October 1, 2021

Yes, That Was Me. Wendy Bell Offered Me A Weekly Segment

I turned it down, of course.

But let's back up a day or so. This story begins here with the results of the Pittsburgh City Paper's "Best of Pittsburgh" readers' poll.

I was nominated for "Best Blog" and lost. Didn't even crack the top three.

Wendy Bell was nominated for "Best Jagoff" and also didn't win, though she placed second.

My response was some faux-rage satire. What I did was to take Donald Trump's non-concession speech from November 7, 2020, wipe out all of his details and replaced them mine. The joke was me saying that the poll was fixed simply because I lost and I thought I should have won. Sound familiar? It's a joke about Donald Trump's assault on the truth regarding his loss in the 2020 election.

Wendy, on the other hand, tweeted:

I wasn't sure if she was continuing the gag (which would've been funny) or if she was really agreeing with me that the readers' poll was rigged. For the record, I do not think the poll was rigged. I was joking.

Anyway, Wendy started following me on twitter (which was kinda glorious, if you think about it) and then DMed me that she was "furious" that she lost and that she was "deadly serious" about wanting to know who really won.

On the air, she had this conversation with Brock, who is her - I'm gonna say producer?

Wendy: I was very disappointed that I came in second place in this particular publication's “Jagoff of the year” because, ladies and gentlemen in all sincerity it is so tragic to be irrelevant, right?

So if you have a platform or an ideology or a mantra that you believe in, that manages to completely infuriate the left so that all they see are stars, ah! I think you're doing a good job.

I personally think I should have won and I'm upset that I didn't.

Brock: They did admit to “rigged elections” because he said it was rigged because you should have won.

Wendy: See?

Brock: Because you are the biggest jagoff, so -

Wendy: Well then there's that.

So I guess she didn't get the joke. Too bad. If she'd been joking along with me, it would have humanized her. A bit.

Note: I'd usually keep private DMs, well, private but since she quoted me on her air, I don't feel I have any obstacles quoting her.

This is when she invited me on her show. She pitched a weekly segment if I was good on the air adding that "For someone who hates me so much, you should jump at this!"

This was Wednesday morning. As I was working and have limited access to social media during the day, I had to wait until after work to respond, which I did on Wednesday evening. With this:

For the record, I DON'T hate you. I'm quite sincere when I say that I'm embarrassed for you and I feel sad for all the members of your audience who've gotten sick/who'll get sick (some VERY sick) simply because they believed what you've told them about the virus and about the vaccines. 

 Still not coming on your show - I still work during the day and your show is still not a level playing field (I learned blogging about Fred Honsberger a decade and a half ago that the caller never wins the argument simply b/c they're a caller). 

Anything I'd want to say, I've already posted on line. 

But feel free to read any of my blog posts on air. Your audience could probably use the exposure to actual covid information. 

And this is how she characterized my no:

And he said no. Wouldn't even consider it because, he says, he feels sorry for me that that the things that I talk about are going to cost some of you your health. That some of you, because you listen to me are going to become sick, some of you very sick. In fact, some of you may well die because you listen to me. Because I am a vaccine denier. Which is factually incorrect.

She left out the part about how I work during the day and can't take the time off. She also left out the part about me not hating her (she said Thursday morning that I vehemently disliked her). 

She also added the part about how some members of her audience may die because they listen to her. I did not say that in that DM to her - though I have blogged on it. Most recently when she was fact-checked by Trump defender Alan Derschowitz:

The danger here, Wendy, is that members of your audience will believe you when you discount the vaccines. Some of them might decide to take their chances on natural immunity. With any luck they'll make it through fine. Those unlucky, however, will end up in the hospital and some of them might even die.

So I guess she reads this blog.

But let's look at that part a little deeper. She seems to think it's not true. She seems to think that she's not putting anyone at risk by spreading misinformation.

She's very wrong.

Take, for instance, this piece by the CEO of St. Luke’s University Health Network, Richard Anderson:

On July 12, there were three patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at St. Luke’s 12 campuses; today [September 3], there are 91 patients.

During this timeframe, 94% of our hospitalized COVID patients have not been vaccinated. This lopsided percentage applies to most, if not all our nation’s hospitals. 

This is not a one-day or one-month anomaly; it is an alarming reality. It is an irrefutable fact that after nine months since the introduction of the COVID vaccine, patients who are vaccinated, for the most part, will not experience serious illness or hospitalization. 

And:

The current situation related to the COVID virus could also be described as a pandemic of choice, since over 90% of hospitalized COVID patients have made a dangerous choice by declining to be vaccinated. This choice has exacerbated and prolonged this unprecedented pandemic for all Americans. 
And he's not alone in his assessment. The vaccines have been readily available for about 6 months. Most of the people suffering right now in hospitals across the country could have taken the vaccine but chose not to.

How many of them are/were Wendy Bell listeners? Does she really think she's not a part (however small) of that deadly causal chain?

And she is a vaccine-denier, folks. Any time she uses VAERS data to steer anyone away from getting vaccinated, she's gone anti-vaxx. There is no question about this. She's a vaccine denier.

One last thing, as part of her description of her pitch, she said this on the air:

And so I said, what do you say? Why don't you come on and I'll give you this space. Brock even said if this individual wanted to sponsor – if they wanted to get a sponsorship for it, we would provide that sponsorship money to them. This could blow up his blog. This could be huge. 

What makes her think I would take money from the people who are sponsoring her? 

Those sponsors are (like Wendy and Brock) profiting off of Covid misinformation and all the suffering that it's caused. What sort of human being would I be if I were to take that cash?

For the record, it strikes me that Pittsburgh Dad's win in this poll is probably based on a definition of "jagoff" that more or less overlaps with "yinzer." So in that instance he wins, hands dahn.

But if you (like me) define "jagoff" as something closer to "any kind of irritating or unlikeable person" then Wendy Bell should truly have won.

Pittsburgh Dad is a yinzer. Wendy Bell is a jagoff.

at