Normal People: But Why Is Rush Limbaugh So Wrong With His Comments? HuffPo: Because, duh.

No explanation needed apparently. He's Rush Limbaugh, that's all you need to know, mouth-breather.

Rush Limbaugh—apparently not content with having caused the Sandra Fluke firestorm—waded into the birth control debate once more on his Wednesday show. This time, the subject was the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the so-called Hobby Lobby case.

The Court said that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" companies cannot be required to cover birth control for their employees. Limbaugh, who supported the decision, said that the issue should have never been up for debate in the first place.

Ok, he must've said something really, really, REALLY bad.

On Wednesday, the radio host weighed in again. He said one listener called him to point out that the federal government does not require employers to cover eye exams or dental work.

"Which is worse, to go blind from lack of regular eye exams or to get pregnant? And again, pregnancy is something you have to do to cause," Limbaugh said. "It doesn't just happen to you while you're walking down the street except in the case of sexual abuse."

He claimed that women treat pregnancy "like a disease" even though it is the consequence of their actions. "And yet, they wouldn't have the problem if they didn't do a certain thing," he said. "It's that simple."

Um, ok. So really? Where's the controversy? They don't treat pregnancy like a disease? I would expand the term "women" to "Liberal women." Actually, just "liberals" treat pregnancy as a disease. I point to Mr. Fingernail as an example.

 His comments come as no surprise considering the infamous remarks he has made about birth control in the past. In 2012, Limbaugh created a firestorm when he called Fluke — then a law student who had testified at a Democratic hearing about the need for birth control — a "slut" and a "prostitute."

That's not quite what he said. At the very least, there was a point he was trying to make, though you can decide whether or not the point was successfully made. The quotes:

"What does that make her?" he asks. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

And

“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."

Now we can argue the success of the validity of the point. Personally I think he's not that far off but there is more there. Using the state to get what you want and making others pay for it? We can attribute that to welfare as well, doesn't make them sluts. But the HuffPo presents it like Rush just said something like:

"That slut Sandra Fluke is testifying before congress."

The reason why there was such a firestorm is that the point isn't really that far off. If you are making others pay for you to have all the sex you want, well at the very least it should raise an eyebrow on your behavior.

But we don't want to actually argue the points, we just want to shout people down, demonize them, discredit them, and basically dismiss the person without actually addressing any points. They don't really rebuke his point, just flat out state he's wrong like it's just self-evident. It's more typical hack reporting that I've come to expect from the Huffington Post.

The Left's Nuance Strikes Again

So in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision to allow companies to decide whether or not they are going to provide insurance coverage to cover abortifacients.

(Not contraceptives by the way. And they still can pay for your abortions, it's called your paycheck.)

Needless to say, this has some of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. At some point it gets back to how fetus and embryos are not alive or something. One in particular caught my eye. It starts with Sean Davis letting them have it:

You're welcome to argue that human life doesn't begin with a fertilized egg so long as you don't also argue that you understand science.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 30, 2014

Which leads to this piece of driftwood forming a tweet:

@seanmdav @EWErickson It isn't anymore than a fingernail is alive on its own.
— Andy Caldwell (@AndyCaldwell_2) June 30, 2014

I had to get in on this.

@AndyCaldwell_2 @seanmdav @EWErickson Aren't fingernails and human embryos different?
— Conservative Yoda (@YodaCon) July 1, 2014

@YodaCon In terms of being alive on there own, no.
— Andy Caldwell (@AndyCaldwell_2) July 1, 2014

Ok, that is the narrowest definition of comparison you could make. Why? So you can get what you want, which is unlimited abortions.

Fingernails = Not Alive on their own
Embryos = Not Alive on their own.
Therefore
Fingernails = Embryos.

This is silliness to the ultimate degree. And I told him so:

@AndyCaldwell_2 Well I guess if we define it by the most narrowest of parameters, then sure. So much for the "nuanced" party. @seanmdav
— Conservative Yoda (@YodaCon) July 1, 2014

But we're dealing with driftwood here.

@YodaCon @seanmdav Ok? So are you agreeing with me?
— Andy Caldwell (@AndyCaldwell_2) July 1, 2014

No. But I'm beginning to think you are the fingernail that we're talking about. Fortunately Sean helps me out and I thank him.

@AndyCaldwell_2 @YodaCon You compared a baby to a fingernail. Nobody is agreeing with you. We are mocking you. Quite openly, as it were.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 1, 2014

Well it went on from there but you get the idea. Narrow your argument down to something inconsequential and meaningless and then hang yourself with it. Fingernails are not embryos. He wants us to try to put a fingernail clipping at the same worth as the embryo and they are not. Gold and Mercury are both elements and in a way are far less complex and far more alike than an embryo and a fingernail. Hell they are only one proton off. But Gold and Mercury are vastly different in their properties, their worth, and their effect on a human being. We don't elevate a fingernail to that of an embryo but he degrades an embryo to that of a fingernail.

An embryo's effect on a human being is vastly different than a fingernail's. Only a liberal couldn't see that.

Gary Oldman: Perfectly Ordinary Dude

He's pissed off the various Leagues, Organizations, and Associations which pretty much makes him a normal guy. Oh and he's about the best actor of our generation. But they were able to get him to do the apology thing which is too bad because he didn't really say anything that outrageous. 

By now we all know the (Chinese fire) drill: famous person says something “politically incorrect”; ordinary folks embrace him as a long-awaited prophet, while Big Gay and/or other “community leaders” condemn him; famous person (usually) issues groveling apology, leaving defenders looking and feeling like morons.

These causes celebrities are the Easter narratives of our times, except played in reverse and with (somewhat incredibly) way more swearing and whining. In point of fact, the stupidest thing Oldman said was “I’m deeply sorry,” during a quivering amends-making turn on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

A careful reading of his entire interview reveals a 56-year-old man who’s plumb disgusted with pretty much everybody, from parents and TV producers to the papacy (“Fuck the pope”).

Oldman comes across as “an eminently reasonable man”’ with a “solid perspective on life.” That’s according to a Jewish acquaintance of mine who, yes, worked in Hollywood for years. The “Official Jews” of the Anti-Defamation League, my pal added, were the real villains, drooling “over the chance to force a celebrity into obeisance to them.”

By the way, how come words from an actor elicit more outrage from the Anti-Defamation League than say.. the 3 kidnapped teens in Israel that were murdered? Just wondering.

I've been an Oldman fan for a while but I was somewhat surprised to hear his comments. Not unwelcome, mind you, and good to see a little common sense coming out of an actor instead of the typical empty headed liberalism. And since he isn't an empty headed liberal and has crossed whatever line that guys like Bill Maher or Shia LaBeaf haven't, he's being vilified. Because of reasons. Weepy apologies are necessary. Penance must be exacted to the church of liberalism.

Ironically, Oldman’s remarks regarding Gibson and Baldwin concerned the arbitrary nature of these all-too-frequent post-modern Salems. Why, Oldman wondered, isn’t Bill Maher fired after joking about Hollywood lesbians, while Baldwin loses his MSNBC gig for calling an aggressive photographer a “fag”?

Why indeed? As the Oldman kerfuffle simmered, the increasingly unhinged Shia LaBeouf wound down an evening of misadventure by referring to his arresting officer as a “fag.” The reaction? Arbiter of cool Lena Dunham tweaked the flaky actor on Twitter, but didn’t call out his “homophobia.” (Dunham added with palpable glee that she was “sorry to contribute to celebrity takedown culture but this is the best current event we have!”)

However, just weeks ago, comic actor Jonah Hill yelled “faggot” at a troublesome pap, and was promptly obligated to perform public penance on two different shows. Jezebel.com approvingly deemed Hill’s weepy histrionics “perfect.”

Seriously, take a look at what the left is: a cult. You cannot leave. You will be forcibly returned to the fold if you stray through personal destruction. Some will even call for violence against you if you don't pay proper penance. If you do pay penance, it must be in the cathedral of Oprah or E! or one of the various media denominations.

Free speech? Fuck off. Pay your penance. Bow to our definition of speech. Don't have opinions that vary from what say they should be.

Carpool Conversations Episode X: IRS & EPA Scandals! Economics, Special Guest, and Clint?! #Podcast

The longest podcast yet, clocking in over 3 hours! Don't worry, never again. Mark starts off solo but Jim comes back for the final two hours. There's an economics lesson here that Mark speaks about, we talk about the IRS and the EPA going off the rails with their lost hard drives and hallway pooping. 

Then we have a special guest to give his opinions on the summer movies! More bird stories! Then we just go off the rails. The picture is a hint.

Hobby Lobby Wins!

Looks like freedom of religion is still a right in this country.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices' 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.

Obamacare Roundup

Ah ACA. You are the stories that keep bloggers like me pounding on the keyboards. For starters, the Hobby Lobby decision in the Supreme Court should come down today. Of course, if Hobby Lobby continues to be allowed to not pay for Sandra Flukes sex life, it's oppression. Somehow voluntarily working at company that doesn't provide everything you think it should amounts to oppression but government forcing a company to do something it has a moral objection to is not. 

Now that Kathleen Sebelius is out, she has been hitting the lecture tour and admits maybe perhaps she made a couple of little boo-boos in implementing Obamacare. Yeah, no-shit.

“I sure made some mistakes along the way, in terms of focusing on some things and not on others,” Sebelius said. “I was terrified, as we looked at the roll-out of the health plan, that we wouldn’t have a market. That was my biggest focus and fear. And I spent a lot of time and energy with insurers, with consumers, with my old colleagues at the insurance commissioners’ offices, trying to make sure we actually had companies who came in to the market.” 

At the same time, she said she spent “too little time, clearly, on the technology side, on making sure that what I was hearing was actually accurate and getting enough eyes and ears on that.”

Is O-Care a fundamental denial of free-speech? Does supporting it meaning going against the bill-of-rights? The federalist has an answer: (Hint: It's "Yes.")

 In McCullen v. Coakley, all nine Supreme Court justices ruled that a Massachusetts law that creates a no-speech zone within 35 feet of an abortion clinic violates the First Amendment. 

Though the opinion was unanimous, the justices divided sharply on their reasoning and the majority crafted a fairly narrow ruling. But, again, it was a ruling in favor of free speech rights of pro-lifers and that’s no small potatoes.

All of this crap was put in place ostensibly to get health care to people who need it. To make them more "healthy," as it were. Is it? Nope.

People enrolled in new plans under the health law are showing higher rates of serious health conditions than other insurance customers, according to an early analysis of medical claims, putting pressure on insurers around the country as they prepare to propose rates for next year.

Among those health-law marketplace enrollees who have seen a doctor or other health-care provider in the first quarter of this year, around 27% have significant health issues such as diabetes, psychiatric conditions, asthma, heart problems or cancer, the data show. That is sharply higher than the rate of 16% for last year's individual-consumer market over the same time frame, according to the data, which was supplied by Inovalon Inc., a health-technology firm that receives medical claims directly from nearly 200 insurers that are its clients.

So again kids, another lesson on how the private sector provides far better quality than the government. Stop looking to them to solve your problems, they only know how to create new ones.

The Bears are Invading

From the East and North. I knew this would happen. Bears have been planning their move for decades. They plan to make us ride unicycles and wear silly hats.

From Kentucky:

WYMT-TV (http://bit.ly/1iMGAeu) reports that bears roaming in Letcher County have invaded bee hives. Carl Church says a bear broke through a window to get into his building where he keeps bee hives. It's not the first time bears have ditched the garbage cans for something sweeter. 

Machaela Lee says bears have gotten to her bee trees as well as berry patches near her house. Lee says bears can slow down honey production, especially if they get to the queen bee. The beekeepers say they've seen multiple bears on their property, including a mom and two cubs.

And Alaska:

Wildlife officials in Alaska's capital suspect a black bear might have literally crashed a child's birthday party before he was shot and killed inside a different home. The bear had shimmied onto the roof of Alicia Bishop and Glenn Merrill's home and was walking across a skylight when the bottom fell out Saturday, the Juneau Empire reported (http://is.gd/eUiuGY ). "I heard this cracking," said Merrill, who was preparing for his son's first birthday party. " 

And the next thing you know, there's this bear that, I mean, literally, fell right from (the skylight)." He said he and the bear were about 3 feet apart and just stared at each other in disbelief. Merrill, 45, had his parents take his son, Jackson, upstairs, and he went into another room and shut the door. Bishop, 33, was standing in the kitchen behind a glass door and watched the bear help itself to some cupcakes intended for the child's birthday bash. 

"The bear walks over and puts its paws up on the table and starts licking his birthday cupcakes, and I'm just like, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" Bishop told the newspaper.