You Know, Rush (and His Minions) was Rush (and His Minions) Before Rush (and His Minions) Was Rush (and His Minions)

Oh, Rush Limbaugh, you've done it again. Every time I think you won't outdo yourself, you done gone went and outdid yourself again. Going on the attack on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" because of her beliefs to have employers cover contraception as part of healthcare.

I could go on about this latest tirade, but I won't. I could also reference his attack on Michael J. Fox, where he did an absurd impression of the effects of his Parkinson's disease, but I won't. I could go into every last person he has attacked, smeared, lied about, etc., to build his audience and roll his fat carcass to the bank, but I won't. What I will do, though, is put this entire thing into a context which not only speaks to Rush's idiocy or my hatred for him, but rather the fear I have that there are adult human beings who actually parrot what he says and does.

Let's hop in our De Lorean and roll back to 1991 with Doc Brown. Bill Clinton was just elected president, ousting George Bush I, and a nation of conservatives were clamoring for answers to how they would survive with a democrat in office.

Growing up in a republican household, the TV was regularly turned to Rush Limbaugh. This man, so many thought, would guide us through these next eight years of horribleness. He would be a beacon of light in a dark and challenging time for this country. He would assure these horrified peoples that they wouldn't fall victim to Bill and Hillary and the myriad horribleness they would cast upon them.

During one of these shows, Rush was chuckling to his viewing and studio audience about the new White House pets. He first introduced the audiences to Socks the cat and then declared "Did you know there's a White House dog?," at which point he held up a picture of Chelsea Clinton.

I was appalled when he did it and thought for sure that the audiences would respond the same. They didn't. These adults--men and women--laughed. They laughed not only at a child, which is in and of itself terrible, but they laughed at an abuser. Here was an adult human being bullying an innocent child and people were laughing. Sadly, the laughter extended beyond the TV screen to the family room where that TV glowed.

This event hit me hard. Growing up, I went to close to a dozen different schools between kindergarten and graduation, so, as the new kid, I got my fair share--and then some--of bullying. I knew it came with the territory. I didn't like it, but I expected it. Kids are cruel, right?

Perhaps it was naivete, but I always thought that at least you could count on adults to protect you, to stand up to bullies, to take a stand for a kid getting knocked down. That day, I learned a valuable lesson: that I was wrong.

Sitting there in that living room, watching people laugh and make fun of a little kid because she looked different made me sick. It still does to this day. Why? Because it still happens. For some strange reason, supposed free-thinking adult human beings continue to not only listen to and watch a bully (I could throw in racist, sexist, etc., but there's not enough room in this post.), but they support and spread his hatred.

I saw that again this week when doing a search on "Rush Limbaugh" in Twitter. I wanted to see what people were saying about his latest remarks. Sure, there were people opposing him, but between those people, I saw others with actual valid accounts--even with their full names--ballyhooing his hatred, attacking Sandra Fluke with their own "slut" and "prostitute" comments. An alias account, I can understand, but an account with your first and last names and photo? How would those men look into the eyes of their mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters and aunts? Would they feel no shame?

Then, sadly, I thought back to that night in 1991 when I saw men and women alike attacking that child and remembered that, as much as we may want to believe and hope, people just don't change.

So, to Rush Limbaugh and your hating minions, keep on keeping on with hating the things you don't understand and dipping in your Double Standards Swimming Hole. Oh, and you suck!

Sincerely,

Elihu M. Smails
Judge

This is progress, I suppose

Apparently NPR, that bastion of liberal-think and boredom, has fired analyst Juan Williams for making an honest remark on "The O'Reilly Factor." His remark was that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims dressed in Muslim garb getting on an airplane he's about to board.

I don't know where the folks who run NPR live, but shee-it. He ain't the only one, brother. Apparently, though, that statement was just to controversial for the NPR crowd.

What makes me ask if this is progress is Williams is black. This is not some rich white guy spewing racial hatred. It's a black guy woh has written abuot the civil rights movement and understands about the issues of judging people by their appearance alone.

In ol' Ty's opinion, the guy was just being honest, and human. He didn't say those people shouldn't be allowed on the plane, or that all Muslims are terrorists like that other ass clown. He said, "This is how I react when I see them." He basically acknowledges it's his issue, not the Muslims'.

WTF? You get fired for that? Call me crazy, but I thought this was America, where your right to free speech is guaranteed by a little thing we like to call The Constitution! I dunno, maybe the ultra-liberals at NPR have never heard of that document because they're too busy trying to save the whales or something. What a bunch of assholes. Again, Williams didn't make any blanket statements about any group, or say people should do anything about them. Just that he gets nervous.

If you want to restrict someone's right to free speech, go after that asshole preacher from Kansas RoadRage blogged about - the one who protests outside the funerals of fallen soldiers. Not some guy with the guts to be honest.

This country is getting to be one big pussy suck-hole.

Jim Hendry Needs a Gut Transplant

I love baseball, but as a Cub fan, I sometimes look forward to the off-season to give my ulcer a rest. Yesterday, though, I was reminded that the Cubs are just as bad for my health away from the field as they are when they're blowing a four-run lead in the bottom of the ninth.

Ever since Lou Piniella retired, I was hoping the Cubs would reward Ryne Sandberg for his 28 years of dedication to the team by naming him the next manager. When Ryno wanted to manage after Dusty Baker was shown the door at the end of 2006, he was told he needed to have experience to be considered, so he went and toiled in the minor leagues for three years, showing that he can do the job -- making the playoffs two years in a row and winning the Manager of the Year this past year. But again, Ryne was rejected in favor of Mike Quade, of course the cheapest option available to the Cubs.

On announcing the decision to hire Quade over Sandberg, Hendry said that it was a "gut decision." Looking back at Hendry's history with the team, here are some other decisions his "gut" made for him:

- His gut decided that it was a good idea to sign Alfonso Soriano, a player who was clearly beyond his prime, to an 8-year, $136 million deal.

- Hendry's gut also thought it would be swell to sign Kosuke Fukudome for $48 million.

- His gut had another stroke of genius when it convinced Jim to sign Milton Bradley for $30 million over three years, when there were four or five other right fielders available who were better, signed for less money with other teams, and didn't have the baggage that everyone knew Bradley had when he came to the team.

The Cubs are going to be rebuilding for years thanks to these bonehead moves by Hendry, and Ryno would have been the right guy for the job, as he has managed many, if not all of the minor leaguers who will be coming up to play for the Cubs.

Hopefully, Quade does a good job, but judging on Hendry's track record, he'll be a miserable failure. Fortunately, the Cubs won't have a multi-million dollar contract to swallow if they can him before his contract ends.

Jim Hendry, you suck!

RoadRage

Supreme Court, Support the Rights of Soldiers who have Fought for Your Rights!

You know, RoadRage likes to have some fun on this blog, complaining about the lack of Ding Dongs east of the Mississippi, the overabundance of vanilla ice cream varieties in stores and people blaming McDonald's for making their kids fat slobs.

.

But today, RoadRage is truly outraged, and it's not only because the Cubs hired Mike Quade as their next manager instead of Ryne Sandberg.

.

What I'm angry about is this scumbag pictured to your left, Reverend Fred Phelps. Phelps is the piece of garbage you have heard about who is leading protests at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. His followers hold signs that say hateful comments like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and even young kids hold signs that say things like "God Blew Up the Shuttle."

.

He and his followers are doing this because he says the military and U.S. are too tolerant of homosexuality and he says God is punishing us by killing our soldiers. Apparently, God has decided to share his thoughts on homosexuality with bigots and complete morons.

.

Right now, the Supreme Court is determining the legal right of Phelps (or anyone else) to hold these protests at another person's funeral.

.

As an American, I'm all for Freedom of Speech, but this form of "speech" should not be protected, and any lawyer worth his salt should be able to prove this in front of the nation's highest court.

.

The first defense, and easiest to support, is the fact that this type of speech should be considered a hate crime. With protesters holding signs that say "God Hates Fag Enablers" it is clear that these imbeciles are committing a hate crime, so they should be rounded up and thrown in jail.

.

Secondly, while protesters have Freedom of Speech, the families of dead soldiers also have their freedoms, including their Freedom of Expression. So, what's to stop the father of a fallen soldier from expressing himself by beating the ever-living crap out of anyone who protests at his child's funeral? I guess he could be charged with assault and battery for causing injury...but shouldn't the protester also be charged for causing injury for the mental anguish they are causing the military families?

.

Couldn't a lawyer easily demonstrate that psychological pain and suffering lasts longer than the physical pain caused by a good, well-deserved thrashing by calling in medical experts to testify? And, therefore, wouldn't these protesters be committing a crime for the mental anguish they are causing?

.

It seems pretty straight forward to me, and I hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing by stopping these disgusting activities. To me, these people are clearly committing illegal activities by infringing on the rights of other Americans. But, if the court doesn't agree with those legalities, I would hope they could put an end to this out of common decency.

.

These men and women are putting their lives on the line every day to protect our liberties -- including the Freedom of Speech. If they pay the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives, they not only deserve to be laid to rest in peace they have also earned that right, as have the members of their families.

.

If the Supreme Court doesn't act, RoadRage may have to start his own cult that protests at the funerals of family members of Fred Phelps and his followers to give them a taste of their own medicine.

.

Reverened Phelps, you suck, and I hope you enjoy your wing in hell.

.

RoadRage

Inception proves long-held theory that men are smarter than women

The movie Inception, with Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Berenger, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt and a bunch of other people, has definitely been the blockbuster hit of the summer of 2010. As of this date, it's already made more than $155 million at the box office, which isn't exactly The Dark Knight money. Then again, none of the major cast members died before it came out so it's tough to make a one-to-one comparison.

In talking to people afterwards, an interesting phenomenon has come to the surface. Males exiting the movie or talking about it with their friends afterward find it to be awesome, and can discuss the action and various layers in great detail. Women, however, exit the theater with puzzled looks on their faces, stating to anyone who will listen "I couldn't figure out what was going on." This phenomenon can lead to only one conclusion: men are smarter than women.

This is something scientistists have always suspected but never been able to prove. While they had all sorts of evidence and theories, normally their wives would threaten to withhold sex if they released it to the public so they'd back off. Understandable, because that's the way women are. But now, with the release of Inception, women are not only acknowledging their lower intelligence, they're broadcasting it. Again, this is something women can't help doing. Whatever is on their minds, they have to share it with anyone who will listen.

This conclusion is based on a scientifically valid sampling of a few women I know who have seen the movie. They all said the same thing -- I didn't know what was going on -- so there's a high probability that this is a universal phenomenon. Sure, there will be a few women who state they were able to follow the movie easily, but they are either well beyond the norm in intelligence for women, liars or bitter bull dykes who ride Harleys and wear work boots to formal events.

So there you have it. The evidence is in. Thank you Christopher Nolan, not only for giving us a really awesome movie but for providing the evidence we needed to answer this age-old question. Now back in the kitchen, sweetie, and make me a sandwich.

Today's Headline: Wrong Bare Top Shown

One of the things old Smails loves more than anything about his soon-to-be-former place of employment is its offices' proximity to the lakefront. A few days a week I will spend my lunch break jogging from the Loop offices out to the other side of the Adler Planetarium and back. It's a nice respite from the day and offers beautiful views of the best lakefront city in the world.

This being my last week at the office before starting work at a new place in the suburbs, I used today as possibly my last opportunity for just such an afternoon run. The climate was ideal and the people watching proved as typical, with families, Euros and other joggers and runners traversing the lakefront. Alas, what is that heading my way on a three-wheel bike? Is that an old woman biking topless? Nope, just some 70-something fresh off the plane from Boca displaying his fella bags for all to see. Dude, what the hell?

I understand people feeling comfortable enough with their physical misgivings to shun toupees, wear open-toed sandals to show off those summer-toes (summer going this way, others going that way) or any other mingerish downfall bestowed upon that person during the genetic lottery, but at some point you have to draw the line as to what is fine with you in front of the mirror and what leads to public vomiting. If you've lived long enough on this planet and not exercised your pecs, it's an inevitable that your gentleman toots will be giving the old two thumbs down to everyone. But the onus is on you to not subject the general public, especially weekend warrior athletes, families and international tourists to your geezer knobs.

So to the old fart with the JELLO jigglers and total lack of care for his fellow man--or ape--you suck. Park those AARP hooters in a shirt, a halter top or a bro next time. The last thing anyone needs to see on a beautiful Chicago lakefront afternoon is your set of hair whoopy cushions.

The Clown Made Me Do It

RoadRage is mad tonight. You see, I didn't want to take my kids to McDonald's, and I told them they couldn't go. But then they asked again and again, so I told them no again--twice.

But they persisted, and since I have no backbone and never want to deprive my kids of anything their heart desires because it might hurt their little feelings and have destructive, life-altering ramifications for the rest of their natural existence, I gave in and brought them.

And now that I've done this for six years, my older kids are both around 40 pounds overweight.

I don't blame myself, though, or my kids. It's really McDonald's fault because they make good food at affordable prices and they also give away free toys in their Happy Meals, so what options do my kids or I have?

Does this scenario sound familiar to you? Because if it does, you are a complete loser and don't deserve to have kids, because you are unable to teach them valuable lessons about not getting everything their heart desires whenever they want it.

But, that's not the way the Center for Science in the Public Interest feels about it. They are threatening to sue McDonald's for including toys in their Happy Meals because the toys indirectly lead to childhood obesity.

"McDonald's marketing has the effect of conscripting America's children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald's ... Once there, they are more likely to receive a meal that is too high in calories, saturated fat, added sugars and sodium," according to Stephen Gardner of CSPI in a letter to McDonald's brass. And of course if a kid nags, his parents can't say no, right?

This is ridiculous. Why should organizations like McDonald's have to put up with this crap? If people are stupid enough to continue to buy McDonald's Happy Meals because they want to get their kids the 25-cent toys included inside, why is it McDonald's fault that their kids are overweight? The answer is that it's not McDonald's fault.

I take my kids to McDonald's once in a while, because, as I mentioned, the food is good, and it's convenient. But, neither of my older kids are overweight because they actually exercise, and they eat other food that, get this, isn't made at McDonald's.

The CSPI should focus their efforts on more worthwhile endeavors -- with whatever it is they do. And, parents should put their collective foot down and show their kids that they are not going to get everything they want for the rest of their lives. They're called life lessons and people are forgetting how to instill them in their children, because why should they bother? Anything negative that happens with their kids is always someone else's fault, as the CSPI's lawsuit shows us.

CSPI, you suck! And, any parent blaming McDonald's for their child's obesity should take the money they would have spent there and go buy themselves a spine, so that they can stand up to their kids.

RoadRage