Friday, June 14, 2019


Fuck you, I'm old. (18 phone calls to Brazil!)

•  I mean come on:

The comparisons are absurdly weak. For example: "Both women were trailblazers in high-powered legal circles; one attended an Ivy league law school, one taught in an Ivy league law school." Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy; Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. Also:
Clinton took a lot of grief about implausible claims of being “dead broke” when she left the White House or her Tuzla Dash; Warren gets a lot of grief about her implausible claims of Native American heritage.
Hey, how about that, two politicians accused of dishonesty. It's like they're twins! Eventually Geraghty gets to it:

For women who have risen to the top of national politics, they’ve faced criticism for being tone-deaf about how they’ve handled sensitive issues.

Both have friends and colleagues who insist they are warm and personable in private; both face accusations of being cold and stiff and inauthentic on the campaign trail. (Recall Warren’s beer chat on Instagram.) Both face the criticism that they’re not “likeable,” and both have allies insisting that criticism is sexist.
According to Edroso's Laws of Wingnut Discourse, when "sexism" appears in a National Review article, it will accompany either 1.) a whataboutist complaint that liberals have been mean to the latest Xerox copy of Sarah Palin, or 2.) Hella bald sexism, and sure enough:

Perhaps most significantly, Trump is likely to criticize Warren the way he criticized Clinton — as an elite who enjoyed the benefits of a rigged system. If Warren gets the nomination, we’ll hear a lot of “Pocahontas” jabs, but probably some version of the “Crooked Hillary,” “the queen of corruption,” “Lyin’ Hillary” attacks. Whether you think it’s sexist or not, Trump and his allies are likely to paint Warren as an insufferable know-it-all nag, an academic who thinks she knows how to best manage every detail of your life, condescending and badgering. For at least four years, that persona will be addressing you from the Oval Office, telling you how things are going to change and how it’s for your own good.
Mind you, it's just the Id Monster saying these things, not genial old Jim Geraghty. But bitches, amirite? Nag nag nag! Well, his target audience (assholes) will go for it, and may be comforted that conservatives haven't fucked up so badly that Americans might actually elect a qualified woman.

•  Sorry I ain't been on here much; work's been extra-strength bullshit and non-work ain't so hot either. (That's the breaks, that's the breaks!) But this week we had some unlocked newsletter entries (Roy Edroso Breaks It Down -- catch it!™) so please enjoy my DC Pride Weekend post and Jack Dorsey and the night visitors. And subscribe so you don't miss nothin'!

•  BTW I think this point needs making (Tscha, that's what they all say): You may have heard David Neiwert, one of America's top experts in alt-right and neo-fascist propaganda, had his Twitter acount suspended because his book cover, which serves as his Twitter avatar, has a bunch of Klan hoods standing for the stars of the U.S. flag, and Twitter thinks (or pretends to think) that's the sort of hate speech users want to be protected from. I've seen many complaints about this, and the liberals (because only liberals care, the freeze-peach right couldn't give a shit) who have done so either just rag on Twitter for its stupidity or talk about how this shows it's tough for social media to tell commentary from advocacy (which is bullshit, but that's a topic for another day). Whereas when Steven Crowder was not suspended (but his ads for "Socialism is for fags" shirts and other quality merch were blocked) for calling some guy a lispy queer, conservatives got all Patrick Henry for their right to yell slurs on other people's websites. I find it instructive that while liberals, who are supposed to be big-government snowflakes, roll rather calmly with the social media problem, apparently judging it a private commercial matter, the rugged individualists of the right bitch like a bunch of drama queens. Working the refs is in their blood, I guess.

Friday, June 07, 2019


RIP. I saw him once. He was a goodly king.

•   Man, Ben Shapiro is a buffoon. But then, so's every wingnut who screams censorship over social media these days -- including and perhaps especially those who are saying oho so you wanted Nazis off YouTube well they're taking Leni Riefenstahl off what about that libtards? Two things: First, Riefenstahl is absurdly overrated -- basically a music video director avant la lettre, fuck her. Second, Nobody has a Constitutional right to have whatever they want posted on YouTube; if these people want Nazi shit to look at they can go buy a server and gaze to their hearts' content. The general stupidity on this shit is so glaring even David French sees it and that's a pretty low bar. (Though to be fair French really botches the landing, proposing as a solution that "Just as conservatives need to send philosophers into Stanford, we also need to send our programmers into Menlo Park and our entrepreneurs to San Jose" -- like, one, there aren't plenty of "libertarian"conservatives in tech already, and two, if these guys really want to succeed they're not going to push the highly unpopular theocratic nonsense French favors -- they'll push cat videos. That's capitalism, comrade!)

•   Hey it's the weekend, so how about I unlock another newsletter issue? This one's about where all that conservative debate between Crazy Team One and Crazy Team Two is really all about. "Enjoy"!

Wednesday, June 05, 2019


Cue The Odd Couple theme:

At (Who Funds) The Federalist, Brad Todd -- seriously, his real name? You sure it's not Todd Brad? --  sings the praises of Senator Niedermeyer, the latest Jesus and Tax Cuts GOP laboratory vat creation, and unkillable Medicare fraud monster Rick Scott. And oh, what a song stylist Todd is! Pipe the lede:
The heat and light given off by the nuclear grind between President Trump and his antagonists have blinded Washington’s chroniclers to something important happening right before their eyes. The fusion of populism and conservatism as a workable and ideological political movement is emerging in the actions of two newly elected senators: Josh Hawley and Rick Scott.
What is it that nuclear power plants grind? Also, what's the difference between a political ideological movement and an ideological political movement? Ugh, we better skip down:
Scott, a self-made health-care CEO who built the nation’s largest hospital corporation...
Ha ha, that's one way to put it!
... zeroed in on the crisis of drug pricing. His proposal to outlaw any U.S. drug price that is higher than the price for the same medicine overseas fuses the twin populist urges of corporate accountability and nationalism. The novelty of Scott’s proposal is that it uses the profit motive to achieve an end Democrats have sought only through socialistic means.
Because if there's one way to stop socialism, it's price controls. (No capitalist need worry -- Scott's plan closely follows that of Alex Azar, Trump's head of HHS and former CEO of Eli Lilly U.S. As the New York Times asked when he was confirmed, "He Raised Drug Prices at Eli Lilly. Can He Lower Them for the U.S.?" and the answer is of course LOL -- this is just bullshit for the rubes and if you told a red state farmer with a MAGA cap who Azar was, he'd say the same.)

But I would say that, as a damned liberal -- and so, says Todd Brad or Brad Todd, would so-called conservatives who haven't climbed aboard the Trump Train:
Scott’s proposal has been quickly written off by conservative D.C. think tanks and organizations long pickled by the cocktails poured liberally at corporate fundraising receptions. 
Those corporate liberal cocktail parties!
But it will be an enduring home run among the Trumpist majority in today’s GOP—a group that is every bit as skeptical of corporate oligopoly and multi-national monopolists as it is of domestic government overreach.
Because if there's one thing Trump hates it's oligarchs. Meanwhile Hawley, ToddBradTodd tells us, is "waging a similar battle against conservatives’ neglect of Big Tech" -- that is, he's hooked up with the wingnuts who are mad that private companies won't let them dominate their platforms. And if you don't agree with that, Brodd Tadd tells us, it's because you're trad, dad:
The generation of political Republicans already in office before the development of the smartphone still requires their grandchildren’s assistance to toggle between the satellite dish and the DVR, so it’s no wonder those old pachyderms have had no coherent policy approach to the rise of Silicon Valley’s abusive power.
Josh Hawley's the young, hip kind of theocrat creep who's bound to appeal to hypothetical young people who think like Roy Moore.

But the best part is the button -- take it away, The Federalist:
Todd is the co-author of "The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics," and co-founder of OnMessage Inc., a leading Republican firm that has advised Sens. Rick Scott and Josh Hawley among others. [emphasis added]
Here's to Pat Boone "youth" candidates, ancient Florida Man fraudsters and, most of all, self-dealing con men who manage to sneak their client blowjobs into what the uninitiated probably think is a legitimate political web magazine.

Friday, May 31, 2019


R.I.P. He always gave a song its due.

•  I have unlocked today's newsletter issue (for those of you who for some reason haven't gotten around to subscribing). It's partly about the ridiculous Sohrab Ahmari-David French contretemps -- and when I say ridiculous I mean it on a variety of levels. (Short vs. here.) A number of famous wingnut have stepped in it, including Godly Rod Dreher. I won't attempt to encapsulate his entire 343,000-word essay. but feel I must reproduce this wonderful, thoroughly Dreherian tangent on how he's No Trump Fan But:
French can’t stand Donald Trump, and that seems to be at the core of Ahmari’s ire. French was one of those conservatives who regarded Trump as a betrayal of core principles of conservatism. For his views, French — the adoptive father of a black child — had to endure a torrent of spite from Trump fans that can only be described as satanic. That is important to keep in mind. Personally, I’ve come to think more favorably of Trump than I once did, both because of judicial appointments and because of the raging radicalism of the left, but I think in no way can Trump be rightly understood as an advocate for the restoration of Christian morality in the public sphere. Trump is a symptom of our decline, not the answer to it. Mind you, I can understand traditional Christians voting for Trump as the only realistic alternative to annihilation by the angry left — I might do what I didn’t do in 2016, which is to vote for him — but I can’t understand trying to convince ourselves that he is a good man.
Oh crumbs, Mary, just put on the hat and yell Lock Her Up already!

Friday, May 24, 2019


"Let's get it straight girl you don't need a nigga fo' nuttin'/Lookin' better every day,
you got that Benjamin Button." You have to admire the craft.

•   I am unlocking yet another edition of my newsletter (Subscribe! Cheap! ™) for you good people. This is one of my semi-regular "This is Hardcore" features based on those rightwing stories aimed via emails with names like The Patriot Chronicles and Three-Percenter Nation at your senile father or grandfather. This edition is special, though, because it's devoted to Justin Amash and how he became a pariah by turning on Trump in the matter of impeachment. So far his few rightwing defenders are mostly usedtabees who put down anti-Trump markers long ago and smell a return on investment -- you know, guys like W. James Antle III, late of Billy Kristol's Flying Dutchman. But most of the brethren stick to the script. At TownHall Beth Baumann tells us that "conservative pundits, however, seemed to have mixed reaction to Amash's take on the situation," but after that she reproduces nothing but attacks on Amash, ranging from dumb slurs ("Justin Amash was off his rocker long before his attention-seeking comments") to the-evidence-is-insufficient harrumph-harrumphs (among the latter, hilariously: Michael Tracey!). But these are mostly tweets -- for the real quality analysis, let's go to Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media:
In case you missed it last weekend, everybody's favorite Trump-hating Republican not named Mitt Romney was busy having a Twitter bonding moment with House Democrats... 
Amash then went on a snoozefest of a Twitter rant about why, in his legal opinion, the party he doesn't belong to is right. 
He not only let his daddy issues be manifested in his Trump hate, but he worked them out with plenty of bad things to say about Attorney General Bob Barr too. 
With friends like this, who needs Democrats?
I have to say, for righteous defenders of principle, they sure do sound like whining little bitches.

•   Lotta "oh you liberals are for equality but what about liberals who are rich" stuff out here these days. Bernie and Liz must be getting to the wingnuts! Here's supergenius Kevin D. Williamson at National Review:
[Actress] Jessica Chastain, who sometimes lectures the world about “wage equality” while making films financed by the money billionaire tech tycoon Larry Ellison gives his kids, has purchased a lovely new home off Central Park for about $9 million. 
On the Upper West Side, some animals are more equal than others.
Jeffrey Goldberg must be kicking himself. Meanwhile at The Fetalist -- er, sorry, The Federalist -- Libby Emmons has a fake-woke shtick: When middle-class working moms hire poor immigrant working moms to take care of their kids, that's bad for the poor immigrant working moms' own kids (who should be separated from their parents by immigration officials, not just because some liberal mothers want to find "fulfillment" or "enough money to leave their asshole husbands"). Ha ha, you liberals are The Real ™ imperialists! You'll be surprised to learn the answer to this dilemma is not socialist stuff like child care programs or living wages:
While leftist women in the West push for less family structure and more centralized child support, they disrupt not only their own families but also families around the world.... 
If American women want equality, it must be global equality. We can’t gain our freedom by exploiting those who are willing to trade it for their children’s future. A better answer than increasing outsourced child care is to make it more possible for women to mother their own children. Women should stop demanding liberation from motherhood, and everyone should acknowledge motherhood’s importance to society.
You broke it, you bought it, ladies, so stay at home with your brats like you deserve and leave these poor mamacitas to live in dignified if extreme poverty back home with theirs! Everybody loses except capitalism, which is what conservatism is all about.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019


I sense the conservative elite (which is probably the wrong word, considering their lack of elite characteristics like education and professional training) is a little nervous about the wack-ass abortion laws coming out of the Bible Belt. They're not less insane on the issue, mind -- just worried that actually bulling this shit through might be a little rough on their election prospects. Even Rod Dreher, a fetus-hugger if ever there was one, counsels the brethren follow Ramesh Ponnuru's go-slow advice: "I think he makes a strong point about the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that the pro-life movement has miscalculated by rejecting incrementalism at this stage," says Dreher -- the bolding is presumably meant to tip off his God Squad that this is a tactical matter and when the time is right they can unleash Gilead.

To leaven their impatience, Dreher does give his fans a taste of that old-time psychosis, claiming the destruction of in-vitro fertilization blobs is also murder -- "IVF is widely used by Christians, and a consistent, logical pro-life position would outlaw it" -- and that his co-religionists only fail to wave signs with grisly pictures of discarded petri dishes because rich people do IVF. Of course, Dreher also says "I don’t think the inconsistency of the Alabama law can be honestly chalked up to a desire to 'control women’s bodies,'" so we can discount his testimony.

At The Federalist, however, moderation is treason, they can't stop/won't stop -- Georgi Boorman and James Silberman:
3 Negative Consequences From Not Prosecuting Parents For Obtaining Abortions
Guess no one told them ix-nay on the ilead-Gay. In another Federalist story, author Lew Jan Olowski laughs -- laughs, I tell you! -- at the baby-murdering Washington Post, "Washington Post Publishes Abortion Article So Stupid You Won’t Believe It." Already I am crying with amusement! Key graf:
The headline says it all: “If a fetus is a person, it should get child support, due process and citizenship.” Why, yes, it should; this is a commonly held view among pro-life Americans. But the author apparently doesn’t know that. Nor, apparently, do any of her editors.
He sure showed us! My question is, does Citizen Fetus have the vote? And how does it make its preference known? One kick for yes, two for no? Or does its pastor vote on its behalf?

Friday, May 17, 2019


Well God tole Noah.
(If you want something more down-home, Flora Molton has what you want.)

•   I am opening today's newsletter edition (Subscribe! Cheap!) about how conservatives aren't even trying to win hearts and minds on abortion anymore -- now that the fix seems to be in, they mostly ululate prayers for the defeat of the heathen majority of Americans that don't want it banned; maybe that was always who they were, but I talk about why their Jesus-freak flag is flying more than previous. Since then more ripe specimens have come in, like this Federalist column by Liz Wolfe, who does the usual "Jesus and Science Say Abortion is Murder" bit but adds a great twist where she talks about her "friends" who "open up to me about their abortions" and how they're murdering sluts:
When I talk about abortion with people I care about, I feel a sense of resigned sadness and the weight of deep depravity... 
My compassion does begin to run out, though, when I see these people—people I respect, people I value—spout what can generously be described as marketing, perhaps more appropriately called propaganda. There’s something deeply broken with our minds if we can’t muster even a morsel of intellectual honesty to properly represent the views of the other side... 
I can absolutely disrespect somebody for doing what I see as killing a fetus, a distinct being who is innocent and worthy of life and protection. I will not treat her poorly; I will not say they are beyond the pale or unable to seek forgiveness. But I don’t have to respect somebody for doing something I consider heinous.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Either these liberal friends are made up, or have extremely low self-esteem.

•   I have a lot of friends back home who hate Bill De Blasio because he's a trimmer who promised much, much more than he has provided as mayor, particularly on housing policy. Steve Wishnia's your man for that case. (The subways I think we can safely blame on that asshole Cuomo.) Nonetheless BDB did stop stop-and-frisk and, despite the dire predictions of City Journal types, NYC continued and continues to enjoy falling crime rates -- which, now that De Blasio's running for president, all wingnuts from Trump on down lie about because they know their hayseed constituents believe Big Cities Is F'um the Devil and would only go there if they could sneak in a sidearm and do Death Wish on insolent black people. Well, I'm stuck out here in DeeCee with the Greenpoint blues again so it's none of my business, but apart from the wingnut lie eruptions he engenders I see one silver lining to BDB's hopeless campaign: He treats Trump like the pig he is, which no doubt feeds the dummies' rage and may give a few of them strokes. If some of the other candidates can learn a little more aggression from him, it will have been worth it.