dr. Mike fears and loathes together for one event. It’s like Paul Simon’s, Kodachrome, if the song had been about a smug, yet failed academic who fancies himself the Cracker Barrel Voltaire.

Since the planned events only run Monday through Thursday it isn’t really a “week”.

Well, I haven’t seen any evidence that you’re really a “man,” yet nobody bitches about you whizzing in the taxpayer-funded urinals at school.

Despite the preponderance of white people on our campus there doesn’t seem to be enough hate to keep the anti-hate people busy all the way through Friday.

To assist these dusky folk who are apparently confused by ancient Hebrew units of time, Dr. Mike will be bringing a stack of calendars and some extra hate.

The printed flier for the “Breaking Down Hate” almost-week talks about a thing called the “Wall of Hate,” which has been a part of our campus diversity movement for three years. The flier invites students to “share insensitive, intolerant, and hateful words that (they) feel should no longer be accepted in (the campus) community with the WALL OF HATE.” After students write down the words, they spray paint over them as a symbol of the eradication of hate.

Huh. I remember the collegiate hijinks being wackier when I was in school. But I guess you can’t cram your whole fraternity into a phone booth when they don’t exist anymore. And swallowing goldfish doesn’t really seem that crazy when there’s a sushi restaurant on every other block. And playing TAG would probably get you shot by the campus police. Sucks to be a co-ed nowadays.

On the bright side, if they spray-paint over all the hateful words, Dr. Mike’s future columns will be considerably shorter.

I’ve made fun of the wall of hate in the past. But I’m not making fun of it anymore. That’s just hateful.

Thanks for the almost-joke.

This year, I’m going to the “wall of hate” all four days of “Breaking Down Hate” almost-week. In fact, I’m going twice each day to write down a hateful word.

Like your Freshman Comp teacher always said, “write what you know.”

My “Great Eight Words of Hate” are listed below. Each is followed by the reason why I chose to write each word before covering it with spray paint:

Colored. Few people realize that the “C” in “NAACP” stands for “colored.”

What a scoop.

Where I come from, the term “colored” is racially insensitive and hateful. Therefore, I think anyone who uses that term is a hater. In fact, I think the NAACP is potentially a hate group in need of a close second look by the IRS. I’m even considering writing the Southern Poverty Law Center to put them on notice of another potential hate group.

And what’s up with “jumbo shrimp”?

PRIDE. I read somewhere that pride cometh before a fall.

No, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” The Iceman cometh.

And this group – People Recognizing Individual Differences Exist (PRIDE) – is a very proud bunch.

Really? Even though they go to the University of North Carolina-Wilmington?

They think it’s a great idea that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) declassified homosexuality as a mental illness (many years ago). But they celebrated the victory by coining the term “homophobia.” This was meant to say that everyone who disagrees with them on the issue of homosexuality has a phobia, or irrational fear.

Even worse, the prideful queers won’t join Mike in his kolpophobia, when you’d think they’d be his natural allies!

Could it be that PRIDE has an irrational fear of intellectual diversity?

Mike doesn’t hate the homos because he’s afraid of them. He just can’t help himself — he’s an intellectual.

Why can’t they just recognize that individual differences of opinion about homosexuality exist?

“Just as there are legitimate differences of opinion about the cranial capacity of the Negroid race. But look, we’ll never settle this without a pair of calipers and a trained phrenologist, so let’s just agree to disagree, shall we?”

Black. I really don’t like the term “black.”

And don’t get him started on the skin tone.

It’s so antiquated. Someday it will be considered as hateful as “colored.”

If Dr. Mike has anything to say about it.

I prefer the term “African American.” And I think the Black Student Union should change its name to something not only more sensitive but more accurate.

Stand by for another 2-point reversal, wrestling fans!

Personally, I prefer the Union of African Students for Segregation (U-ASS). In my view, if you need to segregate yourself on the basic of race U are an ASS. And you are probably a racist.

After all, it’s not like black people back in the 50s and 60s banded together and presented a unified front to combat racism and segregation. Civil rights were much more of an individual, Randian achievement.

Hate. I really hate the word “hate.” Whenever I hear that word it is coming from someone who is full of hate.

You know what other word Dr. Mike really hates? “Thesaurus.”

Gay. Let’s just use the term “sodomite.”

Whatever gets you stiff, good buddy. We’re not here to judge.

They are way too angry to be called “gay.” Plus, I’d like to be able to once again use the term “gay” without having people think about sodomy.

Well, first you’ll have to stop being an enormous asshole.

For example, “Writing down a word and then immediately spray-painting over it? That’s gay!”

Dr. Mike knows he will never been truly free until he is free to discuss the pressing political issues of the day in the texting vocabulary of a 12-year old boy from Encino.

Choice. When I hear the word “choice” I know some feminist is about to kill a baby so she can increase her sex partners without decreasing her income.

And yet, even though Dr. Mike has been hanging around outside Planned Parenthood for weeks now, he still hasn’t gotten laid.

So I choose not to hear that word anymore.

So now when Dr. Mike goes to Beefsteak Charlies, he hears the waiter say, “your entree comes with a [blank] of beer, wine, or sangria,” which just results in a long and uncomfortable staring contest.

Communism. The communists killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century. That’s a big number. In fact, it’s 1/15,000 as big as this year’s federal budget deficit measured in dollars. So let’s replace this word with something else like “Social Justice.”

Lots of farm team pundits spend their columns kissing Glenn Beck’s ass, but here Dr. Mike demonstrates an advanced technique known as “the Lamprey.”

Tenure. Tenure is a really ugly word. After professors get it they aren’t as nice and spend most of their time sitting around and thinking of things to do, which are not related to the reason they were hired in the first place.

They might devote most of their time to dashing off smug, repetitive diatribes for a right wing website instead of writing papers in their own discipline. Then they might even submit these non-peer reviewed opinion pieces when they apply for promotion to full professor, presumably first setting the bag on fire and ringing the doorbell before fleeing. And then they might shockingly find themselves turned down for advancement, so they have no option but to sue their own university for violating their First Amendment rights in some way nobody’s figured out yet. And when that’s finally thrown out of court, these professors are left with nothing but their “tenure,” and their dream that one day the world will share their etymological interest in sodomy.

Don’t stop believin’, Dr. Mike.

I’ve been skimming the Bedlams of the right blogopshere, hoping the passage of health care reform had triggered a few Scanners-like cranial Spin-Art projects. But the ranting had reached such an ear-piercing pitch just prior to the vote that even pundits like Sher (Shermp) Zieve seem incapable of pumping up the volume any further; they go to 11, and that, sadly, is that.

Professor Dr. Mike Adams, Ph.D., on the other hand, has taken a more surgical approach to the issue, assuming one can successfully perform surgery using ice tongs, a Garden Weasel, and a barbecue fork. Rather than frothing about the apocalypse of expanded medical insurance, he has exposed liberal hypocrisy by digging up a six year old quote from Nancy Pelosi expressing support for a woman’s right to choose, and contrasted it, to devastating effect, with Pelosi’s current support for a woman’s right to choose.

Roe v. Pelosi

On January 22, 2004, Nancy Pelosi issued a statement regarding the fundamental right to make important health care decisions. Pelosi’s dishonest statement is reproduced (no pun intended)

(no pun achieved)

…below. The statement is occasionally aborted (pun intended)

(it’s good to have goals)

so that my honest rebuttals

(any resemblance to actual irony is purely coincidental)

…can be interjected:

(I think we’re into double entendres now.)

“Today we observe the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed the fundamental right of women to make their own reproductive health care decisions.”

This statement alone is very good news…It would have been twice as good if Pelosi had spoken of “the fundamental right of men and women to make their own reproductive health care decisions.”

As a man focused on his career, Dr. Mike doesn’t want to be forced by a disapproving society to carry his sperm to term. In fact, despite his habit of advising American fathers on the proper way to raise their sons, Dr. Mike has successfully remained both childless and divorced. And chaste, one assumes, from his steadfast Christian principles. However, it appears he now has an incentive to focus less on his professional ambitions, and more on his domestic life, for as Thers tells us, “Dr. Mike has become briefly interesting, insofar as a lawsuit he instigated has ended in comical ignominy…Apparently Adams sued UNC-Wilmington after being turned down for promotion to full professor, alleging that he was discriminated against because he became a Christian. The suit is dead.”

Commenter Dr. DRE was kind enough to send us a link to a story on the lawsuit in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Narnia.

Nonetheless, it gets us halfway there. All women reading this column should instantly call Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-4965. Tell Nancy Pelosi to keep her laws off your body. And tell her Mike Adams sent you.

Warning: Dr. Mike’s Patented Comic Paradox® may cause drowsiness. Alcohol may increase this effect, so you might have to tell Dr. Mike to keep his paws off your body and just go sober up in his hotel room, or at least take his issues out on the Spectravision.

“Even as we recognize this vital date for women, however, President Bush and anti-choice Republican lawmakers in Congress are threatening the right to reproductive freedom. Since President Bush took office, we have seen an unprecedented effort to overturn a woman’s right to choose, including passage of the first federal ban on safe and medically-accepted medical procedures.”

Of course, one of the “safe and medically-accepted medical procedures” to which Speaker Pelosi refers is known as “partial-birth abortion.”

Among idiots, yes.

To date, it has never been deemed as “safe” or “medically-accepted” by anyone who has actually experienced the procedure.

Every single woman who underwent the procedure to remove a deceased fetus wishes, in retrospect, that she’d opted for invasive, but unnecessary surgery instead. Thanks for the honest rebuttal, Doc.


Each of the men in this photo stood fast upon the moral high ground and refused to experience intact dilation and extraction, choosing instead to let their dead fetuses rot inside them. (Notice the distended abdomens characteristic of peritonitis.)

Nonetheless, most liberals see it as safer than water-boarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation.

So Dr. Mike believes we should torture pregnant women? Seems sort of redundant. Anyway, I’m guessing Mothers Day isn’t a big event at his house.

In the six years since Nancy Pelosi’s statement, there has been a dramatic shift in Democratic support for reproductive freedom. Today, Democrats are supporting massive tax increases and unprecedented government growth that interferes with the ability and willingness of citizens to have children.

Dr. Mike, look — you’re barren. Just face it, and stop blaming your dead sack on the tax code.

If everyone is working to fund a massive government then no one has time to raise kids. Many prospective parents do not want to bring a child into a nation 13 trillion dollars in the hole.

“I’m completely virile! It’s just that my spermatazoa are deficit hawks.”

Again, Nancy has inspired me. I believe Congress should act now to pass the National Freedom of Health Care Choice Act. The entire text of the act, which I just wrote five minutes ago, follows: “This Act declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose a health care plan; terminate a health care plan prior to inviability; or terminate a health care plan after inviability when necessary to protect her life or her health.”

A tip to newer readers: whenever Dr. Mike suggests something stunningly obvious, reasonable, but pointless, or just breathtakingly banal, that’s invariably a sign he believes it’s wicked satire.

If things don’t change in this country women may be forced to seek back alley doctors in order to preserve their fundamental right to make important health care decisions. And we may need to consider late term abortions for some members of Congress.

I sometimes, if only briefly, feel bad about poking fun at the likes of Sher Zieve, or Pastor Swank — people who are obviously in the grip of passions and pathologies beyond their ken or control. But after reading dozens of columns by Dr. Mike over the past six years or so, it seems equally obvious that he’s just an asshole, and deserving of not a whit more empathy than he himself bothers to generate. But I also occasionally think — in a detached, observational sort of way — how deeply sad it is that a presumably heterosexual man loathes women so much. Not that I pity him; I’m just thinking of the constant, venereal discharge of venom that drools from the corner of his mouth, and how his coworkers and theoretical friends might have benefited had Dr. Mike been born gay.

Sure, the chances are that he still would have grown from boy to assholehood, but I’ve never known a gay man who was as remotely misogynistic as Dr. Mike. Nor, for that matter, have I ever met a gay man who was as severely squicked out about lady parts, if only because, unlike Dr. Mike, they don’t seem to obsess on the subject. And while he would almost certainly have produced the same kilowattage of hate, he would probably have spent more of that energy hating himself, and less as a panty-sniffing beaver-botherer.

A fellow can dream, can’t he?