“So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.” ~@BarackObama

If you’re for a democracy where the legislators you voted into office will stand up for your beliefs, your desires, your rights, vote in your local election in 2014, and vote these Senators out.

Click to enlarge.

As is usually my way, aside from following everyone I can (until they don’t follow back), I’ve mostly just lurked, testing the waters. “Lurking” on Twitter, for me, is following interesting conversations back to the very first tweet. This can take all day.

I rarely make it to the first tweet, because there’s almost always something that catches my eye, and I end up veering off in a different direction. Which also can take all day. This is not as counterproductive as it sounds, because I’m a freelance writer, and following other people’s conversations often gives me topics to write about. Like today.

Yesterday, while stalking my fellow UniteBlue members, I came across a marriage equality debate during which some guy said homosexuality is a behavior, therefore it is not something the government should regulate.

@toconservatives @1avalee well it’s a behavior first a chosen way of life. Never said it would. I don’t think its a federal thing, states

— Booze N Boobs (@bucky2281) April 2, 2013

I responded. I shouldn’t have. I knew what kind of response I would get, but I couldn’t help myself. So, I poked the troll.

@bucky2281 Uhm…really? Homo/bisexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. @toconservatives @1avalee

— Rayne Millaray (@insatiabldesire) April 4, 2013

And the troll didn’t let me down.

@insatiabldesire @toconservatives @1avalee it’s a behavior!! There for not a civil right. And nobody cares about fags being married.

— Booze N Boobs (@bucky2281) April 4, 2013

Unfortunately, the liberals did let me down. Because obviously, if you’re against same-sex marriage, you’re gay…

@bucky2281 @insatiabldesire @toconservatives @1avalee How do you know being gay is just a “behavior?” Personal experience?

— QueenSilverDollar (@QueenSilverDoll) April 4, 2013

…or a homophobe…

If you were confident of your own sexuality, gays getting married wouldn’t bother you. @bucky2281 @insatiabldesire @1avalee

— TruthtoConservatives (@ToConservatives) April 4, 2013

…or racist.

Like I said its used by idiots i’m sure he also hate Jews & Blacks @toconservatives @wilson6923 @bucky2281 @jspoupart

— romeo (@arthuromeo) April 4, 2013

And once upon a time, I would have brushed it off. When dealing in opinions, feelings get hurt. Tempers flare. Debates devolve into emotional conversation. And this is especially true when someone questions or contradicts someone else’s way of life.

But this exchange is not the only example of liberals resorting to dirty tactics to try to bully conservatives to their side. I mean, didn’t you know? All conservatives are greedy…

For a minority of Conservatives, that is true. But the real motivators for Conservatives is fear of others or plain greed. @queensilverdoll

— TruthtoConservatives (@ToConservatives) April 2, 2013

…or stupid…

His stupid doesn’t go back that far… @toconservatives @bucky2281 @78andcounting @jspoupart

— wilson6923 (@wilson6923) April 4, 2013

…or parroting their party’s beliefs without actually considering them first.

Like I so often say, Conservatives don’t let facts get in the way of their preferred narrative. @wilson6923 @bucky2281 @jspoupart

— TruthtoConservatives (@ToConservatives) April 4, 2013

I have a real problem with this for a number of reasons.

First, it makes us hypocrites. We’re trying to stop Rush because instead of making real arguments in favor of his beliefs, he chooses to call women on government-funded birth control “prostitutes”, and use racial slurs. And a lot of us believe everyone has the right to be whoever they want, so long as they’re not hurting anyone else. Yet, here we are, all over the internet and the media, calling conservatives names and attacking them personally, rather than focusing on the facts. What the hell, liberals?

Second, it kills the effectiveness of our arguments. The best way to win someone over to your side, or at least get them to open their minds enough to consider your opinions, is to stay calm, maintain a respectful tone, and present them with solid facts. The second you start to get angry, they start to question the validity of your ideas. And if you resort to slinging insults instead of facts, most people will discredit your opinion entirely.

Third, it shuts down the lines of communication completely. All this name-calling is reminiscent of the schoolyard bully sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling “Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!” after throwing a fistful of dirt in your eye. Nobody likes the schoolyard bully. Not even his friends.

I don’t know about you, but when I was a kid, I disagreed with everything the schoolyard bully thought because who wants to admit they might be similar to someone who’s mean and nasty all the time? So even if he had the most concrete evidence behind whatever he was going on about (like how Mommy and Daddy really made my sister), I’d tell him he was full of it, and refuse to listen.

And that’s how intelligent conservatives react to liberals who devolve to name-calling and insults to make their points.

So…not being one to hold my tongue when I have an opinion, I pointed out that the hate being flung back in the troll’s face was hurting more than helping.

@toconservatives that’s counterproductive. Why should the opposition join the debate if we just call them homophobes? @bucky2281 @1avalee

— Rayne Millaray (@insatiabldesire) April 4, 2013

I really hoped I’d be heard. But as I expected, the name-calling was excused with “calling a spade a spade”.

I disagree. Calling a spade a spade is the best way to unmask pretense, and that’s what they hide behind. @insatiabldesire

— TruthtoConservatives (@ToConservatives) April 4, 2013

I don’t care how many times you say, “every person who opposes marriage equality is a homophobe,” it doesn’t make it true. I know plenty of people who have no problem with homosexuality. They’ll even agree there should be some sort of “institution” for LGBT couples that is of equal rights and value to marriage. They just believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Just like us liberals, conservatives have the right to make up their own minds about every topic we, as a society, have deemed politically relevant. And we’re assholes for trying to bully them into changing them, all the while crying about them bullying us.

They call us “liberal pussies”. And ya know what? If we can’t open people’s minds without demeaning and insulting them, then god damn it…they’re right.

You’re wondering why I said Easter is “currently” the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.

As it turns out, Easter wasn’t always the celebration of Christ’s resurrection. In fact, most of the Easter traditions today (dying eggs, egg hunts, “Easter grass”, and even the resurrection itself) are based on decidedly Pagan traditions, and a Pagan holiday meant to celebrate Spring and the renewal of life. The Pagan celebration is known as Ostara, after the goddess, and is spelled Ēastre in Western Saxon English. 

But I didn’t come here to debate whether or not the Christian founders are big, fat copycats. I am staunchly agnostic (I once referred to myself as an Atheist Pagan, but these days, I’m not so sure), and I’ve got no beef with Christians. Besides, who knows which came first, ya know?

No, I came here to talk about the overwhelmingly un-Christian reaction to Sunday’s Google Doodle.

In case you missed it, Sunday’s Google Doodle honored Cesar Chavez, and not Jesus Christ.

Why is Jesus not on google but Cesar Chavez and his 86th birthday is ???

— MFrat92 (@MFrat1992) March 31, 2013

Or even an Easter Egg.

If you go to google rite now you will not find an Easter egg or Jesus you will find Cesar Chavez #kingofkings? #ithinknot #nottalkingaboutJc

— Morgan Canty (@CantyMorgan) March 31, 2013

Cesar Chavez was a civil rights activist who co-founded the United Farm Workers Union, originally known as the National Farm Workers Association. One could argue that Chavez isn’t the best person for a (perceived) liberal company to honor. It’s said that Chavez was staunchly against illegal immigration because he lead protests against strikebreaking by undocumented migrants. However, Chavez and his allies maintained they were anti-strikebreaking, not anti-immigration.

Obama and Google honored Caesar Chavez today because it was an insult to Christianity, no mistake… #googlemottos #tcot #p2 #tpp

— Andrea Silver (@andilinks) April 1, 2013

Please explain to me why President Obama, who is a Christian, would be in cahoots with Google to “insult Christianity”? I’m sure they’re referring to President Obama declaring March 31 Cesar Chavez day…back in 2011. So I guess by their logic this means that Obama made his declaration in 2011 knowing full well that Easter would fall on March 31 in 2013, when he might not have been in office, and…what? Paid Google to dedicate their doodle to Chavez to top off his maniacal plot to dis Jesus?

Does that really make sense to you? What would be the point? Or are we still pretending we think President Obama is Muslim and is secretly plotting to hand the US over to Muslim terrorists?

Looks like Google thinks 2.2 billion people are celebrating Caesar Chavez today.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 31, 2013

It’s true that America’s religions are dominated by Christianity. The sum of all the non-Christian religions, including Atheism and Agnosticism, doesn’t come close to the number of self-proclaimed practicing Christians in these united states.

America’s Religious Breakdown:

• 173.4 million adults are practicing Christians (though I still argue that, judging by their actions, at least half are full of shit).
• 879,600 adults are practicing members of non-Christian religions like Buddhism, Islam, Paganism, etc.
• 34.2 million adults do not believe in any god.
• 11.8 million adults aren’t sure.

But when one looks at the world’s population, Christianity is the minority.

The World’s Religious Breakdown:

• 4.8 billion people are non-Christian, Atheist or Agnostic, with Islam being both the largest non-Christian religion and the fastest growing. 
• 2.2 billion people are practicing Christians. 

Some things to consider:

• Though it’s based in America, Google is an international, multicultural corporation. This means that even though they came up in the US, their customer base can be found all over the world.
• Businesses have the right to freedom of expression and religion, just like people. Even if that means thumbing their nose at Jesus.
• Google’s users are not only Christian. They’re also Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, Wiccan…the list goes on and on.
• 4.8 billion is more than 2.2 billion. No matter which way you slice it, if we’re using the typically American way of classifying religion (Christians v. non-Christians), Christians are the minority worldwide. While no one religion has more followers than Christianity (though Islam is steadily catching up), the fact remains that, over all, this world is not predominately Christian.
• Google almost never does doodles for religious holidays, and more recently, has stopped representing religious holidays altogether. Personally, I think this was the best course of action. You can’t please all of the people all of the time. This leaves two options: do all the religious holidays, some how splitting days that coincide, or do none of the religious holidays.
• “But Google does Christmas!” No, Google does winter scenes with gifts in them on Christmas. In 2012, they called it their “holiday series” and they posted two different ones on the 24th and the 25th of December. Christmas is not the only gift-giving winter holiday. Nor is it the only one celebrated on the 25th. And for that matter, many Atheists and Agnostics celebrate Christmas despite having no faith whatsoever in the reason for the season. Melen and I do.
• No company in their right mind would only cater to a third of their customer base while ignoring the other two-thirds. That’s just bad business.

On the upside, the Christian Conservatives who take issue with Google’s “dis” are taking their business elsewhere.

Google is celebrating Easter with Cesar Chavez. I’m celebrating Easter with Bing.

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) March 31, 2013

Thank God. Maybe now Google can stop hiding adult content.

<3

Being a former smoker, I have all sorts of opinions about smokers, and the rights of smokers, and the rights of nonsmokers, and just about every cigarette-smoke-related issue you can imagine. And because I was a smoker, and for a while, I was a nonsmoker who didn’t mind being smoked around, I even feel justified in some of them.

My parents were smokers. My dad quit when I was a kid, but my mom still smokes, choosing to roll her own in a market that has jacked the price of pre-rolled smokes up to $15 a pack in some cities.

(For reference, when I left Virginia in 1999, a pack of Marlboro lights cost $1.98. By the time I quit for the first time in 2002, a pack of Newport 100s — I’ve changed my brand a lot — cost $4.25. When I started up again in 2008, pretty much all name brands were up to $7.00. Today, they’re $9-13 in my area, depending on the brand and where you buy them. The last time I looked into it, only a third of that cost was the cigarettes themselves, and only a fraction more of that was the tobacco company’s profit margin. The rest is taxes.)

Something I always admired about my parents (though I didn’t always understand it) was that they were polite smokers…with everyone but us kids. What I mean by that is that even after finding out about the dangers of secondhand smoke, our parents smoked around my sister and me, but they never smoked around anyone else without first asking if it would bother the people they were near. Especially the children of people they didn’t know. Sometimes, depending on who the person was, my mother would even ask if it would bother a nonsmoking visitor if she lit up in our own home. And when she was outside, she always, always stepped away from doorways, walkways, and unknown vehicles so her smoke didn’t bother any nonsmokers that might have to pass by. 

My young mind didn’t understand this. When I first noticed her doing this, I was in the midst of being taught in school about protecting the rights of the minority while upholding the rights of the majority (a delicate balance, indeed). And when my mother moved away from a bunch of people before lighting up her cigarette, even though it meant losing a good spot for whatever it was we were doing, I looked up at her indignantly and asked her why.

“Well, because it’s not fair for me to force those people to breathe in my cigarette smoke if they don’t want to.”

“Well, then they should move. You were there first. And besides, that was a good spot!”

“That’s not really how it works, Rayne. It’s fine to do something people don’t like if you’re not bothering anyone. But what if one of those people is allergic? Or has asthma? It makes more sense for me to move until I’m done smoking than for all of them to move because I want to do something they don’t like. We all paid the same entry fee. They have a right to enjoy themselves, too.”

I still didn’t get it. I was a pretty selfish kid. If I wanted to do something, I was going to do it, and I didn’t care what anyone else thought. If they didn’t like it, they could go somewhere else!

I’m happy to say that I grew out of that (somewhat) by the time I picked up smoking. I, too, was a polite smoker. I didn’t smoke in doorways, heavily used walkways, playgrounds (unless there were no kids on them), picnic areas…pretty much anywhere a nonsmoker would have to endure my smoke to utilize. It just made sense to me. And! Just like my mother, I’d always ask a nonsmoking visitor if they minded if I lit up when they came into my home. Melen and our friends made fun of me for it regularly, but it felt like the right thing to do.

A lot of places in the Capital Region of New York (where we live) are drawing up and passing legislation for public smoking bans. And at first, despite the fact that they started this well after I quit smoking this last time, I was furious. How fucking dare they tell us where we can engage in a perfectly legal activity! Never mind the fact that they tell us where we can engage in perfectly legal activities all the time.* This one particular legal activity is off legislative limits, damn it!

I’d debate with nonsmokers and smokers on both sides of the public smoking ban subject, and explain why I feel like we’re attacking smokers with our new legislation. I was absolutely convinced we were discriminating against them.

Until today.

Today, we went to breakfast at Denny’s. When we got there, there were four people smoking inside the doorway that only fit four people. It wasn’t raining. It wasn’t snowing. They just decided in the middle of their meal to get up and go have a smoke, but were too lazy to walk ten steps downwind so people didn’t have to walk through them to go inside.

It gets worse.

When we got inside, I calmly told the manager, “You’ve got four people filling your doorway up with cigarette smoke. You might want to ask them to move before someone gets mad.”

I didn’t mean me. As much as I hate the smell now, I really don’t care. But I’ve seen other people cause huge scenes over something like that.

The manager turned to me and said, “Us nonsmokers gotta learn to be a little understanding.”

Wait…what?

So…Smoker Joe decided on his own to get himself a cigarette habit. Smoker Joe decides he wants to smoke in public. Smoker Joe blocks the doorway to a place of business that I am patronizing (patronize almost every weekend, these days), and I have to be understanding?

I am understanding. I understand that Smoker Joe is a dick who can’t be arsed to think about anyone in the world but himself. I understand that you’re (the manager) so afraid of conflict, you’d rather your polite paying customers go elsewhere so Smoker Joe can be a dick who can’t be arsed to think about anyone in the world but himself. And I understand that you’re so conditioned by your generation’s “It’s cool to smoke, man.” that you’ve come to believe you don’t have the right to say “No. You cannot take years off my life with your secondhand smoke. Life’s short enough as it is.” And that’s a damn shame.

The more I talk about it, the more horror stories I hear. One woman blew smoke in a stranger’s infant’s face when asked to smoke elsewhere. Can you believe that?

Suddenly, the public smoking bans in parks and playgrounds make sense. Now I get why it’s illegal to smoke on hospital and school property. I understand why nonsmokers are violently shoving smokers out of public spaces.

It’s because some studies suggest that secondhand smoke is even more deadly than smoking yourself. It’s because actively engaging in someone’s death is called “murder,” and murder is illegal. It’s because too many smokers are like Smoker Joe, and think it’s their right to force their habit on the general public so the general public’s right to live a long, healthy life doesn’t encroach on their right to happiness.

Life trumps happiness every time. Even one Smoker Joe is too many. Sucks that your habit is inconveniencing you when you’re out and about. If it’s that much of an issue for you, perhaps you should get a different habit. But I’ll be arsed if I’m going to stand by silent so you can be a dick. That just makes you think it’s okay to be a dick. And that produces more dicks. The world’s got enough dicks.

Case in point: Donald Trump made wild accusations that Chrysler is sending their jobs overseas. The Chrysler CEO @ed Donald Trump on Twitter and matter-of-factly informed him he was full of shit. Classic.

* You can’t drive a car anywhere but a road. In some places, you can’t drink alcohol on public property. In most states, you’re not allowed  to smoke inside a business. You can’t have sex in public. You can’t be naked in public. A lot of places are even outlawing skateboarding.

Never do that. Seriously. It’s a waste of time. You  might as well be trying to convince Satan to serve iced water in Hell.

For the record, I’m not comparing the person I was debating with to Satan with that statement. I don’t even know her. She might be a very nice person.

Nor am I saying the fashion industry corners the market on being set in their ways. There are people like that in all walks of life.

I am, however, comparing the fashion industry to Hell. 

I don’t talk about beauty standards and body image very often. They’re topics I don’t feel comfortable discussing. Mostly because I was absolutely the teenage girl everyone’s so desperate to protect with their railing against the anorexic models, and disgust at sexy clothing and accessories for pre-pubescent girls.

When I was a kid, I’d spend hours going through magazines like Seventeen, Teen Beat, YM, Teen Vogue, Teen Magazine. Because we moved around so much, I was desperate for the approval of my peers, so I’d spend a lot of my free time devouring pop culture as fast as the world could produce it. And when I was finished reading the magazines, I’d tear out pictures of the attractive stars I had crushes on, tape them up all over my room, and then cry for hours about the fact that I would never be what is considered beautiful by Hollywood’s standards.

You see, while I wasn’t fat until I was an adult, I did have a curvy build much bigger than the sizes in which they made the “cool clothes” in the 80s and 90s. All the conditioner and ironing in the world doesn’t hide how much coarser my hair is than the average white woman because my father’s side is Native American. And unless my face magically changes, I’ll have to settle for “cute” until my dying day.

Cute is like a death sentence to a teenage girl aspiring to marry boys like Tom Cruise (Hush up, you! Back then, we didn’t know he was crazy!), James Van Der Beek or Brad Pitt.

Something the people on the other side of the fashion debate (the side that says the fashion industry and the media don’t shape society’s beauty standards, women and girls shouldn’t let strangers tell them how to feel about themselves*, and the fashion industry and media don’t need to change) don’t seem to understand is it’s not always as easy as putting a smile on your face and just knowing you’re beautiful. Especially when the rest of the televised world is telling you you’re not by never casting anyone who looks even remotely like you.

But this post isn’t about that. I’d love to go off on a tangent about how film reviews like the one I’m going to talk about could affect the future of the entertainment industry. I’d like to spend time going through the Facebook, Twitter and Instagram profiles of Upstate New Yorkers grabbing images of some hometown hotties and email the writer proof he’s wrong. More than anything, I’d love to point out to him how incredibly shallow he is—and not just because some feel he’s judging an entire region by their aesthetic appearance alone, and the ruling isn’t good for us. But I won’t. It wouldn’t do any good, and none of that has anything to do with my point.

My point: What the hell does aesthetic beauty have to do with movie quality?

Some back story: Jeffrey Wells, of Hollywood Elsewhere, wrote a review of The Place Beyond the Pines (which was filmed in Schenectady, NY) in which he says the movie is unbelievable because (among other reasons) Eva Mendes and Rose Byrne are too beautiful to live in Upstate New York. Mr. Wells submits that beautiful people gravitate to big cities, and Upstate New Yorkers have a “genetic look” (whatever that means) that is far from the look that gets one granted membership to the beautiful people club. In fact, anyone who lives in any “blue-collar hell hole” that resembles Schenectady is blessed with that “genetic look” he mentions.

Some people are offended. Some think it’s stupid those people are offended. Some others think it’s just plain stupid for Mr. Wells to have mentioned it.

Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the movie, but I submit that seeing the movie doesn’t preclude one’s ability to formulate an opinion on whether or not aesthetic beauty affects the quality and over all believability.

My case: Let’s ignore locale, for a moment, and just focus on the question. Can the aesthetic beauty of the performers affect how believable the plot of a movie is?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. I mean, in this society, no one’s going to believe a person would kill for an ugly stranger unless they, too, want the victim dead. Which of us would ever expect Prince Charming to run away with the ugly stepsister without first getting to know her? And how could the dork win over the hottie without sprouting into a handsome man after high school, or at least becoming filthy rich? As much damage as it may or may not do to our impressionable youth, a lot of story lines don’t work if the performers aren’t society-standard beautiful.

Does this apply to all movies? No. There are tons of story lines, even in this shallow society, that work no matter who the performers are. White, black, Asian, Latino, European, gay, straight, bisexual, male, female, transgender, gender fluid, Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, WHATEVER. They just have to have a pulse, and make you feel and believe their performance.

For example, the character Marty McFly was all about values and attitude. Playing an elf in almost any fantasy film requires poise, grace and the ability to pull off that level of formality most of us have never seen off the silver screen. Any action flick in which the hero eventually wins the girl after saving her could have an unattractive lead and still be believable because a lot of people, regardless of gender, develop strong feelings for a person who saves them from something traumatic. And the girl he wins could be unattractive because you can’t rescue someone from a traumatic situation without getting to know at least a little bit about them, like how strong their spirit is, how they perform under pressure, how they handle being helped…the possible character traits to observe are relative and endless.

But does the aesthetic beauty of Eva Mendes and Rose Byrne make this particular movie unbelievable? Even if you’ve lived in Upstate New York all your life, the answer is no. Have you seen some of those farm girls? God damn!

Joking and film location aside, I’ve either lived or played in “blue-collar hell holes” all my life. And statistically speaking, there are as many smokin’ hot men and women living in them as anywhere that doesn’t produce movies, TV shows, porn or music. You just have to know where to look for them.

I’m not offended by Mr. Wells remarks. I’m not celebrity beautiful, and I don’t have a team of makeup artists, hair technicians and Photoshop professionals to make me look that way, and I’m okay with that. I’m not from Upstate New York, and I don’t feel the need to defend the overall aesthetic value of the Capital Region.

I’m not even particularly concerned with the well-being of the world if critics start grading our entertainment solely on the aesthetics of the performers. None of us listen to critics anymore, anyway.

I object to his assertion simply because I feel that unless the character’s appearance is a major plot point (and in this case, it doesn’t sound like it comes into play at all), it’s got nothing whatever to do with the story line, which means it doesn’t affect the quality or believability at all. In short, it wasn’t worth mentioning, and came across like a jilted lover. “My ex is way too good for you.” Wonder what Schenectady did to him!

But if I were to defend the aesthetic beauty of Schenectady, I’d only have two words for you, Mr. Wells. Union. College.

I win.

*For what it’s worth, I agree with the idea that women and girls shouldn’t let strangers tell them how to feel about themselves. 

Trayvon is a 17-year-old black boy. He likes Miami Heat, Blake Griffin, The Boondocks, Tu Pac, Friday, football and going fishing. He left his house, one day, in a predominately white gated community in Florida, to pick up a bag of Skittles for his baby brother. On the way home, he was shot and killed by a white man.

The white man, George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon told 911 Trayvon was wearing a black hoodie and looked “suspicious”. Then, when he was questioned about the shooting, Zimmerman cited the “Stay Your Ground” law, which states that so long as you don’t pursue your attacker you may kill them without fear of prosecution. The problem with that is the man told the dispatcher he was following Trayvon. And then he shot Trayvon. Yet, he still remains free.

Miami Heat put their hoods up. Will you?

But guess what. So. Do. I.

I also have the right to hate him for whatever putrid thing comes out of his mouth, refuse to believe the lame-ass apology he made because his sponsors started pulling out and boycott any company or organization that supports him in any way. Just like you have the right to support his assessment of government-funded female birth control – though I don’t see Rush (or you) rushing (haha) to have Viagra removed from the list of government-funded medications.

(Hey, Rush! Doesn’t that make men on Medicaid or Medicare who are prescribed Viagra gigolos? So you, the taxpayer [ffs!], are already, in essence, a john. Worse! A john who patronizes male sex workers in dark alleys so no one will find out.)

Those companies and organizations have the right to choose to continue to work with him, and good luck to the ones that do. Maybe women’s rights isn’t as huge an issue as most of us think, and the movement doesn’t have enough supporters for the boycott of their goods and services to hurt their profit margin. But I’m going to guess by the number of huge companies that have pulled out, it is, it does and it will. If it hasn’t already.

So spew on, Rush. Keep being your usual self-indulgent, immature, hate-speech-slinging self. I think people are done ignoring the talk radio schoolyard bully and have decided to fight back.

<3
Over your bullshit since 1980

image by DonkeyHotey

Mostly because it needed to be immortalized somewhere besides TheStir, even if it is just on this itty bitty blog of confusion. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we all lived this way?

Read the rest of the post. You’ll laugh your ass off. But, you know, don’t say I didn’t warn you. I’m not paying to have your ass reattached.