Tricia Bishop – passively aggressively doubling down on the stupid


bal-tricia-bishopA few weeks ago, a Baltimore Sun editor named Tricia Bishop penned an inflammatory column in which she equated gun owners with sex offenders and demanded a registry of those who chose to exercise their Second Amendment rights, so she could decide whether or not to allow her crotchfruit to grace those homes with her presence.

The backlash was quick and intense, as numerous gun rights supporters and even those in favor of gun control (just check the comments in the original and the Twitter feed response) widely panned the idea as stupid, offensive, and unconstitutional.

Well, Tricia apparently hasn’t learned the first law of holes, because she’s doubled down on the stupid in yet another column – this one a passive aggressive composition about the mean gun owners who insulted and berated her for wanting to treat them like sex offenders, as well as impugned her intelligence and parenting skills.

Her bottom line, however, is that the gun bullies, as mean and intimidating as they are, should be countered by an equally powerful anti-gun force, because see… polls are on her side. And in this battle of good versus evil, gun grabbers are sure to win, because POLLS or something.

So time for some whining fascist to English translation. Just a reminder that her text will be in italic blockquote, but will not show up on mobile devices for some reason. However, I’m sure you’ll be able to figure out which is text is her stupid, and which is my reply.

Here’s what happens when the NRA tweets your gun-control column, which is then picked up by several conservative media outlets: It makes your piece one of The Sun’s best read opinions of the new year, and it unleashes the hounds.

Translation: I love the attention. Even the evil NRA and conservative media outlets link to me! Look how important I am! They consider me significant enough to unleash their attack dogs on me! Look at me! I have the best read column of the new year (which was something like six days old at the time).

“Batten down the hatches,” was the advice my editor gave after signing off on the admittedly provocative essay, which explored the idea of a searchable, public database of registered gun owners. He wasn’t kidding.

They came at me via email, Twitter, Facebook, telephone and the U.S. Postal Service, attacking my looks, intelligence and parenting skills. They suggested multiple ways my child could be killed other than by guns and liberally used the f-word, b-word and c-word (at least once misspelled with a k) for emphasis. “Special kind of stupid” was a favorite put down (though I kind of liked “trollop” — you just don’t hear that much anymore), as was questioning whether I was on my period (Hey Trump fans!).

Some were local, but many weren’t. And a handful were thoughtful, respectful and earnest, with fair points to make. I tried to respond to those folks, though I may have missed some; I stopped reading the messages after a while. You can only take so much cyberbullying before it gets old.

Translation: Gun owners attacked me. They were mean to me. They bullied me until I hid under my bed away from my Inbox. They called me names. Why? Because I wanted to treat them like the worst life form on this planet (sub-human detritus that even convicted felons despise) for the awful crime of taking responsibility for their safety and the safety of their loved ones and daring to exercise their Second Amendment rights! They called me bad words for that!

In short, the response was largely ruthless, relentless and meant to intimidate. It was also impressive. Seriously. Tens of thousands of people read the column online (and at least another 23,000 read the web summary), and hundreds took time out of their days to give me a piece of their minds. If these same gun owners lobby their legislators with half the passion they directed my way, it’s not hard to see why they have been so successful in fighting gun control efforts.

Translation: They’re mean! They’re bullies. (But look at how awesome I am that they took the time to abuse me – I must be significant!) But I have a case of passion penis envy, because they’re intensely dedicated to their rights, and people like me can only use the First Amendment to attack the Second by proposing cretinous ideas rejected by the vast majority of Americans with an IQ above room temperature and then hide when the backlash inevitably hits.

And there’s the takeaway: Those of us who claim to support gun reform efforts — the majority of the country, according to recent polls — have to be as loud or louder to be heard (though perhaps more civil). It’s not enough to shed tears over the latest mass shooting or bemoan gun buying loopholes with like-minded friends. We’ve got to act. The gun owners, roughly a third of the population, sure do. Many are single issue voters who turn out for every election, proudly contribute to the NRA and wholly believe in their cause. Can we say the same?

Translation: We need to lie more and louder. We know we’re in the minority. We know recent polls show us losing, but we need to be louder anyway, because if you screech a lie loudly enough, “GUN SHOW LOOPHOLES! POLLS!” politicians will not notice that the gun show “loophole” claim has been debunked numerous times, and polls show a decline in gun control support. Just lie more. Lie louder.

In an op-ed earlier this month in the New York Times, discussing his new executive actions on gun control laws, which are supported by 67 percent of Americans, President Barack Obama pledged to also take every action he could as a citizen. “I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform,” he wrote. “And if the 90 percent of Americans who do support common-sense gun reforms join me, we will elect the leadership we deserve.”

I can get on board with that, though I don’t think we should wait around for the next election. We need to speak up immediately to let our politicians know how they can best represent us — or find a new career. There are many gun control advocates who already do this, but nowhere near enough given the numbers of people who say they support reforms.

Translation: If the President can lie and obfuscate, so can we! There’s just not enough of us who lie loudly enough. So we need to start. The quicker, the better. Just watch how I do it below!

The time for action from that silent group is now. As Alec MacGillis, a former Sun reporter now with ProPublica, noted in a recent opinion piece, the gun lobby’s power is waning: Gun ownership is concentrated in a smaller portion of the population, universal background legislation nearly passed in 2013, and more politicians are willing to take on the National Rifle Association.

Translation: Only in my twisted world can I claim that the gun lobby’s power is waning by using an opinion piece that cites a CNN story from 2012. Only in my twisted world can I claim gun ownership is on the decline, despite NICS background check data showing a clear increase, and despite other, more current polls, contradicting that claim. I also don’t care that I’m relying on data based on what people will admit, which leaves a rather vast and unknown delta between those who acknowledge gun ownership and how many actually do. And only in my own delusions can I claim a 54-46 Senate vote rejecting the background check bill in 2013 “nearly passed.”

New polling and study data are also making it clear that Americans not only want tighter controls on gun ownership but also more controllable guns. A study published yesterday in the American Journal of Public Health found that roughly 60 percent of Americans overall (including 40 percent of gun owners and 56 percent of political conservatives) would be willing to buy a “smart gun” with safety technology that limits who can fire it. That suggests there’s a market for such firearms — which could reduce gun suicides and accidental shootings, and render a weapon useless if stolen — despite claims to the contrary by gun manufacturer trade associations.

Translation: I will use only specifically-worded surveys to bolster my disingenuous claims. Scientific studies and public statements about lack of reliability and the risks of hacking from law enforcement officers don’t matter, because they don’t support my agenda. I also don’t understand what a “market” actually is. Oh, you mean a free market? Yeah… I have no idea.

While a public database of gun owners may push too far, easy access to guns is nevertheless a problem in this country. So is our acceptance of it.

Translation: I got my ass handed to me by both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. My leadership at the Baltimore Sun likely told me I should soften my approach.

Let me add this. The majority of Americans oppose drunk driving. Vehemently so.

bishopSo if this is the same Tricia Bishop who is now demanding that gun owners be treated like criminals for the safety of the children, I would submit that maybe this hypocritical imbecile be registered as a danger to society after her drunken driving incident.

(h/t to Misha for finding this particular piece of interesting information.)

Perhaps Tricia needs to stop digging and find another cause celebre. She just isn’t all that good at it.


They’ll give a doctorate to anyone nowadays, or adventures in Twitter land


I don’t use Twitter very often. This blog auto-populates to my account, and every once in a while, when the mood strikes me, I’ll engage with the particularly egregious who have the potential to amuse, or who just say something so obtuse, that it cannot go unchallenged. This was my intent when I questioned a particular Twitter user about her contention that the Telnaes cartoon portraying Ted Cruz’s little daughters as organ grinder’s monkeys was funny.

What ensued was a conversation that was so absurd, that at times I couldn’t believe it was real! It started with her claiming that the Univision incident was “criminal.” The response continued with an absurd fashion criticism comparison, and concluded with the claim that the First Lady can’t abuse her power to ensure an “art critic gets cut.” Of course, when a television talk host makes such an ostensibly racist comparison about the First Lady, Mrs. Obama doesn’t have to do anything. Her position alone ensures sufficient outrage that forced the station to fire him and prompted him to write a letter of apology, lest his career swirl the drain. But that Anna Faktorovich doesn’t acknowledge those facts, and the subsequent conversation went something like this (paraphrased, with my commentary in red):

Me (in response to her “fashion criticism” comment): Crack pipe. Put it down.

Anna: I don’t drink alcohol and have never used any illegal substances. You’re the one laughing at people getting fired…

Me (completely flummoxed at that contention): Dafuq? You’re obviously stoned. Where did I laugh at anyone? Идиотка (translation from Russian: idiot)

Anna: WAAAAAAH! You insulted my Russian heritage!

I had looked up this person and discovered that she was born in Moscow and is the owner of some obscure publishing house. I figured speaking to her in Russian was a nice touch. I also repeated my question, because I still couldn’t figure out where in the world she got the idea that I laughed at anyone getting fired, but apparently, Anna doesn’t like to answer questions when she’s caught lying. Instead she decided the best way to prove she wasn’t an idiot wasn’t by defending her position, but rather waving her sheepskin for all to see.

It’s quite obvious they’ll give anyone a Doctorate these days, because this one is… well… not the brightest candle on the menorah.

The next thing Anna tried to do is explain away her “fashion criticism” comparison. I will reconstruct this word spew for you from her Twitter monologue. You’ll love it.

First, you claim that you don’t understand fashion criticism; if so, you should not be attempting to criticize cartoonists or other fashion critics. (I, of course, claimed no such thing. I actually don’t give a rat’s ass about fashion criticism. I merely thought it was inappropriate to the conversation.) 

If you had read even short snippets from red-carpet “best” and “worst” lists, you would notice that, as in the example I provided before, somewhat racial descriptions and insults regarding weight, hair color, and all other imperfections are essential to this linguistic genre. (Thank goodness I actually have real literature to read, instead of wasting my time on “Red Carpet” snark.)

Let’s look at this example from:  A. “pregnant… butterfly-print design still looks more night gown than red carpet gown” (joke about weight of pregnant woman and just mean) B. Mamet: “poorly fitted… on the red carpet!… pink frosted cake…” (classist, joke about weight) C. “slashed in a freak accident?” (joke about potential assault). I could go on, but I really dislike reading these. (And yet, she spent an inordinate amount of time doing so in order to – unsuccessfully – prove her point) 

To sum up, negative “worst-dressed” fashion criticism and political cartoons are supposed to be brutal. It’s at the root of their generic formula; a topic I published a couple of McFarland books about. (Note the immediate reference to her alleged published work in order to bolster faltering credibility.)

Secondly, I stated that could not retaliate because she had power, not because she did not. Humans did not evolve from “apes” but we did evolve in Africa and at some point all humans had black skin before some developed a pigment deformation. The film “Planet of the Apes” is an example of idiotic Hollywood mutations of reality. People cannot devolve into apes in the future because we never evolved from them. If somebody had given this film some brutal criticism in pre-release, maybe they could’ve improved this. (Fiction. I wasn’t sure whether I should inform her that Star Wars wasn’t real either, and that a wookie is not actually a real species. I also wasn’t sure if she understood the concept of humans’ and apes’ common ancestors, but I didn’t want to confuse the poor girl.)

  said that she looked like she was in the “cast” of “Planet of the Apes.” Most of the cast members in that film were white, so why would this be interpreted as a racist joke? (Well, gosh! That’s OK, then!) He wrote a letter of apology stating that his criticism was directed at “the work of the [make up] artist, which left much to be desired…” The “apes” in the “Planet” were in costumes… unless you thought they were real? Obama had so much makeup put on her that Figueroa objected that she looked like she was built up to appear on a show about “apes” of the future. (I wonder if the mental contortions hurt.)

racistIt’s because you fail to read into the details of a story and judge things based on your own inherent racist assumptions that you can find in the first gay man to be featured on Univision. (BUZZZZZ! Typical SJW fallback on racism!) You apparently have not seen Cruz’s ad because his children look whiter than me. So, the monkey symbolism in no way refers to their race but rather to their father’s immoral misuse of their adorable faces for his own political gain. (I also pointed out that politicians use their families in political ads all the time, such as Hillary Clinton’s “abuela” ad with her granddaughter, but Anna refused to acknowledge that fact.)

He threatened that the would lose its funding, which they need because of their dwindling readership if they did not remove the cartoon; that’s why they took it down. (Gee. They employ partisan hacks who attack little children. Wonder why their readership is on the decline!)

If all of that still confuses you, let me know and I’ll write a full article on this topic and will post it on my site.

Yeahno. I’ll pass on the full article, especially if it’s filled with the types of mental contortions present in the above spew. First she claimed that what Univision did was criminal. Then she claimed that racism is not really racism, because political cartoons (much like fashion criticism) are supposed to be mean and awful. Then she ignored the fact that the very office of the First Lady prompts the type of response (whether warranted or not) that will see a medium react to accusations of racism by firing the offender. And THEN, she claimed that Ted Cruz “threatened” the Washington Post, because the already-beleaguered paper relies on his advertising dollars.

This is what is considered a “threat” in the SJW world. If a newspaper runs a cartoon hostile to a candidate’s little children, and the candidate decides to take his ad dollars elsewhere, that’s apparently a threat, because the newspaper NEEDS that money!

Sense of entitlement much?

After I called Anna on her hypocrisy and lack of logical argumentation, her reply was typical. She trolled this site and accused me of lying about my degrees and veteran status, because apparently I don’t have a “single degree” listed on my site! Because that’s what you need on a personal blog – a CV!

At this point, I was convinced she was retarded and got her alleged PhD via some affirmative action program for slow women.

Anna: My credentials prove I’m not “retarded,” if you are is yet to be proven. If you’ve lied about having 2 degrees, you’re also a liar. (Uhhhhh… if you lied about your degrees, then you’re a lying liar who lies… or something.)

Me: Your lack of cognitive ability and comprehension skills do. As for my degrees, you’re welcome to do your research.

Anna: But… but… but… neither you nor Rob give your last names! How am I supposed to do my research, if you won’t spoon feed me information? (Kind of makes you wonder how she got a Doctorate, eh?)

Me: Not my problem, princess. See, princess – SOME of us don’t need to consistently hump our degrees to have thousands of readers. Some of us don’t have a miserable inferiority complex.

Anna: Well, if you check my website (gives URL), you’ll see I have lots of visitors, because I’m educated, and I have credentials. Because CREDENTIALS! Go visit my site! Go! I’ve had 183K visitors so far!

Me: Hmmmm. Yeah… I have 284K this year alone. Try again.

And then, Anna went full turnip.

Why is it that the world’s biggest morons are the ones waving their degrees around?

If this is the type of person Telnaes has defending her honor, or lack thereof, she’s in terrible trouble.

Oh, the hypocrisy!


Yesterday, I wrote about a Washington Post editorial cartoonist frothing, untalented hack who thought it was amusing to draw the little, innocent daughters of Texas’ first Hispanic senator as monkeys. I also explored Twitter a bit to see what kind of reactions the drawing, which was yanked by the Washington Post without an apology or so much as an acknowledgment of the racism shitbaggery contained therein, was getting.

The reactions from the left were predictable.

You mean like this? ObamaFamily-1 Yeah, I can certainly see how using your family in a political ad makes little children fair game. I mean, those evil politicians! If they stick their kids out there as props, they certainly deserve to be portrayed as organ grinder’s monkeys, right?

Would everyone be overreacting if a cartoonist drew that?

What no?

You don’t think so?

Then shut the fuck up, Sparky.

I asked another leftist sow if she thought the “Planet of the Apes” quip Univision talk show host was funny after she opined about how amusing the cartoon was and how Ted Cruz was threatening Telnaes in retaliation (utter lie).


Her response – as expected – was completely incoherent.

First, she claimed it was “criminal of U.” I think she may have been drinking at the time.

Then, she garbled something about fashion criticism, which made me think she was smoking a blunt about the size of one of her elephantine legs.


And then, she passed full retard at top speed and ran right into full turnip with this:


All this in an effort to defend the indefensible – a racist attack on a couple of tiny little kids. And by the way, this creature apparently has a PhD in English.

I don’t have a PhD in English, but if I’m getting this straight, she thought Figueroa’s comment about FLOTUS was criminal. But it was OK, because it was fashion criticism, and therefore expected to be “simplistic,” but still criminal… or something… And it’s not like the First Lady could do anything about it anyway, because she’s “the one with power,” or something…

Go home, Anna. You’re drunk. (And given the fact that you’re Russian, born in Moscow, according to your IMDB profile, is it any wonder? How’s it feel to be stereotyped, you sow?)

And speaking of drunk, the froth-flecked, barely coherent Gawker decided to rear its tiny dick out of the swamp of irrelevancy and wade into the “controversy” with this “astute” observation. (And by “astute,” I mean “window-licking, helmet-wearing, cross-eyed, drooling moronic.”)

Ted Cruz jumping all over an ultimately harmless political cartoon in the hopes of dominating a meaningless one-day news cycle is nothing if not entirely predictable, but—but!—Ted Cruz has spoken about the sanctity of political cartoons before, and wouldn’t you believe that he struck a different chord?

Back in January of this year, politicians across the partisan and global spectrum used the Charlie Hebdo attacks as a way of asserting themselves as anti-terror chest-thumpers and, often, newfound free speech advocates. Among those was Ted Cruz, who, as ex-Medium cartoonist Matt Bors points out, defended political cartoons as a vital part of democratic society.

Survey says: DOUCHE!

Newsflash! you can defend free speech and expression and still criticize a cartoonist for having the bad taste to attack innocent children without hypocrisy involved.

Calling an indecent act indecent is in no way equivalent to censoring it, or threatening the paper, for that matter.

There’s a difference between having the right to do something, which Ted Cruz defended after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and being a dick by depicting someone’s kids as monkeys, which Cruz condemned, but in no way threatened the said dick’s right to draw.

Then there was this genius, who did so many mental acrobatics and contortions to try and defend Telnaes, that it made my eyes cross! Apparently, it’s OK to attack little children if they’re TALKING.


I was blocked by this coward after this exchange. I know… here’s my shocked face.

To be fair, there were quite a few what appear to be leftists, who also condemned the cartoon as disgusting and racist, and I’m glad. Innocent kids should never be the target of bullying adults who are looking for political points!

And speaking of using kids as political props…

Nuff said.

Nuff said.

Ann Telnaes – keepin’ it classy… NOT!


OK, I’m going to post a language warning right here, and right now. If you don’t like invective, stop reading and go away, because this is going to be bad.

A Washington Post editorial cartoonist decided it was a wise idea to draw Ted Cruz’s little girls as monkeys in a cartoon yesterday. Monkeys. Not as “monkey-like characters,” as CNN claims, but actual monkeys.

Can you imagine the outrage if the President or his family members were portrayed in such a manner? As monkeys? People would be fired, right? Oh… they were! And there was an apology letter and everything!

But instead of admitting the cartoon was in poor taste and apologizing for targeting Ted Cruz’s innocent children, the turd burglar in question doubled down on the stupid.

If you want to read more, click below.


Open Letter to Washington Post’s Terrell Jermaine Starr


Dear Dumbass –

I realize it’s not classy or polite to start a letter out in this manner, but having read your idiotic, vomit-inducing essay in the Washington Post, justifying the threats and outright abuse of a student journalist at the University of Missouri, this is the only way I can possibly address you!

You and I should have at least something in common. You apparently write about U.S. and Russian politics, which is awesome, because that’s where my interests primarily lie as well, having been born in that Soviet shithole. But having read your preposterous nonsense in this particular opinion piece, I have to not only wonder if you and I could see eye-to-eye on anything, but whether you have a brain at all, Scarecrow!

You say the protesters tried to create a “safe space” in a public area. Safe for whom, pray tell? It certainly wasn’t “safe” for another student trying to do his job who was threatened by that warm bag of crazy that teaches communications at the school. It certainly wasn’t “safe” for anyone who wasn’t a specific color, was it? So why don’t you just say it? They wanted to create a segregated space for African-American students, where no others were allowed. Congrats on setting the Civil Rights movement back several decades, jackass!

You claim “The black community distrusts the news media because it has failed to cover black pain fairly.” Excuse me, but where in the description of media responsibilities does it say that it’s their job to cover “black pain”? The media’s job is to report news. It covers stories that are interesting and that will grab attention. Media is a business. Maybe you have forgotten that, but the media’s business is the news. It certainly doesn’t exist to be an echo chamber for whatever slight a particular group might be feeling.

You talk about your frustration with New York Mayor de Blasio’s treatment of the press and claim that as a public official he is obligated to provide access to the media. After all, his salary is paid by the taxpayers. You’re absolutely right. But let me ask you this: where the hell do you think the University of Missouri gets its money? Yeah… the taxpayers. Additionally, probably the parents of the very student whom your Precious Snowflakes and that Crazy Eyes Carrot Top lookalike instructor tried to prevent from doing his job! Yes, he had just as much right to be there as any other student, and for that, he was threatened and abused.

You claim these young people weren’t government entities, and were just trying to find a “safe space” from the alleged abuses they encountered at the school and the alleged “insensitivity” of the media to their alleged “plight.” Guess what, Cupcake! I’m going to be insensitive right now. There is no right to escape reality. There’s no entitlement to be provided a “safe space” from bad words, offensive ideas, and mean thoughts! There’s no right to block that with which you disagree, save by walking away from it, both literally and metaphorically. And there’s certainly no right to claim public space – space others pay for – as off limits to anyone based on the color of their skin!

babiesYou know what we used to call challenging ideas, dissenting language, debate, and provoking principles? We used to call that an EDUCATION! That’s right, an education. It’s where your preconceived notions are challenged, where uncomfortable thoughts are examined, and where you manage to learn something in the process. Those who are brave enough to be intellectually challenged face those challenges with facts and logic. Panty-shitting cowards curl up in a ball, suck their thumbs, and demand mommy and daddy university provide a “safe space” and a fucking blanky!

You claim we should strive to understand the motivations of the people about whom we write. I agree to a degree. The motivations are interesting to this particular story, and they do add some context. There have been reports of stupid, racist crap perpetrated by some students on the Mizzou campus. The cotton ball incident resulted in two years’ unsupervised probation and community service for the two douchebags involved. They also publicly apologized for being dumbasses and causing pain to their fellow students. Not enough? What would have been sufficient?

The events that caused that Privileged Snowflake™ Butler to initiate a hunger strike have yet to be substantiated – especially the poopstika incident. And I would think electing a black, gay man as student body president says a lot more about the Missouri student body than isolated incidents over the years – some of which cannot even be substantiated.

protest-mizzouSo what were the motivations?

You claim the motivation for the “safe space” was to secure “a rare space where their blackness could not be violated.” What the hell does that even mean? These students are black. It’s part of their biology – that’s it. No one can violate that! A strong, intellectually honest individual would acknowledge and move on. But no…. these Precious Snowflakes™ are so insecure in who they are, and get so much identity validation from something as basic as skin color, they’re incapable of not only standing up to racist bullies, but also people of any other race who may challenge their insulated world view!

I will submit to you that if you’re incapable of rationally discussing culture, race, gender, or any other subject in a mature manner with someone who respectfully disagrees with you, you have no business being in the real world. And I would submit that if your means of dealing with racism – whether perceived or real – is to forcibly exclude people of other races from publicly-funded spaces, you have become the very thing you so fear!

You claim that in the conversation about “safe space” we’ve overlooked the protesters’ message. I would disagree. Perhaps the protesters could more carefully craft their message so as not to come off as racist, cowardly, thumb-sucking prima donnas, who can’t tolerate the presence of another minority student of a different color, who just happens to be a journalist doing his job!

You blame the media for reporting negatively on black communities, claiming they’re more interested in broken windows in Baltimore and Ferguson than “black pain.” Excuse me, but do you even grok the actual mission of the career field that you have chosen? The story is the destruction of lives and livelihoods. The story is the burning buildings, the looting, and the violence. There’s nothing in the world that will justify the victimization of innocent members of the communities in question, no matter how hard you try! It is the violation of your neighbors’ rights. It’s the destruction of your neighbors’ livelihoods. It’s the decimation of the very communities these neanderthals claim are theirs. That’s the story, not the mealy-mouthed attempts by people like you to justify the carnage by claiming “black pain.”

In what world do you live that blames every other entity in the world for violence and crime except the people actually committing those acts? In what world is “black pain” or any kind of other pain an excuse for violence against innocent others?

The media reports news. The media should be objective. It should be impartial. If you want an exploration of “black pain,” write an opinion piece, and stop blaming the media for doing its job.

You claim the media should drop its sense of entitlement. I say you might want to turn that mirror toward the Precious Snowflakes™ you so rush to defend. The media has a job. That job is to report the story. If you don’t want to speak to the media, don’t. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been turned down for an interview in my journalism career! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had people tell me they didn’t trust me, because they’d been screwed by the media before, and they weren’t taking that chance in speaking with me again.

You know what I did, as a journalist? I worked to keep my reporting above board, free from editorializing, objective, fact-based, and unbiased. You know what happened? I started getting more interviews and more opportunities the more people saw my work. You think “reporting on black pain” is objective journalism? Just where did you learn that lunacy?

Here’s your bottom line, Cupcake. “Black pain” is not news. News is current. News is action-based. News doesn’t kiss the ass of anyone, and it certainly doesn’t try to justify anyone’s actions. News is what happened, NOT here’s why what happened is excusable, because racism – in any form – is not excusable. Period.

Love and Kisses,


Uber Douche Wants New Type of Hero


Why is it that every time I want to stop writing on the lunacy of the SJWs, some lunatic forces me back into the half-baked cage of SJW psychosis?

Perhaps it’s because that sewer is an inexhaustible circle jerk of cultural Marxist jackoffery that will never run out of deviants. Or maybe I have friends who love to see my head explode at the stoopid.

Take this pearl-clutching schizo Damien Walter who writes about all things weird. He’s supposedly a writer of speculative fiction or something. He’s got one book on Amazon that I can find, with five reviews – 40 percent of them shitty. He’s also a favorite chew toy of one of my favorite authors – the International Lord of Hate himself Larry Correia – who accurately assessed a while back that somewhere in Britain a village is missing its idiot.

In other words, you know that whatever this uber douche vomits will likely be borderline retarded and somewhat ponderous. And guess what! He doesn’t disappoint – if by “disappoint” we mean dash our expectations that something incredibly stupid will come out of that stagnating, gelatinous mass of goo the Guardian newspaper thinks is a brain. It is, in fact, that stupid.

Walter spends the first couple of paragraphs in his latest screed in a wistful rumination about Conan the Barbarian’s pecs… or was it Arnold Schwarzenegger’s pecs? Regardless… you know he’s going to attempt to transform Conan into an irrelevant relic of white, male patriarchy, because he begins the essay with a nostalgic disclaimer about his latent desire to rape and pillage. He really LUUUUURVES Conan, but…

…the macho white male is only the fantasy ideal for a minority. As Lisa Cron argues in her excellent Wired For Story, the power of story reaches far further than mere entertainment. Our brain thinks in stories, but when stories don’t reflect our lived experience and our sense of identity, our brain will often reject them.

So there’s this thing. It’s called imagination. When a story is well written, the imagination lights up with ideas, with desires, with joy, with experiences that come alive from the reading! As Meg Rosoff observed – and was excoriated for – good literature expands your mind. It doesn’t have the “job” of being a mirror. But Damien Walter, as all good little howler monkey troops must, toes the SJW party line.

Now, I will admit, I haven’t read Ms. Cron’s book, but here’s a partial description from Amazon.

The vast majority of writing advice focuses on “writing well” as if it were the same as telling a great story. This is exactly where many aspiring writers fail–they strive for beautiful metaphors, authentic dialogue, and interesting characters, losing sight of the one thing that every engaging story must do: ignite the brain’s hardwired desire to learn what happens next. When writers tap into the evolutionary purpose of story and electrify our curiosity, it triggers a delicious dopamine rush that tells us to pay attention. Without it, even the most perfect prose won’t hold anyone’s interest.
     Backed by recent breakthroughs in neuroscience as well as examples from novels, screenplays, and short stories, Wired for Story offers a revolutionary look at story as the brain experiences it. Each chapter zeroes in on an aspect of the brain, its corresponding revelation about story, and the way to apply it to your storytelling right now.

I’ve also read a few reviews on the Internet and some quotes from the book itself. It sounds interesting, and it’s apparently based on heavy research in neuroscience and psychology. What I’m not seeing is confirmation of Damien’s claim that “when stories don’t reflect our lived experience and our sense of identity, our brain will often reject them.”

Cron seems to be discussing storytelling from an evolutionary perspective. “Recent breakthroughs in neuroscience reveal that our brain is hardwired to respond to story; the pleasure we derive from a tale well told is nature’s way of seducing us into paying attention to it.”

Tale. Well. Told.

Not a mirror. Not message fiction. Tale well gold.

Do we want to see more trans-women secretaries as the ones taking down the bad guys?

Do we want to see more trans-women secretaries… sorry… executive assistants taking down the bad guys?

Damien, of course, twists this concept into tossing the old muscle-bound hero stereotypes in favor of less traditional heroes, such as… well… you guessed it – minorities, women, bureaucrats, homosexuals, transgendered individuals, logistics officers, and others that aren’t generally portrayed as heroic. Because muscly, violent men are out, and dull, tax auditor-types are in (and it would be great if they were women and gay too!)

Hercules is out. Here comes Pajama Boy!

Forget Superman. Let’s see more HR specialists.

Red Sonja the tax auditor.


No thanks.

Damien apparently compensates for his lack of testicular fortitude and barely hidden, slithering envy of strong, masculine archetypes by projecting his inability to relate to fun, masculine heroes onto others.

Seth Dickinson is one of a growing movement of fantasy authors re-engineering older stories for readers who don’t see themselves reflected in Conan, Frodo Baggins or Luke Skywalker. The Traitor Baru Cormorant begins with one of fantasy’s most famous tropes, the hero’s tribe are conquered by an oppressive empire, and he must take revenge. Or, as in the case of Ms Cormorant, she. And how will Baru Cormorant bring down the empire that murdered one of her two fathers? By learning to swing a sword? No! But by becoming a civil servant.

Translation: I’m bland and unimaginative, and I can’t relate to burly, powerful heroes. Solution? Make heroes bland and unimaginative, and invent fun things for them to do, like… you know… keep inventory, run budget meetings, coordinate on EEO policies, and all that. And if she fails at this task, the world as she knows it will end! I also note the worship of worthless bureaucracy that seems to be present in many progtard circles is oozing into what these tools consider literature.

There’s a clear logic to the conceit at the heart of Dickinson’s novel. Lone barbarians, however ripped, don’t defeat armies. But politicians and bureaucrats can wield the power to topple empires.

Except politicians and bureaucrats aren’t fun storytelling; they mostly sit around, tap their computer keys, and bloviate a lot. And while scheming is interesting, it’s the execution, the action, the actual toppling of empires that keeps us reading. Remember that good storytelling thing Lisa Cron talks about?

Baru Cormorant is a woman, from a conquered people, who discovers she is attracted to other women, trapped in an empire that kills her kind.

I’m shocked. Damien loves the abused lesbian victim.

Her only chance to survive is to learn the Masquerade of lies and deception that power the empire, and beat it at its own game. Dickinson’s novel arguably pursues the same strategy as its protagonist, imitating the genre it seeks to subvert, and perhaps one day, topple.

You know… learning to subvert the enemy is fine, but what are you going to do with it? That’s where that storytelling comes in. Learning is fine. Filling out logistics forms incorrectly, not so much.

I also love how Damien immediately projects his own desire to topple what he apparently can’t match in intellectual, and I’d be willing to bet, physical prowess, onto Seth Dickinson. Apparently writing a novel about a lesbian bureaucrat taking on the system = wanting to destroy other types of heroes. It’s either/or in Damien’s world. Seth Dickinson’s heroine apparently cannot coexist with the strong, masculine hero types out there! There’s only room in this world for one or the other. It’s so typical of the SJW mentality: if it doesn’t agree with you, destroy it!

Additionally, as you will see shortly, Damien’s reference to Cron’s ideas on storytelling is a ruse meant to provide his idiotic claims with a glossy veneer of legitimacy. He doesn’t give a flying rat’s fuck about quality and storytelling, and he admits it.

Dickinson’s re-engineering of the heroic fantasy genre is not entirely successful. The Traitor Baru Cormorant has neither the heart stirring adventure of a heroic fantasy, or the political depth of a Wolf Hall. But in a field where too many writers simply retell the same old stories, Dickinson’s originality and ambition are to be applauded, even when he doesn’t quite manage to meet the narrative engineering challenges he has set in himself.

Here you have it, boys and girls. There’s no heart. There’s no stirring adventure. There’s no political depth. But see… Dickinson is original, because he wrote a book about a lesbian in a world where gays are apparently killed (’cause that’s never been done before; see: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, etc.), so that makes it all good.

Walter then heaps drooling praise on authors such as Michael Moorcock, Kate Elliott, and NK Jemisin for being oh-so-progressive, as if progress is somehow limited to writing disadvantaged minorities one has unearthed from the proglodyte-approved the Victim-of-the-Month club.

The fantasy genre has always contained a progressive streak. From Angela Carter and Michael Moorcock to China Mieville and Kate Elliot, writers have re-engineered older narratives for audiences who don’t share the traditional values of Howard or Tolkien. But as the values of our society shift, those writers are creating the new mainstream of the genre. NK Jemisin’s Hundred Thousand Kingdoms, Ken Liu’s The Grace of Kings and Ilana C Myer’s Last Song Before Night, among many others, joy in re-engineering the traditional fantasy narrative to create new kinds of story.

Notice once again, there’s nothing here about good storytelling, which he spent some time telling us was oh-so-critical by citing Lisa Cron. The only thing that matters is the renunciation of traditional values and characters. Not the story.

The story is what sells the book. The story is what keeps our brain hanging on, according to the same author whose writing he twists to support his ridiculous theories. The story is what matters. It keeps us readers turning the pages. It keeps our imaginations engaged, our emotions burning, and our loyalties to the author whose work gives us such joy! It certainly doesn’t matter to us, the readers, whether the author has checked a gay/trans/black/purple/queer box on some imbecilic conformist checklist.

But to Damien… Oh no! HIS story can’t be allowed to stand!

“See, this is the thing about history. His story. That’s all it is. The Old Man’s version of events, which basically the rest of us are supposed to accept as the undisputed truth. Well, call me cynical, but I’ve never been one to take things on trust, and I happen to know that history is nothing but spin and metaphor, which is what all yarns are made up of, when you strip them down to the underlay. And what makes a hit or a myth, of course, is how that story is told, and by whom.”

Cynical? No, this festering yambag is not cynical. He’s filled with that trademark progtard arrogant self-loathing that he projects onto innocent authors, who don’t conform to his version of those deserving of literary success, of those worthy enough to be read with heart and soul! Because in his freakish vision of literature, the hero is not strong, exciting, attractive, or entertaining. It’s a cranky cockroach, sitting behind a computer, filling out forms, and creating bureaucratic hurdles for those who want to actually do something, sullenly plotting the destruction of those it sniffily thinks have dominated long enough – Walters’ own little euphemism for the evil, patriarchal literary world he seeks to destroy and infest with puny, tedious pseudo heroes, whose mediocrity is the “virtue” he seeks to promote.

Perhaps that’s why this sniveling dick weasel can’t seem to write a novel without financial support from the government.

Supergirl: Badly-written, Badly-acted Dreck


I wanted to like the CBS series “Supergirl” so much! I really did. I am kind of a dork, so I will watch “Arrow,” “the Flash,” and all the comic book movies. So when I saw previews of this new series, I actually cleared my Monday night to give the show a chance. I expected a heroine – albeit a very young one – one that has a lot to learn about her powers and her mission in life – one that is still trying to find herself – but still a heroine.

supergirlWhat I got was a mealy-mouthed, badly-acted, awkward, badly-written trainwreck that was more concerned with the “feminist” message than it was with an actual story. I was bored about 20 minutes into the show. The acting was so horrible, I wanted to stab myself in the jugular with a spork!

Melissa Benoist, who was whiny and irritating in Glee, was whiny and irritating as the title character in this show. “If we call her Supergirl,” she pouts to her overbearing shrew of a boss after the latter names the new superhero, “something less than what she is, doesn’t that make us guilty of being anti-feminist?”


Mehcad Brooks as Jimmy Olsen… oh, excuse me, James Olsen – the love interest. Yeah, no. He’s way too hot, masculine, and sexy for the innocent young girl that Supergirl is supposed to be! I’m not a purist, so to me, he doesn’t have to be a complete and utter dork, but he looks more like her older uncle and mentor, rather than a romance. And even though the show tried to create this spark between them, he’s just too sexy for her! No!

Calista Flockhart as the media mogul boss is just a screeching harpy. You seriously want to smack her in the face. Why is it that the most financially successful female on the show, the only one who has ostensibly broken through the glass ceiling in her chosen career field, is a raging uber bitch? Is the implication that the only way you can be a career success as a woman is if you treat people like something slimy on the bottom of your shoe?

Quite the message to send girls aspiring for career success!

The sister… What a whining, sniveling mess! Oh, she didn’t want Kara to find her super self, because she was jealous, despite her intellectual prowess, but now she knows better! Since when are superior intellect and mental acuity inferior to physical strength? And why the hell would a scientist and a kickass government agent feel all deficient? And let’s not even talk about the bad acting! SO. MUCH. FAIL.

The reactions to “Supergirl” are interesting. The Washington Post loves it. It “leans into its feminism,” the Post drools. You know who wrote that review? Their pop-culture blogger.

That bastion of cultural Marxist thought (if you can call the brain droppings it emits that) Vox claims that the show is the “start of something great.”

Is it the awkward, fretting Kara, allowing her boss to stomp all over her, while whimpering about being “anti-feminist?”

Is it the jealous sister, who despite her supposedly superior intellect, is so insecure, that she actually works to prevent her younger sibling from realizing her hero potential until the end of the episode?

Is it the dictatorial Miranda Priestley wannabe Cat Grant, who just comes across as a barely competent, but oh-so-egotistical and despotic (and irritating)?

Or is it the contrived dialogue that makes one think that it was specifically written to push the feministy message? “On my planet, females bow before males,” says the villain, to which Supergirl replies, “This is not your planet.” Wow. Original! I literally talked along with her reply as she said it.

The Hollywood Reporter is drooling with adoration as well, because the character apparently comes “weighted with significance.” Someone kill me. PLEASE!!

Know what many viewers are saying on IMDB? (The atrocious grammar and spelling are theirs, not mine!)

…STEREOTYPES!! so many stereotypes that have been going on since EVERY TV SHOW EVER! Even Smallville delivered better content then this. You’d think they would move on to new things. It just makes you cringe, you know? It’s possible you might like this show… if you don’t ask questions and just pretend everything makes sense, or if you think the actress is cute, but don’t go looking for a “good” TV show. Just try to get past the pilot if you can! But with so many “fails” in one episode, it’s too disappointing to carry on.


The lead actress CAN”T act, she was terrible in Glee and even worse in this. The show is just one long crap-fest. She does looks at the camera and make a dumb face for everything, everyone is one dimensional and they have so much makeup on them you could hold a candle to their face and it would melt. Gross!


Calista Flockhart as the “Boss” is incredibly horrible. She pouts her way through every scene — so horribly BAD you want to run screaming from the room. Flockhart is not strong enough as an Actor to pull off this role. She lacks the personal gravitas to be a convincing Leader. I would send her immediately off to the Phantom Zone.

Melissa Benoist lacks the charisma to play a Super Hero. Her scenes with Jeremy Jordan are totally lacking in any chemistry.


Meh. I was hoping for more kick ass entertainment. We get Amy McBeal recast as a ball busting b$tch. Jimmy Olsen is mixed African. Supergirl is a knock kneed girl that gets excited and can’t make up her mind. Supergirl fights like an, um, girl. She gives up her identity to some smuck in the office that wants to, um, date her. In the fight with the mutant from outer space with a nuclear axe she almost gets killed. I was hoping he would slip his hand up her short little skirt and give her a little goose. I ended up flipping between this and DWTS.

How can they improve this. Get better writing. More spandex (or less). I’m not into the whole feminista thing, but maybe that is the audience they are looking for. At least they waited for the game to be over before showing it.


after watching all i can say is that this show has done nothing but disappointed me. the characters were so ‘unreliable’. the story and the dialogues of the characters of the episode were as if an immature high school teenager has written them. acting was ‘eh’, so unconvincing. if this is how the rest of the show is going to be then i don’t think i would want to see it. there was no spark, no ‘kick’ in it that make people gluing themselves to the screen. the costumes and weapons look more like that from power rangers i.e., childish and laughable.


This show is HORRIBLE. Bad writing, unappealing characters, and CGI that looks like it was done in film school.

Calista Flockhart’s character makes my skin crawl. Yes, yes, she’s a female Donald Trump, but she’s also uninspired and a complete cliché. The Devil Wears Prada anyone?

Melissa Benoist is Super-cute, but that doesn’t make her Supergirl either. Though I cannot blame that on her, as the writing was terrible. They tried to smash so much into one episode that any chance at a meaningful story was lost in the mad rush to get all of the info out the door.

Get it yet?

The critics, SJWs, and other self-anointed cognoscenti once again don’t give a crap about the acting, the plot, the execution, or anything else that makes entertainment… well… entertaining.

Sound familiar?

No, they want the feminist message, and they don’t care that it comes wrapped in used toilet paper.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: