Before you ACLU lovers get your panties in a bunch this is just a fictional story written by Grant Everett Starrett over at http://www.stanfordreview.org/. Now even though this story is just that (a story) anyone with a shred of common sense knows that if there was a superhero like Batman, Spiderman or Superman the ACLU would bring lawsuit after lawsuit against them. Why would they do such a thing, you may ask. It’s simple really. The ACLU are douche bags. Anyway read the story.
Our scene: A well-lit room off of the lobby of one of the cityâ€™s finest hotels. Rows of chairs lined up before a podium with a small placard listing four capitalized letters, an apparent acronym.
There was chatter throughout the room among the cadres of the press. A Post journalist was hitting on a Times columnist in the back row while a Daily reporter munched down some of the provided doughnuts. Some of the cameramen in the back were still getting ready when a flurry of activity began as the official spokesperson walked toward the podium and began to address the crowd:
Ladies and Gentleman, thank you all for coming tonight. The ACLU has called this press conference in order to address a serious problem in our city. We have among us someone who believes that he is above the law. Whatâ€™s more â€“ our city officials have condoned his practices. Our police chief even solicits this rogueâ€™s help â€“ and rogue is the right terminology: The man of whom I speak has an utter disrespect for the rights of the individual within this democratic society and our governmentâ€™s shameful use of his despicable tactics is an instance that ought to be condemned by freedom-loving individuals everywhere. After all, as it says on our website, â€œif the rights of societyâ€™s most vulnerable members are denied, everybodyâ€™s rights are imperiledâ€ â€“ and absolutely no one goes after these most vulnerable members more than this man, or should I say, than this Batman.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Batman is a menace to Gotham City. His flagrant vigilantism and the cityâ€™s tacit approval of such continuous circumstances are not worth the supposed benefits of a safer city. Batman has consistently targeted less-advantaged members of society who are mentally unstable, often economically disadvantaged, and have had generally poor childhoods. People undeservedly labeled as â€œvillainsâ€ have continuously been victims of Batmanâ€™s transgressions. Iâ€™ve made available a detailed list that will shortly be distributed to the press; however, Iâ€™ll be happy to go through some of those now.
Batman has successfully and wrongfully pursued such individuals as Mr. Freeze, notable for his groundbreaking work in the fight against global warming. As acknowledged by a colleague at the National Organization for Women earlier this week, Batman has also disproportionately and unfairly targeted socially underprivileged females, such as animal rights activist Catwoman and environmentalist Poison Ivy. Another P.E.T.A. supporter Batman has nabbed is the Penguin, whose hefty weight presented a huge physical and psychological adverse circumstance in evading Batmanâ€™s clutches â€“ a factor we will be sure to bring up to the court, pending appeal. But Batmanâ€™s bigotry knows no end: He has also concentrated his efforts on minorities such as innocent Muslim Raâ€™s Al Ghoul and racially ambiguous Two-face. Ladies and gentlemen â€“ the list goes on and on.
But even more disappointing than Batmanâ€™s pursuit of mere stereotypes as criminals is his vigorous assault on these individualsâ€™ civil liberties. I doubt the man has even heard of â€œMiranda Rights.â€ He could easily be charged with numerous counts of breaking and entering, assault and battery, arson, kidnapping, speeding, trespassing, theft, sexual assault, and, among a litany of other misdemeanors and felonies, murder. Batman not only has the gall to do all of this â€“ he then systematically â€œarrestsâ€ said individuals, often seriously hurting and/or killing their employees, to whom he refers as â€˜henchmenâ€™. Afterwards, Gotham City Police Departmentâ€™s Commissioner Gordon actually imprisons these poor individuals and proceeds to launch investigations against their good conduct. Because Batman disgustingly refuses to reveal his identity, not one of the accused has been granted the right to face his or her accuser. It is absolutely preposterous for court documents to cite the accuser as a masked figure with a silly pseudonym.
For these stated reasons, the ACLU has decided to file a class action suit on behalf of the nearly 83% of Gotham Cityâ€™s prison population against the City of Gotham, Commissioner Gordon, and the person infamously known as â€œBatmanâ€. We call upon this notorious figure to out himself immediately. His anonymity is absolutely unacceptable to protecting the rights of the free people of Gotham.
Oh, and in an unrelated matter, the ACLU will be formally petitioning the Mayorâ€™s office to reject Wayne Enterpriseâ€™s offer to partially pay for a the gigantic Christmas tree downtown on city property and will be presently filing a motion to ensure the tree does not go up at all. Thank you for your time.
mudkittyNovember 18, 2006 at 11:06 am
I’m reminded of the song in the Music Man…”Oh we got trouble, right here in River City, with a capital T, and that rhymes with P, and that stands for pool!”
So, let’s see. We’re supposed to know it’s fiction…yet “anyone with any comman sense knows that if there was a superhero…?” If there were superheros? How much comman sense is there in that statement? If, if, if…if the virgin mary stood before me now in my office…if, if, if…comman sense is in short supply.
If anything. You could just say, if anything.
Your whole point is to mock the ACLU in the first place, while trying to inure yourself from critism by saying it’s fiction. (It would be more accuate to call it satire.)
TimNovember 18, 2006 at 2:53 pm
“Your whole point is to mock the ACLU in the first place”
Of course. They supply us with so much ammunition, what with defending pedophiles and all.
mudkittyNovember 19, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Pederasts, not pedophiles.
And they’re not defending their right to molest children, but their right to free speech. I didn’t hear you complain when the ACLU joined Rush Limbaugh’s legal team.
And they’d even defend your first amendment rights as well, regardless of whether or not they agree with you. Because that is the liberal principle…Votair said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is classical liberalism, and that is what the ACLU does.
TimNovember 20, 2006 at 4:28 am
Voltaire didn’t say that. Those words were written by a woman who wrote a biography of Voltaire. Get an education.
“And theyâ€™re not defending their right to molest children”
They defend child porn. Or do you not think that child porn qualifies?
mudkittyNovember 20, 2006 at 11:04 am
No, child porn doesn’t qualify, because child porn is illegal. The ACLU was not defending child porn. You need to read the amicus brief, speaking of an education.
And yes, Voltaire did say that. Many times over.
TimNovember 21, 2006 at 9:47 am
“And yes, Voltaire did say that. Many times over.”
And I did read the amicus brief, they clearly defend child porn. They are even quoted as saying that possession of child porn should not be a crime.
TimNovember 21, 2006 at 9:47 am
It would actually be nice if Amanda joined in this debate, what with it being her blog and all.
TimNovember 21, 2006 at 9:59 am
Here is a link with the direct quote from the ACLU concerning child porn: “”Mere possession should not be a crime,” said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.”
See how that works? In blogging, you make a statement, and then back it up with sources. And once again, I’ve proven you flat wrong.
mudkittyNovember 21, 2006 at 10:46 am
They said possession shouldn’t be a crime…they said the manufacturing and distribution should be a crime…big dif, Tim. Leave it to you to leave out the most crucial aspect. No manufactureing of child porn, no child porn. Simple enough for a child to understand.
The thing with possession of “child porn” is that some crazy people of the rightwing pursuasion consider naked baby’s on bear skin rugs to be child porn…or pics of kids in bathtubs. You rightwing crazy’s don’t know the difference between natural nudity and porn.
As for Voltaire, all you have to do is read Voltaire (and I highly recommend you do.) It’s public domain, and you can get from your bookstore (unless you only shop at Xian bookstores – they don’t have books from the enlightenment period) or your library, or the internet. READ VOLTAIRE and learn something.
mudkittyNovember 21, 2006 at 10:48 am
You’re the one who’s stalking me, Tim.
sonyaNovember 21, 2006 at 1:06 pm
So if I buy child porn, but don’t distribute it, I should be okay? The person who sold it to me would be the one committing the crime, but I’m off scott-free. Is that correct?
sonyaNovember 21, 2006 at 1:15 pm
And to assume that simply because manufacturing and distributing child porn is illegal, that it’s not going to be produced, therefore will not be available to purchase, is wishful thinking. Thus, the need to make possession of child porn illegal.
Now please move your unicorn, it’s double-parked on Rainbow Street.
mudkittyNovember 21, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Of course it’s wishfull thinking. That’s why it’s a crime in the first place. I never said this world was a utopia. That’s you’re projection – in other words, that came out of your head, not mine.
mudkittyNovember 21, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I’d say, if you’re caught in the act of buying, that’s different from possession. Wouldn’t you say? If you’re caught in the act of buying, you’re part of the distribution ring.
I know, legalisms are subtle, but try to follow.
sonyaNovember 21, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Well no duh, mudkitty. But what I’m trying to point out to you is that simply being in possession of child porn is and should be illegal and punishable, not just if you’re caught in the process of purchasing it. And as aside, I find it sad and amusing that you can’t debate without making insulting (and personal) statements with whomever you happen to be challenging. I guess it’s a defense mechanism. Pity. But then I guess your nickname offers a clue about your penchant for mudslinging, no? Ta ta, have a wonderful day, and try to relax.
sonyaNovember 21, 2006 at 3:00 pm
By the way, what are you doing here? This is clearly not the board for you. There are plenty of left-wing blogs where you will find plenty of like-minded invididuals. Surely you’re not here to try to convince us conservatives of the error of our ways, are you? I’d hate to think that you’re one of those nasty rabid femi-nazis.
mudkittyNovember 22, 2006 at 10:07 am
I didn’t say possession, I said caught in the act of purchase. You don’t get the subtle difference, legally, do you?
Law enforcement scientists and sociologists are in possession of chid porn. Medical scientists study it. Criminologists study it.
And you’ve never addressed the bear rug issue…which crops up all the time.
Why would you call someone, like me, who comes here for healty debate, who happens to disagree with you a feminazi? First off, that trivializes the harm that real nazis did. And the irony, is that you occused me of being personally insulting. But then irony is not a rightwing strong suit.
mudkittyNovember 22, 2006 at 10:09 am
“Have a wonderful day…” “I’d hate to think it…” (but you do.) Now that’s irony.
TimNovember 22, 2006 at 12:41 pm
“READ VOLTAIRE and learn something.”
I did. He did not say anywhere the quote you credited to him.
“They said possession shouldnâ€™t be a crimeâ€¦they said the manufacturing and distribution should be a crimeâ€¦big dif, Tim.”
What “diff” are you refering too? I said that the ACLU defends child porn. Advocating someones’ “right” to possess child porn is defending child porn.
“Youâ€™re the one whoâ€™s stalking me, Tim.”
Yes, you’d like to think I was attracted to mudhogs, but given the fact that you can look through this blog’s archives you’ll see I’ve been a frequent visitor for quite a while now. You just like to troll right wing sites with your lies, which is why we keep running into each other.
“The thing with possession of â€œchild pornâ€ is that some crazy people of the rightwing pursuasion consider naked babyâ€™s on bear skin rugs to be child porn”
Give me one source pointing to a right winger who stated that this was considered child porn. You can’t. You made it up.
“Why would you call someone, like me, who comes here for healty debate, who happens to disagree with you a feminazi?”
Because that is exactly what you are. You didn’t come here to debate or anywhere else to debate. You don’t debate. Debating consists of making your argument and providing credible sources to back up your claims. You refuse to do that, and haven’t done it yet on any of the blogs you troll. I’ve been trying to get the concept through your thick skull that when making arguments the burden of proof is on YOU, and it is YOUR responsibility to back it up. Every time this is pointed out to you, you ignore it completely and continue to spew your rhetoric, which usually consists of lies. Like lying about your two tubal pregnancies and lying about a friend getting healthcare in Canada. You don’t debate. You lie.
TimNovember 22, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Oh and as for Voltaire, right here is a link with the story behind your misplaced quote:
“Voltaire probably never said these exact words. They were written in 1906 by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (pseud. S. G. Tallentyre) in the biography “The Friends of Voltaire”. The author did not attribute the words to Voltaire, but used them to sum up Voltaire’s attitude:
” ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now. ”
So in actuality, it is YOU who need to read Voltaire and learn something mudhog.
mudkittyNovember 22, 2006 at 1:06 pm
As for Voltaire – Oh my goodness, as if there were a difference in meaning…NOT. And it’s a translation from the french, no less.
If you think Hall wasn’t paraphrasing and translating Voltaire, my god, please, you’re embarassing yourself.
You do know what a paraphrase and a translation is, don’t you?
I have to ask, because you’re the one who (admittedly) didn’t know anything about Jim Crow – only one of the most signifigant periods of the last century. Yeah Tim…tell us all about Voltaire.
Actually Tim, I don’t basically like to think anything about you, much, other than when I go to your crazy ass site.
If you don’t understand the difference between bear skin rug photos and buying child porn off the internet or via the U.S. Mail, I seriously can’t help you Tim. If you don’t know about the prosecutions (for same said) in various communities all over the country, then I can’t help you, Tim. It’s all part of the criminal record, Tim. Public court records, Tim. Why are you so resistant to looking things up? You must have been like this in school.
As for my friend who went to Canada for cancer care…like I’m going to reveal his name online, you Dufus! But I will say this…for those of you who really give a damn (obvioulsy not Tim) L.A. Times Magazine did a feature on him a few years back.
mudkittyNovember 22, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Timmy – why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? Such as mudhog, and that sort of thing? Is that the best way to make your argument?
TimNovember 22, 2006 at 5:56 pm
“If you think Hall wasnâ€™t paraphrasing and translating Voltaire, my god, please, youâ€™re embarassing yourself.”
Yeah, keep telling yourself that while you are ignoring obvious proven facts that it is I who am embarassing myself by constantly proving you wrong.
“Yeah Timâ€¦tell us all about Voltaire.”
I just did. Consider yourself educated.
“If you donâ€™t know about the prosecutions (for same said) in various communities all over the country, then I canâ€™t help you, Tim. Itâ€™s all part of the criminal record, Tim. Public court records, Tim. Why are you so resistant to looking things up?”
Why are you so resistant to back up your own arguments? The answer is simple: you can’t.
“As for my friend who went to Canada for cancer careâ€¦like Iâ€™m going to reveal his name online, you Dufus!”
I didn’t ask you to give his name. It was a blatant lie, according to Canadian and American law. American law dictates that hospitals HAVE to treat you, and Canada won’t treat you unless you are a citizen. The only way they treated your “friend” is if he recieved dual citizenship, which costs thousands of dollars. If he has that kind of money, than healthcare wouldn’t be an issue. Nice try. Tell us another one mudhog.
“Timmy – why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? Such as mudhog, and that sort of thing? Is that the best way to make your argument?”
If you like, I will simply call you “liar”, since it adequately describes you. I’d call you by your real name but I don’t know it. Anonymous posters are cowards. The best way I make my argument is by totally ripping your ridiculous lies and assertions to shreds. The fact that you don’t seem to realize that I wipe the floor with you on every occasion is quite pitiful. Trust me, everyone else does.
TimNovember 22, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Oh, but since mudhog apparently offends you, I apologize. You should have said something sooner.
TimNovember 22, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Nothing remotely close to the story you are telling us shows up in the LA Times archives.
mudkittyNovember 23, 2006 at 11:54 am
BS Tim. LA Times Magazine. Sunday edition. You lie. And my friend did indeed achieve dual citizenship, on a fast track, no less. But this was over 5 years ago.
Since 9/11 and Bush, Canadian immigration policies have changed. Also their immigration agencies have been inundated with people requesting permanent visas, ever since Florida 2000. But what do you know? Not much.
Tim, is this your first introduction to Voltaire? As with your vast knowledge of the Jim Crow era?
You didn’t even know who Voltaire was untill I brought it up. You probably still don’t understand what the enlightenment period was.
mudkittyNovember 23, 2006 at 11:56 am
The LA Times has an info hotline.
Cancer. Artist with Cancer moves to Canada for treatment. Hint – those are keywords. In the magazine section. Cover article, no less.
mudkittyNovember 23, 2006 at 11:58 am
Tim, you keep saying (I should have warned you…)
She does pretty well on her own. Don’t you think she’s competent enough to handel her own affairs?
TimNovember 23, 2006 at 7:06 pm
“BS Tim. LA Times Magazine. Sunday edition. You lie.”
It would be in the archives. Its not. If you can prove otherwise, now would be the time to do so. Nice try.
“And my friend did indeed achieve dual citizenship, on a fast track, no less. But this was over 5 years ago.”
5 years ago it still cost thousands to recieve dual citizenship. Again nice try. I live in Canada mudkitty, and I know how it works.
“Since 9/11 and Bush, Canadian immigration policies have changed. Also their immigration agencies have been inundated with people requesting permanent visas, ever since Florida 2000. But what do you know? Not much.”
What I know is that the written law of Canada contradicts everything you are saying, and even if it was different 5 years ago, it doesn’t matter, you told your lie to imply that Canada’s healthcare system is better. Its clearly not, and you clearly can’t tell the truth if your life depends on it.
“You didnâ€™t even know who Voltaire was untill I brought it up. You probably still donâ€™t understand what the enlightenment period was.”
I knew enough about Voltaire to know he didn’t say the quote you credited to him. This is a fact that you keep avoiding. You are the one that misquoted him, so I suggest you be the one to actually read some Voltaire.
“Donâ€™t you think sheâ€™s competent enough to handel her own affairs?”
An ironic statement coming from a socialist liberal.
“Cancer. Artist with Cancer moves to Canada for treatment. Hint – those are keywords. In the magazine section. Cover article, no less.”
Not only do those key words reveal no search results in the LA Times, but simply Googling them didn’t yield anything close to what you are talking about. You made it up. You lie.
mudkittyNovember 24, 2006 at 10:31 am
Call the LA times info hotline, if you care so much. Not that you do.
You full of it, you know. I challenge you to back up anything you just said. I doubt you even looked it up frankly.
You know, my friend is not the only one who’s moved to Canada for the health care…it happening more and more. Look it up. It’s quite the phenom. It’s all the rage! I can’t help it if you’re not up to date and in touch with what’s really going on in the world. I can’t help it if you’re deluded about politics, about Voltaire, about so many things.
Keep digging, Tim. (That’s a double entante in your case.)
As for me, I’d rather waste your bandwith than the bandwidth here, going tit for tat with Tim.
TimNovember 24, 2006 at 12:10 pm
“You full of it, you know. I challenge you to back up anything you just said. I doubt you even looked it up frankly.”
That’s funny, I’ve challenged you repeatedly to back up your own claims, and you still haven’t. I’ve actually refuted all of yours successfully, a fact you choose to ignore in your ignorance.
“it happening more and more. Look it up.”
You keep saying “look it up.” Have YOU looked it up? Apparently not, because you can google it at any time, and the search yields no results that validate your assertions. Surprise surprise.
“I canâ€™t help it if youâ€™re deluded about politics, about Voltaire, about so many things.”
So I take it that you are ignoring the fact that you misquoted Voltaire, as has been proven to everyone that reads this site.
You’re pitiful if you think anyone on any of the blogs you troll take one word that comes out of your keyboard seriously.
Another standard of immaturity you have set there mudkitty. I guess you would ignore Amanda too if she told you I frequented this site long before you decided to foul it up with your presence.
mudkittyNovember 25, 2006 at 9:12 am
Nope, I wouldn’t let you influence a single decision I would ever make. Again, you flatter yourself.
Yes, I do keep saying look it up…and you should. It’s not my fault you take such offense at the concept of looking things up, and doing your own homework and research. Especially when it’s so easy now to do so.
And if I’m so pitiful, why aren’t you kinder, Xian?
TimNovember 26, 2006 at 10:01 am
“Nope, I wouldnâ€™t let you influence a single decision I would ever make. Again, you flatter yourself.”
Then get use to being wrong.
“Yes, I do keep saying look it upâ€¦and you should.”
No. YOU should. Because then you’d see how wrong you were.
“Itâ€™s not my fault you take such offense at the concept of looking things up, and doing your own homework and research. Especially when itâ€™s so easy now to do so.”
It’s not my fault you are so ignorant that you feel you don’t have to prove your own arguments.
“Especially when itâ€™s so easy now to do so.”
Which is why its so easy to prove you wrong. In case you’ve missed it, only one of us has been citing sources. That would be me, and they totally disprove you.
“And if Iâ€™m so pitiful, why arenâ€™t you kinder, Xian?”
Nice to see your bigotry finally creeping out. I guess you’d call me a “nigger” if you thought I was black.
mudkittyNovember 26, 2006 at 2:01 pm
No, that creepy thought about the nword came out of your head, Tim, and your head only. It’s how you think.
Look, you can’t prove me wrong if you can’t even look stuff up.
Amanda, I apologize. I will no longer engage Tim on this site. Tim has a personal thing against me, and he’s using your bandwith to express it. He bans me capriciously on his own site, and then responds to what I wrote…now that’s unethical. If you’re going to respond to someone, it’s only fair to display the post your responding to. He won’t fight on a fair playing field, unless someone else is paying for it.
TimNovember 26, 2006 at 6:34 pm
“Amanda, I apologize. I will no longer engage Tim on this site. Tim has a personal thing against me, and heâ€™s using your bandwith to express it.”
Aw, poor thing. I guess exposing your lies means I have a “personal” thing against you. Trust me, you won’t be missed here.