Batman:Vengence of Bain

I didn't feel like typing this all out, so I just recorded it.

Gold Star Awards, February, 2012

Late again. So I'm going to do March's and February's back-to-back to get caught up.  These will also be fairly brief, only because I'm short on time.  I'll also get to the comments as soon as I can, I know I'm behind on those as well. Work's been crazy lately. I don't even have time for Video Games! LOL

It's 1972: Three BWAA Inductees, one for the Veteran's Committee.



The Yogi Berra God Star #44: Feministing

Much like Phil Rizuto is only in the Hall of Fame because his crosstown ‘rival’ Pee Wee Reese was put in, I can hardly honor Jezebel without giving a shout-out to their spiritual sisters over at Feministing. And if I need any more burnishing of my feminist cred…


The Sandy Koufax God Star #45: Boycott Rush

Some truly fine and noble work being done here. Of course, I guess this makes that “slut,” Sandra Fluke happy. I mean, WTF, people? He offered to buy them all the aspirin’s they needed to hold between their knees! What more do you people WANT?!

(See, Rush? THAT’S what satire looks like! Asshole.)


The Early Wynn Gold Star #46: Disinformation

I have to admit that it’s been awhile since I’ve been a regular here. I’ve been meaning to endorse them for rather a long time now, and one site after another kept making me put this one off. But I do enjoy their insightful writing about a wide variety of topics.


The Lefty Gomez Silver Star #44: XKCD

Funny as hell. Similar to SMBC and The Bad Chemicals, only black and white, more poorly drawn and yet possibly even more sublime. Check them out!

On Hypocrisy...

A while back, in one of his comments, William accused me of two things.
He said I didn't honestly answer his [goofy, IMHO] question about aborting homosexuals, and that he really wanted to know how I felt.  Well... that's odd, seeing as how I've written extensively on both topics over the past three years, and have permanent tabs at the top of the page on both Abortion and LGBT Issues, giving a quick rundown of my feelings on both of these matters, if anyone is interested.  So I don't know if this accusation comes from either laziness or illiteracy, but there is little more I can say about Abortion or Gay Rights at this point that I haven't said a dozen times already.  So... RTFB, if you honestly can't understand the answer I gave you.

He also accused me of HYPOCRISY.  See... I guess I say a lot of BAD THINGS about people that I think are bad people.  No.. .I take that back. State it more honestly, I should say that I take GREAT PRIDE in the things I say about VILE, BIGOTED, GREEDY, DISHONEST People.  And by some wild universal coincidence, it seems that 90-some percent of these people are Conservative, or Right-Wing, Public Figures.

OMFG! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!

Now I get the hypocrisy accusation a lot.  I do. And I invite it.I really do. Because in truth, I'm fairly outspoken about the fact that there is scarcely a vice I can't tolerate, save for hypocrisy.  I loathe hypocrisy above all else. I could even forgive a murder, and yet happily kill the accused myself, should he walk out off death row on a technicality and then go on to become an agressive death penalty proponent and fourth ammendment opponent.  And so: Should anyone ever manage to catch me in a bit of hypocrisy... WELL, HEY... They've WON, haven't they?  And typically lacking any actual evidence to support their arguments, that remains the ONE WAY, the one SUREFIRE way, that a Conservative could actually BEAT ME in an argument.

So I'm not shy about the fact that I get that. A LOT. The problem is?

Conservatives don't understand the first fucking thing about hypocrisy.  They couldn't properly  identify hypocrisy if it turned itself into a snake and bit them in the ass.  Which is probably why their more prominent spokespeople are all such raving, intellectually dishonest HYPOCRITES.

But what about me?

Well...  IF I UNDERSTAND his accusation correctly - and I'm sure he'll need no encouragement to clarify things if I'm missing something - it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people.

And, yeah, I suppose that can look like hypocrisy... if you're an idiot.

Because to follow that logic? You can never judge ANYONE!  Suddenly, magically, ANYTHING GOES! Someone could go around calling every Black person he saw a Nigger right to their face, and no one could say that this guy was being an ignorant racist, jackass, because THAT... would be hypocritical.

But... of course that's completely idiotic.

The fact is? That there is no hypocrisy in calling a vile person, a vile person. When they say vile things about otehr people, you do not become a vile person in pointing out that they are a vile person! DUH! One does not need to be tolerant of intolerance in order to avoid hypocrisy.  Now... I'll give you a BE-YOU-TIFUL example of what I'm talking about...

Starting yesterday, and continue on to today, Rush Limbaugh actually had the audacity to refer to a Law Student, who was advocating up for women's health care a "SLUT" and a "PROSTITUTE."  His misogynistic vitriol continued today.

Limbaugh: "I Will Buy All Of The Women At Georgetown University As Much Aspirin To Put Between Their Knees As They Want"

Limbaugh Lectures Georgetown Student: "Ms. Fluke, Have You Ever Heard Of Not Having Sex?"
Limbaugh Demands Women With Contraceptive Coverage Post Sex Videos Online "So We Can All Watch"
Limbaugh To Sandra Fluke: "Who Bought Your Condoms In The Sixth Grade?"  (holy fucking crap!)
Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol
Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk" (OMFG!)

Limbaugh: Five Dollars For A Month Of Birth Control? "That Makes PMS Almost Worth It" (Really, Rush? Really?)

So... here's my answer: Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic SCUMBAG.

Now... let recap: Limbaugh said some mean things about Sandra Fluke.  And I said some mean things about Rush Limbaugh for doing that.  Shame on me?  Shame on my hypocrisy?

Did you have a fucking brain tumor for breakfast?!

READ THOSE.  LISTEN TO THOSE. EVERY ONE.  And you know what? If you do that and DON'T come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag? Then, sir or madame, YOU are a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag!

I and I will only be revealed as a hypocrite the day I post such vile, misogynistic trash on this blog. (Or chastise people over either foul language or typos.) Well, sir, you will be waiting alongside Adlai Stevenson until hell freezes over, because I am not a misogynist, and I am no hypocrite.

All I can say is that I hope Rush's fourth wife was listening. This is who you married sweetheart. I hope it will be worth it to you. (That's NOT mysoginy, BTW. I don't think she's a bad person. I'm merely pointing out her abysmal taste in men.)

WHORES?! REALLY?!

Today I posted something on MMFA that got a response many times greater than anything else I've ever posted there. And I'd like to summarize it here, and invite you to comment either here or there.   This was in repsonse to Rush Limbaugh, that great defender of women, *barf*, making the statement that "the NAG'S [his nickname for NOW] are a bunch of WHORES, to liberalism."  Here's the clip:



Now... I am absolutely a defender of equality.  Without question.  I stand against all forms of discrimination whether it be on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexuality, gender or gender expression.  All HUMAN BEINGS deserve equal treatment and respect.  That being said, NOW's position in this instance? Sure it's debatable.  Shoot, ALL "women's issues" are DEBATABLE: Abortion, Equal Pay, Serving in Combat, Maternity Leave, Societal Gender Roles... all of these things can be debated.  And I might disagree with everything [an asshole like Limbaugh] has to say on the topic,  but I won't deny his right to argue his position. In fact, it is critically important to our national, social and political discourse that we ALL do so! But calling them WHORES?  That's completely and utterly unacceptable.  And that should have NO PLACE in our  national, social and political discourse.

And what really pisses me off? (Unless society closed the gender gap when I wasn't looking?) You watch: This won't even be a news story.  He won't be held accountable by the market for this. You watch: No one will say "boo" about it!

Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez got fired for making relatively innocuous remarks about Jews.

Don Imus and Laura Schlesinger were fired over very offensive remarks they made about Blacks.

And Mike Savage was fired for making offensive remarks about Gays.

And that's fine!  Thats' exactly as it should be! 

(OK, Thomas and Sanchez both got screwed, actually, but you know what I'm saying.)

But why are we so ready to get up in arms with our collective outrage when it's about Jews,  Blacks,  Gays, etc... (and as I said: that's GOOD) but not when it's about WOMEN?  I know there's a double standard in our society.  I'm well aware of that.  But come on: A guy with the public stature of Rush Limbaugh calling an organization that satnds up for strong, successfull women, in general, WHORES?  Why is that different from calling GLAAD a "bunch of faggots" or the NAACP a "bunch of niggers?"  Seriously!

Why are we so unwilling to feel the same outrage over hateful, abusive language when it's aimed at women?

Hey, maybe we are.  I could be wrong.  I'd certainly be happy to be wrong, in this case.  (Of course, I'm almost never wrong when I'd be happy to be so!)

And this isn't just about NOW. NOW is his target because they're Liberal, but he's talking about FEMINISTS in general.  And even women who DON'T fall in with the Liberal Feminists? Say... Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell or Meg Whitman?  Were it not for the feminists who came before, were it not for the woman's movement in general, were it not for NOW and the hundreds and thousands of sisters before them who stood up to society, THOSE WOMEN WOULD BE HOME MAKING SANDWICHES RIGHT NOW!

It is becasue of NOW, and those that came before,  that ALL women have the opportunity to make of their lives what they choose!  And it's because of assholes like Limbaugh, and the society that tolerates (shit: REWARDS) them that they STILL have to work twice as hard as a man to do so!

And that's REALLY what's going on here.  Who's a WHORE? Anyone who's not some smiling, empty-headed, barbie-doll offering to get their husband something to eat or another beer.  NOW is a symbol of everything that's changed for women.  Of all the social progress that's been made.  Maybe not all women agree with everything they stand for.  That's fine.  But that doesn't give any MAN the right to call them WHORES, without someone calling him out for it!

So... that's what I'm doing I guess.  I'm standing up and calling him out.

I'm calling for Rush to recieve the same treatement, over his remarks about WOMEN that so many others have over their remarks about Gays, Blacks, Jews or any other group.  There should not be a place in our societal discourse for someone to call women "whores" over a political disagreement.

And I'm really getting sick and tired about all these Conservatives trying to make these sorts of things out to be some kind of first ammendment issue!  This is NOT a first ammendment issue! No one is suggesting that the GOVERNMENT pull him from the air.  I'm simply using MY firts ammendemnt rigths - and might moral judgement - to expres my DISGUST at it! 

To that? A bunch off perople told me to "just ignore him" or "just don't listen."

Um... UH-DUUUUUH! I don't! [listen to him]

But telling me that? In this context? Is really just telling me to "shut up." 

Well that's their right, but also it's mine to respond in kind: FUCK YOU.

Or, because NO ONE can fuck with me when it comes to twisting logic, fine, "Don't Listen." "Ignore him." 
Only while they're saying it to ME...  Me, I'm saying tio the whole damned country.  Let's NOT LISTEN. What's more... Let's STOP PAYING HIS SALARY! Let's BOYCOTT HIS SPONSORS!  If Corporations should be allowed to "speak" by spedning money, surely we are allowed to speak by choosing NOT TO, right?  Isn't that OUR 1st ammendment right?
Even calling for his ouster is not a 1st Ammendment issue.  No employer is required to retain an employe who is disceminating a message that they don't agree with, find offensive or that brings ahrm to the comapny.  You can say whatever you want, by not on the comapny's dime.  Free speech never promised anoyone a JOB or a SALARY for it!  Words have CONSEQUENCES.  A the free-market is a BITCH, baby! So do you know what Clear Chanel is saying by NOT taking action? That they endorse his message.  That they think it's OK to call women WHORES if they dare to have an opinon that's different from thiers.  With that thought in midn, it's about time this society sent CLEAR CHANNEL and every other peddler of misogyny a message.  It's about time that we boycott ANY company who sponors ANY SHOW on ANY Clear Channel network or affiliate.

What pisses me of the most?  Is that we won't.  The double standard will continue.

And I seriously CAN'T WAIT to be proven wrong.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot! (Or some such thing...)

It's been a rough year so far for Rush. And today he lost another battle in war against people being able to access adequate health care. Well... since every liberal blog should have at least ONE really good Limbaugh-thrashing piece in it, I think he provided me with enough material over the past couple weeks to do one some justice.

Yesterday we got this little chunk of gold from the great gastropod, regarding "liberals":

If we have people who want to take over the government of this country via elections for the purpose of remaking it and eliminating all of the institutions and traditions that made us great, then that's evil to me.

The utter absurdity of this quote will be self-apparent to all of the thinking students in class, but for all the C-students out there (that would be “c” for conservative) let’s break it down...

people who want to take over the government of this country via elections

Well. That IS one way to do it! The other would be to baselessly smear your opponent, via the media, all the while whining about how the media is actually against you, split the vote so finely that you need all seven republican appointees on the supreme court to STOP a recount, as was required by state law, because a proper vote count looks like it might cost you the election. This from the same man that won the narrowest reelection bid in history four years later and called it a “mandate,” remember. So yeah ELECTIONS. What a radical idea. Count ALL the votes to decide who wins. How un-American.

for the purpose of remaking it and eliminating all of the institutions and traditions that made us great

You mean like the separation of church and state and/or an impartial judiciary? Because it certainly seemed to me that REPUBLICANS were trying to “take over the government of this country via elections (albeit rigged) for the purpose of remaking eliminating” THOSE particular institutions which, absolutely, “made us great.” And you’re right: That IS evil.

But, no. Of course he’s not talking about THAT. He talking about President Obama. They guy who won that whole, pesky, election thingy by the widest margin in two decades. (52.9% of the vote! To put that in perspective, Reagan got only 50.7% against Carter in 1980!) Apparently ACORN was able to fraudulently register 7.6 Million new voters. (The widest of victory since Ronald Reagen in 1984, BTW!)

Of course, this kind of high-minded sounding, but heavy handed in actuality, brand of hyperbole is par for the course with all of these guys, but Limbaugh was the first to make it into an art form, and he remains the very best at it. Say you opponent is "destroying institutions that make us great" is an effort to make him look baaaad. Because he knows that none of the mindless sheep lapping up this verbal incontinence will ever ask WHICH “institutions and traditions” are being destroyed, or for any actual evidence of these things even being destroyed, or for evidence that the institution he's referring to (should he name them) were ever part of making us great in the first place. Theirs is not the place to question the great gasbag.

I supposed the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments to the constitution were not among those institutions. Nor the FIRST, at least in any principled way. (Again, remember: He's not talking about Bush now!)

Now for years he's railed against the science that demonstrates how mankind's behavior contributes to Global Warming and Climate Change. Of course, he'd rather give a platform to the industry schills who peddle junk science trying to deny this, using the same tactics, heck the very same language that they did a generation ago for the tobacco industry, long after it was PROVEN that cigarette smoking causes cancer. In his melodramatic rants against "big government" anything that might lead to increased regulations must be WRONG. (You know... FACTS and all not withstanding.) And WHY does he not want 'big government'? Some high-minded libertarian principles? Nah. I wish it were that noble, misguided as it would still be. No. It's really very simple. BIG CORPORATIONS like Republicans, because they're the party that will let BIG CORPORATIONS do whatever they want. (Screw over their workforce, screw over their customers, pollute the environment, sell dangerous products, give people cancer, steal their retirements savings, swindle them out of house and home, deny them health care... YOU NAME IT, THEY DONE IT!) Well... since no rational person, aside for the top 1% of the country that rake in some obscene amount of the wealth by exploiting this system, would ever vote for the modern Republicans (industry whores,) these top 1%'ers knew the needed an every-man to sell their bullshit for them and generate the necessary votes. And they were willing to pay dearly for it. Enter Mister Limbaugh.

For anyone who doubts the extent of the duplicity of this sagging pair of man-boobs (or the extent to which he is factually challenged, for those who don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity) and think I'm exaggerating when I say that he'd still be denying even the reality (let alone the cause) of climate change the day the clouds finally burst into flame, I offer the following, all form the past two weeks:

We are not having food poisoning in this country; it's not happening. These are bunch of busybody people that will not mind their own business, they want to make their business yours, and they are -- these are the kind of people that just irritate the hell out of me.

Riiiiight. We don't need all that big government keeping the food supply safe! You know... never mind the 200,000 people a year that actually get sick, the 900 that are hospitalized and the 14 that die every year in this country, on average, from food-bourne illness according to the CDC. I mean, who trusts all that liberal DATA from those bog government agencies anyway? You see, in Rush's warped mind, if the regulations were relaxed the companies would have more money left over to keep our food safe with! See how that works?

Now, I'm going to go back a few months for this next one:

There really isn't a crisis in health care in this country. The crisis in health care that -- if you wanna say, that does exist -- is the fear that a major illness or catastrophe could wipe you out, which isn't gonna change. In fact, the odds of you being wiped out by a catastrophe or accident once the government gets started running this stuff is greater than if the private sector -- but day-to-day, there's no health care crisis in this country. You can get it.

Again, the 45,000 people who die every year from preventable illness due to lack of access to health care might disagree with you. Well... their next of kin will anyway. (Dick.) That's up from just 18,000 only a few years ago, so it's mounting. That's out of 40,000,000 uninsured and otherwise uncovered of course, and in addition to the 65,000 that don't DIE, but instead go bankrupt from their medical bills. Oh yeah... 75% of whom HAD this great "private sector" health care that this corporate street walker is harping on about. But hey: He's paid millions of dollars a year to spread this coprophage, so I have to admit: He's not lying. From HIS point of view, everything's fine. (Cocksucker.)

"You'll be healthier [if you don't listen to the government...] I'm not seeing these mass deaths from the swine flu. ... All I see is a bunch of typical government panic and hype."

Only 982 deaths so far, so not too bad. Of course there been over 55,000 confirmed cases so far, resulting in 7,600 hospitalizations. But don't worry: There's plenty of health insurance to go around, so whatever you do, DON'T get vaccinated. (You know... because the government says you should.) Personally, I think you'll be healthier if you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

And now you got Kathleen Sebelius saying you must take the pig flu vaccine. You must take it. Screw you, Ms. Sebelius! I am not going to take it, precisely because you're now telling me I must. It's not your role, it's not your responsibility, and you do not have that power. I don't want to take your vaccine.

I'm not sure how he concludes that it's not the role of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make recommendations about vaccinations, but you know what? I'm glad he's not getting vaccinated. I hope every one of the men and women who listen to this assbag also forego vaccination. And I hope that a good number of them DIE, and the ones that remain learn their lesson and stop listening to these no-talent ass clowns.

Between their public health policies and their foreign polices I can't believe there's anyone left in this apparently daft country who hasn't concluded that these assholes are going to get us all killed... JUST TO MAKE A BUCK!

Now THAT'S what I call evil!