Monday, March 06, 2006

The Whole is More Evil Than the Sum of Its Parts

Ok. So I know no man is an island and all (tm Donne), and generally people come together to accomplish things. It's teamwork, it's networking, it's alliances. It's reaching out and touching someone, people who need people being the luckiest people and blah blah blah humanity cakes. But sometimes... Sometimes the alliances are not so helpful. Sometimes, maybe, they are downright scary. Sometimes you may be sitting in class and notice that on a few frightening occaisions, things are happening in the high court that just don't... make sense. And then you might be walking down the street and see an ad for something that just scares the HELL out of you, because again- this type of alliance is downright creepy.

And if you are me, you will force your roommates and others into elaborate conversations about this and force them to help you answer the question:

Which is the most evil unholy alliance: Justice Stevens and Justice Scalia, or Dr. Phil and

This is a highly difficult question, because they both have the potential to wreak havoc on society as we know it. On first thought, Dr. Phil and are clearly better known and will have a more direct effect on the viewing society. However, on second thought, the power of the Supreme Court (whether or not you believe in activist judges) is pretty grave- especially now that they are electing presidents (rimshot). Kate and I have been pondering this question for quite some time, and we think we have come up with the answer.

Analysis: Scalia and Stevens

On its face, having both the Conservative and Liberal powerhouses on the same side of a Supreme Court battle seems unstoppable. After all, most decisions are decided along party lines, and now that we have lost the On The Line vote of O’Connor and replaced it with the I Am Not So A Rabid Conservative (Except, I Totally Am) Alito, actually bringing both sides together would appear to be quite a coup.

However, potential just doesn’t cut it. You have to look at when these unholy alliances actually happen. I can think of two, and both were dissents, and frankly, both were completely batshit crazy. Because you know how the political spectrum is kind of a circle, and Scalia and Stevens are at like 180 degrees apart? Well, the only time the two of them actually agree on anything tends to be when something happens that so throws them off that they run screaming blindly into the night in their respective party directions so far and so fast that they actually smack into each other on the other side of the ideological circle. And then they write completely inane and irrelevant dissents, like in Hamdi, when they completely ignored the War Powers Act, or in Smith, where they both fervently argued that selling a gun for drugs did not constitute “using” it. Yeah.

So basically, while it is always nice to see insane ideological rhetoric meet in the middle, I feel an overall analysis of Scalia and Stevens is amusing, but irrelevant.

Analysis: Dr. Phil and

Ok guys, I have to admit, I kind of like Dr. Phil. Of course, E and I also search for the world’s worst reality TV, so maybe this does not so much come as a shock to any of you. There’s just something really refreshing about the way he can deliver a smackdown on some poor, pathetic soul that makes me want to yell “Oh, snap!” and buy him a tequila shooter. However, the one area where he generally never amuses me is on his advice to single women. Namely, don’t be one. I mean, he is quick to say a woman doesn’t need a man, but… it’s disingenuous, somehow. And it isn’t just disingenuous in the normal, ‘Hell yeah a woman needs a man’ kind of way, but in a more insidious way. Because the message is kind of… “By all means, if you are completely fucked up in your own life, the LAST thing you should do is involve a man, because you already ruin our lives with all your whining and crying and passive aggressiveness and periods and hormones and other things that terrify Manly Men, and that’s when you’re healthy. So please. Fix yourself before you bring a good man down with you.” And that shit ain’t right, folks.

I am also terrified of That site is NOT kidding around, people. My co-worker dated around for years, then one day she was like, “That’s it. I want to be married”, and she joined and was engaged 9 months later. is for people who are very, very serious and committed to being very, very seriously committed.

So… these two together? Having Dr. Phil break down the individuality and confidence of a bunch of people who then all find each other? And then procreate? This is not just an unholy alliance, people- this is the Anti-Darwin. It’s like a friend of mine and I were discussing about two people the other day: Alone, they are stupid. Together? They’re a Darwin Award.

I mean, really people. All of these people who actually believe in what Dr. Phil says, instead of watching it subversively to snark on it, are going to meet each other and get married. Whole neighborhoods will start springing up of Stepford-like households with just a hint of kicky attitude. The holier-than-thou condescention of man down to women that he exudes will spread. More women will start to believe that their role in life is to silently cheer on their man, stand behind him as a backdrop to his career, and provide lip service to his life. What's worse, they may start to believe that a few offhanded comments about how the women secretly "rule the roost" is the same as actually having power in a relationship. And they will raise children while enforcing traditional sexual and gender stereotypes.

And there aren’t enough Brokeback Mountains in the world to stop that shit.

In Conclusion:

The most evil unholy alliance is: Dr. Phil and