That's Gay: No Homo

When I was in Vegas a few weeks back I was surprised to learn that none of my buddies were familiar with this particular homophobic term made popular by rap culture. Of course after I told them about it we used it about every five minutes for the rest of the weekend because we're all totally not gay:


(via)

American Power And "Chunky Vomit"

The next impotent volley from my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power has been duly served and it barely cleared the net this time with "Brain Rage Chunky Vomit":

I guess I hurt JBW's feelings with my last post repudiating the Brain Rage embrace of death-wish drug abuse:

...my favorite part of this post is Don's continued insistence, albeit indirectly this time, that I should somehow embrace him as some type of mentor based on his 13-14 years seniority of me. I hate to disappoint the guy but I've tried this particular song and dance in the patriarchal sense twice in my life and the results were less than stellar both times: my father ignored me until he was on his death bed and my step-father was a serial dick throughout my childhood, so I'm sure I can be excused for not embracing the intellectual arguments of someone who consistently calls me a loser or worse.

Been there. Done that.

It sucks JBW when no father-figures have been there for you. That's called father-hunger. My heart bleeds for you buddy. And of course your pain helps explain why you'd take cocaine over camaraderie. So I'll be blunt: Drugs suck. They're for losers. If you don't want to be a loser. Don't do drugs.

P.S. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your post truly reminds me of "chunky vomit." And like the flummoxed muscle-bound macho teacher at the clip, you're hightailing it outta there when it comes to sophisticated engagements. Get some help dude.

First, I'd wager that there are few things you or most anyone else could say or do in this world that would legitimately hurt my feelings, Don. I know your old man was a less than stellar role model as well and I sympathize (I also assume it's why you're so quick to be so confrontational; me too on that count, perhaps...) but contrary to your characterization I don't feel any need to fill any void caused by this: I've only gained strength from it. I wasn't lamenting my upbringing so much as it was merely full disclosure for my readers. I think honesty's a good thing and I try to exemplify that as much as I can when I write.

Again, the conflation of cocaine use within a discussion about the merits of cannabis is a desperate straw man deflection but I'm going to let you in on a little secret that the rest of us adults already know: not everyone who uses drugs does so to alleviate pain. Drugs can be quite fun and stimulating when used responsibly (hell, they even cure some diseases) but you and your nanny state ilk would deny that freedom and responsibility to everyone else because you either can't handle it yourselves or simply can't grasp the grown-up concepts I'm delineating here. You don't need your government to prohibit you from using drugs if you don't like them, Don: just don't use them. That's what adults do.

I understand now why you're so afraid that your sons might try drugs someday: merely telling them that "Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs." might work for a while when they're young and naive but at some point (if you've raised them correctly) they'll start to question such a simplistic world view and they'll soon find that your black or white tropes have ill-prepared them for a complex and dynamic world. They're going to realize after looking around outside your little cocoon that not all drugs are the same and that drug use does not necessarily equal drug abuse and then they'll wonder what else you've been lying to them about. You can and should do better than your old man on this count.

On a lighter note, your homosexual vomit fetish video was quite silly and not at all to my liking. In the future I would prefer any posts about myself to include video of strict school marms disciplining naughty young girls to your depictions of teenage boys eating fake vomit for the benefit of their gay gym coach. I'm not judging you for your proclivities and I similarly don't expect you to judge me for mine (although yours are somewhat gross and pretty damn gay). NTTAWWT!

I'm not sure how I'm "hightailing it outta there when it comes to sophisticated engagements" by constantly challenging you to sack up and honestly debate your side of this argument but I'm sure your cognitive dissonance allows you to somehow believe this and think yourself superior as a result. When you're ready to use your big boy voice I've got a swollen cranium full of clever bon mots to lob at whatever emaciated arguments you'd care to put forth in defense of your side of this discussion. The chance to make your brain my brain's bitch is all the help I need, dude.

Kagan's Supreme Court Nomination

From what little I've read about her so far, it appears that she has a scant record of written opinions for a Harvard Law School dean and is not progressively ideological enough (i.e. on executive power) for some on the political left but after listening to the first day of right-wing talk radio following the announcement of her nomination I think Dave Weigel of The Washington Post hits the nail on the head:

We're already seeing a line of criticism develop. If I can sum it up in the bluntest possible language, Kagan is a New York, Ivy League elitist, a critic of the military during wartime, who was picked because President Obama is all of those things.

This is pretty much what I've been hearing out there and right-wing talk radio doesn't form Republican opinion and policy so much as it just serves as a vast echo chamber for it. I would expect to hear a lot of this narrative over the next few months but I also predict that she will ultimately become (possibly the first homosexual) Supreme Court Justice.

(via)

President Obama's State Of The Union Address

So I watched the State of the Union speech last night (you can watch/read it here) and yes, I do have a few thoughts. All in all I found it a pretty good, not great, but pretty good speech and while it was one of the longer States of the Union in a decade I thought that it encompassed pretty much everything it had to without plodding along (although the average non-political junkie might take exception to that statement). Most importantly though, it was a challenge to the American people as well as the recently ineffectual Democratic party to not back down in the face of economic and political adversity.

As always, Obama combined soaring oratory with conversational rhetoric and I thought that he appeared quite presidential as he used both to easily convey his ideas to the American people in a frank, almost informal, manner. He once again enumerated the myriad problems that his administration has inherited from the last one (this will most likely be labeled as petty or partisan by some talking heads but recent news cycles have shown that many folks are already beginning to forget these things) before quickly moving on to the main topic of the economy.

He started out by commiserating with Americans about their collective economic woes with a warning that while the worst is behind us there is still much to be done (tedious but necessary) before laying out proposals for business loans, tax credits and the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses while at the same time urging the Senate to pass a jobs bill similar to the House bill from last year. He also articulated the need for stronger financial reform of the banking system which was then followed by a call for more investment in clean energy jobs and increases in safe nuclear power, off shore drilling and so-called clean coal technology. I can't tell you how happy it made me to finally hear a Democratic president calling for more and better nuclear power plants; I was less enthusiastic about the off shore drilling and "clean" coal however.

He then noted the need for increased U.S. exporting of goods and making sure that our trading partners and competitors adhere to the rules of current trade agreements in order to make America competitive on the world market once again. Finally, he emphasized that we must increase funding for and accountability of public education, particularly in the areas of math and the sciences, through a national reform competition and tax credits for attending four year colleges. His pronouncement that he does "not accept second-place for the United States of America" on these fronts set an appropriately forceful tone as he then addressed the current health care reform debate in Congress.

He repeated his administrations goals of covering the uninsured, bringing down the deficit and insurance premiums, strengthening Medicare for seniors and reining in insurance company abuses (those of us who have been paying attention have heard these all a thousand times) before stating that he's still open to any serious suggestions about doing so while also asking Congress to "not walk away from reform" when they are so close to changing the status quo of a health care system that has been broken for decades. This is what I was wanting to hear more than anything else last night and while I think that he could have been a little more forceful (don't I always?) I think that his message was quite clear: I've spent the better part of my first year working on this so you wishy-washy bureaucratic pussies need to sack up and get this thing done! That's a little something called leadership and it was nice to see him finally doing it well.

Addressing the deficit Obama again explained that it was necessary to spend money that was added to our debt in order to right the country's financial ship rather than immediately trying to reduce spending, something he would have preferred to do right away. He introduced his plan for a bipartisan fiscal commission charged with reducing the deficit and then stated that since American families are tightening their belts that the federal government should do the same; though why, I have no idea. Yes, his proposed three year spending freeze looks good on a psychological and symbolic level and it's a good jumping off point for serious fiscal responsibility and reforms in the future but I'm still of the opinion that when it comes to the economy we should be listening to the suggestions of actual economists, not public opinion polls from nervous voters unable to balance their own checkbooks.

He then pivoted to the problem of Americans not trusting their government (who do so with ample reason, I might add) by addressing the need for bipartisanship in governing along with lobbying and earmark reform, all of which I won't believe until I see it irregardless of which party is in power. His foreign policy proposals were fairly standard and pretty much hold overs from his campaign: increased vigilance towards al-Qaida and terrorist networks, prohibitions against unlawful torture (although holding certain past administrations accountable for instituting such practices seems to be all but off the table as of late), strengthening our position in Afghanistan, pulling our troops out of Iraq, securing loose nukes from former Soviet republics and keeping up diplomatic pressure against Iran and North Korea. I certainly don't mean to belittle these efforts by calling them campaign hold overs because I do think that Obama is quite sincere on these issues; I'm just saying that we've already heard them all before, as we have his ever eloquent call to embrace the ideals and values that have made America great (but that part is always good to hear and never gets old).

As I said, this was obviously a speech for both the American people and members of the Democratic party but they weren't the only ones Obama was speaking to last night. Just as he did with teachers' unions and black voters during the presidential election, Obama spelled out some hard truths to several groups assembled in the crowd. He admonished Republicans for their callous obstructionism on health care and economic reform who, despite his repeated calls for bipartisan tax relief and energy policies, proceeded to sit on their hands throughout the entire speech whilst glaring like petulant children being scolded by an angry father. He was met with similarly dissenting scowls from conservative Supreme Court justices and the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he decried the recent ruling allowing corporations unfettered access to politicians and media through increased campaign contributions and pledged to end the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" towards homosexuals, respectively. And on a totally unrelated style note, I was also quite happy that he forwent the relatively recent practice of presidents sprinkling various ringers throughout the audience to refer to during their speeches; it just always seemed like such awkward and obvious political theatre to me and it wasn't missed at all.

This was a speech of intelligence, wit, honesty and serious truths that the American people, and especially our politicians, needed to hear from our president. Obama stood before the nation and reminded us of why we elected him to lead us through these tough times. I do fully expect his continued calls for bipartisanship to fall upon deaf Republican ears but that will of course come as no big surprise; what I really hope to see emerge as a result of this speech is a renewed spirit of perseverance and strength on behalf of the Democratic party. Obama needed to come up with a strong State of the Union address last night and he delivered, but I never really had any concerns on that account. As always, it's what he does best. We must now wait to see if he convinced Congress to similarly deliver on the various proposals he's laid out for the nation. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't cynical about his chances but I also must admit that I now have a bit more optimism towards that end as well. Let's just hope that it's warranted.

Picture Of The Day

Protest sign punkings are some of my favorite things in the world.

(via)

Picture Of The Day

That would be hilarious.

(via)

There's A Rep For That

Don't let anyone tell you that the modern Republican party isn't diverse:


(via)

Something Someone Else Said

"You want to know who the biggest hypocrite in the world is? The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals. Hypocrite. The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals - sodomites, queers! That’s what it was instituted for, okay? That’s God, he hasn’t changed. Oh, God doesn’t feel that way in the New Testament … God never “felt” anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed." -Pastor Steven L. Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church.

Yeah, I'm sure Jesus would have been totally down with this kind of hateful bullshit. I feel sorry for anyone, straight or gay, who is amongst this man's congregation. Is it any wonder that atheism has been steadily growing in popularity in American society?

August 4th Is Megan Fox Media Blackout Day

What exactly the fuck do these obvious homosexuals think they're doing?:

A dozen male-focused Web sites including AOL's men's lifestyle/humor site Asylum.com — as well as Ask Men, Just a Guy Thing and Double Viking — have sanctioned Aug. 4 as a Megan Fox media blackout day.

Why the diss? All the editors feel the starlet has become a bit too overexposed — and they're not just talking about her fashion sense. Fox has appeared on the covers of Esquire, Empire, Maxim, GQ UK, Entertainment Weekly and Elle this year alone, plus she did heavy press for her role as Mikaela Banes in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."

"You can have too much of a good thing," says AskMen.com's Editor-in-Chief James Bassil, who tells us, "We're joining in the media blackout and giving our readers a one-day reprieve from the woman we've been drowning in all summer." Jokes Doug Sheckler of on205th.com: "She needs to do more to earn our undying praise and affection. For instance, she hasn't even returned any of my calls this year asking for a date. What's up with that?"

“Enough is enough already!” men’s website Double Viking said on its website. “Yes, Megan Fox is banging. Yes Megan Fox is delicious. Yes Megan Fox farts rainbows. But seriously, enough is enough!”

You can say what you will about unauthorized wiretapping of United States citizens, free speech zones for law-abiding protesters, government sanctioned torture of terror suspects and vegetarian hamburgers on restaurant menus but this has to be one of the most un-American things I've ever heard of. Enough is never enough! Here at Brain Rage I don't bow down to the whims of the corporate controlled, male-oriented Interwebs so please enjoy an extra large helping of Megan on me ("Megan on me": Jesus, I wish...). Oh, and make sure you bury that gym sock at the bottom of the laundry hamper when you're finished. You're welcome.

Kanye West: "I Am The New King Of Pop"

Apparently Michael Jackson is now finally dead enough:

"You know everyone loves and respects Michael but times change. It's so sad to see Michael gone but it makes a path for a new King of Pop and I'm willing to take that on," so he told Scrape TV.

On what makes him deserve the title, Kanye said, "There's nobody who can match me in sales and in respect so it only makes sense for me to take over Michael's crown and become the new King." The rapper then added, "First there was Elvis [Presley], then there was Michael, now in the 21st century it's Kanye's time to rule. I have nothing but respect for Michael but someone needs to pick up where he left off and there's nobody better than me to do that. I am the new King of Pop."

Furthermore, Kanye reportedly has reached out to the Jackson family to obtain official permission to use the title but so far received no response from them. It is believed that the family is still mourning over Michael's death.

Huh, you'd think that Jackson's family could get over the grief of losing a beloved family member long enough to anoint someone else as his self-proclaimed successor but I guess they're just going to continue to be jerks about it. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember Michael Jackson ever declaring that he was the King of Pop. It was only after expending a lot of talent and hard work that he was finally dubbed as such by his fans and critics alike. I admittedly don't follow West's career that closely but speaking as a big Michael Jackson fan I have to say that South Park really had this guy's number a few months back:


[Update: It seems that this was a fake story (told you I didn't follow him that closely) although a quick perusal of the Internets has made it clear that I wasn't the only one fooled by the prospects of West's jackassery. My apologies for the mistake, just the same.]

Picture Of The Day

Thank Zeus that there are totally-straight, heterosexual individuals like these good Republican congressmen out there safe-guarding the sanctity of marriage for the rest of us honest, non-gay Americans. Just imagine the horrors of our society without them. Really: Just imagine it! One obviously shudders at the thought...

(via)

Donald Douglas Wants To Kill My Hate Monkey

I don't believe this! What kind of a country do we live in where an "evil" neoconservative blogger like my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power can openly and wantonly threaten the life of an innocent liberal-attack-hate-monkey like Thade in his post "Blacks as Monkeys? Even When Leftists Hit Bottom, They Keep Digging" and get away with it? That's not the America I grew up in, and I'm not sure if it's an America that I can continue to live in.

For those just joining us, Don saw a picture of Thade acting out his version of male simian dominance towards himself in one of my posts. Now while he originally took this as a threat of violence from myself I assured him that Thade was flexing his monkey nuts of his own accord and that if Don wanted to tussle with him (Don was also flexing his own human nuts in response) that Thade had insisted that they fight by "monkey rules" which...

OK, I'm going to step out of my comedic voice for a second to address the absolute absurdity of Don professing that I was actually threatening him with violence by a fictional hate monkey (whatever the hell that is) or that I would ever intimate that Don was indeed the monkey I was referring to. In fact, as someone who majored in Anthropology in college it has pained me to no end to even keep referring to Thade as a monkey rather than an ape but the word "monkey" is obviously funnier so I've done so thus far and have tried to use the word as much as possible for comedic effect. And when I myself imagine having to fight a monkey the funniest/scariest thing I can think of would be that the monkey would hurl his feces at me. Now of course it would never occur to me to hurl my own feces back at him as a defense, and neither have I suggested that Don would have done the same in his fictional monkey battle with Thade.

But this latest cry of outrage from Don also illustrates the inherent mindset of victimology and persecution that he has cultivated, and which I've decried, since the outset of our little spat. If someone photoshops a baby into someone else within the context of making fun of that person, to Don they're obviously making fun of the baby instead and therefore hate and want to retroactively abort all handicapped children. If someone makes a joke about a neocon who's puffing up his chest at the prospect of a fight comedically fighting a poop flinging monkey, they're obviously calling the neocon a poop flinging monkey instead and are therefore racist and want to denigrate all black people.

As explanation for those not in the know, Don has mentioned on occasion that he is of mixed race and most decidedly not white. OK, that's cool with me. Now, of which races is Don's racial identity composed? I have no idea. None. He seems to be saying that he's part black in his last post so I'll believe him (although he's given me ample evidence to doubt the veracity of anything he says up to this point). Personally, I always thought that he looked more Hispanic than anything else and the name "Donald Douglas" itself provides few cultural clues, so I've honestly never really given it much more thought than that. I just didn't care. Of course all of these points are rendered moot by the fact that I never called him a monkey in the first place, although he seemed to have no such compunctions about calling me (admittedly a white dude) a "hate monkey" before I created the fictional Thade to redirect the insult.

Don ends his post with the following:

Enough is enough!

This pissing contest has gone on long enough. I am again calling on James B. Webb to issue a full apology to me. I will publish it here in a new post. This debate began almost two weeks ago, when Mr. Webb attacked the "everyday stupidity of right-wing religious neoconservatives." Now it's time for him to have the last word. I confess honestly myself right here: Sure, I like to debate and tussle online, and I admit that I'm pretty zealous in defending against attacks as a "stupid" neocon extremist. And things have gotten pretty ugly too.

So, now James can show he's a gentleman. James B. Webb can end it here with a full apology for his "blacks as monkeys" slur (see, "Blacks as Monkeys? It's Time For An Adult Conversation"). I will accept his apology and we all can move on.

Actually, I only attacked the "everyday stupidity of right-wing religious neoconservatives" in response to Don attacking the "everyday demonology of left-wing secular progressives" first but I'm not going to split hairs. And that's really big of him to demand an apology for something I never said and then offer to graciously accept it. But here goes: I'm sorry, Don. I'm sorry that you seem to take yourself and the rest of the world so seriously that you have no discernable sense of humor to speak of. I'm also sorry that you can not grasp the concept that a handicapped person could be included even tangentially in a joke about someone else without that handicapped person being the butt of the joke, nor that you can not grasp that a black person who doesn't look obviously black by most objective measurements and rarely identifies himself as such could be included in a joke about fighting a fictional monkey without that black person also being called a monkey. I like handicapped people, neoconservatives, black people and monkeys and I call many from every group friends. I'm sorry that you can't view the world without confusing several of these hominids in your blindingly righteous indignation.

At this point I had originally planned to slip back into my comedic voice to continue my faux rant against Don for posting the New York Post editorial cartoon about police officers murdering a chimp, implying that he was now threatening my own fictional hate monkey with monkeycide but I've somehow lost my zeal for this whole war. It appears that in addition to being accused of being gay (yeah, snark Don; I get it...) I am now also apparently a homophobe and a racist, all because I made some jokes about an uptight neoconservative windbag. Readers can decide for themselves as to whether I'm a gentleman as well. You win Don, and you even finally got your apology. You got me [falling over dead]. Adieu.

[Update: Don has posted my "apology" along with a few emails from his readers insulting me and complaining about his posts about me. Apparently I'm being blamed for Don's obsession and inability to keep from writing about me. So be it. The people too blind to see what really happened this past week are already too far gone to waste time explaining it to them.

I'll say this: This whole encounter has definitely opened my eyes. I knew from the outset that Don had a propensity for ignoring facts and proven points but I never dreamed that he was capable of the levels of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty displayed towards me over the course of this little war. I'm aware that I could probably win some arguments by employing his tactics as well but at the end of the day I would just feel like a damn liar.

I truly doubt his professed ability to leave this side of himself out of the classroom. How could someone who has convinced himself of the truthfulness of the things he's accused me of ever have the self-awareness to make that distinction? One of these sides of his personality is obviously far out of whack, I just hope for the sake of his students that the personality we've seen here today is that side.

On a lighter note: Can I get a "Hell yeah!" for that fridge door photoshop? It's one of my most favoritest things I've ever posted here and I thought that it was pretty fucking hilarious. Just saying.]

[Update II: I was just reading some of the comments on Don's post. Most of these people are as deluded as Don, it's like they were reading a whole other blog war. Sad, and a tad worrisome.]

American Power And Unhealthy Obsession

M'ka-a-ay. It now appears that my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power might just be developing a slightly unhealthy obsession with yours truly (and by "slightly" I of course mean "scarily"):

This post is a lengthy response to yet another iteration of the recent attacks on this blog. (Actually, a couple of iterations. James "Barebacker" Webb" has photoshopped me again since I started working on this post! And this time, with this particular Photoshop, James appears to imply a physical threat. I don't buckle to threats, so if big boy James is really calling me out, he knows where I am. He's a sorry-assed punk who's been beaten badly already, for all to see. But if he's looking for serious trouble, he'll need to get real personal and kick me to the curb like a man - put up or shut up!)

That's the opening salvo from Don's newest post about me: "James B. Webb: Depths of Psychological Denial". Now if you read it carefully you'll notice that he says that he was already writing this newest rant prior to my latest riposte. The post is about how I'm living in denial or something like that but more importantly it speaks to the very real possibility of Don actually having an unhealthy obsession with this humble little blog and its author.

Now I have it on good authority that Don was not always like this. Apparently he used to be a relatively sane and good-natured fellow but it seems that a bite from a radioactive neoconservative spider sometime after the 2004 presidential election somehow gave him the shrieking name-calling power of ten Republicans combined! Now whenever someone professes a belief in global climate change, two gay people show affection for one another or Barack Obama speaks of hope and change in his smooth, dulcet baritone Don's Neocon Sense starts tingling and he immediately leaps into rhetorical action, casting aspersions and calling these people "idiot" as only someone with a PhD can.

Seriously though you can relax Don, that's just a picture of my pet liberal-attack-hate-monkey Thade. He says that he'll be happy to meet you for a throwdown anytime anywhere but he has two conditions: 1) Your tussle will have to stay within the bounds of "monkey rules" (I truly have no idea what that means; just pray that there's no flinging of poop involved...) and 2) You must rub bananas all over yourself prior to the fight; apparently it gets him into the mood. Now I know what you're worried about guy but fear not: Thade isn't a gay hate monkey. But just the same if he does start humping you just go with it, although it's most likely just a reaction to the bananas. Oo-oo, ah-ah!

And here's a free tip for all you kids out there: When you have to increasingly proclaim that someone is "down for the count", that you've given them a "brutal pounding" or even a "merciless thrashing", odds are that you're not actually winning the debate like you think you are. There's a reason Barry Sanders always just handed the referee the ball after a kickass touchdown run. It's the insecure Terrell Owens' of the world that need to constantly brag to validate their own performances and dwindling self-esteems.

But back to Don's post. I won't waste your time with all of the details but basically Don now accuses me of being in denial and quotes another conservative blogger as proof of such. Pretty pedestrian stuff, really. Oh wait, here's something good:

(ASIDE: Dr. Sanity's example of an alcholic's denial is hypothetical, and is not specific to my criticism of James B. Webb. It is interesting, though, that with James B. Webb, many of his attacks are alcohol-fueled. I don't know if James' drinking problem is related to the supression of the other feelings and conflicting guilts, but there's no doubt that when someone has been shown as not just badly wrong, but bereft of moral virtue, some kind of psychological clinical adaptation must take place. Absent that, one might completely breakdown to a catatonic state.)

Actually most of my writing is alcohol-assisted. You see, I have insomnia so I do most of my writing at night with a nice bottle of wine (or two) by my side. I know, I'm shattering the illusion that I spend all day writing and posting like Don does but I just post-date my posts so that they automatically go up the next day while I'm out doing other shit. And trust me when I say that my drinking is not any kind of a problem: I'm really, really good at it. Wait... Hands...starting to shake. Completely breaking down into...catatonic state! *glug*glug* Ah-h-h! Sorry, it turned out that I just needed some more of my happy-go-go writing juice to keep me clever and good-looking. Crises averted.

OK, let's see. Don recaps our debate of the last week, quotes me as saying that the whole Palin/Letterman outrage was overblown and then claims that I've "eaten my words dissing the 'ghoulshopping' of Baby Trig" by quoting me as saying this:

I understand ... any of those photoshops attacking or making fun of Trig are disgusting and should rightly be condemned ...

Which is true. Have you seen some of these things? Disgusting, and I rightly condemn them. OK Don, I'm now going to type these next lines out very slowly and I'm going to need you to read them thusly to make sure that you keep up with the rest of the class: Not every photoshop of Palin and her child is attacking or making fun of Trig. Read it again, slower this time. Didja get that? Blue Oasis' photoshop was making fun of Eddie Burke; my photoshop was making fun of you.

Even the pictures with Ronald Reagan's face taped over the face of the buff gay guy you like so much hanging on your refrigerator in the photoshop above aren't making fun of Reagan or the buff gay guy; they're making fun of you. Because you see, the joke is that you and other neocons like yourself get off by jerking it to pictures of your infallible hero Reagan. Funny, huh? And just as it was with Letterman, even though you don't get or understand the jokes that doesn't mean that you get to make up your own meanings and intentions for them and then scream "Hypocrisy!" at the top of your lungs just to fuel your supposed moral outrage. And when you do, you're again practicing the selfsame "intellectual dishonesty" you were crying about me accusing you of yesterday.

Here's another example you might find familiar: You quote me as saying the following:

I called you on your inability to recognize or define hypocrisy and dared you to publically prove your claim you went apeshit and wrote a rambling screed trying to smear me as being gay ...

To repeat myself once again, I told you not to link to yourself in the comment sections of my posts if your links were not relevant to the material in those posts. When I link to myself in the comment sections of your posts and the links are relevant to the material in those posts that's not hypocrisy, that's me being consistent. Also, you left off some of the more relevant sections of my quote. It actually read like this:

Then when I called you on your inability to recognize or define hypocrisy and dared you to publically prove your claim you went apeshit and wrote a rambling screed trying to smear me as being gay (which says so much about you, by the way) and so many other stupid things.

Remember Don, you're the one who thinks that accusing another man of being gay is some kind of horrid insult and as I mentioned, that says a whole lot more about you and who you are. Now relax, I'm not similarly accusing you of being gay. I'm just stating that you obviously have some real sexual hangups and problems with homosexuals and homosexuality. Now you can claim that you're just fighting a culture war for the continuation of "opposite" marriage or that you're just against the slow creep of moral and physical depravity that teh gays represent to good moral people like yourself but the rest of us can smell what The Rock is cooking, and it stinks of bigotry.

That's about it, I guess. Sorry to end this one so abruptly but all that's left to address is Don trying to be clever by intimating that I'm gay once again and then bitching that I still call him "Don", which is just so disrespectful to someone who so obviously deserves every scintilla of respect I can muster, isn't it? I guess that just proves that my "moral bankruptcy and nihilist hypocrisy are on display" for the whole world to see. Are you watching, world? I hope so. And Don, seriously, do yourself a favor and at least try learning a new tune. The rest of us don't make fun of you for calling us "nihilists" because you use the word too little. Switch it up a bit and I promise that you'll eventually sound smarter as a result. Cheers.

[Update: For those who haven't been following this little blog war from the beginning, friend of this blog repsac3 of American Nihilist offers up an extremely comprehensive wrap up of the past weeks back and forth in his newest post "Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga". Wow, I really hadn't realized just how many times we've traded shots thus far. As Reppy mentions, I've been considering just letting it go but Don also makes it so damn easy (and fun) to fuck with him. We'll see how it goes.]

I Don't Think Donald Douglas Likes Me...

In the grand and storied tradition of drawing the vehement ire of addled right-wing bloggers, be they young hotties, lipless newspapermen or shyster law profs, it seems that I've now drawn the same from a short, middle-aged, petulant community college poli-sci prof (with all due respect, of course). I am speaking of course about my oft referenced, and just as often mocked, conservative counterpart Don Douglas of American Power. Give it up, ya'll: He really tries hard, and it's extremely cute when he does so.

As regular readers may remember, I wrote a post yesterday entitled "American Power And Trig Palin "Ghoulshopping"" in response to Don's own post "Democratic Values! Left-Wing Alaska Operative 'Ghoulshops' Trig Palin!". Before writing the post I left a comment on Don's blog about his post but then decided to write my own in response, so I deleted my comment and left a link in his comment section, inadvertently making me an apparent "freaking hypocrite". Expound at fairly great length, you ask? Well, OK...

You see, Don had on more than one occasion left links to himself in the comment sections of my site that had absolutely nothing to do with their respective posts. I politely asked him to cease the practice after the first time he transgressed and even left his link up as a show of my benign benevolence and blogger solidarity. He returned the favor by committing the aforementioned verboten act a second time, for which I deleted his link and then emailed him the following:

I warned you once before Don when you shamelessly linked some post about your skateboarding youth on a completely unrelated comment thread at my site. I left that link up and made it clear that I would delete any future comments not at least tangentially relevant to their posts...

When I come to your site and promote my own posts on completely unrelated ones that you've written then feel free to talk shit to me. Until then, I'll keep my own council on the flexibility of MY posting rules at MY site.

The reason I post this admittedly dated email now is because it was quoted back to me today by Don as proof of my own apparently blatant hypocrisy in linking to myself at his site:

Looks like I've gotten under your skin a bit, James.

Hey, that's cool, but just so you know, you're a freaking hypocrite:

You wrote ...

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Now I've never actually looked up the definition of the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary because it's a pretty frequently used word within the English lexicon, so I was a bit confused as to why Don now claimed that it applied to myself in this situation. So I replied thusly:

You've not gotten under my skin one wit, Don. I just like pointing out your inanities for sport.

And I know it's cool but let me recap this supposed hypocrisy for you: I gave you shit for posting links to completely UNRELATED topics on posts at my site. My links today are to a post ABOUT YOUR POST that I left the links on. Please explain to me how adhering to the rules and standards I set for myself and others makes me a freaking hypocrite. I'm dying to hear this. Or better yet, do all of this publicly and hoist me on my own rhetorical petard for all to see.

I'm begging you to.

Now I've also never looked up the phrase "hoist me on my own petard" but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean "go apeshit crazy whilst accusing me of being gay". Oh, have I forgotten to mention that Don did indeed attempt to do exactly as I suggested? No? Well, prepare yourselves for a literary treat as you absorb the fairly inane yet highly entertaining ramblings contained within "James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays" (I'm pretty sure that Don is wholly ignorant of the comedic irony of an individual such as himself using the Internet slang term "teh gays" but I'd hate to ruin his good time by pointing it out here).

Have you read it? Pretty good stuff, huh? Now normally I'd refute a discursive diatribe such as this with a point by point blogging technique known as fisking (see the linked examples in the first sentence of this post) but did you actually read the entirety of that disjointed screed? I counted almost four dozen exclamation points that were entirely original to the post itself, but in Don's defense he only went bold-faced type less than half a dozen times (restraint, thy name is Donald). Just consider yourself lucky that indignant, high-speed spittle can't travel digitally or else you and your keyboard would be considerably flecked with neoconservative foam at this point.

For those who might be confused by certain sections of Don's invective, while I'm obviously not gay I do advocate for gay rights on this site and in the comment section of Don's blog. I mention this because some of you might be wondering about the seemingly randomly attempted slur Don tries to impart to me by mentioning some gay Asian dude in relation to my site. Regular readers know that I'm a self-proclaimed atheist (something Don considers an affront to his one true god, apparently) and I have a link to the OUT Campaign in the right-hand column of this site. Anyone who's an atheist can join and add their site to the blogroll there, so Don found himself a gay Asian linking at the same site and has made an online hobby out of trying to smear me, in his eyes, by attempting to conflate our respective sexual preferences.

You see, to people like Don who are uncomfortable around gay people (despite desperately transparent protestations like: "some of my best friends are...") and are vehemently dedicated to denying homosexuals the same rights afforded to every other member of American society, calling another man, or even just intimating (in his own admittedly clumsy and rhetorically fumbling manner) that that man is gay, is an insult of the highest order. I myself understand this mindset better than most: I was born and raised in Texas. I recognize the sound of a bar stool being kicked back by some roided-up tough guy at the mere questioning of his sexual preferences better than I know my own mother's voice, and Don's own puffed-up chest and masculine insecurities would indeed reserve himself a primo spot at that theoretical shit-kicker bar. Shots are on me, Don (like a shot in your fucking mouth, you gay bitch!). Triple points to whomever gets that hilarious, yet highly relevant, movie quote.

So I guess that's it for my riposte to Don's meandering thrust (settle down, guy!) over my admittedly meager challenge to his intellectual prowess (I was at a bar with some friends earlier tonight and have just now started my second bottle of Chardonnay since arriving home). I suppose that many of you were pining for a bit more rhetorical blood lust but come on: it's Don Douglas! I consider all of this back and forth shot-trading to be merely good sport and fine entertainment, for those who are even interested. Also, I have it on good authority from a family member of his that he has considerable emotional baggage, for which I genuinely pity him and those around him.

Chin up, Don. I'm sure that you're far more intellectually resilient and emotionally stable than you appear online. God's speed (and by "God" I mean an impossibly powerful, imaginary character you like to believe is looking out for you and everyone you care about in this world, despite any and all empirical evidence to the contrary)... Have I mentioned that I'm an atheist? Aw, just accuse me of being a "godless nihilist" in a good-natured fashion once again and we'll call it even. Deal? Kisses...

[Update: How can I claim to be a soulless, socialistic atheist without shamelessly promoting any and every portrayal of myself online?
I like to fashion myself as an intellectual, airborne Eric Cartman (although the hair portrays me as more of a Frankenstein's monster than an infant; Jesus Sheeples, can't you at least get the hip, sporty do right?). Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.]

[Update II: Don delivers yet another masterstroke of rhetorical brilliance by...well, I guess by just calling me gay again only now I seem to have much better abs (and barely a dozen exclamation points; Don, I get the feeling that you're not even trying to over-punctuate anymore, although you do still loves yourself some bold-faced caps, huh?). From his scathing follow-up post "James "Barebacker" Webb":
Jesus, I wish I had the kind of willpower it takes to do that many crunches. For the uninitiated, "barebacking" is a term for having sex without a condom (which yes, I will admit to having done, stupidly on several instances depending on the chick in question) and has come to be used prevalently in the gay community as of late. So apparently a while back prolific online poster and friend of this blog Andrew Sullivan posted some kind of personal ad mentioning barebacking as well as "milky loads", two phrases that seem to have permanently emblazoned themselves upon Don's psyche judging by his own prolific use of them. Now they serve the singular function of blanket, catch-all insults that Don uses in lieu of reasoned rhetoric and actually clever stinging barbs.

He's also claimed to have unearthed another instance of egregious hypocrisy on my part by (only just now) pointing out that I address him by the shortened sobriquet "Don" whilst light-heartedly insisting that he include my middle initial when addressing me by my full name (I chose the "B" myself). Funny, it's just that after calling him Don hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times up to this point you'd think that he'd have mentioned it before and in Don's defense he and pretty much everyone else I've encountered online have always referred to me as "JBW" as that is how I sign my various posts and comments. He's only recently started to refer to me more formally, ostensibly because he no longer considers himself my "homie" anymore. It would appear that the man crush has ended, Truth101. Single tear...]

[Update III: It now seems that conservative and frequent commenter at Don's site Stogie from Saberpoint has purchased his own ticket to board Don's crazy train (or "joined the debate", as Don inadvertently jokes) by questioning the subtitle of my site and my self-identification as a Libertarian-Socialist (which, somewhat ironically, is what caused Don to first leave a comment on Brain Rage oh so long ago. Ah, memories *sniff*).

Now in Stogie's post "Jimmy B. Webb: What's a Libertarian-Socialist?" he not only has made a devastating photoshop stating quite imaginatively that "Socialism is for losers" but he then...wait a minute. I've seen your profile, you're a cartoon dog with a cigar! Who do I look like, Joe Camel? I can take being called gay by a pudgy community college prof but trading barbs with cancer-ridden, cartoon canines is where I draw the line. Good day to you, sir!]

The Pageant Of The Christ

I agree with Jon Stewart that the outrage over the Carrie Prejean "controversy" is mostly manufactured and stupidly distracting so I'll give him the final word on it:

Maher's New Rules

This was a good one. He really has the Republicans' number:


(via)

Quizno's Sandwich Oven Fail

I assume that they were going with some kind of 2001: A Space Odyssey thing here but it just comes off as being really, really awkwardly gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that:

"Put your toasty torpedo in me, Scott. Do it sexy..."

(via)

The Homosexual Agenda

This anti-gay marriage ad by the Illinois Family Institute really outdoes the National Organization for Marriage ad currently being discussed across the political blogosphere. Oh my god, acceptance?! Who do these fucking queers think they are?:

I love the line about gays always having to be the best dressed in television portrayals (Really? Shocker!) rather than being the most likely candidates for suicide. I wonder where each of those incredibly unrealistic stereotypes arise. Go Christians! Oppress those gays, cause they deserve it! Dirty sinners...

(via)

[Update: The Colbert Coalition's anti-gay marriage ad trumps any parody of the NOM ad I've yet seen:
]

Voting Down Gay Marriage Bans

Per my post from yesterday in which I predicted that "Texas is a long ways away from establishing marriage equality for its gay citizens" comes this map from The Scroll Blog using data from statistician Nate Silver predicting when states will vote down bans on gay marriage. By "long ways away" I was thinking longer than a decade (more like as long as it takes everyone over fifty in the state to die) but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

(via)

Quote For The Day

"There is a rising tide of pink fascism in this country, and it comes as a result of the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has signaled that during his reign it will be acceptable to impose gay marriage on the people of the United States. He's being very cleverly used as a tool of the gay puppet masters. He is personally masculine, has a beautiful family and was used by the gay mafia to convince real American families that they should support him.

And now that Obama the Trojan horse has been taken inside the gates, so to speak, the contagion from within his administration is spreading throughout the country. One state at a time seems to be falling. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, California is teetering on the brink. Will Texas be next? Will Obama say that in order to make up for the oppression caused by slavery that the Deep South will now have to accept gay marriage under duress? Is this a sexual reconstruction of the entire country? Don't ask, because Obama won't tell," - Michael Savage, WorldNet Daily

Two things: 1) I'm predicting right now that Texas is a long ways away from establishing marriage equality for its gay citizens, and 2) yes, that's a real, undoctored photo of the guy decrying gay marriage rights wearing a white suit and hat whilst holding a fluffy little dog in San Francisco. Nosce te ipsum.

(via)