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.

A Sense-Free Opinion Piece


I posted this fisk earlier at the Zelman Partisans, but I kept it PG-rated. I’m posting it here as well, because we all need a good laugh at this dumbass’ expense.

The Washington Post editorial page editor tripped and his dick fell into a bout of honesty about the gun grabbers’ true intentions when it comes to our rights. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt vomited forth this bit of douchebaggery entitled “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Here we go. A progtard “courageously” challenging the big, bad NRA and America’s gun owners from the safety and comfort of his computer. Because doing so in person would make him soil his unmentionables.


Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thingy doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

Well, no shit! You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your irrational squawking that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But it hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie.

And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large? Fact is that gun show regulations are no different than other firearm laws.

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

And while you’re sniveling aimlessly that closing the nonexistent “loophole” will stop criminals from obtaining weapons, tell us why you think that your average thug will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn those laws closing the gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

Fact is that less than one percent of guns used in criminal activity come from gun shows, but you need to blame something. You need to do something. You keep playing with your flaccid pee pee in hopes that something will come out of it, but fact is you’re impotent, so you have to pretend to be doing something to make yourself feel better.

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true. And by the way, thanks for admitting that your proposed reforms are meaningless.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go?  And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason.

That’s why the cultural shift over time has been in favor of the Second Amendment. That gives me a warm fuzzy, while it makes Freddie here shit himself in rage and fear.

Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013. It’s tragic, and it sucks. A lot. Know now many drowned? 568. Know how many died in fires? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Oh, this is rich! Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to actually interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances > 100,000 shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

That would require you to sit out of the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

The Virtue of Victimhood


The talented Cedar Sanderson and I got into a discussion this morning as she was writing this post. I’ll post a snippet here, but I urge you to go read her full article. She talks about message fiction and her refusal to conform to those who would pressure the reader to consume and enjoy miserable dark stories, merely because they’re miserable and dark.

Yes, this. This is the problem I’ve had with what we’ve dubbed message fiction. It’s not that there’s a message, because there is a message in most fiction, even if it is superficial. No, it’s that the message becomes a sermon, and the story a mere vehicle to convey the thoughts you are supposed to think. I want fiction that ignites my imagination, and not fiction that smothers it.

Mostly, I want fiction that conveys hope. We all know we’re not getting out of this alive. Life is a one-way street.

But life doesn’t have to be a dark and rainy street, filled with so much fog you’re lost and wandering aimlessly. Hope lights the way, and joy fills the paths with sunshine even when the going gets rough. This is what a story can bring to us, a firefly glimmer of hope in a dark time. Many good stories become a cloud of fireflies that can light the path all night long.

This led us to a discussion about why it is that the SJW crowd insists on promoting misery, suffering without hope or light as value, while blasting positive, entertaining stories as shallow and not worthy.

And dog forbid you disagree! They will chide, chastise, and denounce you. They will call you unspeakable names and accuse you of everything from racism to misogyny, because you fail to love and admire their contrived suffering and condemn their wrongdoings without issuing apologies for said wrongdoing by sticking the oozing sores of their victimhood in others’ faces.

The problem with these miserable mediocrities is that they equate suffering with value, and when they can’t find value within themselves, they make up suffering to substitute for that value and demand that we all worship their contrived wounds.

Yes, overcoming challenges is a part of life, and a noble one at that. The problem is that’s not what these people want to do. They want recognition without working for it. They want to be admired without actually having put the effort into overcoming their suffering. They want to be viewed as noble without being noble. And when they can’t find anything worthy within themselves to put out into the world, they contrive their victim status, stick that into the world’s face, and demand their oozing sores be admired.

They want to drown in their victimhood. Their ennui is their virtue, and anything else – anything happy, hopeful, or light – is just not up to their high standards. These are the same people who think that only ugly art is worth being called art, exactly because it’s ugly, because anything beautiful is too easy to admire. You must work to love something hideous. You must make an effort to admire something horrible. They put the onus on you – you must work to admire them – you must work to see their virtue – but they don’t need to work to make something you might admire.

It’s the lazy way out.

When I visited New Orleans in 2009, I saw some incredibly beautiful transgender women! They put a lot of effort into looking like women. Beautiful clothing, hair, makeup that was flawless. They felt like women, and they made a huge effort to BE women. I looked at them as women, because this is what they were.

Compare and contrast this with the SJW set who claim to be transgender, and demand that you refer to them by the gender of their choice, but look like train wrecks with 5 o’clock shadow and outlandish hair. They don’t want to do the work. It’s apparently too hard to be women, so they simply demand to be treated like women, and if you dare notice their flaws, you’re a transgender hater, you’re a misogynist, and you need to be destroyed.

That’s why they promote suffering as a virtue.

See, it’s too hard to overcome actual challenges, to work through your pain, to bust through those barriers and become a functioning, achieving human being. So instead, they choose to put that responsibility on their audiences. You must find beauty in their ugliness. You must find virtue in their misery. You must see the light in their gloom. They need not do the work to show it to you. Hell, they don’t need to make any effort to overcome it. You must love their oozing sores simply because they’re oozing sores and pretend they’re virtuous and good, while they rub that pus in your face. And if you can’t or won’t, you’re a hater and must be exposed as such.

I know many people who have suffered. Sexual abuse in the home. Rape, assault, discrimination… Hell, on rare occasions, I’ve opened the curtain and talked about my own experiences. But here’s the thing, real rape victims don’t rub that rape in others’ faces and demand you admire them for being victims. Real victims of abuse don’t hang that dirty laundry for others to gawk at and demand you admire it. They work to overcome it. They don’t whip out the victim card and tell you they’re better and more valuable than you because they’ve suffered. They simply work to make it better, to see hope, to take in as much joy and radiate as much positive energy as they can.

But no… work is a four-letter word in the SJW parlance.

phil work

It’s much easier to simply excrete an oozing sore, demand you worship it, and if you don’t, you’re a despicable misogynist, racist hater.

It’s much easier to demand that you find virtue in their victimhood than to actually overcome it and show strength, positivity, and the ability to overcome adversity. And if you don’t find that righteousness in their contrived anguish, you must not be profound enough to understand it, because of your privileged upbringing and those antiquated values that society has imprinted on your simplistic brain.

But it’s not enough to turn suffering into virtue. No, they need to turn the concept of suffering upside down as well!

You make yourself into a freak show and parade yourself all over the internet, complaining about how you can’t afford to do the things you want to do, because no one will buy your substandard work? It must be because people don’t like you because of your gender identity, sexual orientation, or looks.

You admit to having sexual feelings about little kids? You’re obviously a victim, because you’re a trans woman, and people must hate you for your gender identity rather than the fact that you’re a disgusting, twisted pedo who harbors sexual feelings for little kids.

Your mediocre work doesn’t get any play or sales? Must be because you’re transgender, don’t conform, non-binary gender, different, not because your work really sucks, and since you’re obviously reviled because of your gender choices, you’re a victim, and therefore virtuous, and therefore everyone must love your work – without even reading it.

No thanks, boys, girls, and those of you who aren’t sure. I would rather read literature that uplifts me and that is interesting and insightful. I’d rather not be throttled with a “message,” but find it on my own. I’d rather find virtue in the work’s merit, instead of sifting through the maggots of the author’s alleged “suffering” to find some semblance of quality. I will think and feel, using my own mind and my own values, and I will not conform to your rotting ideas that don’t just replace beauty with decay, but try to change the very nature of beauty and pass putrefaction off as joy!

And I certainly won’t allow you to lambaste me for it.

Interesting observation


I blogged about two things yesterday: the Davis toad and guns.

Now, granted the gun article was what I considered to be interesting media treatment of a hoplophobe in an apocalyptic environment, but I thought it was relevant, considering what a huge following “The Walking Dead” and its companion series, “Fear the Walking Dead” have. I find the media’s and the entertainment industries portrayal of a complete societal breakdown and its effects on numerous types of people (including those who refuse to acknowledge what’s happening, those who hate guns, those who are willing to victimize others, etc.) fascinating.

Politics is downstream from culture, and I think it’s vital that we understand how popular culture eventually impacts policy, as well as the political views of the public writ large.

And yet, the most heated discussion is taking place on a much more micro level. It’s Kim Davis that is getting all the press. It’s Kim Davis that’s getting all the hits on this blog. It’s the Kim Davis issue that’s getting the debate and the conversation.

Maybe the Davis issue is also a cultural one and deserves the debate. But she’s one person. One intransigent zealot, whose only claim to fame is the refusal to do her job, and brief imprisonment for contempt of court. And yet, she is the one that is causing contention in people who are otherwise allies on the majority of issues.

I don’t know about you guys, but I find this interesting. While this case will eventually have implications nationwide, I find social issues to be generally less critical to the survival of the republic. And frankly, had this case not been littering every news report, my Facebook timeline, my Twitter feed, and every other website I visit, I doubt I would have given it the time of day.

Maybe it’s just me, but Kim Davis just never interested me all that much. And yet, even though I published both posts around the same time of day, the Davis post is the one with scores of comments, while the post I, personally, find more interesting is barely getting a glance.

What I really hate about the Davis issue is that it has become so contentious, it’s causing a rift between people who generally otherwise are allies. There are some good, intelligent comments in response to that entry, but at the same time, I’m frustrated that someone whose only claim to fame is using the cover of religion to discriminate against people at least some of whom ostensibly put her in power and pay her salary, is causing said split when there are bigger, more important issues we face as a country.

The economy.

Resurgent Russia.

ISIL and terrorism writ large.

Soaring debt levels.

Possible government shutdown without a continuing resolution to keep the doors open, so to speak.

And never forget, we still have troops in Afghanistan. We still have service members dying in the war against terror. We still have security issues with which we must deal. But here we are… discussing Kim Davis. At least a good chunk of my distaste for this woman comes from this fact. It’s a micro issue in a world where macro problems are, by definition, much more significant.

Anyway, if anyone has a good analysis of the reason why this Davis woman is so much more interesting to discuss than issues such as gun control, foreign policy, national security, etc., please let me know. I’d love to get some insight.

Because, frankly, I’m a bit flummoxed.

Fear the Walking… gun


After initial resistance, because I’m generally not a fan of the zombie genre, I became one of the biggest fans of the show “The Walking Dead.” It’s not because I’ve suddenly become a zombie fan, but because the show portrays in very gritty, realistic detail how various personalities deal with an apocalyptic event. What I previously wrote about the original, I strongly echo in the AMC spinoff “Fear the Walking Dead.”

“The Walking Dead” is one of the best written shows out there. It injects gritty realism into what is an otherwise unlikely scenario about zombies stumbling around the countryside and feasting on flesh. Yes, children would die. Yes, a mother could conceivably be forced to deliver a child via Cesarian section with no anesthesia. Yes, that mother would die in the process, and her son could very well be forced to put a bullet in her head to prevent reanimation. Yes, there would be people who turn to cannibalism to survive. And yes, there could be individuals – youngsters even – who cannot comprehend the danger the dead represent when they reanimate, and without thought or malice kill their younger sister to “prove” that zombies represent no danger. And yes, there would be individuals strong enough to have to take out the threat – whether it’s a non-comprehending child murderer or an individual infected with the flu.

Even more realistic are the characters and their disparate ways of dealing with the situation.

“Fear the Walking Dead” deals with the tribulations of one family on the West Coast at the start of the outbreak. There’s the bratty, annoying, whining teenage daughter (Alicia). There’s the heroin addicted son (Nick). There’s the widowed mom (Madison) and her divorced boyfriend (Travis), who has an ex wife(Liza) and an annoying SJW caricature of a son (Chris).

They’re joined by an immigrant from El Salvador (Daniel) and his family (Griselda and Ofelia), who initially provide shelter for Travis and his ex and their son in their barber shop during LA riots where savages start destroying property due to what they claim to be a bogus police shooting. Mix the rioting savages with some already reanimated walkers, and you have chaos.

It is quite obvious that Daniel has come from some nasty shit in El Salvador. He knows and understands what needs to be done, and doesn’t hesitate to do it. While Travis tries to reason with his zombie neighbor, after seeing what should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain when he finds him chowing down on a dog, Daniel simply takes a shotgun and pulls the trigger, killing the walker. Griselda seems a very much old fashioned type of wife, who is all “Anything my husband says, I will do, because I trust him.” I don’t think it’s just the cultural subservience of women, but I think she’s definitely seen some trauma, and Daniel has been able to protect her in the past.

Madison has potential. She appears willing to do what needs to be done to protect her family. When their neighbor and close friend Susan turns and tries to eat Alicia (I really wish she had. That whining teenage angst drama got old after five minutes into the pilot episode), Madison fully intends to take out the zombie threat – this after she took out the principal of the school where she worked, her friend Arnie. You’ve got to have some intestinal fortitude to take out your friends, and more than that to tell your boyfriend’s ex wife that if you ever become a zombie, you want her to take you out and not Travis, because it would destroy him. That’s some grit right there. I think if there’s one criticism I would make of Madison is that she’s too much of a protective mom. Geeze, just be honest with your kids and tell them what is going on! It’s not like they’re too young to hear it, and maybe it will actually wake them up. Maybe Nick will find survival much more important than his drugs – and he’s already showing potential and understanding of the situation much more than the whining bitch of a boyfriend. And maybe Alicia will stop with the teenage drama queen act and actually contribute to the defense of her family. Madison is a typical mama bear, I think. She’s willing to do what it takes to survive.

The neighbor: Susan the neigbor was among the walking dead

Surprisingly, it’s Travis that whines that she shouldn’t. It’s Travis that refuses to neutralize the threat despite having seen it almost destroy his family. It’s Travis that whines, “You know how I feel about guns!” in protest when he finds Daniel teaching his commie kid Chris how to use a shotgun to defend himself. It’s Travis that prevents Madison from taking a hammer to Zombie Susan’s head, choosing instead to allow her to be trapped in her garden where her unsuspecting husband who returns from a business trip finds her and nearly becomes dinner until the military steps in.

Is Travis the kind of person you want on your team in the event of a zombie apocalypse? A panty-soiling coward, whose emotions prevent him from neutralizing obvious threats to his loved ones, and worse yet… whose hoplophobia is so severe, he does not see the utility of having firearms during a zombie apocalypse?

Sorry, but in any realistic world, Travis would be the first one to be come a Scooby snack for the Walkers. He’s such a pathetic hipster douche, that Daniel refuses to go with the family, because he’s so weak! How much of a clueless prog do you have to be that a guy would rather stay and defend his injured wife against zombies himself, rather than accompany you on a jaunt out of the city to avoid the chaos?

I realize that on the left coast, the realistic scenario would show all types of people – from the most clueless leftist, to the most hardened conservative – dealing with the chaos. But I also realize that in a realistic scenario, those whose political views prevent them from doing what it takes to protect themselves and their families, will be the first to be eliminated. So Travis had better man up and grow a pair, because right now, this dude is too stupid to live and will become a liability right quick. He needs to get over his intense dislike of those evil guns and learn how to use them right quick, if he wants to survive in this new reality. And he’d better quickly get it through his thick skull that there’s no reasoning with zombies.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: