Slate writer: You’re ‘racist’ if you’re attracted to someone of the same race 10

Slate’s Reihan Salam wants you to know: You’re a “racist” if you’re attracted to people who look like you. The great thing about his piece is that if that conclusion bothers you, reading past the headline is unnecessary. It’s titled: ‘Is It Racist to Date Only People of Your Own Race? Yes.’

Take OkCupid, for example —  the dating service run by hypocritical CEO Sam Yagan, who recently engaged in character assassination because Brendan Eich once donated to an anti-gay marriage bill … even though he donated to a staunchly anti-gay marriage politician. The site asks a number of questions to figure out what type of person you’re physically attracted to. To race-obsessed Slate writers, that makes those **cough**white people**cough** who are attracted to a mate who looks like them “racist.”

From Slate:

One of OkCupid’s questions reads as follows: “Would you strongly prefer to go out with someone of your own skin color/racial background?” I was struck by the not inconsiderable number of people who answered “yes”—including some people I know “in real life,” many of whom are hilariously self-righteous about their enlightened political views.

Keep in mind that OkCupid users can skip a question with ease. The people who answered this question had every opportunity to pass it by. What I found surprising about the fact that a fair number of people answered that they would indeed strongly prefer to go out with someone of their own skin color/racial background was not that this phenomenon exists in the world. …

In The American Non-Dilemma, Nancy DiTomaso argues that persistent racial inequality in the United States is not solely or even primarily a reflection of racism and discrimination. Rather, it reflects the fact that whites tend to help other whites without ever discriminating against or behaving cruelly toward blacks and other nonwhites. As long as whites tend to dominate prestigious occupations, and as long as they control access to valuable social resources like access to good schools, the fact that whites, like all people, will do more to help family, friends, and acquaintances than strangers will tend to entrench racial inequality, provided that white people choose to associate primarily with other whites.

To the liberal mind, white people who do not discriminate towards minorities — who do not think cruel thoughts about them at all — are still “racist” if the color that they find most attractive is what they see when they look in the mirror. To liberals like Suey Park, it doesn’t matter what’s going on in a white person’s mind — their skin has determined their fate: “racist.”

To the liberal mind, it is “racist” to help your family, friends and acquaintances if you are white because white people “dominate prestigious occupations.”

Yes, even though the writer acknowledges that “all people” help those who are in their immediate circle of friends and family, we must constantly monitor  non-discriminatory white people because they “control access to valuable social resources.”

What is more likely holding back black people in Chicago: white Americans who are really nice — who just so happen to be attracted to someone who looks like them — or the fact that blacks are slaughtering each other in the streets like something you’d find in the Middle East?

Time magazine reports — welcome to ‘Chiraq’:

At least nine people were killed and at least 36 wounded in Chicago over the Easter weekend, prompting a newly formed federal unit to step in to help tackle the city’s pervasive culture of gun violence.

In a Monday statement, a prosecutorial unit called the Violent Crimes section said it will put its full focus on how to use federal statutes to combat Chicago’s endemic gang and gun problem, giving the city its nickname “Chiraq.” The shootings over the weekend brought the total number of suspected homicide this year to 90, two less than during the same period last year.

These record numbers come despite the fact that it appears the city is finding creative ways to lower it’s murder rate. Need to get rid of crime? Don’t call it crime. Genius!

From Chicago magazine:

Toxicology tests showed she had heroin and alcohol in her system, but not enough to kill her. All signs pointed to foul play. According to the young woman’s mother, who had filed a missing-person report, the police had no doubt. “When this detective came to my house, he said, ‘We found your daughter. . . . Your daughter has been murdered,’ ” Alice Groves recalls. “He told me they’re going to get the one that did it.”

On October 28, a pathologist ruled the death of Tiara Groves a homicide by “unspecified means.” This rare ruling means yes, somebody had killed Groves, but the pathologist couldn’t pinpoint the exact cause of death.

Given the finding of homicide—and the corroborating evidence at the crime scene—the Chicago Police Department should have counted Groves’s death as a murder. And it did.

On a deeper level, perhaps Slate’s Reihan Salam is saying that if only more of Chicago’s white population would date black people, they could save black people from themselves. Mr. Salam, why do you have such a low opinion of Chicago’s black population? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

According to Slate’s Reihan Salam, if you’re a white guy who was turned off to Asians because you associate them with the likes of Suey “only white people can be racist” Park, you are (ta-da!) racist. See how that works?

Remember: In Suey Park's world, only white people can be racist. Have fun trying to build a movement on that line, Ms. Park.

Remember: In Suey Park’s world, only white people can be racist. Have fun trying to build a movement on that line, Ms. Park.

More from Ms. Park:

“[My work] is but one step in a plan to take down white, hetero, patriarchal, corporate America. … Can you make a pinky promise to keep my radical agenda in your article?”

As a member of white, hetero corporate America, I exhausted my patience with people like Reihan Salam and Suey Park long ago. The more that they scream “racist!” the more I laugh at them. The more they torture logic to turn nice law-abiding white people into “racists” — while cities like Chicago turn into “Chiraq” — the more I mock them.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get to my job, which makes Slate’s Reihan Salam sad. He apparently wishes I was fired and replaced with a person of color because my continued employment perpetuates racism. I was thinking about willingly giving it up the other day to a guy from Chicago, but I heard he was shot and killed over Easter. Sad. I guess I’ll keep my job for awhile longer.


About these ads

How to deal with liberal trolls who hate our military and use gay slurs as personal attacks 16

Blog Trolls liberals hate the military 87

Normally I would never post some of the behind-the-scenes stuff that goes along with running a blog, but lately I’ve had to make the point while there are mean people out there, we always have the power to respond with dignity and class, or with venom and vitriol. Take for instance the above comments (I omitted the last number of  the IP address), sent to me today. Little did our liberal friend know that I’ve always wanted to get a comment from someone named ‘Doug’s Dick Vacuum’ because that’s what “fag” (his word) conservatives secretly desire.

What isn’t a secret is that sometimes I like when liberals are mean, because so often they disguise what’s really on their mind. This particular guy thinks it’s okay to hurl gay slurs and he apparently has a thing against the  military (just like many of my college professors).

The question becomes: How do you deal with it? Normally, I just sort of laugh and delete the comment. I’m not sure if I was supposed to be hurt or offended, but if so it didn’t work. Since the troll commented on my “About Me” page he must know I was once an infantryman. Translation: it is almost impossible to offend me. I might think someone is a loser, lost, confused or just plain stupid, but in general I think the best way to deal with someone like “Doug’s Butt Buddy” is to ignore them.

Since the “Liberal Hunk” who wants me to “eat shit” provided a link to a story about how mindless it is to “support the troops,” here’s an excerpt. It will give you an idea of what I had to deal with for six years as I went through my undergraduate work at USC and then completed my Masters at American University:

Who, for instance, are “the troops”? Do they include those safely on bases in Hawaii and Germany? Those guarding and torturing prisoners at Bagram and Guantánamo? The ones who murder people by remote control? The legions of mercenaries in Iraq? The ones I’ve seen many times in the Arab world acting like an Adam Sandler character? “The troops” traverse vast sociological, geographical, economic and ideological categories. It does neither military personnel nor their fans any good to romanticize them as a singular organism.

Again, it’s quite fortuitous that becoming an infantryman actually makes you immune to attacks on infantrymen. Internet trolls make you say “Yawn. Moving on.”

Hard-core liberals go completely silent as guys like Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro mow down students in the streets, but they’ll go out of their way to portray American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines as mindless drones. These days, I usually just say a little prayer for the person and move on.

Perhaps the strangest trolling I ever received came from a website dedicated to finding out if I “hated America.”

The author (whose work I won’t link to, but you can find it quite easily) wrote:

“In asking that his superheroes be just as evil as he is, Douglas Ernst has set a new low for conservatives all over the country. You’d have to imagine that sometimes he cheers for the bad guys to win just so he can say the heroes should have tortured and killed more people to prevent disaster.

Things are starting to take shape now. Douglas Ernst can be compared to Adolf Hitler during his rise to power.”

Regular readers will find this post interesting, given that Superior Spider-Man creator Dan Slott has obsessed over a blog post where I called him out for flippantly inserting real-world genocidal maniacs like Hitler, Pol Pot and Genghis Khan into Amazing Spider-Man.

Note how Dan Slott handled the accusation that his character (who he put into Peter Parker’s body for over a year) was a monster worse than Hilter, and how I reacted to a the author of a website who literally compared me to Hitler.

On one side we have a comic book creator who was so offended that he took to almost every social media platform under the sun to scream about how offended he was; on the other side there was me, who basically ignored the guy.

My final response to him (at which point he ended his blog):

More power to you, sir. I’m confident my site will continue to grow, as it has done since day one. I’m also confident anyone who randomly lands on your little blog about me will think one thing: “It rubs the lotion on its skin,” — Douglas Ernst to author who dedicated a hate website to him.

As predicted, my blog has continued to improve and grow and thrive with new subscriptions.  The troll, seeing that his efforts would not alter me from my set course, eventually gave up.

If a giant aircraft carrier is cutting through the ocean and a small tugboat gets in its path in an attempt to stop it, we all know what happens — it gets crushed. Likewise, if one imagines they are a giant aircraft carrier, why would they concern themselves with the slings and arrows coming from a tugboat far below?

Be the aircraft carrier. Don’t be the tugboat. You’ll be glad you did.

Update: The liberal troll referenced for the purposes of this blog didn’t like that I exposed him as a troll. I normally wouldn’t do this, but I’ll be nice: All of your trollish messages are now going into the trash. I will no longer see them. If you want to continue to shout strange things into a digital trash can, go ahead. It’s really big, so feel free to go on for as long as you’d like.


‘Maximum wage’: America’s Communist thugs deny they are Communists, sell tyranny as compassion 21


Imagine there was this guy named Steve Jobs. He had a vision for a computer company that he wanted to make. He had all sorts of ideas for weird devices he just knew in his heart people would love. He would call them the ‘iPad’ and ‘iPhone’ and ‘Mac’ (people would love it like the McDonald’s Big Mac, but this would actually raise the standard of living for hundreds-of-millions — perhaps billions of people — instead of cholesterol).

In order to achieve his dreams in a limited amount of time (who knows when we’ll kick the bucket — we can all die at any moment), he needed to raise a lot of money. He needed the freedom to run a company as he saw fit. He needed to pay himself and his employes what he believed would bring that dream closer to fruition. In short: He needed to do what he wanted with capital he acquired through legal means.

Enter egg-headed American Communist thugs who deny they are Communist thugs while selling tyranny as compassion:

Nearly everyone writing on the subject [of income inequality] agrees that inequality is increasing, and growing numbers of Americans are troubled by the trend. The question is what can be done about it.

Increases in wealth, inheritance, and incomes taxes certainly might do some good.

But not as much as imposing a maximum wage.

No, this isn’t some Marxist fantasy. It’s a clear-eyed response to the fact that in 2012 the ratio of CEO compensation to that of a typical worker in the United States was an astonishing 273-to-1. …

CNN columnist John D. Sutter has smartly suggested a maximum wage set at 100 times the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour (or $15,080 a year based on a 40-hour work week). That works out to a maximum of roughly $1.5 million a year.

Or if that’s too harsh, how about making it 200 times the minimum, raising the maximum to $3 million a year. Hell, we could even peg the maximum to 1,000 times the minimum wage — $15 million a year — and still allow CEOs to be filthy rich while reining in the most obscene excesses at the very top.

Now imagine that you’re Steve Jobs. What would you do? Because you’re a visionary, you might still accomplish your dreams, but there is no doubt that a very low ceiling has been placed over your head. And that ceiling, thanks to tyrannical thugs at mainstream media outlets across the nation, might not be one you can bust through.

Here is what Mike Fossum of the International Space Station said of Steve Jobs upon his death:

In every generation there are great thinkers and people that have the vision of what can be and then have the energy, the skill, and the genius to make it happen. Steve Jobs is definitely one of those rare individuals, and the world’s gonna miss him a lot,” —  Commander Mike Fossum of the International Space Station.

In an alternate reality, where guys like CNN columnist John D. Sutter and Marxists who deny they’re Marxists have had their way, Commander Mike Fossum of the International Space Station says this of Steve Jobs:

“Steve who?” — Commander Mike Fossum of the International Space Station; Communist Reality 616.

Everyone on earth has different dreams and ambitions. “Income inequality” can result from any number of things, and only greedy and envious losers who seems to think there is a giant money pot with a fixed amount of cash in it are interested in arbitrarily setting the wages a man can pay himself — at his own company.

Money does not matter to me. I honestly do not care about money, aside from being able to be my bills. I enjoy writing, and I’ve always said that I’d be happy working at Panera Bread as long as I could go home at the end of the day and write my blog, work on my book and dabble around in other creative endeavors.

However, because I don’t care about money, there is no doubt that I am making less than I would if I did make it a high priority. And yet, Communist thugs from ‘The Week,’ CNN analysts, and hacks like Paul Krugman use me — and others like me — in statistics to prove that I am “exploited” and other men should be shackled from making large sums of money at their own companies. Why on earth would I care if someone like Mitt Romney makes millions of dollars a year in the private sector? Why should I care what men in the vein of Steve Jobs pay themselves in the finite amount of time they have to walk the planet? If a man’s goal is to experience what it feel like to make $10 billion while he walks the earth, I wish him the best of luck and do not want to see him hampered by envious individuals with less drive and determination than he.

There are many reasons why income may differ from person to person over time. None of them have anything to do with nefarious plots to keep “the poor” (as if “the poor” is a static group) poor. Fee markets — true free markets — are not zero-sums games. When one man profits, it does not necessarily mean that one man must lose something.

If a man makes his fortune through legal means, his hopes and dreams should not be encumbered by tyrants cloaked as compassionate saviors.

I willingly gave Steve Jobs my money, and I got a MacBook Pro. The Federal Government took your money whether you wanted it to our not, and you got Cash for Clunkers. Case closed.

I willingly gave Steve Jobs my money, and I got a MacBook Pro. The Federal Government took your money whether you wanted it to our not, and you got Cash for Clunkers. Case closed.

I posted Lee Doran’s take down of the ‘income inequality’ crowd before, but I think that it’s time to post his video again. I don’t like to throw the word ‘evil’ out very often, but a person who tries to convince others to voluntarily embrace tyranny and servitude is engaging in an evil act.

Dan Slott: Marvel’s lying scribe attacks critics, then turns to Twitter to massage his fragile ego 144

Dan Slott Sales Meme

For roughly an entire year now Dan Slott has had regular meltdowns directed at yours truly. Last May, I wrote a piece titled: ‘Is Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’ really a Superior anti-Semite?’ The whole point of the article was to show that a villain who came within inches of exterminating 6 billion people was about to be placed in Peter Parker’s body. Marvel’s flagship character was going to be taken over by a genocidal maniac. At a pivotal point in Spider-Man history, one of his greatest villains declared that he would transcend Hitler, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan in terms of infamy perpetrated upon the world.

Dan Slott has obsessed over me for almost a year — even going so far as to sic his Twitter groupies on me — because I had the gall to react to his insertion of a real-world monster into a fictional comic. In response to his attacks I asked: What is more offensive — Dan Slott’s indiscriminate use of incendiary names or my reminder of the implications of his indiscriminate use of incendiary names? He never answered. All he’s done is engage in online ranting and raving (e.g., I’m a “terrible human being”) that must make consummate professionals within the confines of Marvel’s offices cringe.

For the past year he’s taken to multiple platforms to engage in character assassination. I’m a “terrible” person. I’m a “bad” person. He’s holds that I simultaneously “implied” and “flat-out” said that he — a Jew — was anti-Semitic (as if I even knew or cared about his heritage in 2013).

My response was that it was quite clear in the piece — and in the comments section within an hour of writing the piece, that I did no such thing and that his accusations were false.

From the piece: Silly me. The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body. …

Slott [to Newsarama]: He’s trying his best to be a hero, but he’s doing it in a very Doc Ock way. And Doc Ock’s an egotistical, annoying sh*t. It makes him an interesting character. At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?

From the comments section the day it was published: Very well articulated. I agree with you in that I don’t think a hatred of Jews drove him, but I wrote the piece to corner Dan Slott’s fans into admitting just how horrible Otto is.

Rational adults can see that. I even used Dan Slott’s own words to show who and what he believes Otto represents (i.e., a wannabe hero is just kinda-sorta more annoying than Hawkeye before he was an Avenger — never mind that whole extinction-level event plot months earlier). Dan Slott refuses to acknowledge the truth when it’s right in front of his face, so I had to reiterate it for him:

Doug Dan ExchangeNote that I say that if I had it all to over again I probably would have just used a picture of Hitler, but that it was “the first one that showed up on the Holocaust museum website [as] I was looking for stats, it was late at night, and I write my posts after extremely long days. I used that one. Oh well.” I needed a Nazi picture. There was one on the page I was reading at that moment. I grabbed it. Case closed.

How was I to know that a single blog post — by a random guy Dan Slott doesn’t know and will likely never meet — would cause the Marvel scribe to seethe with “crazy town banana pants” anger for an entire year? Of course I would have picked a different picture if I had it to do over again.

Afterward, Dan Slott started littering up the YouTube page with jokes about how I said I was unable to find a picture of Hitler online. Why would he do that? Because when faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong about the objective of my piece — or at a minimum should rethink his knee-jerk reaction to categorize me with real-world rapists, murderers, dictators and despots — he does what he does best: attack. And then, in order to feel even better about himself, he turns to Twitter, where The Dan Slott Ego Massage Squad can go to work. It’s always ready to rub down all those tender areas of his fragile mind.


Dan Slott Lie Tweet

Here’s the extended tweet:

Today a blogger explained to me why he used a picture of Jewish remains being shoveled out of ovens in his Spider-Man article. And why he left it up on his site for the better part of a year. It was because he couldn’t find a picture of Hitler. There are TWO takeaways here. 1) This guy is the world’s BIGGEST asshole. [...] and 2) Apparently it’s REALLY hard to Google a picture of Hitler.

You see, it’s much more soothing for his sensitive psyche to soak in the slobbering Slott-worship of Superior Spider-Man diehards, who will lather him in in praise and confirm his conclusion that detractors are “assholes” and “douches,” than it is to deal with rational people on YouTube:

RichardDan Slott’s reply? I simultaneously “imply” and “flat-out” call him an anti-Semite. It’s a good thing that Dan Slott covers all his bases. Never mind the quotes above that demonstrate I did no such thing.

The truth of the matter is that Dan Slott didn’t like the way I went about making my point. He didn’t like the fact that I used very real historical pictures to point out that there are implications to what all of us write and say. When you put words in a character’s mouth, those words mean something. Or, as President Obama would say: “words matter.”

Dan Slott now says that Doc Ock citing a desire to surpass Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan’s collective infamy was merely the rhetorical flourish of a “James-Bond”-type villain. Fair enough, but if Dan Slott thinks that Hitler’s name is now merely fodder for James Bond-ish dialogue, some of us think that with that should come a dose of perspective.

And so, at this time, I will include the following image, which I show you with Dan Slott’s blessing.

Dan Slott request

Human remains found in the Dachau concentration camp crematorium after liberation. Germany, April 1945. — US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Human remains found in the Dachau concentration camp crematorium after liberation. Germany, April 1945.
— U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

That’s a wake-up call, isn’t it? Given Dan Slott’s reaction over the past year, it appears that he’s gotten the message — when you infuse real-world genocidal maniacs into the pages of Marvel comics, do not act surprised when history lovers take it seriously. Strangely enough, Dan Slott didn’t go into a TwitLonger rage when Bleeding Cool called out his character for “full-blown Nazi-like experimentation/ torture on his victims.” Ouch. How did that scene sneak by Dan Slott before going to print, given how important it is for him to protect the honor of his ancestors?

Being a veteran, whose friend was killed by a sniper in Iraq, I’ve had people say some pretty gruesome things to me, both online and in person. (Try dealing with it when it’s your college professors.) I’ve seen some horrible images that were personal affronts to the experience that probably shaped my life more than any other. However, I never obsessed over the individuals behind those hurtful or offensive acts and I didn’t call them “evil” people because, unlike Dan Slott, I know how to put things in proper perspective. But I digress. Back to the Holocaust image.

I received two reader comments that nicely summed up the debate about the picture after Dan Slott’s attacks began. They are excerpted here:

Reader #1. I think the pic was in poor taste. I see your point about taking a fictional character’s frame of reference as being wildly inappropriate. You are absolutely correct about that, it didn’t need that kind of punch. I believe Slott was only trying to maximize the horror and insanity of Ock’s mind. Regardless of his remarkably bad decision, it is still fiction, and the references should have stayed away from real-life mass murderers, unless it was far in the past. Hitler was too recent a reference, and as a Jew, Slott should have had the good taste to stay away from it. Enter Doug Ernst, who not only takes very real umbrage at this reference, but feels the need to one-up it with not only a blog post, but a photo of these poor, massacred souls to make a point. You also overstepped a boundary, Doug, and I still hope you decide to remove it on your own without further prompting. Slott is too full of bile to ask nicely, even if he is the one who instigated this. I then ask you, for the sake of those people who were in those ovens, the descendants of those unknown souls, and the millions who suffered this still-historically-relevant fate to please remove it from that entry. It serves no purpose other than sensationalism, and you don’t strike me as that kind of man who needs to stoop to that level.

Reader #2. I think Rogue is way off on the sensationalism and especially the testosterone rationale. It is important to show what Slott so casually put in his dialogue and inside Spider-Man’s head. I agree they are real people with no voice, I agree it was horrible, I agree it’s grisly — but it was Slott who betrayed their legacy — and that needs to be shown. Obviously his own grandfather’s story didn’t keep Slott from writing a tasteless story with an iconic hero, so maybe that image drove it home. I respect Rouge’s opinion, but I wouldn’t have changed it. It was Slott who inserted this awful chapter of history into the comic.

Two very different points of view, but which one is right? I ended up taking down the photo, even though I agreed with Reader #2.

My rationale:

I have removed the image and added an editor’s note. While I disagree about your conclusion that the only purpose it serves is to be sensationalistic, I think the more important point at this moment in time is that through respectful dialogue adults can work through their issues.

For that, Dan Slott called me a “coward,” proving my point that he is currently incapable of respectful dialogue.

Instead of responding to the coward claim, I will again cite Reader #1, who prompted me to take down the picture:

Slott never should have used Hitler as a reference, period. Can a fictional story use hot political or religious topics without the author being blamed as the source? No. Authors have been targeted over the course of history for their words, fictional or not. I won’t give history lessons here, but Slott decided to use a non-fictional, politically monstrous, recent, religiously sensitive reference to further a Spider-Man (HYPHEN!!!) story, and (I’m possibly reaching here), since he is a Jew, decided it was OK for him to use it. Only him. Because he’s a Jew. And he’s sensitive to the plight of the Jews. And his family has personally suffered from the Holocaust, so it was OK. Anyone else using Hitler as a reference is a BAD man, and has taken his “one thought bubble” out of context. What Slott fails to see is the hypocrisy inherent in what he did. You cannot use Hitler as a fictional hot button safely, simply because you are a Jew, then fall back on Jewish outrage to bury it once someone else picked up and expanded upon it. The truly laughable part was the threat to sue. Oy vey. I didn’t like Doug’s use of the pic for reasons stated above, none of which were in any way sympathetic to Slott or his reactions.

The point is, this whole debate is actually a lot more complex and nuanced than someone of Dan Slott’s maturity level can handle. It’s easier to call me “evil” and “terrible” and “bad” over and over again. And then, when a guy like me points out — after nearly a year of verbal diarrhea hurled in his direction — that one of the reasons why I enlisted in the armed services was so guys like him would never have to fear being shoved in an oven or shot and killed, he has the nerve to say I have unfairly used my military service as a shield.

A friend of mine put just laughed and mentioned that Dan Slott is pretty good at hiding behind his Jewish heritage (a point that Reader #1 also seems to have noticed).

And with that, I give you one last piece of evidence to show you what an immature and confused man Dan Slott is at this point in his life:


Dan Slott confused as usual

The guy encourages me to use the Holocaust picture for “intellectual honesty,” and then when I tell him I will do just that he again loses it and lashes out at my character. Do you see how it works in Dan Slott’s world? If I use the picture at his request — essentially his dare to provide “intellectual honesty” — I’m a “terrible” person; if I don’t use the picture, I’m a “terrible and dishonest” person. Dan Slott wins every time.

If I put up a picture that offends Dan Slott, I’m a “terrible human” on par with (ironically) Hitler. If I take it down after a reader acts like an adult, I’m a “coward.” While East Ukrainian Jews are being told to register with pro-Russian forces, Dan Slott pats himself on the back at night because he’s identified and attacked the real threat to the Jewish community — me. For days. And weeks. And months.

What courage. What bravery. What sacrifice. Churchill would be proud.

The great thing about Dan Slott calling me a “coward” is that anyone who reads these blog posts will understand that he’s attacked me personally on YouTube, Comic Book Resources, Twitter, TwitLonger, Comic Vine, the Marvel Message Boards and probably a few other places that I don’t even know of for roughly one year — but he hasn’t come here. Maybe now he’ll show his face. Or not. He seems to like the sound his Twitter followers make when he blows the stroke-my-ego dog whistle.

If he does decide to show up, expect him to once again say that I implied that he was anti-Semitic, even though I quite clearly never did such a thing. (Or was that “flat-out” say he was an anti-Semite? I can’t remember because it changes hourly.) No Dan, you did not write a book with an anti-Semitic character — you just wrote one with a man who wanted to kill six billion people because he hated all of humanity. And then, you made him Spider-Man. For an entire year. Again, silly me.

Time once again for Dan Slott to do his best ‘You Spin Me Round (Like a Record, Baby)’ imitation.


YouTube Dan Slott tango

Speaking of Church, here’s how Dan Slott’s tolerant liberal colleague Erik Larsen “celebrated” Easter.

Erik Larson retweet

As a practicing Catholic, I find this to be incredibly tasteless (understatement of the year award). Using the Dan Slott litmus test for “bad” and “terrible” people, Erik Larson fits the bill. It’s a good thing I don’t use Slottian methods for judging someone’s character. If I did, then I’d obsess over Mr. Larsen’s single tweet for the next year and abuse the caps-lock button as I proclaim: “I’m Catholic! I’m Catholic! I — a Catholic — am Catholic! I’m Cathooooooooolic! How dare you challenge the Universal Salvific Will of God! RAGE!”

If you enjoyed this post, just know that there will probably be more in the future, as Dan Slott’s obsession with me shows no signs of slowing down. The next time he complains about tight deadlines, take a moment to think about just how much time he wastes attacking his critics.

H/T Hube on the Erik Larsen tweet.

If you’ve made it this far I now invite you to enjoy Dan Slott’s favorite song: ‘You Spin Me Round (Like an anti-Semite’s Record Baby)’

Exit question: How long will it be before Dan Slott lies to his Twitter groupies and tells them that  a.) I picked ‘You Spin Me Round (Like a Record Baby)’ for surreptitiously evil purposes, and b.) I seriously implied/said (pick one … or both) that he enjoys listening to Wagner, even thought he’s not supposed to.

Bonus Number 2: Tomorrow Dan Slott tweets to his followers that Francis Ford Coppola may be an anti-Semite.

‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’: I can’t buy a ticket with Bryan Singer accused of rape 37

Bryan Singer

‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ will be out May 23, but now that director Bryan Singer has been accused of rape, what’s a movie watcher to do?

The Associated Press reported:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A man who claims he was sexually abused by “X-Men” franchise director Bryan Singer said Thursday that he reported the molestation to authorities at the time, and he does not know why charges were never pursued.

With his voice occasionally wavering, Michael Egan III described abuse he said began when he was 15 years old at the hands of Singer and others. He told of being plied with drugs and promises of Hollywood fame while also enduring threats and sexual abuse in Hawaii and Los Angeles over several years.

“You were a piece of meat,” Egan said of how he and other teenage boys were viewed at the home where he claims Singer abused him.

Signer’s attorney Marty Singer wrote in a statement after Egan’s remarks that the accusations were “completely fabricated.”

But are they? That’s the big question. In terms of the pool parties Mr. Egan says he attended, it doesn’t appear as though anyone is a.) disputing that they existed, or b.) that “Hollywood power broker” Mark Rector-Collins (who was jailed in 2004 for sex abuse of minors) also attended them. Bryan Singer’s attorney called the accusations “completely without merit” — and that may be true — but there seems to be enough there to warrant a serious investigation.

The Daily Mail reported:

I wouldn’t say it was a relationship [with Singer], you were a piece of meat,’ Egan said of how he was treated at the parties at Rector Collins’ home that he allegedly began attending when he was just 14 or 15.

He said: ‘Certain situations like at the house where the rules were no swimsuits by the pool areas. I was in the hot tub with Singer and other individuals, they grope you, shove your head under water, orally molest you, then they’d rape you by the side of hot tub. You were a piece of meat.’

He claimed the men regularly threatened to ruin his acting dreams if he didn’t comply with their demands.

‘We were told that we had to keep the members happy – “We control Hollywood and we will eliminate you” – there was threat after threat,’ Egan told reporters.

I was really excited about going to see the new X-Men movie, but now I’m conflicted. Do I want to spend money on a director’s project while he’s battling allegations that, if true, would further vindicate everything said about Hollywood’s evil little secret by Corey Feldman? It may be wrong, but I keep thinking of inappropriate wise-cracks like “X-Men: Days of Future Past … Molestation.” When Patrick Stewart asks if we are “destined to destroy ourselves” in the trailer, I now wonder if Bryan Singer destroyed a young boy’s life.

How could I sit through a movie when the entire time I’m wondering if Bryan Singer is just a new version of Roman Polanski? Will Whoopi Goldberg one day say that Bryan Singer didn’t “rape-rape Mr. Egan? Again, Mr. Singer is innocent until proven guilty, but I can’t stop my mind from wandering to such places. That doesn’t bode will for my decision to see his latest offering.

Michael Egan

Right about now some of my regular readers are probably thinking that it’s incredibly rich for the Catholic guy to be asking these questions. Well no, not really. I was distanced from the Catholic Church in many ways for years because of the priest scandals and cover-ups. I didn’t donate any money to the Catholic Church for a long time because I didn’t want what little income I had going to defend the indefensible. It took a very, very long time for me to find my way back to the Church (and guys like Pope Francis make it a heck of a lot easier).

Regardless, the New York Daily News seems to think I’m in the minority:

Industry insiders say they think few movie-goers will associate the scandal with one of the biggest popcorn flicks of the summer when it’s time to buy tickets.

“In the end, the question becomes how much of the American public is ‘auteur-ist’ enough to associate a movie with its director,” says Prof. Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University’s Bleier Center of Television & Popular Culture.

“Is the alleged bad behavior enough to keep them from seeing the next installment of ‘X-Men’? And I think for most people that’s very much not the case.”

I’m not “auteur-ist,” New York Daily News staff, I’m just a guy who actually has a working moral compass. I would think that anyone who believes in right and wrong would be turning these sorts of issues around in their head before coughing up cash. I’m not saying they have to pull their hair out in the process, but it’s hard not to look into the details that have already been presented and wonder what the heck is going on in Hollywood.

Take the pool parties, for instance. Is a Bryan Singer pool party like something from the Playboy Bunny Ranch, except for gay men? (A friend of mine retorted: “You mean like the Gayboy Bunny Ranch”?) Drugs, booze, nudity and music all night long — what could go wrong?

I think that I would be less inclined to stay away from the movie if I felt as though Hollywood actually had a working moral compass. Hollywood embraces hedonism, so when murky issues like this come up it seems as though it’s best to err on the side of caution.

While all of us have our moral failings, at least your Average Joe knows right from wrong. Hollywood doesn’t care what you do — as long as it feels good and you don’t get caught. Sadly, sometimes getting caught can even make you more famous…


Bryan Singer Pool Party

As much as I wanted to see ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past,’ I don’t believe I can do so with such a massive storm cloud hanging over the director’s head (no pun intended). The only way I could possibly see it now would be if I bought a ticket to ‘Amazing Spider-Man 2′ and then walked into a theater playing X-Men.

What about you? Will you be seeing Bryan Singer’s latest when it hits theaters May 23? I’d like to hear what you think.

Editor’s Note: I will swiftly hit the delete button and ban anyone who is out of line in the comments section. If you aren’t sure if what you’re about to say will get you banned, don’t say it. Rule of thumb: If you worked for a major newspaper and your editor would blow a gasket at the comment, then don’t post it here.

CNN’s Peter Bergen: My cherry-picked data says the right wing is more deadly than jihadists 5

al Qaeda Yemen

Wouldn’t it be great to be a national security analyst who could just cherry-pick data that fits your worldview and then pass it off as an accurate depiction of reality? CNN’s Peter Bergen is a lucky guy, because that’s exactly what he gets to do as a “national security analyst” and director at the New America Foundation.

In his latest piece he argues that Americans have more to fear from “right wing extremists” (e.g., Guys who wear cowboy hats at ranches in Nevada?) than Islamic terrorists. Ironically, his column appears the same day he and his colleagues had to report on an “extraordinary” gathering of al Qaeda in Yemen, the size of which hasn’t been seen in years — but more on that later.

Mr. Bergen writes:

[T]he death toll in the shootings in Kansas is similar to that of last year’s Boston Marathon bombings, where three people were killed and the suspects later killed a police officer as they tried to evade capture. (Many more, of course, were also wounded in the Boston attacks; 16 men, women and children lost limbs.)

In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Just like your friendly neighborhood liberal’s data on global warming — errrm, climate change — Mr. Bergen starts the timeline at a point that benefits the conclusion he wanted to come to the entire time, and then carefully begins adding data.

What a coincidence: his timeline starts on 9/12, which of course denies the 2,977 victims and God knows how many who suffer from Ground Zero-related health problems, PTSD, etc. Cost to the economy? Eh. Never mind. Failed Islamic terror plots and the cost required to keep that death toll at 21? Let’s ignore that one. (Within the piece he also omits any mention of the first World Trade Center bombing from 1993, but then makes sure to talk about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.)

And hey, the Boston Marathon bombing was basically like the Kansas shooting, as long as we sorta-kinda ignore the hundreds who were injured, those missing limbs and the psychological trauma to all of Boston.

Perhaps we shouldn’t count the first Fort Hood massacre, in which 13 people died and 32 others were wounded when Maj. Nidal “Allahu Akbar!” Hasan went on a rampage, because the Obama administration deemed it “workplace violence.”

Bergen continues:

Despite this history of deadly violence by individuals motivated by political ideologies other than al Qaeda, it is jihadist violence that continues to dominate the news and the attention of policy makers.

Some of this is quite understandable. After all, on 9/11 al Qaeda’s 19 terrorists killed almost 3,000 people in the space of a morning. Since then al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen tried to bring down with a bomb secreted on a passenger an American commercial jet flying over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009 and al Qaeda’s branch in Pakistan tried to launch bombings on the New York subway system a few months earlier. Luckily those plots didn’t succeed, but certainly if they had the death toll would have been on a large scale.

Yet the disparity in media coverage between even failed jihadist terrorist attacks and this latest incident in Kansas is emblematic of a flawed division in the public’s mind between killing that is purportedly committed in the name of Allah and killing that is committed for other political ends, such as neo-Nazi beliefs about the need to kill Jews.

It’s cute how Mr. Bergen downplays the near-misses when it came to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed Christmas day attack over Detroit, and it’s sad that he forgot to add in shoe bomber Richard Reid’s failed attempt. Why? Because he wants to impress upon readers that those American right-wing neo-Nazis like Frazier Glenn Cross (who loves books put out by The Nation and is inspired by the history of the National Socialist Workers Party) are more dangerous to national security than a worldwide movement to create an Islamic caliphate.

As I said before, his CNN piece becomes even more hilarious when one considers that it comes on the very same day that al Qaeda hosted an “extraordinary” gathering in Yemen to essentially tell the U.S.: we’re coming for you.

In the middle of the clip, the man known as al Qaeda’s crown prince, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, appears brazenly out in the open, greeting followers in Yemen. Al-Wuhayshi, the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda globally and the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has said he wants to attack the United States. But in the video, he looks unconcerned that he could be hit by an American drone.”This is quite an extraordinary video,” Paul Cruickshank, CNN terrorism analyst, said.

The video shows al-Wuhayshi addressing more than 100 fighters somewhere within Yemen, Cruickshank said, a restive nation on the southwestern portion of the Arabian Peninsula. The al Qaeda leader, he said, is “taking a big risk in doing this.” …

In a speech to the group, al-Wuhayshi makes it clear that he’s going after the United States, saying “We must eliminate the cross. … The bearer of the cross is America!”

U.S. officials believe the highly produced video is recent. With some fighters faces blurred, there is worry it signals a new round of plotting.

“The U.S. intelligence community should be surprised that such a large group of al Qaeda assembled together, including the leadership, and somehow they didn’t notice,” said Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst.

Maybe the intelligence community “didn’t notice” the terror gathering because they’re listening to guys like you, Mr. Bergen. Classic!

Yes, while Mr. Bergen and the New America Foundation are busy figuring out ways to cast right wing pro-lifers as a national security threat on par with al Qaeda terror masterminds, enemies like bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri (the guy who provided Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with his device) have been perfecting their deadly craft.

Again, CNN reported:

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also known as AQAP, is considered the most dangerous al Qaeda affiliate. The CIA and the Pentagon have repeatedly killed AQAP leaders with drone strikes. But the group is now emboldened.

“The main problem about this group is that it has a bomb maker who can put bombs on to planes that can’t be detected,” Bergen said.

That bomb maker, Ibrahim al-Asiri, is believed to be responsible for severalattack attempts against the United States, including the failed 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber attack in Detroit.

Poor Mr. Bergen — he’s so confused. On one hand his job forces him to admit that we face a determined enemy who now makes bombs that are undetectable, but on the other hand he really, really wants the world to pay attention to the Tea-hadists and the Christian Taliban or whatever insult for conservatives you can come up with.

Perhaps it never occurred to Mr. Bergen, but the reason why Islamic terrorism “continues to dominate the news and the attention of policy makers” is because the seriousness of threat it poses is quite clear to sane people around the world. Perhaps it dominates “the attention of policy makers” because they’re the ones getting intelligence briefings — and in those closed-door sessions it’s obvious that the random whack job with a pistol or a rifle is not the same threat to the nation’s security as a global movement to force Sharia Law down the civilized world’s throat.

I can’t wait until Mr. Bergen puts together another set of analysis that proves that the tea party is more of a national security threat than British jihadists returning from the battlefields in Syria.


Patriots push back feds at Bundy Ranch: America wins as agents, snipers ‘protecting’ turtles retreat 24

Ranchers Bundy

We live in interesting times: the federal government must be dragged tooth and nail to do what is necessary to protect that nation’s sovereignty along the southern border, but it will deploy attack dogs and snipers against Nevada ranchers who have worked the same land for over 100 years.

If you didn’t follow the Cliven Bundy story over the past week, here it is in a nutshell: Mr. Bundy’s family has raised cattle on the same land for over a century. How long? They’ve been there since before the Bureau of Land Management was even created. Somewhere along the line, the federal government came in and told Mr. Bundy’s family they needed to “manage” his land. Mr. Bundy has argued that they federal government has been trying to “manage” him out of business. And so, he’s refused to pay the federal government to ruin his livelihood. The BLM asserts that his family has over $1 million in unpaid management fees to the federal government.

Last week, in an effort to “protect” a species of desert tortoise, agents moved in and confiscated the herd. Ranchers from all over the region got word of what was going on, and joined with him in his stand against the federal government. A pregnant woman was knocked to the ground and a stun gun was used on Mr. Bundy’s son, but the standoff ended with the federal government retreating and all of Mr. Bundy’s cattle returned — for now.

The Las Vegas Journal review reported:

BUNKERVILLE — More than 100 head of Cliven Bundy’s confiscated cattle were released from a corral outside of Mesquite after a 20-minute standoff between angry and armed ranchers and law enforcement officers Saturday.

With rifles pointing toward each side and tensions reaching a critical level, federal land officials backed off and agreed to give up the cattle to Bundy’s family and supporters. …

Locals who make a living on the range and own horses showed up on horseback.

Nearly all of them defended Bundy’s actions and spoke about how tired they were of the federal government micromanaging Americans, including passing too many regulations, not just in Nevada but across the country; not just in cattle ranching, but in all facets of life, from Obamacare to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Brent Mackelprang, 58, a cattle rancher from Arizona, said the government’s decision to seize Bundy’s cattle in the name of protecting “the supposedly endangered” desert tortoise was a mere excuse “to go in and grab land from the people,” including Bundy, who has long claimed that the land belongs to his family and the state of Nevada — “certainly not to the federal government.”

Since Sen. Harry Reid has been M.I.A. during this whole debate, I’ll turn to a quote from Frederick Douglass to explain what went on in Nevada:

“Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.” — Frederick Douglass

The people finally — thank God — stood up to the power-mad federal government, and they got results.


Krissy Thornton, right, looks at blood from a taser wound on Ammon Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev. Wednesday, April 9, 2014. Bundy was tasered by Bureau of Land Management law enforcement officers while protesting the roundup of what the BLM calls "trespass cattle" that rancher Cliven Bundy grazes in the Gold Butte area 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher)

Krissy Thornton, right, looks at blood from a taser wound on Ammon Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev. Wednesday, April 9, 2014. Bundy was tasered by Bureau of Land Management law enforcement officers while protesting the roundup of what the BLM calls “trespass cattle” that rancher Cliven Bundy grazes in the Gold Butte area 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher)

And why is it that Sen. Reid has been so quiet?

The Washington Times reported:

The Bureau of Land Management is headed by former longtime Reid aide Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the Senate as BLM director on Tuesday, just as federal authorities descended on the cattle ranch outside Mesquite, Nev.

Mr. Kornze issued a statement Saturday saying that the bureau would return the cattle and withdraw its agents from the ranch as a result of safety concerns after clashes between law enforcement and the Bundy family’s growing legion of supporters.

“It was likely pressure from upstairs, rather than weapons from the field, that changed his mind on the matter,” the liberal group Americans Against the Tea Party said in an online post. “Fact is, Harry Reid probably didn’t want his name attached to the biggest civilian massacre in U.S. history right before election season.”

Behind the scenes, you know that men like Sen. Reid are furious. It wasn’t supposed to play out the way it did. Mr. Bundy was supposed to fold. He was supposed to just accept the slow and steady infringements on our rights to life, liberty and property like so many other Americans — but he didn’t. That act of defiance stirred something inside the stomachs of locals and patriots from other states that they knew to be just and right, and so they came to his aid.

Bundy Ranch

Hopefully, what happened at the Bundy Ranch will inspire more Americans to push back against the injustices imposed upon them by an out-of-control federal government.

Related: If you want to read stories about the federal government’s overreach, check out Cheryl K. Chumley’s ‘Police State U.S.A.’ I’ll be reviewing the book when it comes out in May.

Telling: Comcast PAC cash accepted by every senator probing Time Warner Cable merger 8

Chuck Schumer

When you give the federal government more things to do, you give the men and women in charge more things to buy and sell at your expense. If you ever doubted the deleterious effect that growing the government has on the health of civil society, look no further than the Comcast-Time Warner hearings.

Every member of the committee — every one — has taken money from Comcast PAC. I now give you…crony capitalism:

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its first congressional hearing on the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger Thursday, and every single member of the committee has taken money from Comcast PAC — even Democratic senator Al Franken of Minnesota, who is generally considered to be anti-Comcast.

Out of 18 committee members, 10 Democrats and eight Republicans, 17 got money from Comcast’s federal PAC, according to the database at, technology website Ars Technicareported.

Ars Technica then confirmed with Mr. Franken’s spokespeople that he did accept $5,000 in Comcast PAC cash in 2009 for his recount fund, since did not have that donation listed.

Why on earth would Comcast donate money to every single senator unless its top brass thought that it could influence every single senator with cash? Answer: Because that’s precisely what Comcast’s money men thought.

The full list of Senate Judiciary Committee members and the cash they’ve accepted from Comcast PAC donations are:

Comcast PAC donations to Democrats:

• Chuck Schumer, New York: $35,000

• Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Chairman: $32,500

• Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island: $26,500

• Chris Coons, Delaware: $25,000

• Dick Durbin, Illinois: $23,000

• Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota: $22,500

• Dianne Feinstein, California: $18,500

• Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut: $11,500

• Mazie Hirono, Hawaii: $5,000

• Al Franken, Minnesota: $5,000 (2009 recount fund)

Comcast PAC donations to Republicans:

• Orrin Hatch, Utah: $30,000

• Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Ranking Member: $28,500

• John Cornyn, Texas: $21,000

• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina: $13,500

• Jeff Sessions, Alabama: $10,000

• Mike Lee, Utah: $8,500

• Ted Cruz, Texas: $2,500

• Jeff Flake, Arizona: $1,000

The sad thing is that there are people out there who still blindly defend the idiocy of both parties. No matter what “their team” does, they’ll defend it it to the death, which is fitting, since that’s exactly the kind of mentality that is killing the freest nation ever created.

Think of all the issues that senators influence, either through legislation or their close relationships with bureaucrat overlords in Executive agencies manning the administrative state. Now think of all the companies that know that if they just cough up the right amount of cash, that the guy or gal “representing” you in the nation’s capital will bend over backwards to find a way to vote against your best interests while still managing to hold onto a job. Infuriating, isn’t it?

If you want to get the nation back on the right track, find your friends and family members who defend the the most boorish behavior and inflammatory rhetoric displayed by the losers in their favorite political party, and then convince them that they are doing the nation a grave disservice.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to sit and think about how pathetic our state of affairs must be for me to bite the bullet and end a blog post with Calloway’s “I Wanna Be Rich.”

OkCupid’s hypocrite CEO Sam Yagan admits he donated to the ‘enemy’ — because it benefited him 3

Sam Yagan

It was only a week ago that Mozilla’s Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of the company he co-founded, in part because he once held the same view on gay marriage that pre-2012 election President Obama did, and in part because of a self-righteous smear campaign orchestrated by OkCupid’s data broker CEO Sam Yagan.

Mr. Yagan slimed Brendan Eich as an “enemy” of love a human decency shortly after after it was revealed that OkCupid secretly collects users’ personal information and sells it to the highest bidder. Some of us wondered if the whole thing wasn’t just a self-serving attempt to get some good press after countless OkCupid users and potential customers found out that the company operates more like the NSA than a dating service on many levels.

We now have an answer.

OKCupid, the online dating site that took Mozilla’s CEO to task for a donation to a campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California, is now under fire for its own CEO essentially doing the same.

OKCupid CEO and co-founder Sam Yagan in 2004 gave $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon’s campaign, despite the fact the lawmaker, during his tenure from 1997 to 2009, voted for a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage, Mother Jones reported.

Mr. Cannon also voted against a measure that would have added sexual orientation to the federal rules against job discrimination, as well as voting to outlaw adoptions by gay couples.

Square that news with OkCupid’s personal attack on Mr. Eich:

Ok Cupid Mozilla

Now read the statement Mr. Yagan released after his own political donation to the “enemy” became known.

“A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry.  I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today.  However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right.” — Sam Yagan, hypocrite and CEO of OkCupid.

So bringing “all people” together is of utmost concern to Mr. Yagan, and yet he didn’t care enough to look into the stance on gay marriage of the politician he was going to donate to? Mr. Yagan labels men like Brendan Eich and “enemy,” whom he wishes “nothing but failure” for, because of his stance on gay marriage — and yet he now tries to say with a straight face that he it just sorta-kinda slipped by him that Rep. Cannon was a vehement opponent of gay marriage?

Mr. Yagan isn’t “accepting responsibility” for anything, because if he were he would apply the standard he used against Mr. Eich and step down as CEO. Mr. Yagan hasn’t accepted responsibility — he released a statement and hopes that the fetid stench of his hypocrisy will all disappear. He voted for a Republican when it would put cash in his pocket and he voted for President Barack “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” Obama when it was financially beneficial.

By Mr. Yagan’s own definition, he is an “enemy” of decent people and someone who deserves “nothing but failure.”

Personally, I do not wish Mr. Yagan failure. Instead, I wish that that all the people who blindly believed that his campaign to oust Mr. Eich as CEO of Mozilla was sincere will now think twice before they declare “enemies” on complex social issues. I wish that more people become aware that OkCupid harvests its users’ most intimate personal information and sells it to anyone with deep pockets — including those who Mr. Yagan would define as the gay and lesbian community’s “enemy” if it would give him good press.

And with that, I leave you with the ’60 Minutes’ story on data brokers like OkCupid, which are “okay” letting the world know about your medical history, your religion, politics and sexual proclivities if the price is right.

Related: OkCupid: Brendan Eich is the ‘enemy,’ so ignore the fact we sell your personal info to the highest bidder

‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ keeps the Marvel movie train rolling full steam ahead 25

Captain America Winter Soldier shield

Captain America is back, and he’s better than ever. In just a few short days, audiences have rewarded Marvel’s latest effort with cash — lots of it.

The Hollywood Reporter tallied the numbers:

Continuing Marvel and Disney’s enviable winning streak, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is making history at the global box office, debuting to a record-breaking $96.2 million in North America for an early worldwide total of $303.3 million.

Reviewing ‘Captain America: The Winter Solider’ is tough to do without adding spoilers. How do you critique an espionage tale without giving away the best parts? I’ll give it a shot.

Long story short: Chris Evans (Captain America), Scarlett Johannson (Black Widow), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon) find themselves in a situation where it’s essentially them against the world as they try and unravel the mystery behind an attack on Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury. They handle the situation with wit, intelligence, strength, speed, and agility. The chemistry between each of them was great, and Marvel would be wise to continue keeping the three of them together moving forward.

At one point in the film, Cap manages to find a way to directly address agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. He wants them to disobey a direct order — one that may end up costing them their lives — and in doing so he tells the audience what the film is essentially about.

Attention all S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, this is Steve Rogers. You’ve heard a lot about me over the last few days. Some of you were even ordered to hunt me down. But I think it’s time you know the truth. S.H.I.E.L.D is not what we thought it was. … They almost have what they want: absolute control. … I know I’m asking a lot. The price of freedom is high. It always has been. That’s a price I’m willing to pay. And if I’m the only one, then so be it — but I’m willing to bet I’m not.

What is the price of freedom? If you’re a wise guy who enjoyed ‘Team America: World Police,’ you might say “freedom costs a buck-o-five.” If you’re a serious person, you might say that it’s a tough call because those in positions of power have to find a way to maximize both individual liberty and security.

Winter Soldier

How do you protect a nation when there are individuals and organizations tirelessly plotting ways to take down free societies? When you’re facing down enemies who see no difference between civilian and military targets — when you’re up against an opponent who has erased any notion of the traditional battlefield and replaced it with one where everything is fair game, how much power are you willing to grant your protectors? As Captain America says to S.H.I.E.L.D.’s agents: our leaders want “absolute control.” But then the question becomes: Who watches the watchmen? What happens when the ones who protect us lose their way?

Captain America

Director Joe Russo fills in the details during an interview with Mother Jones:

“[Marvel] said they wanted to make a political thriller. [...] So we said if you want to make a political thriller, all the great political thrillers have very current issues in them that reflect the anxiety of the audience. … That gives it an immediacy, it makes it relevant. So [Anthony] and I just looked at the issues that were causing anxiety for us, because we read a lot and are politically inclined. And a lot of that stuff had to do with civil liberties issues, drone strikes, the president’s kill list, preemptive technology. [etc.]“

While I’m actually rather shocked that a Hollywood director had the guts to say that concerns over President Obama’s “Terror Tuesday Kill List” helped inspire a top-notch Marvel movie, on some level it’s no surprise given that the industry’s old-reliable when it comes to political thrillers is to blame America.

As I said in October when the first trailer came out:

The trailer for Captain America: Winter Soldier is finally here. The good news is that it looks like it has all the makings of solid espionage fare: Robert Redford? Check. Russian spies? Check. Shady spy agencies? Check.

The bad news? It has all the makings of a blame-America espionage flick. …

Mullah nuts in the Middle East who deny the Holocaust and call for pushing the Jews “into the sea”? Eh. Chinese Communist intelligence agencies who have never met a U.S. business or defense contractor they wouldn’t hack? Eh. Nebulous terrorist organizations that don’t fly under a flag, even as they plot and plan to kill military and civilian targets on a massive scale? Eh. CIA attempts to “connect the dots” and “neutralize” threats before thousands of Americans die on their way to work on a Tuesday morning? Now there’s a movie!

Is it annoying that Marvel went for the easy layup by once again putting America in the cross hairs? Yes, slightly. Was the movie entertaining? Of course. In fact, I highly recommend it. It’s just odd that critics of ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ would have a point if they said it would have been better off going with ‘Captain America: Disillusioned with America.’ The movie has an assassin with a big red Soviet star on his metallic arm but no one talks about Communism, except for a passing reference? If the next installment doesn’t get into KGB agents and the world-wide espionage perpetrated by the Evil Empire, then Marvel should just openly admit that its favorite movie bad guys are aliens and Americans.

At the end of the day, there isn’t much to really complain about regarding Cap’s second solo outing. If Marvel continues churning out quality products like this, then Phase II, III, IV and V should roll along quite nicely. If you get a chance to see ‘Winter Soldier’ in theaters, check it out. You’ll be glad you did.