DJesus Freaks Uncorked

The fact that SNL somehow still finds a way to remain relevant convinces me that the American public hates comedy and wants to see it crushed beneath the iron heel of predictability, laziness, and immaturity. The show is almost always utterly unfunny, and yet somehow remains on the air after almost forty years of Nickleback-level mediocrity and scrotum-scraping tediousness in almost every sketch the show has ever aired. It is rare to see a skit that is actually funny (a few of the Celebrity Jeopardy skits managed some genuine laughs).  Most of the time the best “comedy” that the show can come up with is a sketch that’s funny in concept, but lazy and predictable in execution.

The recent Tarantino spoof called “DJesus Uncrossed” is an example of this. Is a movie about a vengeance-crazed DJesus storming through DJerusalem viciously killing Romans and avenging the plight of the DJews a funny idea? Fuck yeah, it is. I would like to see it done well. Alas, this is SNL, so ’twas not to be. Instead, we just get Jesus killing people. Obviously a Jesus parody based on Django Unchained will involved Jesus murdering Romans. That’s supposed to be the starting point of the DJoke. It’s the premise of the DJoke, not the DJoke itself. You’re then supposed to build on that, adding new humorous layers and observations. Maybe have DJesus walk across the water to kick off the heads of swimming Romans like footballs off a tee. Maybe have a weird thing about the holes in his feet to parody Tarantino’s creepy foot fetish (we all know he’d love to fuck a foot-hole). Or point out that, unlike Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained, there’s no evidence to show that it didn’t actually happen this way. (At least, no less evidence than what the Gospel accounts have.)

There might have been ways to make these things funny, and that’s what they should do. But that requires the writers to make an attempt to do their jobs. Instead we just get 2 minutes of DJesus killing Romans in re-creations of scenes from various Tarantino movies, as if the mere sight of it will be funny every single time. It’s not. The humor wears off almost immediately, and there isn’t an attempt to build on the premise until the very end, when a fictional critic describes it as a less violent version of the Passion of the Christ, followed by a swipe at the fact that Tarantino likes to include the word “nigger” in his scripts a lot. Too little, too late.

“SNL skit sucks” isn’t news. It’s in the same category as the Pope’s Catholicism and bears’ woods-shitting. But at least I can get some enjoyment out of this crappy skit, because (quite predictably) the god-humpers are freaking out about it. All it takes is a couple jokes about their imaginary friend, and their heads go *POP* as tears come gushing out over the sad plight of the adherents of the most dominant religion in the Western Hemisphere. Yes, Christians, let me taste those sweet and salty tears!

The following comments were also posted on “SNL’s” website:

–”Seriously SNL? I am one of your biggest fans, but you really crossed the line with this. I am thoroughly disgusted…”

–”Interesting how SNL continues to mock Christ. As a Christian, I was highly offended. No doubt you would not dare to attack other faiths; Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, You can do better.”

–”This is just wrong. Once again, Christians are slammed. I find it ighly unfunny making fun of something that so many hold dear…”

It’s funny how people on the right wing love to talk tough every chance they get, but when something hurts their precious religious beliefs they turn into the biggest pussies on planet earth.

My favorite response so far comes from some dingleberry named Frank Kaufmann, who seems to be yet another religionist who thinks that unthinking, reactionary, gut-based babblings can be made respectable by adding a thin veneer of superficial erudition.

The LA Times explains, “DJesus Uncrossed” may have crossed the line, with some calling it the single most offensive skit in “Saturday Night Live” history.” [sic]

A lot bothers me about the SNL airing of Djesus Uncrossed using the risen Lord Christ as subject matter to parody Tarantino’s Django Unchained.
Something tells me it’s not going to be the right things about it that bother him. Maybe it’s the pomposity of saying “risen Lord Christ” rather than just simply “Jeebus”…
These include the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, the pathological schizophrenia the [sic] obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent).
Nope. None of the right things. Let’s go through these one by one.
  • the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, [Dude. They’re told to cheer. There are frickin’ signs in the studio that say “Applause” and “Laughter” on them for this purpose. Obeying them is part of the agreement for being in the audience. Your complaint is like yelling in response to the laugh track on Full House, “Hey! That wasn’t funny! Stop laughing!”]
  • the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, [Fucking YouTube comments? Haven’t you figured out how the internet works yet? ALWAYS IGNORE YOUTUBE COMMENTS!]
  • the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, [It’s fine to offend anyone as far as I’m concerned. One of the reasons I feel that way is that “offensive” only sounds like a legitimate objection to someone who is him/herself offended. Case in point, Christians who cry persecution whenever someone makes fun of Jesus but don’t give a shit when gays complain about a gay joke.]
  • the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, [Getting even more pearl-clutchy and offended by every little thing would only accelerate that decline.]
  • the pathological schizophrenia the obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, [“Pathological schizophrenia”!  Gotta sound smart when attacking the “elite” straw man that every dumb Christian blubbers about whenever the TV appears to be smarter than he/she is.]
  • and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent). [We demand that shitty comedies on networks hardly anyone watches any more schedule according to our silly holiday rituals! But just ours. No need to pay attention to Ramadan or any bullshit like that. We might get offended if you avoid offending Muslims.]
Six objections have been raised, not a single one of which is even remotely legitimate. This was definitely written by a Christian.
The core of my disappointment lays [sic] not in moralist or liturgical obsessions involving legitimate charges of blasphemy (in my view a proper injunction) but in more widely applicable negatives namely that material like this is ignorant and childish. [sic]  Like a 1 year old smearing poo everywhere thinking herself an avant-garde rebel against constraining norms. [sic]
Or maybe said 1 year old wiped her ass with a thesaurus and needlessly smeared “liturgical” and “injunction” on the walls. Oh, and if you’re trying to look smart, you probably shouldn’t confuse “lay” with “lie” and put a run-on sentence right next door to a sentence fragment.
The difference between SNL’s skit and the little one smearing stink is that the child is not heavily funded, and does not participate in a network of self important figures in the multi-billion dollar entertainment industrial complex, spending your money and drinking your wine. The 1 year old thankfully is limited to her own rear-end, her own walls, her own face and hair, and she doesn’t have a thousand people excitedly cooing, under [sic]  a YouTube video imagining themselves champions of courageous and daring horizons of self expression.
I’ll give Frank this: I have never before seen a poop-based analogy pursued with such dedication. Bonus points for the overly-elaborate poop joke in a paragraph accusing the opposition of being immature.
I have, however, seen the kind of mind-reading Frank is attempting. I’ve seen it precisely 378 gajillion times (using Steven Seagal math). It’s pretty common for religious dingbats to create straw atheists motivated by whatever pet boogedy-boo(s) the author obsesses over. Obviously, Frank’s boogedy-boo is (perceived) transgressiveness in the art world, and he imagines a world full of liberals who think anything that offends Frank is therefore a masterpiece of rebellion. Never mind if anyone actually thinks that way, and in this case I would say hardly anybody possibly would. I find the mind-reading particularly amusing in this case, since no human being in this world or any other could use terms like “avant-garde” or “courageous” or “daring” to describe SNL. It does say a lot about Frank’s understanding of what the rest of the world considers to be daring or transgressive, though.
The putrid outcome of the little one in her diapers further resembles the Djesus skit in that neither is funny.
Jesus. You are really fucking committed to this poop thing, aren’t you?
SNL has long been lazy in creating elaborate enactments of profoundly average ideas. This skit had a single funny line, calling the SNL grotesquery less violent than Mel Gibson’s cartoonish and bloody depiction of Jesus.
You’ll get no argument from me on this point. It shows that at least part of you sees the real problem with this sketch. Now, let’s get back to the part of you that’s stupid and whiny.
The delighted squeals and cheers from the SNL live audience can probably be forgiven. Anyone who’s ever been a part of a live TV audience knows the demeaning experience of being manipulated by second rate comics or MCs telling you when to laugh and when to applaud. It is embarrassing. Some years back I went to see Tracy Chapman on the Letterman Show. Loved her, hated being told what to do all night long by cue card holding clowns.
Then why in the fuck did you object to it at the beginning of your op-ed? And why in the holy cunt-shitting, cocksucking, ass-badgering, poodle-fucking hell would anyone ever go to a Tracy Chapman concert? If Tracy Chapman were headlining the Free Limitless Beer and Pussy Festival I still wouldn’t go.
The freedom to offend Christians in a politically correct America is a disgrace.
Yeah! Fuck freedom!
Calling an athlete athletic has cost commentators their jobs and careers.
CITATION PLEASE.
Defiling the sacred and offending sincere religious believers is fine.
Especially if it’s someone else’s “sacred” that’s being defiled. How many people wanna take a bet on whether Frank complained when South Park ridiculed Scientology, Islam, or Mormonism?
A US army handbook in preparation reported by WSJ warns “that soldiers should avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” [and] “any criticism of pedophilia.” [sic] So we must be careful not to criticize pedophilia, but it is fine to portray the beloved object of worship and love for millions of Americans as a violent, underdeveloped, sadistic thug.
“We”? Are “we” all in a combat zone in Afghanistan? Because that’s the only possible way the two situations would be comparable. Oh wait. I forgot your were doing that Muslim Dog Whistle thing. The thing where you treat two completely unrelated situations as the same, but it’s okay because it involves Muslims.
This is the contemptible double-standard in contemporary America.
No, this is the safety-standards for soldiers serving in Afghanistan (who are trying to avoid getting blown up by religious freaks even more insane than the freaks in America) and the existence of a crappy SNL skit in America that makes god-humpers feel poopy inside (which leads to smearing shitty op-eds everywhere). Two unrelated situations. No double-standard at all. But lot’s of well-deserved references to feces.
Furthermore SNL chooses to air this skit to coincide with the dawn of the Lenten season, when millions of quiet, sincere, humble American Christians are seeking help from Jesus to be sorry for our shortcomings, and to try to be better people.
You can’t make fun of us, because we’re so GOOD! You’re also not allowed to make fun of the fact that we have this disgustingly self-righteous attitude about ourselves!
And galloping god-balls would I like to see more of these “quiet, sincere, humble American Christians.” I’m getting really sick of the whining, bigoted, thin-skinned, humorless, sanctimonious, complaining, asshole variety.
The core tragedy of the piece lies most fully in associating Jesus with violence and revenge.
Here’s what I’ve learned about Frank so far. He confuses prolixity with profundity. He thinks “Hurts believers’ delicate, precious feelings” is a legitimate objection. He really, really, really likes poop jokes. He really likes the word “core”. And it’s good to see that he’s finally realized the difference between “lies” and “lays”. But he’s fucking cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs if he thinks Jesus hasn’t been associated with violence and revenge for the past 2000 years.
Jesus refused that a single sword be drawn, even in his own defense when his life was in danger. As a violent mob descended on Jesus, he demanded a follower put up (re-sheath) his sword (Mt 26:52), and warned him about escalating cycles of violence.
That same godly motherfucker, according to your own bullshit gospels, also did this:

John 2:13-17

Jesus Clears the Temple Courts

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

He whips people for promoting capitalism at church! Hell, Christian Christ-fetishists have already included Jesus’ violent behavior in their cunt-sniffing hagiographical films of the bastard:
Where’s the outrage over this violent depiction of Jesus’ behavior? And keep in mind, the SNL hacks were just making a bad joke. The makers of that even shittier film, on the other hand, claim Jesus actually did that shit.
SNL has Jesus as a gruesome figure of revenge, yet the final act in Jesus life was to pray for the Romans. As Jesus hung to die, Roman Centurions gambled over his clothes. Jesus begged God’s forgiveness of them. With barely breath in his lungs Jesus tried to speak in defense of these men, arguing that their misdeeds were because of their ignorance. They did not understand what they were doing. (Luke 23:34)
The gospels differ on what his last words were. But they’re all in agreement that those were not his last words. In fact, Christian tradition has him saying six more things after the whole “They known not what they do” blubbering. (Did it ever occur to you that they knew exactly what they were doing, Jesus? Maybe a god who sends people to eternal torment for refusing to believe without evidence shouldn’t be welcome on this planet.) Hell, those aren’t even his last words in the very gospel Frank is quoting. Luke 23:43 and 23:46 have him saying and doing other things later on. Read your god damn Bible, Frank!
SNL producers choose to portray a vengeful and violent Jesus on the eve of the most sacred and most reflective 40 days of the liturgical calendar. Hear still that barely audible prayer recorded in Luke.
Hear also the violent, vengeful Jesus portrayed throughout the book of Revelation. Hell, Revelation could easily be titled “Jesus Haploid Christ Ass-Fucks the Entire Human Species” without misrepresenting its message.
I’m sick and tired of the religious trying to have it both ways. They want even non-believers to treat their invisible friend with reverence and respect and gush about how peaceful and loving he was, and they want to say that said non-believers will all be killed and thrown into the pits of hell for eternal torment simply for the crime of being non-believers. Jesus, as conservative Christians view him, is a sick, disgusting, violent, bigoted god, and anyone who says differently hasn’t read Revelation. Pretty much the only thing that SNL got right was the fact that there are a frighteningly large number of Christians out there who have a gigantic god-boner just thinking about the day when Jesus will return and destroy all the atheists and Muslims and everyone else who doesn’t buy into their twisted, sadistic eschatology. Prince of Peace my ass.
Advertisements

Marriage Police – Not just for gays any more…

For all of you opponents of gay marriage out there, you might want to keep this in mind. A state legislator in Oklahoma is proposing a bill to restrict divorces. Having already amended the frickin’ state constitution to ban not only gay marriage but any type of recognition or benefits for gay couples, Oklahoma is now going after the straight couples who just don’t have enough Jesus in the bedroom.

Promoting strong marriages is an “obvious” way to improve the health, education, public safety and economy in Oklahoma, Rep. Mark McCullough said Monday.

Oh, yeah, “obvious”. When I see problems with education, economy, health and public safety, the first thing I think is, “This wouldn’t be an issue if only people were forced to remain in loveless marriages which make them utterly miserable.” I think this because I’m very stupid, shallow, and a giant fucking petty-minded busybody.

Joined at a news conference by ministers, social organizations and representatives with Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, the Sapulpa Republican said good government policy should address marriage and divorce and their impacts on families, children, poverty and crime.

The conference was held to kick off National Marriage Week, which continues through Feb. 14.

See this, straight people? Having already crushed gay marriage in Oklahoma, these organizations must now seek out another target. Did anyone actually think they would just stop after successfully fucking gay people over? Nope. Having made the gays in OK miserable, they’re now looking at you, straight people. This is what it feels like to have the government fucking with your personal life. You empowered these people, so you might as well get used to it. They won’t go away voluntarily.

“We’re not here to scold, we’re not here to be a judge — we’re here to say the more the family fails the more government has to get involved, and that’s just the facts,” McCullough said.

We’re not here to judge. We’re just here to say you’re a failure and that the government needs to wrest control of your genitals from you.

We declare you to be immoral. Then we control you. You know: “Facts.”

McCullough is the author of House Bill 1548, which would not allow married couples to divorce on the grounds of incompatibility if there are minor children living in the home, if they have been married longer than 10 years or if either party objects.

Like so much of the right wing dog shit out there today, this is “for the children.” How exactly is having divorced parents worse than having two parents who despise each other? Well, of course it’s not. But who gives a fuck about the reality of the situation when there are people out there living lifestyles I can’t treat like my own game of The Sims?

The bill is one of seven filed by legislators this year that would make it more difficult to divorce.

We’re seriously not far from legislators literally wiping their asses and submitting the soiled toilet paper to be law. They aren’t that far away from it.

Senate Bill 105 would legalize “covenant” marriages, which would require counseling both before marriage and during divorce; Senate Bill 961 would require parents undergoing divorces to attend classes and receive information about divorce’s adverse effects on children.

But remember, requiring you simply to register your semi automatic assault rifle is FUCKING COMMUNISM!!!!!!

Marriage occurrences in Oklahoma, according to the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics, was 7.2 per 1,000 people in 2010, tied for 20th in the nation. The divorce rate was 5.2 per 1,000 people, tied for third.

And instead of improving the situation, the only solution is just to use government force to compel people to stay together, even if their marriage is a complete mess that never should have existed to begin with.

Jesus love misery. And misery loves company. Especially if that company is small children who have no option but to spend their formative years in a loveless household, being raised by two people who shouldn’t even be in the same room with each other. You know, for the children.

“Enslaved” by Human Rights

You think America is the only country with ignorant religious right wing whiners?  Think again! Jolly old England has its share of simpering godbots, such as the very British-named David Pryce-Jones over at NRO, who wrote a recent blog entry called:

They Never Would Be Slaves?

Now we know that hyperbole knows no cultural boundaries.

Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin are Christians who have had their lives made miserable for their faith.

Miserable! Oh, what unspeakable misery befell them? Were they imprisoned and enslaved for their faith, forced into hard labor under the threat of electrical shocks to their godly genitals?

Nadia Eweida wore a silver cross on a chain round her neck, until her employers, British Airways, suspended her for it.

Oh, well, that’s a bit of a letdown, especially since (SPOILER) in the next paragraph you’ll mention the fact that she sued them for it and won. Where exactly does the slavery come in?

Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, for 30 years had a crucifix on a necklace over her uniform, and the management of the Royal Devon National Health Hospital ordered her to remove it, on the absurd grounds of health and safety. A patient, they said, might have an accident pulling it.

Still not seeing any slavery. Also, you left out the part where her employer tried to reach a compromise:

The hospital previously said Mrs Chaplin been offered several alternative ways to wear her cross, but had chosen not to accept them.

So now we have hyperbole and lying by omission. Not to mention the fact that a nurse having something dangling off her neck while she’s close to a patient really could be a health hazard. But Mr. Pryce-Jones conveniently ignores this, because symbols are more important than actual human beings. The religious right really is the same no matter what country you’re from. They fetishize the symbols of their cult the same way everywhere, it seems.

At the same moment, Gary McFarlane, a marriage counselor, and Lillian Ladele, a registrar, have also given offence on account of their Christian conscience. Neither had any objection to homosexuality as such, but Mr. McFarlane asked to be excused from counseling same-sex couples, and Miss Ladele from marrying them. Both were fired.

How exactly is that slavery? They refused to do their job, so they got fired. Simple as that. Replace the term “same-sex” with “interracial” or “immigrant” and tell me if you still think it was wrong to fire them. Wait, on second thought, don’t. Your answer would probably make me even more depressed about humanity’s prospects for the future.

Legal proceedings finished in front of seven judges, none of them British, in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Believe it or not, this is where the slavery comes in… Eventually.

This court found in favor only of Miss Eweida; BA had interfered with her right to express her religion.

Second sentence of the second paragraph, and Pryce-Jones is already undermining the point he was trying to make.  Cheerio, Guvnah!

Rejecting the claims of the three other defendants, the court is giving priority to political correctness over freedom of religious conscience.

Ah, there’s that favorite dog whistle word of the American religious right: Political Correctness. By juxtaposing this sentence with the one before it, it becomes obvious what “political correctness” means to these blabbering simpletons: If the courts rule in favor of the Christian, it’s “her right to express her religion”; if the courts rule against a Christian or in favor of a non-Christian, it’s “political correctness.”

But, no, it’s not political correctness. You seem to have forgotten the part where they refused to do their jobs. “Jesus says so” is not a good excuse for failing to meet your duties at work. If it were, I’d pretend-convert immediately.

Many sad aspects come together. The childish conformity of those taking these decisions to ban religious symbolism on behalf of BA and that Royal Devon hospital is unimaginable.

“Childish conformity” coming from a religious wanker is a real laugh riot. But I think someone must have spiked your crumpets, because there’s nothing childish about saying you have to do your job. Refusing to do one’s job because of evil, dirty fags, however….

One prejudice is being utilized to suppress another prejudice.

Well, at least you admit that religious belief is prejudice. That’s progress, right?

Freedom of worship is compromised.

No, it’s not.

Christianity is further marginalized.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Not a single churchman has come forward to defend these Christians…

Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it’s because the clergy don’t want to be associated with people who use God as an excuse to be lazy at work. Or maybe it’s because the church will only intervene if the church has something to gain from it, which in these cases they clearly don’t.

or if there is one, then he is doing it so discreetly that the mainstream media do not report him.

“Mainstream media”! I love playing Bible-humper Bingo!

Saddest of all, foreign judges now decide the behavior and beliefs of British people. Those same British people once used to sing that they never never never would be slaves.

Slavery! Finally! I thought we’d never actually get to the point of your fucking blog post.

But I fail to see how the European Court is the same thing as slavery. It’s not like any of these people were put in chains and forced to pick cotton in some bumfucked nowheresville in southern Mississippi. One of them even won her case! How is that slavery?

Obviously it’s nothing of the sort. In reality, this is just naked xenophobia and nationalism. It’s slavery because the people who made the decision weren’t British. Which is to say, it’s the same old bullshit you see from the extreme right wing here in this country, just gussied up in British pomposity.  How do you say “Them durn foreigners!” in Pommy Limey Git speak?

And of course, we have one more big whopper of a lie by omission at work here. From the court docket:

Application nos. 48420/10 and 59842/10
by Nadia EWEIDA and Shirley CHAPLIN
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 10 August and 29 September 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The first applicant, Ms Nadia Eweida, is a British national who was born in 1951 and lives in Twickenham. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Elli of Aughton Ainsworth, a firm of solicitors practising in Manchester. The second applicant, Ms S. Chaplin, is a British national who was born in 1955 and who lives in Exeter. She is represented before the Court by Ms L. Blaxall of the Christian Legal Centre, London and Mr P. Diamond, a barrister practising in Cambridge.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

Yup. They applied to the European court themselves. No one forced them to go before this court. They did so all on their own. So let’s get this straight: People applying, of their own free will, to a Human Rights court, and one of them even winning her case? That’s “slavery.” But people being denied basic services like counseling or a marriage license on the grounds that they’re queer fag homos? That’s “religious expression.”

Basically, “slavery” means Christians not getting to determine other people’s lives. And “political correctness” means non-Christians might actually getting their own way every now and then. Sound familiar? There really is no difference between the religious right in America and its slimey manifestation in any other country. The only way they know how to “express” themselves is by sanctimoniously interfering with other people’s lives. If they can’t deny services to gay people, then they feel enslaved. If they can’t pose a health risk to others by flaunting their silly god-trinkets around, then they feel enslaved. Even when they win their case and are allowed to show off their stupid Jesus junk, they’re still enslaved because the guys who awarded them a victory were of a different nationality!  And one of them might have spoken French or something! Oh, the humanity!

Well, Mr. Pryce-Jones, all I can tell you is I have little sympathy for a “slave” who has the benefit of a Human Rights court, whose only complaint is that he/she didn’t want to do his/her job if gay people were involved, and who entered this relationship entirely of his/her free will. I do, however, have sympathy for the poor European judges who had to listen to what must have been a seemingly endless parade of hair-brained, bigoted excuses for why one’s professional duties cease to be in effect in the presence of homos. That must have been almost as excruciating as reading the NRO. Almost.

More Rape-ublican Bullshit

Over at Dispatches from the Culture War Ed Brayton is reporting that there is yet another bill mandating a transvaginal ultrasound (otherwise known as the Religious Rape Rod) for women seeking an abortion. The Republicans really just can’t hop off the Rape Train, can they? This time, it’s in Arkansas. Oh, Arkansas! Thank you so much for making the fact that I’m from Oklahoma seem like it’s not so bad. You guys and Texas are the best–and by best I mean worse than us.

So, what exactly does this bill entail?

The new Rapert bill would prohibit an abortion if a heartbeat is detected…

Wait. Wait wait wait. The “Rapert bill”? It’s called the “Rapert bill”? Why in the gallopin’ god-balls is it called the Rapert bill? Are they really just coming out and saying, “We Republicans want to rape women”?

As promised Sen. Jason Rapert and a gang of anti-abortion Republicans i…

The guy’s name is Jason fucking Rapert???

I had to look up “Sen. Jason Rapert” to make sure he was real and this wasn’t some kind of sick joke. Turns out, he’s real. I thought it was only in comic books that villains had such appropriate names. Do they also have state senators named Victor von Doom, Mister Sinister, and Dicky McRapes-A-Lot?

Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert (visual approximation)

So, how does Senator Rapey Fuck-noggin describe himself?

Jason is the founder and former president of Holy Ghost Ministries, Inc. (HGM), a faith based humanitarian missions organization providing clean water and assistance to the poor and orphans in Ghana West Africa, Uganda and the Philippines.  His vision was to simply help those who cannot help themselves and has based the organization upon the idea of “Serving God by Serving Others”.

Well, God does like rape. We even have footage of him saying so. At least, I think that’s him…

Give me a moment to take a sip of beer before I read another sentence from his self-description.

Today, Jason is a financial advisor and co-owner of Rapert & Pillow Financial.

*SPPUUURRTTT*

Less surprising is his issues page.  As one might expect, he takes the evil/stupid position on pretty much every issue imaginable. I hope this name thing starts a new trend. It’ll be easier to spot the woman-hating, poor-bashing, homophobic, racist, superstitious right wing fuck-nuggets in government if the rest of them all made it this obvious that they’re evil. It might catch at least a few people’s attention if they’re asked to vote for Ralph Baby-Smasher or Jenny No-Health-Care-for-You or Money-bags McFuckThePoor. Sadly, though, I’m pretty sure they’d still get elected. There are a lot of dumb people out there, and dumb people loves them some evil.

Dumb people also love their leaders to be as dumb as they are, and vote accordingly. This case is no exception. As you might imagine, Senator Goatfucker doesn’t have a very good grasp on the facts.

“I’m asking you to stand up for life, and I believe when there is a heartbeat, based upon even the standard the Supreme Court has utilized, you cannot have a viable child without a heartbeat,” Sen. Jason Rapert, the bill’s sponsor, told lawmakers before they approved the legislation.

You can’t have a viable child with just a heartbeat either, nimrod. You obviously have no familiarity with the standard the Supreme Court has “utilized” (you can always spot a finance MBA by the fact that they can’t utilize the word “use”). Of course, familiarizing oneself with such matters would require reading, and other elitist bullshit like thinking.

And yes, the legislation passed. The Arkansas state senate voted “yes” on a bill for raping pregnant women proposed by a guy named Rapert who thinks that a heartbeat is all you need to have a child (FSM only knows how he treats his own children). Be afraid, rational people in Arkansas. Be very afraid.