Hi, my name is D and this is my writings on subjects. I'm no rapscallion or anything at all. If you want to you can read my writings on subjects if you have free time. If you want to argue with me or call me names then please comment. Negative feedback is very welcome...I love dat shit. Me? I'm not even a noun, I'm a fucking verb, dude.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

On a Difficult Topic: A look through the Eyes of All Parties Involved

A recent case in Canada has made worldwide headlines in which two native/aboriginal children have been removed from chemo therapy by their parents and put on some extremely silly alternative treatments in its stead.

It is a huge topic of debate because the doctors have given the first child a 75% success rate for survival and the second child a 90+% success rate for survival. Many are imploring the parents to stop withholding medical treatment from the children...yet many difficult factors have come into play and it has become a very tragic event.

The first child has now died as of January 19th (RIP) and this situation has become difficult for all parties involved. I have been reading every press release related to this since the story broke and would like to present my opinions.

I know this is a very difficult situation for all parties that were/are involved and this article will be presented in an attempted non-biased format that will hopefully give the reader all pertinent information about the matter yet without putting my opinions merged into/over it.

I will, before we start, state the following personal biases I know I have, for I know they will manifest into the article for I feel these "biases" are not so much biases as just plain accepted truths.

1. I do NOT have respect for homeopaths, naturopaths, or any such person and feel their "alternative medicine" is simply a ridiculous scam and blight on civilization.

2. I do NOT feel that a story book character from an old story book can "heal" a human being of a life threatening illness. Whether it is Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Otis the Drunk, Fog Horn Leg Horn, Abraham, Moses, Allah, or any other character. It is NOT POSSIBLE for a story book character to put cancer into remission.

Those are the two opinions of mine that I doubt will be concealed whilst writing the following article yet I do not classify those as "biases" yet as accepted truths...and thus do not mind if they find their way in.

Format of Article

I once read a book in high school assigned to me by one Mr. Lawrence entitled "The Pigman" By Paul Zindel in which a riddle is presented to the reader which attempts to assign guilt to a specific party mentioned in the riddle...this riddle is referred to as "The Husband, Wife, Lover, Boatman, Assasin" riddle. The following is the text involved from said book...

"I'm going to tell you a murder story, and your job is just to listen. 

There is a river with a bridge over it, and a WIFE and her HUSBAND live in a house on one side. The WIFE has a LOVER who lives on the other side of the river, and the only way to get from one side of the river to the other is to walk across the bridge or to ask the BOATMAN to take you.

One day the HUSBAND tells his WIFE that he has to be gone all night to handle some business in a faraway town. The WIFE pleads with him to take her with him because she knows if she doesn't, she will be unfaithful to him. The HUSBAND absolutely refuses to take her because she will only be in the way of his important business.

So the HUSBAND goes alone. When he is gone, the WIFE goes over to the bridge and stays with her LOVER. The night passes, and dawn is almost up when the WIFE leaves because she must get back to her own home before her HUSBAND returns. She starts to cross the bridge but sees an ASSASSIN waiting for her on the other side, and she knows if she tries to cross, he will murder her. In terror, she runs up the side of the river and asks the BOATMAN to take her across the river, but he wants fifty cents. She has no money, so he refuses to take her.

The WIFE runs back to the LOVER's house and explains to him what the predicament is and asks him for fifty cents to pay the BOATMAN. The LOVER refuses, telling her it's her own fault for getting into the situation. As dawn comes up, the WIFE is nearly out of her mind and dashes across the bridge. When she comes face to face with the ASSASSIN, he takes a large knife and stabs her until she is dead.

Now, on a piece of paper (or in your head), list the names of the characters in the order in which you think they were most responsible for the WIFE's death. Just list WIFE, HUSBAND, LOVER, BOATMAN, and ASSASSIN in the order you think they are the most guilty." - (from "The Pigman")

Now, like stated, you put in order from most responsible for the WIFE's death to the least responsible...and every human involved may have them in a different order for we all see the world differently. Many put the ASSASSIN first yet he was simply doing his job, it was the HUSBAND who paid him to do that. Either way, all the circumstances that lead to her death were influenced by every party involved (including the WIFE herself).

Why am I going to write the article in this format? Because all the parties involved with the case of the two aboriginal girls who have been taken off chemo are responsible for leading to the death of the first girl and likely the death of the second girl in varying degrees. This format is strange yet I think it will provide an understanding of the intentions of all parties involved and hopefully help understand a very tragic situation as it currently unfolds.

Basic Info

Before we look through the eyes of all parties involved we shall state some basic information about the situation...precise names will not be used to keep this article from becoming too personal for any party involved.

So, two young girls who are members of the Canadian First Nations (group of tribes who have land rights and other agreements with the "Crown" of Canada) have been diagnosed with leukemia and the parents of both children have taken the children off of treatment in favor of "natural" treatment from a massage spa in Florida. The hospital brought the case to the courts to attempt to force the girls to resume treatment yet the case was dismissed. Those are the basics.

The parties involved are the following:




THE FLORIDA "DOCTOR" (note -doctor- used with HEAVY quotation marks)

Views From All Parties Involved - Assembled from a Sum of Information made Available to the Public


The parents of the first child took their child off of treatment after the child claimed to have been visited in a dream by a "Jesus" and told by this "Jesus" that she no longer had cancer and was "healed."

They withdrew the child from chemo therapy and brought her to the Florida massage spa which the mother was convinced would provide better care for the child than the licensed oncologists could provide her.

Once THE DOCTORS asked THE COURTS to force the child back into treatment the parents took the child on a viral internet circus complete with youtube videos of the child speaking all the way down to a benefit rock concert from a christian rock group.

The story blew up on many Canadian and global news outlets and the girl was viewed by many people as a hero for her decision. Many members of the community stated that if the COURTS came to take the child then they would be met by resistance from the community.

It should now be noted that the distrust of the First Nations for the Canadian "Crown" is not without reason. Natives were subjected to an atrocious assimilation program in the 19th and 20th century which saw all Native children assembled in "Residential Schools" where they were taught "Christianity" and other "wonderful" things. Government documents recently uncovered by the freedom to information act show the government in many cases used the children as guinea pigs to test all sorts of silly experiments... including how a child would develop without being fed properly and other pointless and atrocious "experiments."

Now, with that in mind, it is not hard to understand why the Natives have distrust for the "Crown" because in the past it acted very belligerently to First Nations children. That is something we have to take note while looking at THE PARENTS point of view. The First Nations community is angered from the 2014 reports of the abuses from Residential Schools and doesn't want their children removed by THE COURTS due to distrust.

It should be strongly noted that the ideas of THE PARENTS, however, that a "Jesus" or a massage can put their child's cancer into remission is not a popular stance and many many people are truly incensed by their decision to attempt to "heal" their child in this manner.


The trained and licensed cancer specialists know the children have/had great odds of surviving and living long lives. In the case of the first child they estimated 75% chance of living a long life and in the case of the second child they estimated the rate at 90% or more.

These are trained people who act on reason and understood very well that these were great odds with the chemo treatment and attempted the best they could to get the children to resume treatment. Once it was clear to them that THE PARENTS would not they asked THE COURTS to order THE PARENTS to make their children resume treatment.

Many are saying the DOCTORS did not do enough to convince the parents and make them trust them yet they can only go so far...they thus put it in the domain of the courts.


Amid protests outside the courtroom with signs heralding and championing "Native Rights" and with the understanding that the community would resist any attempt at removing the child from THE PARENTS custody...ultimately the judge had little room to do anything and in the end did not pursue either case.

Many are saying THE COURTS should have taken the children and charged the parents with negligence yet with the threat of meeting resistance at removing the children it was a difficult case which boiled down to a lose-lose situation no matter how the judge ruled. To give the children a fighting chance by forcing them back into treatment there may have been many protests, road blockades, and other forms of public disobedience by the First Nations. THE COURTS, all in all, had very little choice in ruling in favor of THE PARENTS.

First Nations media and others are heralding the decision as a "precedent" and "landmark occasion" for "Native Rights" in Canada...the decision is seen as a very positive thing by the First Nations communities despite the fact both children will surely die due to the decision.


The "doctor" with the Vegeta hair-cut down in Florida, who looks like the most unprofessional "doctor" anyone has ever laid eyes on became/has-become the primary care giver to these two children despite on their website that they state plain-as-day that they are not a primary care giver and only to be used as "auxiliary" or "additional" methods of cancer treatment.

Their website states they give additional treatment to the cancer patient by teaching them how to eat right, give them nice massages, a foot bath, and a "chi realigning" (whatever the fuck that is). The website clearly states in every possible form that it is not offering treatments to put cancer into remission but to sort of help a cancer patient feel better while they have cancer.

They offer this for the low low price of tens of thousands of dollars. THE PARENTS of both children have spent 18K each on these services.

The PARENTS still claim the THE "DOCTOR" IN FLORIDA has "healed" their children along with a "Jesus" yet many many people have incredible amounts of difficulty accepting this is even remotely possible.

This "DOCTOR" has been known to fly into, let's call them, "remote" areas which are far from metropolis cities to give talks about his massage spa and many of the clients who pay the tens of thousands of dollars for these services are from these very remote regions. This "DOCTOR" flies to these regions on purpose to reel in clients because he knows there's much money to be made off people in these "remote" areas.

This "DOCTOR" is receiving criticism for becoming the primary health provider to these children even though he is not licensed in any form of medicine and literally operates a fucking massage spa masquerading as a cancer treatment center.

What Order Do You Place The Blame?

Similar to the WIFE/HUSBAND/LOVER/BOATMAN/ASSASSIN cognitive exercise from above, please take the PARENTS / DOCTORS / COURTS / "DOCTOR" variables in this real life scenario and assign your personal opinion of blame in a descending order.

Are THE PARENTS to blame for the death/impending-death of the children due to their extremely negligent views on modern medicine and extremely superstitious beliefs?

Are THE DOCTORS to blame for not winning First Nations patients trust? Are they to blame for not pursuing the court case further?

Are THE COURTS to blame for ruling in favor of the PARENTS over THE DOCTORS? Did they even really have room to work with in this case to begin with as threats of protests and such-like consequences were openly stated by the First Nations community?

or is THE "DOCTOR" IN FLORIDA to accept most of the blame for flying himself into remote regions with negative views of modern medicine, such as First Nation communities, to peddle his unbelievably bizarre massage treatments for cancer?

Are ALL to blame? Are NONE to blame? Are some to blame more than others? It's your choice what order you put the parties in...I'm just trying to present the situation from the viewpoint of all parties involved.


I believe ALL PARTIES are to blame in varying degrees for this tragic outcome to what appeared to be a situation which may very well have been avoided.

I do not believe anyone should be charged for it would just make a terrible situation worse but hopefully an understanding can come and lessons can be learned.

One of the two children is still alive and can still be put back on treatment, hopefully it is not too late, and hopefully THE PARENTS of the second child understand that 90% is great odds at survival and resume treatment.

Monday, January 12, 2015

The Funniest Women Comedians Evar

When Joan Rivers died I wanted to write something that day but it wasn't really long enough to be a real article. I'm gonna do one now called Funniest Women Comedians Evar and I'll throw in some other women and it'll flesh out to an entire article as such.

It's going to be five entries in this here and one is an ensemble cast so this list in totallatary will involve eight human females to be exact (most of which are unfortunately deceased, R.I.P.). All five entries will be listed, then the greatest shall be declared Funniest Lady Ever.

The Finalists

The Golden Girls

I used to watch this show all the time and I don't care if anyone thinks I'm not manly for doing that because this show was fucking funny, for real. The Golden Girls is one of the greatest ensemble comedy casts in all of history as all four corners of the Human Comedy Square which made up this crew were all funny and talented in their own way.

In Ninja Turtle terms, Bea Arthur was the Leonardo character, Estelle Getty was Donatello, Betty White was Michaelangelo, and Rue McClanahan was Raphael. Well, more or less I'd say.

The Golden Girls fucking kick ass, I'm very surprised there was never a Golden Girls video game ever made because I can picture in my mind at least 36 genres of video games in which it would have transitioned into very well. Maybe not so much a Fighting Game...but a Golden Girls RPG or a Golden Girls town buidling sim with Bea Arthur as the mayor of a small town (i.e. Saint Olaf) would have been simply golden. I know you can't really picture the video games I'm thinking about because they only exist in my weird mind, but believe you me, they rock so much.

There's many tv theme songs that I can sing on the spot and 100% verbatim with no no mistakes and I don't care what anyone thinks but GGs is one of those songs, seriously, this song was so good.

That song let's you know, right off the bat, that this crew is very legit and will always have each others backs even in the hardest of times. A friendship like theirs is powerful indeed and the only thing more powerful than their human friendship was their comedic prowess. The Golden Girls were big-time Legends, no doubt about it.

Rose-Anne Barr

Rose Anne is kind of kooky and riddled with plastic surgery now but back in the nineties she was the queen of prime time and with good reason...she was fucking funny. She was a big gal with a dirty mouth and she didn't give many fucks at all about what people thought about her. She said the stuff she wanted to say and did the shit she wanted to do and barely even cared. That's cool.

To highlight to what point Roseanne didn't give a fuck, here for example she's in Jack Murphy Stadium just destroying the sacred national anthem of her nation and not even given two fucks as the whole entire stadium booos the FUCK out of her....

She's got balls, or I guess for ladies you should say, she's got fucking ovaries, yo. She liked being herself and didn't care what nobody thought and that's really a key ingredient in being funny. I rank this anthem as one of the best renditions of our times, I really do, it's fucking original for sure.

Her sitcom was the best sitcom on TV for many years until it jumped the shark (their shark jump point was when Dan started having affairs and shit and the show just got stupid). It was a very real show and the actors were believable...the family was de-beavered of all the Leave it to Beaver-ness most TV families suffered from which made viewers relate to it better.

She's a comedy legend, 110%.

Jean Stapleton

Stapes was the wife character on All in the Family, for those who don't know, and she was a stellar actress who knew how to bring the fucking comedy.

I think the "Edith Bunker" character was born out of an exec telling Jean, "okay this character is sort of annoying, aloof, and a bit odd," and she just latched onto to those 3 traits and went into overdrive, creating one of the most annoying, aloof, and odd characters in the history of acting.

Similar to Roseanne's show, All in the Family, was not your perfect-werfect family and all the characters were pretty dimwitted and strange. The character of "Edith" was so funny that a lot of the shows tended to give the Edith character room to work as she stole the spotlight quite often. The Archie character was the headliner of the show but he took a back seat to the Edith character quite often because she could rake in her own share of the laughs from the audience.

A lot of the shows featured long-winded, pointless, monologues by Edith:

The character Stapleton created is one of the most memorable ever in television lore. Everyone knows a friend or relative like Edith and Stapleton took that as the basis for the character and exaggerated it into something which was simply hilarious. 

She's an All-Star caliber comedienne, she was for real.

Joan Rivers

Rivers was versatile and was headlinin' on many genres from stand-up, to talk show, to trash talk show, to fashion police, etc, etc, etc. Her act was very versatile.

Similar to Roseanne, the later years of Joan Rivers was highlighted more by her insane facial reconstruction than her comedy. To estimate a ball park number, Joan Rivers must have spent at least 50 million dollars on plastic surgery...which is quite an expensive habit.

Aging is part of life, there's no reason a 70 year old woman should attempt to look like a 40 year old woman. There's nothing wrong with aging, it's not a sin to get old, it happens to everyone. It's really no big deal. To try and fight it with an asinine amount of operations is crazy...it's actually a mental disorder is what it is.

Joan Rivers talked a lot of shit, man. By the time of her death she was still embrangled in like seven different media controversies. She called some famous couple's baby ugly, she pissed off all the Muslims with something she said, she called some woman fat and that blew up into a big huge deal. She pissed off everyone, holy shit, she was a real card this one, my gosh. She didn't give no shit either, she had ovaries too, check this out when some dude gets pissed because she does a joke about how she hates kids and would only like to have a blind and deaf one because they'd be easier to manage...

When you talk a lot of shit you have to ready to handle the fall-out/feed-back that finds it way back to you and this lady could handle it, she stood up for comedy as a whole when she told that loser to shut his fucking face up. 

Joan wins points with me too because she was down with my boys from Gwar...

She was chill, for sure. She was one of comedy's brightest human stars for many a year. She knew how to work and she knew how handle the haterz, she was pretty hard, she was pretty hard, she's a legend for sure.

LaWanda Page

This is my lady, right here. Watching this lady work has made me laugh more than any other female human ever...she was a damned professional that's what she was. 

Similar to Stapleton, who's career overlapped with LaWanda's in the seventies, she was on a sitcom and would routinely steal the stage. Unlike Jean, LaWanda wasn't on every single episode of her sitcom, Sanford and Son, so she was never over-used and you never got tired of her. She got only enough air-time that you were always left wanting more Aunt Esther. She could steal the show too, and she was working with Redd Foxx as the headliner, who was a pretty big deal in that era. She could rob the show if she wanted to, she was fucking hilarious.

The Aunt Esther character was supposed to be a respectable chruch-going character but she had a crazy violent ugly side that was fucking funny. Here's a good example of Esther being Esther...

(note: that above vid is uploaded weird, it seems the uploader sped it up a bit , they are talking at a  bit faster tempo than normal, they sound like their voices are too high pitched.)

She plays that character so well, and so funny, that she headlinin' the whole scene....and it became a common thing that when Esther busted on the scene, she would steal the whole damned show.

Before she was a hit on sit coms LaWanda preformed stand-up, and holy moly was she a dirty comedienne. She put out "party records" similar to Rudy Ray Moore or Blowfly or someone like that. Take a gander at some of her prime bits:

She can't go 2 seconds without swearing. She's dirty as fuck.

Okay, she's filthier than anyone ever. No one has nothing on LaWanda, she's the fucking greatest. I don't think Redd Foxx, Rudy Ray Moore, or Blowfly could be dirtier than this lady, she's possibly the filthiest comic ever.

Funniest Lady Ever

Taking everything into consideration...in my opinion, LaWanda Page is the funniest woman who ever lived. Adding up her filthy stand up career with her Aunt Esther character on Sanford and Son she sums up to being a person who's created a great deal of exceptionally funny material.

All Things Considered: The Funniest Woman in History


If you noticed there was no one from Saturday Night Live on here, it is mainly because those women were never really that funny. I think most female comedians now a days feel that women from SNL are what they should model themselves after and they are not correct in trying to mold themselves after people they see on SNL. Basically the women on this list featured some very key features in what it takes to being a comedic individual. These old school comics are great role models for any young aspiring comic (not only females but males and trannies too). 

Try and be....

LaWanda Page: Dirty as all Heck
Joan Rivers: Mean and Versatile.
Jean Stapleton: Over the Top.
Roseanne: Not Givin' a Fuck.
Golden Girls: Unafraid to Age.

I think there's still some modern female comics that display these key features at times, I think that jewish one, Sarah Silverman, can be Dirty as all Heck, Mean and Versatile, while Givin' no Fucks ...hopefully when she starts hitting her 50s and 60s she won't go the route of Roseanne or Joan and hopefully choose not to get loads of surgery and thus proving she's Unafraid to Age....then all she'd be missing is the Over the Top trait. She's a fairly complete comic, I'd say.

That Amy Poehler can be Over the Top, I still remember her as Andy Richter's little sister back in the day in the Upright Citizens Brigade. I think that's the only trait she has though, she nowhere near qualifies for the other four key traits.

The most popular female comedian by far now-a-days is that Tina Fey Bakker person, yet she has none of the traits mentioned and has no real business pretending to be funny. She's like a female variation of Seth Rogan, devoid of all humor yet prancing around like they are fucking hilarious. Like a Seth, she can't stretch herself, she can't work, she can only be a Straight Man (or Straight Woman I guess). If Tina Fey and Seth Rogan made a dirty baby together that baby would be the least funniest creature ever produced. They'd probably give it a retarded name like Seth Fey-Rogan Jr and it would be famous when it got older and everyone on earth would hate that thing so much. The retarded mutant baby would star in Green Hornet 2 and be the actual encapsulation of lame.

Anywho, if you're a female comic and want to be wicked funny...stop watching SNL...and start investing time into the professional stylings of LaWanda, Joan, Jean, Roseanne, and the GGs because those ladies knew how to work, they fucking did, they were downright professionals those women....

...but then again what the fuck do I know anyway? Do whatever you want, really.

(End Note: I wrote some mean things about a lady last article and maybe people think I'm like a He-Man Woman-Hater, but I'm not that....I love women and I respect women...and there a lot of Female Legends that I respect a lot like the ladies in this article. I just don't like that punk Gloria Allred, that's all. She's a punk that woman and she can't age well.)

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Is that Gloria Allred a Humongous Jabroni?

The udder week I came out in Semi-Defense of the Cos,

Article here: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2014/11/in-semi-defense-of-cos.html 

I know this a silly blog of one bozo-clown's opinions but I want the whole world to know that my opinions on this matter have changed...I am no longer in Semi-Defense of the Cos but am in Full-Defense of the Cos!

I'm not talkin' 'bout 4-3 D, not 3-4 D, not a 46 D, not even 4-2-5 Nickel D...I am in 100% Full D of the Cos. You know why? On account of that unscrupulous and conniving Gloria Allred, who's completely untrust-worthy, that is as to why.

What is Gloria Allred's Problem? Is She some Kind of Jabroni, or What?

Every week this lady finds new women who Cosby wronged. There's a dozen new ones every single week now, it's getting a bit ridiculous. By the time she's done rounding up random women from the street to add to the accusers list it's gonna be in the hundreds. How many women could have possibly been raped by Bill Cosby? A hundred, five hundred, a million? Where did he even get the time in his schedule to wrong this many womens back in the day? What is he? Friggin' Super Man?

Gloria knows every single one of these claims by her clients are not going to trial, so she is demanding that the Cos personally force them to go to trial. Why in the fuck would Bill Cosby phone the governors of the jurisdictions in which the claims have been made and say to these governors...

"Hallo? Shabbity-doop-doop-ja-loop! It's meeeeeeeee! Bill Cosby! and I'm calling yooooooooooou, Mr. Governor, shabbatatat-woop-yowzer, to tell you that you must force me to stand trial. Yazzum Pawzazzum-da-da-sheez-an-zee-zlop! I know none of these cases, ah-woop-woop, have any merit or water to them and the statute of limitations on these claims, a-bappity-shap-doo-doo, passed dozens of years ago....but YOU HAVE TO FORCE ME TO STAND TRIAL...a-doop-doop-sho-bop-wop-pazzazum!"
(-hypothetical phone call between El Cos and a governor)

Ok, is it just me or will this call probably not happen? Why on earth would someone do this? So, there's not enough merit to these cases against him and none of them are going to trial, yet, for some absurd reason Cosby should force the powers that be in various legal jurisdictions to force them make himself stand trial? What fucking planet is Gloria Allred even living on where she thinks something like that is gonna happen? This absurdity is beyond all reason. Where did she go to law school? On the Moon?

Her second ultimatum to The Cos is if he won't force these trials to occur...then he should make a fund of 100 million dollars and anyone who accuses him of raping them should stand before a panel of "retired judges" and they will decide which of the accusers get a cut of that 100 million. With that much money on the line I predict in this ludicrous scenario that thousands of women will say he raped them. This is beyond silly, it makes no sense...how can anyone be taking this seriously? What would Allred's cut be in a 100 million dollar settlement? Business Week reports that her firm gets 40% of the settlement in lawsuit victories...meaning her firm would get 40 million bucks out of this. Again, why in the world would Bill Cosby for no reason just give Gloria Allred 40 million dollars!? What fantasy world is this insane woman living in?

Does anyone honestly believe that Bill Cosby is going to wake up one morning and say to himself,

"Hey-heyyyy-Hey, squibly-bop-da-scoopity-rop, what a nice day it is today! I feel like giving 40 million of my dollars to some mutated old dinosaur for absolutely no reason at all! Sibbity-scooba-da-jalop-lop! Oh, and I'm gonna give another 60 million of my dollars to an unlimited amount of random women for no apparent reason at all! Slappity-pappity-shim-wim-scooby-doo-zoomity-zoom-a-flip-flop-sha-BOP!"
(-hypothetical Bill Cosby self-monologue)

Over the last few weeks, I've seen in a lot of news stories, dumb 11 word twitter arguments, and shit, where people are saying that Cosby has to be guilty because of the sheer amount of women accusing him. I find this hard to understand, to be honest. Why does the amount of accusers automatically prove someone is guilty of something? 

Is the Quantity of Accusers the Deciding Factor in Criminal Court Cases?

Let me give you two hypothetical examples and you decide which one would result in a guilty verdict and which one would result in a not-guilty verdict:

Hypothetical Case A:
A class action lawsuit is enacted by 47,000 people who are suing a television manufacturer on the claim that their devices have hindered their children from exercising and thus has rendered their kids fat. They are suing television manufacturers for making their kids fat. There are 47,000 parents of children accusing TV manufacturers of making their kids fat and these parents want 10K in damages each (for a grand total of 470000000 bux).

Hypothetical Case B:
A person is suing another person for damage to their property. The amount of total accusers accusing this person of causing this damage is ONE. The plaintiff has video evidence which clearly shows the accused perpetrating the act. The plaintiff wants 5,000 bux in damages.

Now if you were a judge you'd laugh and throw out case A and rule in favor of the plaintiff in case B, wouldn't you? Did it make a difference to you that in case A 47,000 people were accusing the accused while in case B only one person was? NO! Why? Because you're a smart judge who rules cases based on EVIDENCE and not the NUMBER OF FUCKING ACCUSERS, that's why!

Evidence has more value than quantity of accusers. Obviously.

Gloria, Yo, You Haven't Been Famous in Years....

Allred prides herself on being a "Celebrity Attorney" which doesn't necessarily mean an attorney that deals with celebs but rather an attorney who's on TV so much that they are a celeb themselves. Trouble is, Gloria hasn't been famous in over 20 years. She's so washed up at this point she's grasping at straws to get publicity. She'll do anything to get her name/face back in the media.

The last time this howler was "famous" was when she was losing arguments (by a wide margin) to the late great Mort Downey Jr. in the 80s. To her credit, she was actually a very funny, highly entertaining, and interesting guest on that show to be frank...yet that was a long time ago.

What a Dork.

It's sad someone's claim to fame is losing arguments on television in the 80s to a chain-smoking, mentally unbalanced psychopath, but hey, everyone has their 15 minutes. There was one show where she didn't even lose the argument to Mort Downey but she lost to this weird fucking guy wearing a damned dress. I don't know who this guest was, the dude had wiry orange hair, a wiry bright orange beard, and was wearing a women's dress skirt...he looked so fucking odd*...and yet, this jabroni still defeated Allred in an argument which makes Gloria a HUMONGOUS jabroni. His arguments were so dumb and so stupid and so boring but this bag of retarded orange hair in a plaid dress freakin' beat her at arguing, and that's pretty bad.

What is on yer head, lady!?
Hey yo, check out her hair to the right of the screen, yo. Now just what in the world is on that woman's skull? She looks like she's wearing a football helmet! Her hair looks worse than Mary Hart's did in the 80s...her hair looks soooooo stupid it's barely even funny, and what the heck is she wearing!? Why on earth would a hardcore feminist dress more conservatively than Phyllis "Phuckin" Schlafly!? Her hair and her clothes are so dumb. Honestly, what is this lady's friggin' problem, anyways? Is she some kind of a humongous jabroni or what?
*(Side Note: I don't think that the orange bearded dress wearing man was a legit guest, I think he was a "plant." Maybe one of the writers of the show. He's not a Bob Zmuda style plant but more of a plant out of necessity due to lack of guests that week and likely acting under the orders of Bill Boggs).


That old salamander-snake Gloria Allred has gotten some plastic surgery, a new hairdo, and is attempting to make a comeback...as a famous celebrity lawyer in the media.

Look, the only three real "celebrity attorneys" in history are Jonnie Cochran, Alan Dershowitz, and Robert Kardashian. For Gloria Allred to even suggest she's a famous attorney is ridiculous. She used to be cool in the 80s but as it stands now this woman is an abomination of the American judicial system and should be very ashamed of herself and she should be extremely ashamed of the hairdoos she equipped herself with in the 80s. She's boiling up a huge media stew simply because she has nuthin' better to do!

Humongous jabroni...thy name is Gloria. 

Hey! You know who looked fly in the 80s!? The fucking Cos did, with his fucking cool-ass sweaters and shit! Yeah, that's who looked yazzum-sha-woopity fly in the dazzum-da-doo-zloppidity eighties! Ya!

Would a dude who wore sweaterz like this rape one million women? Gimme a break!


Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Hypothetical Hall of Fame Ballot

I love baseball, it's the best, it makes me very happy inside of my heart.

It's hall of fame votin' time again and if I had the opportunity to vote (which I obviously don't) then this would be my hypothetical ballot.

First off, the Steroid Era players, is a hot topic for debate (I wroted on it once too), and I think players who were caught and/or admitted to using steroids will not make the hall of fame. Maybe down the line when society is more accepting of drugs of this nature, and in the case that science is producing safer versions of steroids and human growth hormone, then a committee will probably let some of them in. Voters it seems are not voting for them in this era and I think there is a valid reason as to why they are not voting for them.

The following players are the highest profile players who were caught or admitted use: Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Sheffield, Palmeiro, Kevin Brown, Andy Pettitte, Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Miguel Tejada, Albert Pujols, and that no-good A-Rod.

Ok, let's get going,

This article will look at each player's case on the ballot minus those names from the above list.

Case by Case 

Craig Biggio

Biggio will make it this year 100% so there's no reason to spend too much time on him. He's basically already in. Only 14 more people have crossed the plate more times than Craig Biggio, this guy scored a heckuva lot of runs in his life.

He will be in this year, no doubt about it.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Tim Raines

I've wrote about Raines's candidacy on four occasions:

1. http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2011/12/baseball-hall-of-fame-is-incomplete.html
2. http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2012/12/last-year-prior-to-hall-of-fame-voting.html
3. http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2013/11/rock-hall-3.html
4. http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2014/10/the-greatest-lead-off-guys-evar.html 

Rock Raines
I don't know what is holding up Tim Raines' entry into the Hall of Fame, and now that it's down to a 10 year maximum to be on the ballot (Mattingly, Trammell, and Lee Smith get a grandfather clause to stay on the ballot for 15 years but Raines for some reason didn't get that clause), he has only 3 chances left to get in instead of 8. It looks more and more like he won't get in at all which really is a shame.

I think now that the steroid era is dying down and teams are returning to a style of baseball that was less reliant on homeruns for offensive production...more people will start to realize what impact players like Raines brought to the table. His ability to get on base, get around the bases, and score runs is matched by only a few others in all of history.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Lee Smith

I don't think the amount of innings pitched by Lee Smith is enough to warrant him really making the Hall of Fame, he only appeared in 1,289.1 innings in his entire life which is like 3 times less the amount of innings than what the average hall of fame has pitched.

That being said his era in which he pitched in was the first where the "closer" really started to be looked at as a big deal. Coaches in the eighties were starting to use a guy just for the ninth inning, so his lack of innings pitched was not necessarily because he couldn't log a lot innings but because the role he was being used in only required him to throw that many.

The thing about Lee is that he was a dominant bull-pen pitcher for about 16 years which is pretty amazing, really. He was given the task to pitch only in the ninth inning when they had a close lead (which to me is an odd role to assign a player) and he did that incredibly well. He finished with a 3.03 career ERA and 478 saves.

Even if I think the Saves stat is a very gimmicky and kind of silly stat, this man did take the job assigned to him and proceeded to excel at it for 16 years straight...so, in the end I think he is a Hall of Famer.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Curt Schilling 
Awww, Curt has a booo-boooo, poor Curt.
I've had a lot of bloody injuries and I know that blood doesn't really give any indication of how bad an injury is. It's called a "flesh wound" for a reason...and that's because only the flesh is wounded. I think he's seen as a legend for having a bloody sock in a playoff game but that shit is sort of exaggerated to an extent where it's just annoying to hear about him.

He was sort of linked with roids....many on the '93 Phillies did them (like Dykstra) yet Curt is not mentioned by anyone as having done them. He has an odd investigation for steroids in Boston yet this occurred after his career was over in 2008 where maybe he was thinking of coming back, I don't know. Either way, officially, his name is not linked to steroid use.

He's got decent numbers, it's a shame Randy Johnson and Pedro have shown up on the ballot because it makes his numbers look like trash compared to them. The big stat for him is his 3000+ strikeouts and honestly anyone who struck out that many people in his life is probably a Hall of Famer.

Curt Schilling played in some big markets and still never won a Cy Young award though. He's a tough call, I think he will eventually get in due to his Ks though.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Edgar Martinez

I come from the view that pitching and defense are paramount to winning ball games, I really do. I know offensive numbers are what makes most fans excited, but one of the reasons I think Schilling (and Mussina too) are Hall of Famers is because pitching and defense is what wins games.

Edgar Martinez was a career DH, meaning he didn't field a position and in the years early on when he did play third base he was atrocious. He finished with a .933 OPS which is amazing but how much of a penalty should he get for never playing defense? I don't know, it's just my opinion that Edgar is not a Hall of Famer.

In the final assessment of things, 1261 RBIs is not enough to warrant his entry...if he never played defense and had like 2000 RBIs then fine but his numbers aren't anything really amazing anyways to begin with.

Hall of Famer? No.

Alan Trammell

I wrote about Trammell not long ago (in an article about him, Mike Marshall, and Dick Allen).

Here: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-greatest-of-people-who-are-not.html

I came to the conclusion that if Ozzie Smith (a contemporary and comparable short stop to Alan) is in the Hall then 100% so should Alan. It's literally just an IF and THEN case scenario with this case.

There's no way he's not a Hall of Famer, really.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Mike Mussina

K, now there's a manly injury
I remember when he was hit in the face with a line drive and everyone thought his career was done but he made it back and still pitched very well after that scare. His stats are hard to compare to other pitchers from other eras because he pitched through the steroid era so his ERA was definitely higher due to that. If he pitched in the seventies I think Mike would have had a sub-3 ERA, I think that would be a good estimate.

Like Schilling he never got a Cy Young but I still think he will make it with like 75% near the end of his candidacy....I think it'll be a close call but I think he'll make it. Again, I do value pitchers quite highly so maybe it's just me, I don't know.

Unlike Schilling though, his blood image is actually fucking hardcore as fuck, it's not a foot boo-boo it's a broken eye for crying out loud.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Jeff Kent

Too coiffed lookin'
He played with Bonds on that Giants team where Bonds went nuts, but Kent has stayed out of the steroids scandal's long-casting net of stigma.

Jeff was a great player, who looked like an 80s guy with that mustache too. He was never known as a superstar and due to playing in the steroid era his .855 OPS looks pretty average. If he was a stellar defensive player than he'd be a shoe-in but I don't think anyone saw Kent as a great or even good second baseman.

I have a feeling he'll sneak in because he played in some big market cities but he's borderline at best. If he hit like that in the seventies or eighties then yeah but just because he looks like he played in that era doesn't mean he did. He played in the steroid era where one of his own teammates hit 70 fucking homeruns in one year...his numbers really pale in comparison to his era.

Hall of Famer? No.

Crime Dog

He's a big homer big RBI guy, usually these dudes always make it in with little trouble. I wonder why he doesn't get a lot of votes. The voters are weird with their milestone numbers I find, like say a hypothetical player gets 2,991 hits with a .956 OPS then he's somehow worse than a guy who got 3,000 hits with an .880 OPS. They mainly care about the milestone numbers, they don't care about sample size or anything else.

In the case with the Crime Dog, he got 493 homers in his life....but that's 7 less than 500, if you didn't notice, and 500 homers is one of those milestone numbers that gets you in. Are they really gonna keep Crime out due to 7 measly homers? Gimme a break. If Jim Rice made it than so does he. Rice only had 382 homers...he didn't even make it to 400 let alone 500.

I think Crime should go in.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Larry Walker

I wrote a long one about him the other day,

Here: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2014/12/on-park-factors-and-hinderance-to-larry.html

I don't know with Larry, I think my brain is saying No but my heart is saying Yeah, He's a Hall of Famah.

I 100% do not think he will ever get in but I for me personally I will put him down as a Yes.

Hall of Famer? Yes.

Don Mattingly

Playing in a big market I think the 4 or 5 great seasons he had somehow got exaggerated into him being of legendary status. He was showered with golden gloves and this and that...good for him. Cut yer side burns for crying out loud you dirty hippie!

He was a great hitter for 3 or 4 seasons but that don't make a hall of fame career.

Hall of Famer? Nope.

Pedro, Unit, n' Smoltz

Pedro Vs. Gerbil (RIP Don Zimmer)
Pedro was the greatest pitcher I ever saw, he was incredible...if he doesn't get 100% of the vote then whoever doesn't vote for him shouldn't be dis-barred but they should be fucking executed for fuck's sake. He's god damned fucking PEDRO for crying out loud he's like the best pitcher ever. He had a sub-2 ERA in the darned steroid era on two occasions (once in the NL and then in the AL), that's actually ludicrous when you think about it. Pedro is literally amazing, the fact that there's probably millions of people named Pedro on earth but he can still be identified solely from his first name is incredible in itself, when someone is talkin' 'bout Pedro you know exactly who they are talkin' 'bout.

Randy too, that guy started as a weird lanky dufus but ended up being a real pitcher's pitcher. He's not as good as Pedro but he's one of those guys who could get 100% of the votes in his first year. He even hit a bird mid-air one time and caused said bird to literally EXPLODE.

Holy Fuck.

Smoltz? He's going in too, no doubt about it. Oh man I hated Maddux/Smoltz/Glavine so much, they were great though. They got all the calls these guys, man. Sometimes it felt like they paid the umps these three guys. At least that Steve Avery character petered out, there used to be four or them in that clan...4 of their stupid faces to look at.


So the Yes variables and the No variables were:

YES: Pedro, Unit, Smoltz, Biggio, Rock, Lee Smith, Schilling, Trammell, Mussina, Crime-Dog, Walker.

(Schilling, Mussina, Walker, and Lee Smith I think are quite borderline but are Yesses).

NO: Steroiders, Edgar Martinez, Jeff Kent, and Mattingly.