Thursday, October 08, 2015


This is it! The break in the deadlock! A network show about fuck who knows has a character who thinks we should "'Hit reset' -- pound Raqqah into a parking lot." This is significant, Mark Tapson of Truth Revolt tells us, because it's on TV, and because Homeland has heretofore "largely wallowed in moral equivalence between the West and Islamic terrorism," but mostly because it's on TV.

He's not the only excitee -- feel the humidity from Ace of Spades:
For the White Urban Liberal Women who watch Premium Cable Dramas and otherwise don't really know what's going on in the world (except that Obama is Awesome and we're losing the #WarOnWomen), this character's assessment of the current strategy in the War on Terror -- that there isn't one -- will be pretty surprising. 
Haw, wait'll those bitches hear this! It'll be like a load of my hot cum in their faces -- in HD!
Worth a watch. "Hit Reset," indeed. 
Then again, maybe dumb people will assume that this is made up. Dumb people have a habit of assuming that true things are fiction, and fictitious things -- like Obama -- are true.
Comes the revolution, the CPAC Blogger of the Year 2012 has that Ministry of Culture job in the bag, man. IN THE BAG.

I wonder what would happen if, instead of talking all the time about Taking Back The Culture, these guys tried making culture. Say, that reminds me -- whatever happened to Bill Whittle's Declaration Entertainment, which back in 2010 announced it was going to do just that -- and sold subscriptions starting at $9.99 and proceeding to $100,000, to support what Whittle promised would be "a movement... a revolution"? Well, they made one movie -- and good for them! -- but they've decided to go another way:
...we have learned something during this process: making a feature consumes so much time and money that there is very little to show for it until it is finished. So rather than continuing a feature film company that also produces political videos, we are going to become a political video company that also produces feature films...

If you have an annual membership to Declaration Entertainment, we would be delighted to arrange to transfer your membership, with a bonus month, or we will refund the pro-rated balance, by check, on an individual basis.
Videos about how liberals suck -- well, they gave culture a shot, now it's back to a more traditional business model.

Wednesday, October 07, 2015


At National Review, Jim Geraghty laments that President Obama is making Republicans look bad. I know, but hear him out:
Mickey Kaus characterizes the approach as “gaslighting” – giving your opponent a legitimate reason to get angry, then turning around and pointing to their anger as evidence they’re unhinged, obsessed, incapable of governing responsibly, et cetera.... 
Free community college? Hey, it’s never going to become law, so why not propose it and make Republicans look mean for not enacting it? Goofing around with a selfie stick? Go right ahead. Chewing gum at an international summit? Hey, what are they going to do, impeach him? 
In this atmosphere, it’s no wonder Republicans are furious. A midterm election victory that was supposed to constrain President Obama’s ability to enact his agenda has only emboldened and liberated him.
So, to sum up: Obama does things within the power of his office that his political opponents don't like. (Geraghty hints at "blatant disregard for [Congress'] roles under the Constitution" but, surprise, provides no examples, probably because he feels he's been laughed at enough for one day.) Also, Obama seems to have fun doing it. Wingnuts are therefore furious.

Jim, have you ever seen a Bugs Bunny cartoon with Yosemite Sam? Which of those characters do you think the audience is siding with?

Say this for  Sam, though -- he never resorted to anything like this:
The insanely imbalanced media landscape ensures that almost any expression of Democratic anger is portrayed as justified (or ignored if it’s too obviously outrageous) while almost any Republican expression of anger is portrayed as irrational, deep-seated hatred.
Imagine YS turning on the camera and snarling, "Quit makin' me look like a eedjit, yuh gol-durned liberal media!"

This is as good a time and place as any to enjoy one of my fa-vo-rite Friz Freleng numbers:

UPDATE. Commenters are fun; Big_Bad_Bald_Bastard says, given what's really pissing these guys off, Kaus should have called it "blacklighting." 

Tuesday, October 06, 2015


In the last Presidential debate, Carly Fiorina thrilled anti-abortion Republicans with her audiobook version of Silent Scream and got a big poll boost. But what does she do for an encore? On all the other issues, the GOP mandidates are just as crazy as she, so her femaleness is no advantage.

What then to do? Brag on her sabotage, I mean stewardship of Hewlett Packard? Tell voters she'll deny benefits to the malingering poor as ruthlessly as she denied a final paycheck to the family of her dead campaign manager?

No, she needs something better, something that stirs conservatives as reliably as mangled fetus fan-fic. To the rescue rides Rich Lowry, a veteran GOP female fluffer who in 2008 proved his skills by professing his starbursts over Sarah Palin, and is ready to do his duty here:
Carly Fiorina is a no-nonsense former business executive who is showing she can play — and throw elbows — with the big boys in the Republican nomination battle.
Feminists have noticed, but their admiration is tinged with dread — and it should be. An eloquent, fearless critic of abortion, the latest outsider to climb in the Republican race is a clear and present danger to what feminists hold most dear...
Fiorina got the feminazis ascared! Come on, boys, isn't this everything you've been dreaming of?
The novelist Jennifer Weiner told The New York Times for a story about the conflicted feelings of feminists, “It’s so weird — she looks like one of us, but she’s not.” Another feminist writer said, “There’s an excitement and a horror.” The managing editor of the feminist website Jezebel tweeted the night of the debate, “I’m in love with and terrified of her.”
Yes, be afraid, very afraid...
Frightened femmies shrieking and running for their safe spaces -- gotta admit, for a certain audience (i.e., MRA creeps) it's a compelling story -- so compelling that after a few days Politico picks up the thread:
Carly Fiorina says she thinks she is "distinctly horrifying to liberals" because of the prospect that she could beat Hillary Clinton in a general election, hours after a poll was released showing her besting the Democratic front-runner in a hypothetical general election match-up in Iowa. 
A Clinton-Fiorina matchup! That's about as likely as a Carson-O'Malley one -- maybe the respondents took it in the appropriate Bon-Jovi-vs.-a-blade-of-grass spirit. Whatever, it's a hook, so:
During an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly on her Monday night show, Fiorina responded after Kelly read part of a New York Times story from last week in which one woman remarked of the former Hewlett-Packard executive that, "It’s so weird — she looks like one of us, but she’s not."
Jennifer Weiner again! She's got "four new books for adults and a middle grade trilogy" in the works, maybe she can do something with the publicity. The question is, can Fiorina? She'd better act fast: if the new PPI survey, which has her running behind such losers as Jeb Bush, is to be believed, her miraculous rise may be over, leaving her vulnerable to a challenge from Olivia Newton-John or The Lucha Dragons or the dog from Air Bud or whichever celebrity hasn't had his or her turn to run for the GOP nomination yet.

Maybe Fiorina's campaign team can troll Lena Dunham into making an answerable remark about her --  we know anything with Dunham ups the ante for the brethren. Of course, she could go an entirely different way and start talking about how female candidates are ill-treated by men and only taken seriously by them when they talk about so-called women's issues, and then only if they totally agree with them. But she might have to switch parties to see the benefit.

Monday, October 05, 2015

NEW VILLAGE VOICE COLUMN UP.... least until advertisers get it pulled. This one's sort of a recap, since the column was down for a year, and assesses the behavior of the conservative movement and the GOP's Unholy Three in light of the Umpqua shooting.

UPDATE. Thanks, all, for your generous comments.

As to the mainstreaming of Trump to which I allude in the column, National Review has just provided an excellent example. NR is in the main anti-Trump and the feature article by Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry is, too, sort of  -- but what large concessions they make to him:
But while Trump is not a conservative and does not deserve conservatives’ support, Republicans can nonetheless learn from him. Most politicians cannot hope to match Trump’s flair for the dramatic and should not try to compete with him in displays of narcissism or contempt. But politicians have been known to cultivate excitement and glamour — think of Reagan, or Bill Clinton, or Obama. These qualities have been missing from Republican politics for a long time. Republicans could, without going the full Trump, stand to be a little less apologetic and defensive under media criticism.
But didn't the Republicans already have someone "less apologetic and defensive under media criticism" -- i.e. a practiced asshole -- in Chris Christie? There's a reason Trump displaced Christie, and the authors' confusion about this is evident in the paragraphs just before and just after this one. First:
Trump responds to this kind of criticism by casting himself as a brave dissenter from political correctness. Here, too, he discredits a worthy cause. Conservatives and some honorable liberals have stood up against the oversensitivity and censorship of legitimate political viewpoints that has spread from college campuses over the last three decades. Trump appears to confuse simple decency with PC. Republicans should not embrace this confusion by cheering him on.
But they are cheering him on, possibly because they too "confuse simple decency with PC" and don't appreciate either, but certainly because they appreciate Trump's panache -- which is where he blows Christie away: Christie at least makes a feint at being interested in the non-vendetta aspects of governance -- Trump clearly doesn't give a shit, and that's much of his charm, as it were, for the Republican voters who endorse him. This is a point that Lowry and Ponnuru sail right past in a later paragraph:
For weeks, Trump simultaneously stayed on top of the polls and promised to raise taxes on rich people. His eventual proposal on taxes bore no resemblance to that promise, which is a good thing: The federal government needs to slim down, not be given more sustenance. But the fact that Trump’s polling did not suffer even a modest drop after his soak-the-rich comments should tell other Republicans that the priorities of the donors they meet at fundraisers are not the same as those of the voters whose support they need. Cutting taxes is generally desirable, but Republicans need not base all their economic and budget policies on slashing tax rates on the highest earners.
They're pretty much admitting that it's all about bullshitting the electorate and making them like it. But Lowry and Ponnuru are so bought into the conservative program that there's no trace of the nod and wink that would have humanized their own bullshit. Clearly Trump still has much to teach him!

Thursday, October 01, 2015


I'm still stunned that Carly Fiorina -- aka Wendell Willkie If He Sucked at His Job -- is doing so well in GOP Presidential polling. It's hard to imagine that many people saying, "That's who I want running the country -- someone who wrecked a big company and has an inspirational backstory."

I do understand her appeal to rightwing factota, though, as a female conservative in the Age of Hillary, so I'm not shocked that Fiorina campaign talking points would appear in outlets like National Review under reporters' bylines ("Secretariat also had what’s called the 'x-factor,' a gene located on the X-chromosome that causes an unusually large heart. Fiorina says she identifies with this").

But by and large these don't take a lot of effort -- just put the press release in the Hackit app and you're done!  Megan McArdle, bless her, seems to have expended some effort to explain why Fiorina's horrible record is no reason to count her out, and that makes it all the more poignant:
Critiques of Fiorina’s tenure seem excessively focused on the outcome.
Look, if you guys bailed right now, I wouldn't be upset.
People are far too prone to confuse outcomes with good decision-making. Surgeons who do everything right will sometimes see patients die anyway -- and many doctors who fail to wash their hands send a happy, healthy patient home at the end. The important thing is to know whether you followed a process that gives you the best odds, not what happened in an individual case. Too many of Fiorina’s critics pointed out that the company lost shareholder value, then settled back with a satisfied QED.
How can we ever really know whether bad outcomes mean bad decisions? By daring to judge her, we risk being unfair to this person who has never held elective office and ended her biggest job in the center of a flaming crater, holding a burnt match. Look at the situation from her point of view -- not that of a citizen whose future will be strongly effected by the outcome of a Presidential race. Think of someone besides yourself!

It's like that Iraq War thing: Just because McArdle was wrong and you were right (" you get credit for being right, or being lucky? In some way, they got it just as wrong as I did...") doesn't mean you should be the Bloomberg columnist. Hmmph!

UPDATE. In comments (always read the comments! Here, I mean; elsewhere, never), mortimer2000 pulls out this bit from McArdle's column...
But there’s another point to be made, too, which is that I’m simply not sure how much this matters. Fiorina could be the best CEO in the world, or the worst, and that wouldn’t give us much insight into how she’d do as president.
...and asks, "So Fiorina is running for president based on her background and experience as what? A person?" No, silly, as a Republican. Credentials not necessary!

Tuesday, September 29, 2015


Regular readers will be familiar with the work of David French, National Review's current occupant of the Dreher Chair for God-Bothering. Today he's taking a little break from testifying for The Lord and the Confederacy to tell you how back when he was growing up in Kentuck, his teacher encouraged him to fight his fellow children --
"He said I hit like a girl," I told her. "Is this true?" She asked my friend. Rubbing his face, he nodded. "Well then, you deserved it," she said. 
-- and that's why he's not a sissy like you liberals:
Raising boys to be whiny victims isn’t exactly new. When I first moved to the Northeast in the mid-1990s I noticed that many of the boys raised by the liberal elite weren’t “men” in any sense I could recognize. They were whiny, petulant, hypersensitive, and incapable of either physical self-defense or even the most rudimentary tasks of manual labor. 
It's hilarious in and of itself that the author of "Why Does ‘Organized Religion’ Get a Bad Rap? Because the Elite Lies About It" and other essays about how gays are oppressing Christians is complaining that other people are "whiny." But I find more interesting that French feels he was redeemed as a man by youthful homosexual panic. How many other people still feel this way, I wonder  -- that if a boy isn't constantly terrified of being compared with women, he won't be able to stand up for himself, or do manual labor? Maybe he doesn't believe it at all, but thinks trash-talking liberals' masculinity is an effective way to scare Americans out of their growing support for gay marriage. If only he can convince them that the gay wave will render us incapable of manual labor, and then we'll all be overrun by the Mexicans who've been imported to do it for us!

I think that must be it. He can't possibly take this butch talk seriously -- after all, he's one of the most outspoken supporters of America's most famous single mother.

Monday, September 28, 2015


Sarah Jones in The Federalist:
I Went To Planned Parenthood For Birth Control, But They Pushed Abortion
Inadvertently omitted subhed: No one's gonna call me a liar like they did Carly Fiorina, because there are no witnesses!
I’ve always gotten an odd sort of pride from the response when I tell my Democrat friends I’m Republican. They’re always so surprised. I relish the “you’re not like the rest of them” comments that I receive...
Owens is one of those groovy libertarian conservatives; for instance, she finds seat belt laws "a personal affront that government would dare tell me I have to take a life-saving step that affects no one except for my own body." Fun! You may suppose that, unlike her colleague A.D.P. Efferson, Owens doesn't tell her Democrat friends they're all murderers -- but, record scratch:
Usually I lose my “cool Republican” card once I tell people I’m pro-life. It’s even shocked some people. The coolness evaporates once I note I do not stand with Planned Parenthood.
And that's when her Democrat friends start saying this to her:
“You don’t come across as anti-woman,” they say. “How can you have such archaic thoughts about women’s rights if you support personal rights so vehemently? PLUS, YOU’RE A WOMAN.”
She must have met these Democrat friends at a Mallard Fillmore cosplay convention. Anyway, flashback to Owens at 17; she wanted birth control and, being a free spirit, drove down to Planned Parenthood to get some, but they botched the job, she claims -- no exam, and the stuff they gave her "gave me awful mood swings and what I can only describe as rage." (Apparently she never recovered.) That's the kind of lousy customer service that would have put Planned Parenthood out of business if it weren't for Big Gummint! Well, at least Owens knew better than to ever go back oh wait one day she thought she might be pregnant and, instead of asking Nick Gillespie what she should do, she actually went back to Planned Parenthood, and of course they were monsters to her:
“Why won’t you consider abortion?” the representative asked. “You realize what a strain on your life parenting would be, don’t you?” I explained that abortion just wasn’t something I personally believed in. She scoffed at me before finally telling me I wasn’t pregnant. 
I left the office and cried...
If only she'd listened to those nice clinic protesters! To this day Owens is haunted by the memory:
What if I had been pregnant -- would she have been able to sway me? How many others have passed through those doors and were swayed to terminate, who felt the strain -- financial, physical, or mental -- that parenting might cause so decided it would be easier to just “fix the problem”?
Think about all those pregnant women who come to Planned Parenthood every day, never once expecting they'd hear about abortion!

Yeah, I know, it sounds unlikely, but what are you going to believe -- statistics, or the latest attempt of a rightwing propaganda mill to do that "personal narrative" stuff their advisors tell them works great on the suckers?