Many of you will remember my friend Lauren, who rescued a sweet little beagle dog named Oliver. Oliver came to her with a whole host of problems due to abuse and neglect, and Lauren had asked for some help in getting Oliver healthy again. The fundraiser was a huge success, and all seemed well with Oliver.
But then something went wrong. Very wrong.
Lauren and her boyfriend found out that Oliver was much more viciously abused than they originally thought. According to Lauren, “I don’t know where to begin, but Oliver had to have x-Rays this evening. We discovered his hips are severely displaced, as well as his pelvic bone. He has severe arthritis due to this and will be on arthritis medicine for the rest of his life, unless William and I ever get in a financial state to afford a hip replacement. My heart is broken.”
The vet said that after having looked at the x-rays, it’s obvious that Oliver’s hip displacement and broken pelvic bone are due to blunt force trauma.
Get this – blunt. force. trauma.
Someone beat this little dog so severely, that he needs a hip replacement!
Oliver is in pain, and will have to take medication for it. The best course of action is a hip replacement, but both William and Lauren are students, and they can’t afford the surgery.
Not without help.
That’s where you guys come in.
I know I’m asking a lot, and you all have been beyond generous when my poor, late McGwire needed help, but as I said before – when you love someone, you’ll do anything – even beg – to make them whole again. So I’m asking.
I’m not asking for me.
I’m asking for this young lady who has sacrificed everything she has to help make her little furry friend well.
I’m asking for Oliver, who deserves a pain free life for once in his tragic existence.
Please just go to this GoFundMe site and help Oliver. Anything you can give right now – whether it’s $5 or $500 – will go a long way to helping this beautiful little dog and this kindhearted, generous couple.
As for the lowlife shitbags who abused this sweet, innocent creature who relied on you for his very existence – you’d better hope and pray to any horned deity I never find out who you are, because you will leave this world screaming and in much more pain than what you caused little Oliver.
If you enjoyed the lunatic Moms Demand Action leader in my last post pontificating about what a wise man Josef Goebbels was, you’ll LOVE this!
Found this through Bob Owens at Bearing Arms asking if this is possibly the most ignorant gun control op-ed in history.
I think it just may be. The historically ignorant, obtuse blatherings contained in this editorial are burning stupid. Flame retardant stupid. Weapons grade stupid. Beat your head against the wall until cerebrospinal fluid leaks out of your eyes stupid. Are we getting the message here?
I won’t fisk the whole thing, because frankly I value my sanity, and I can’t look at this cross-eyed dimbulbery without wanting to burn my own eyes out with sulfuric acid. I will just point you to a few items of note.
Kasie Strickland, the author of the abject dumbassery in question, thinks that:
1) The First Amendment protects a “right to life”
2) The 1993 Brady Bill and 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were both passed by a Republican president (George H.W. Bush).
3) Our forefathers in 1791 had no idea about the weapons technology we would have in the future.
She also feels it’s not actually necessary to bring facts into her diatribe, because it’s an “opinion piece.”
One can only shake one’s head in disbelief. But then after Allison A. Martin’s laudatory words for the wise Josef Goebbels, nothing much surprises me.
Maybe we should make it mandatory that newspaper columnists actually pass a history class before being allowed to spew. After all, we’re not limiting their right to free press. We’re just making sure that they publish the truth – for the common good…
Or maybe we should just beat this dumb harpy over the head with a history book. I’m thinking this is the only way anything will penetrate her thick skull.
Rob and I went to see the latest Atlas Shrugged movie last night. I wanted to give it a chance – to finish up the trilogy, despite the decidedly negative reviews that had permeated my online experience since the movie opened last week. I went in with an open mind.
Unfortunately, within literally the first three minutes of the movie, I had my first facepalm – one so hard, I think I may have bruised my face!
The acting! Oh, dear God – if you can even call it that – was so stilted and stiff, I thought I was watching two sticks of wood act out Dick and Jane books, instead of two characters who have finally discovered a revelation that the other exists in their world! It was quite close to waterboarding as far as the experience of watching it goes, but not as pleasant.
The dialogue! Whoever wrote the script for this atrocity needs to be beaten about the head and shoulders with a leather-bound volume of Shakespeare! Passion? None. Emotion? None. Wonder? Inspiration? Fire for life? Nothing.
The writers attempted to make this a standalone movie, and spent a good portion of it in expository, dull, unneeded flashbacks. The plot was continuously interrupted by C-SPAN-type commentary.
There was some very pretty cinematography, but it didn’t make up for hideously bad acting, bad editing, horrid direction, and a lack of passion.
I’m not a Randbot by any means. I appreciate the plot in “Atlas Shrugged,” as well as the themes of the evils of socialism, crony capitalism and corruption. I found the novel overly preachy and the dialogue stilted and wooden. That didn’t stop me from enjoying the book immensely, nor did it stop me from enjoying the novel’s other aspects or being inspired by the characters.
This movie? Nothing to enjoy there. Some of the more well known actors were muzzled by the labored, dull script.
Whose idea was it to cast the talented Portuguese actor Joaquim de Almeida, who is pushing 60 years old, as a former love interest of the thirty-something Dagny Taggart? His considerable acting prowess constrained by spiritless, paralyzed script, he was no more Francisco D’Anconia than I am. And frankly, he’s old enough to be Dagny’s daddy, instead of her lover, and the classmate of John Galt and Ragnar Danneskjold.
And speaking of Ragnar Danneskjold, who is supposed to be a study in contradictions – a resplendently handsome aristocrat, a philosopher who took up piracy to battle looting Marxists… played by the same guy who played, the hairy, bear-like, homosexual dress designer/pimp in “American Wedding”??????????????
This guy. In that role. Not that he’s a bad actor, but he transformed Ragnar Danneskjold into a lumberjack from Colorado, and that just takes away the charm and mystery of the character.
Completely inappropriate casting. Laura Regan’s labored, wooden acting, if you can even call it that. Childish “Project F” prop that looked like it was made of Duplo blocks and Simon Says colored lights.
I think I would rather sip polonium-laced rail vodka than ever sit through this bit of torture again.
Instead of wondering breathlessly whether John Galt was Prometheus, a pirate, or a myth, I found myself asking, “Who cares?”
I apologize – I should have blogged about this earlier, but between my business trips and jetlag, I have dropped the ball. A week ago, a fellow Johns Hopkins alum and public heath professional Vik Khanna penned an essay that gave some doctors and other health professionals a bit of heartburn, because unlike many health professionals, Vik actually understands and appreciates firearms and the right to keep and bear arms.
In his essay, Vik addressed the so-called “gun problem” from a health care perspective, advocating for public education, training, and giving gun owners the benefit of the doubt that they are, for the most part, responsible, peaceable citizens. He was respectful, and he linked to credible studies and statistics to bolster his view.
Interestingly, and perhaps unintentionally, Vik also predicted pretty accurately what the response from the medical community would be to his essay.
Ironically, public health academics happily assert that there is a clear Constitutional right to privacy, even as they vilify a right that is actually expressed in the document, and they merrily condescend to its adherents, whom they regard as pathetic rubes.
Enter this arrogant, fat fuck.
Meet Art Caplan, MD. Art heads the bioethics program at the University of Pennsylvania, but judging from his snide, sarcastic, arrogant writing, he doesn’t know a whole lot about actual ethics, human interaction, or effective, respectful communication.
Instead of refuting any actual facts in Vik’s essay, Art simply proceeded to sneer out a “you’re a paranoid gun nut” reply, and in the process showed his absolute ignorance not just about firearms, but about current technologies, training opportunities, and laws.
Vik, buddy, no one and especially the roughly 28 folks in public health not completely distracted by their lack of funding and inability to secure tenure is capable of doing anything that will pry your gun from your warm-blooded grip. There is no political movement to take away anyone’s guns. The NRA is the mightiest lobbying outfit in these United States and the best Mike Bloomberg or Bill Gates are going to be able to do is to get the anti-gun lobby a few more op-eds and soundbites.
See that? No one wants to take your guns away. You’re paranoid. And by the way, GIVE US MORE MONEY!
My reply to Art’s patronizing gibberish is below. I also posted it in the comments section. The bolded text is my additional comments added in this blog post. I wonder how long it will last before it’s deleted…
Wow… condescending jerk much?
Someone offers an alternative view to your “kale crunching, fitbit wearing hordes of public health types” who cannot help but hysterically ascribe human traits to an inanimate object, and you have to come back with snide derision?
To be sure, Art, “buddy,” no you are not capable of prying anyone’s guns from their warm blooded grip. But make no mistake – when you “public health types” parade your medical authority as credibility on the gun issue, people who genuflect at the altar of your so-called “eruditeness,” will cite you as authorities on the issue.
So, to refute some of your histrionics…
1) Carnage is not CAUSED by guns. We analysts understand that using the passive voice in this manner serves those with an agenda well to obfuscate the problem. If you can’t determine the culprit, you will focus on the tool. The carnage is caused by criminals, and those who are ignorant and irresponsible on the proper handling of firearms.
2) “There is no political movement to take away anyone’s guns.” – Actually, you’re wrong there. There was a federal assault weapons BAN, which, even by the New York Times’ own admission, served merely to ban cosmetic features that had nothing to do with actual fatality rates. Until very recently guns were BANNED in certain cities such as Washington DC, and in many other locales, you have to ask permission from sometimes unwilling government authorities to exercise your basic right to keep and bear arms.
3) “Do public health folks have anything to offer that might reduce the mayhem while letting you hunt deer or shoot partridge or blast targets or whatever it is you and your son like to do with your guns?” — The Second Amendment is not about hunting, Art, “Buddy.” If you have any doubt about this, you should read the documents written by the men who founded this nation. (I would refer Art to Federalist 28, and this passage in particular: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.)
4) “How about encouraging doctors, ministers, sporting goods salespeople and other community leaders to learn about and then talk about gun safety?” — The key here is LEARN about gun safety. Most doctors and other public health professionals with whom I have spoken don’t know which way the business end of a rifle points. When you learn the intricacies of using these tools, I might give some credibility to you when you discuss them. Otherwise, it’s much like turning to your plumber for a vasectomy. It might be cheaper, but I don’t recommend it.
5) “How about greater efforts to get gun owners to lock up their guns and ammo properly.” — Do tell me about proper storage for a tool of self defense, Art “Buddy.” Tell me how long it takes to unlock your pistol and load it during a home invasion. Have you ever experienced such an event in your safe, lily-white community? Didn’t think so.
6) “How’s about getting hunters to wear the right high-visibility gear.” — I’m all for it, but much like with seat belts, there are some folks who just don’t wear it, and won’t. You going to fine them? Throw them in jail for violation of safety rules?
7) “Is there any merit to making guns safer including ‘smart’ guns?” — The fact that you even ask that question shows your ignorance on the issue. There has been plenty of discussion on the topic, and there are some serious safety concerns with your “smart guns.” Until you get properly educated and informed on the topic, you have no credibility to speak on the matter, and yet here you are, hiding behind your “medical professional” shield and bloviating about things you obviously know nothing about. (There’s a good article in Forbes magazine on smart gun technology you should probably read, if you haven’t already)
8) “Can we teach people to call the cops when they know there is a gun in the house of someone who is mentally ill or under a restraining order?” Oh, so everyone is now a mental health professional? Everyone knows who is under an RO, or are we relying on ESP to tell us when is a good time to report your neighbor?
9) “A little training for kids about what to do if they find a gun?” – It’s called Eddie the Eagle. Look it up, “buddy.”
In other words, Art. You obviously have no credibility on this issue, and your little sneering note toward Mr. Khanna shows you to be a supercilious, arrogant wad.
Have a nice day.
Hey, I didn’t even curse. Are you proud of me?