Friday, January 20, 2017


I bike to Union Station weekday mornings to get the Metro to my job. Throughout the early part of the week they'd been polishing up the Great Hall at the station, setting out tables and erecting these grim-looking, 20-foot-tall, dark-grey replicas of the Washington Monument. Big deal inauguration-related dinner, thought I. Friday I left my bike parked as usual at the station's east end bike racks and as I headed for the Metro noticed the station's portals had been sealed up, which seemed a bit much. It wasn't until later that I thought to check the news and found that this was to be the site of a "candlelight dinner" for Trump donors and that Trump and Pence families would be there to press their cold, cash-rich flesh. Sure enough, when I got back to Union Station last night there was massive security -- cops and concrete barriers everywhere, with a five-block perimeter of parked, darkened buses and wire fencing -- and a long line of men in tuxes and ladies in gowns waiting to take their tables. I imagine them there, candles guttering, their light casting fluttering shadows from the dark Monuments like spectral hellgates.

I had to go wide around all this to get to the bike racks -- or to within fifty feet of them, as they were locked down too. So that's something else I have against the new Administration.

Buses being interrupted and cabs unavailable, I walked home, and back to the station this morning to get the bike (being blessedly granted home-labor on account of the Day). The station is just above the Red Zone where locomotion becomes difficult today. There were about a hundred of these #ResistJ20 guys on the plaza, giving the stream of inauguration-goers coming from the station something to scowl at. There were also lots of porta-potties, and lots of hawkers. "PONCHOS!" yelled one guy walking around in one as some drizzle came down, holding folded clear and yellow plastic in each hand. "You got it, buddy!" yelled another guy at his folding table of Trump t-shirts and hats.

Then back home through Northeast D.C., where all was the same as on any Friday except maybe a little quieter; I could hear birds filling the bare trees on F Street, singing.

UPDATE. I couldn't watch it; from the transcript the speech appears to be the same roaring gibberish as usual. The usual suspects are all like, hmm, he didn't pivot to Classy Presidential Mode, that's certainly a surprise -- like they were born yesterday and slow for their age.

As I alluded last night, conservatives are at the party but standing near the door, hoping to preserve plausible deniability when Il Douche does something too ham-handed; hence their coverage of the inauguration is a bit stiff and lacks the joyful rush you'd expect from people whose dream of wrecking the country is coming true. Take Dan McLaughlin at National Review:
I suspect the part everyone will remember is his invocation of “America First,” repeatedly and as a theme of his foreign and domestic policy and even as a theme of his calls for unity: ”When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” The implication here is that America is a family: outsiders viewed with suspicion, but everyone within treated with love and respect. Obviously, we’re a long way from the latter goal, and Trump has hardly been innocent of exacerbating that, but it’s at least a worthy aspiration.
Aspiration! Run that by Trump; he'll say, "Yes, that's 90% of success, I believe Thomas Jefferson said." People of all persuasions pretend to see the Emperor's New Clothes sometimes, but even McLaughlin cannot hide his embarrassment at having to project an aura of Lincolnian patriotism onto this brutal oaf. I expect he'll eventually get the hang of it well enough and with time his flopsweat will dry, but the smell of bullshit will never quite go away.

Thursday, January 19, 2017


If you look at the Big Conservative Sites now, you will notice a trend. At National Review, along with stories of what a monster Obama was, you'll see stories of how the media was unfair to poor Rick Perry, the former Texas governor about to be in charge of a federal department he once swore to destroy ("the Times peddles fake news"), and to Trump himself ("Democrats will do everything they can to create disunity from the inauguration on"). It seems a lifetime ago that National Review declared itself implacably opposed to Trump; now they're his best friend, because his only effective opposition is liberals -- and vice-versa.

At The Federalist, along with stories of what a monster Obama was, you'll see stories of how an artist was unfair to Ivanka Trump (and how artists owe him allegiance), and how the media was unfair to Trump himself. The Federalist once promoted a less Trumpified conservatism ("Ted Cruz's Donald Trump endorsement reminds us never, ever, ever to trust a politician"), but they too have gotten with the new realities.

But it's not enough that these guys celebrate Trump's victory over the liberals; they seem to need to blame liberals for Trump, too. They did it earlier, but it's weird to see their need to keep at it as their despised champion blunders into the White House. Occasional NR contributor Peter Wehner recently went on the radio to tell us whose fault Trump really was -- but prefaced it becomingly with tears of regret:
I wish Trump had not won. I'm - lifelong Republican. I'm a conservative, and I was Never Trump from the moment he announced his campaign all the way through. But he wasn't elected in a vacuum. There was a lot of acrimony, a lot of division. A lot of Americans, particularly blue-collar Americans, felt dishonored and unheard and voiceless during the Obama years.
Touching! Or take The Federalist's David Marcus in his "Progressives Destroyed Normalcy And Now They’re Shocked Trump Isn’t Normal." Marcus claims to disapprove of Trump ("I say this as a dad who has to explain to my son why the President-elect is calling people rude names, when I teach him that is wrong"), but on the other hand liberals are in favor of "abolishing the police" and "running for president as a Socialist" (yeah, I don't know either). Plus Marcus read about some guy at Think Progress who was worried about the politics of his redneck plumber; Think Progress guy apparently didn't even say anything to the plumber, but even just thinking uncharitably of such people is the great sin of the Age of the WWC Whisperer, so instead of just dismissing Think Progress guy as a doofus, Marcus indignantly claims he was "indulging in the same kind of irrational racial bias that gets black kids shot in America" -- no, I'm not kidding -- and says this explains why America embraced an asshole-in-chief:  "Trump thrived in a culture that now accepts that rudeness, judgment, and condemnation of those with the wrong political views is justified." He doesn't approve of that thinking, you understand; he just understands it -- and takes pleasure in the lamentations of the libtards, presumably not while the kid is watching.

You get this same two-faced shtick from other factota like Andrea Ruth at RedState ("As a conservative, I still hold much skepticism of anything Donald Trump does" -- wait for it; wait for it -- "but this squirming and crying from the left is enough to make the fiscally conservative side of my heart smile for now"), Bernard Goldberg ("I was and still am not a fan of Donald Trump. I find him to be both a narcissist and a braggart" -- get on with it; get on with it -- "...But, I find it more than a little ironic, that the people who have brought me closer to the president-elect are liberals..."), et alia. They're happy to have won but... but... but they feel they have to say something to distinguish themselves from... people who don't need to distinguish themselves. After all, they have media jobs!

I just want to remind you, on the eve of this new era, that you folks of the defeated majority are not the only ones who know what a horrible mistake has been made; even these idiots know it. The difference is you have the balls to admit it. And that's all the difference in the world.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017


"Why National Unity Remains So Elusive," by Jonah Goldberg. Did you guess libtards? Congratulations! But Goldberg makes us go through a detour -- specifically, the early part of his word count -- before we can get there. It's about how we're all mad at each other, despite Goldberg's attempts to bind up the nation's wounds with books like Liberal Fascism.

The front-padding done, Goldberg gets to the John Lewis thing and gives us a dull recap of the conservative take I described on Monday: Lewis "earned his icon status on the Edmund Pettus Bridge" but now he's just a mean libtard and did you know that "the goons who cracked Lewis’s skull on the Edmund Pettus Bridge were acting at the behest of a Democratic governor and Democratic local officials"? Lewis is just confused as to who his friends are, apparently; I bet he doesn't even know Robert Byrd was a Klansman.

All this would not be worth noting were it not for a choice Goldberg Easter Egg of the sort he often drops when he's in a hurry to finish up a column and get to the Cheeto trough. Here's today's:
Now, Lewis is going further still, refusing to attend Trump’s inauguration and arguing that Trump cannot be a legitimate president because of Russian meddling in the election. Lewis may have reason to believe that Trump did not win fair and square, but questioning Trump’s legitimacy is exactly what the Russians probably wanted from the beginning: to undermine Western and American faith and confidence in democracy.
Not only does John Lewis not appreciate the Republican Party's continuing commitment to civil rights, he's playing into the hands of the Russians -- like Edward Snowden! Maybe Trump should have him charged with treason. It'll show he's serious about foreign policy.

Monday, January 16, 2017


Good ol' Rod Dreher is predicting (based in part on the perorations of some guy who has Charles Bronson in Death Wish as his Twitter avatar) that the left will go crazy with violence soon:
[Fake Paul Kersey] says another big takeaway from his tweetstorm to that point are that political violence can come from anywhere, and that the left has the infrastructure to make it happen more than the right does, in part because there are mainstream leftist leaders who would accept it. These don’t exist on the right.
Ahem ahem ahem ahem ahem --  but I expect my throat-clearing is wasted on Dreher, who believes that since liberals are "allowing courses that teach students of all races how terrible white people and their culture is," the only possible result is SJW Violence and Ooga Booga unleashed across the fruited plain.
[Fake Paul Kersey] gets very dark in this series, and says that the actions of the left on Inauguration Day may prove decisive. He links to this article about how various left-wing and anarchist groups are organizing to disrupt the Trump inauguration. If that goes down in a significant way, you can bet that Trump is going to break heads over it — and that a lot of ordinary Americans are going to be on his side.
I wonder why he's so confident liberals will riot at the inauguration -- wishful thinking, perhaps, or maybe he's got some inside information from James O'Keefe.  But more provocative than the blacks and the college students is Dreher's Pubic Enemy Number One:
There’s a report that queer protestors are going to start the ball rolling with a gay dance party outside of Vice President Mike Pence’s home. If that happens, and there is anything lewd about it, then you can bet that the Christian Right, even people who aren’t fond of Trump, will begin to migrate solidly to Trump’s side...
Lewd gay dancing -- the thin, erect end of the wedge! When Mr. and Mrs. America get a load of gay people working it to "Bounce" in the presence of Vice President Pence, there'll be hetero hell to pay. Then maybe Dreher will get the Great Re-a-Straightening he's been dreaming of -- hell, maybe they can turn Milo!

I know we're supposed to be scared of Trump, but I can't imagine being as scared of anything as Dreher is scared of everything.

UPDATE. Dreher always brings out the best in my commenters. "Fidel from the Castro: 'History of Disco, Volume 3 will absolve me,'" and "RuPaul Revere: 'One if by glam, two if by glee,'" contributes J---. "Maybe Rod should drop Logo from his cable package," suggests AGoodQuestion. And Fats Durston gives us a sneak preview of the forthcoming classic, Rainbow Dawn:
Sergeant: The Bisexuals reinforced with some weird division. Subarus across the plains. Thrusting ever forward, right down our throats. Cut the pipeline we needed. Dykes overran the dikes we had set up round N'Orleans. Just when it stabilized, then six million screaming ladyboys.

Kid: I thought there were ten million screaming ladyboys?

Sergeant: There were.
Go look just to see what he uses for "Wolverines."


...about how conservatives celebrated MLK Day by beating up King's old comrade John Lewis.

The column came too soon, alas, to cover as alicublog has done in the past the more general rightwing Martin Luther King Day tributes. But some of the brethren stepped up early. At Laura Ingraham's LifeZette, Lee Habeeb, whose gibberish has been examined here before, claims "the media" doesn't want us to know that King was a man of God.
"Leaving God out of Martin Luther King's life," a friend once told me, "is like leaving naked young women out of Hugh Hefner's. It's like leaving the story of segregation out of Jackie Robinson's."
Yet the filthy media takes the segregation from Jackie Robinson's story and puts it in King's too, which is double-dipping!
But that won't stop the media from redacting any and all references to the source of King's inspiration. You'll hear endless references to Dr. Martin Luther King this week — but never to Reverend King.
The lesson is that King has been hijacked by race hustlers who think he was about equality or social justice or some shit. Similarly, at National Review Ian Smith says King was a fan of Cesar Chavez, so he would have been against illegal immigrants, just like You Know Who, and that's his Real Message, never mind this race nonsense. He looked forward to the day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by The Conscience of a Conservative!

Somehow these guys never bring up that King advocated a guaranteed national income.

Thursday, January 12, 2017


I'm sure I must be someone; now I'm gonna find out who.

•   Amanda Prestigiacomo of The Daily Signal is enraged because the Washington Post ran a long tribute to our outgoing President and didn't do one for George W. Bush back in the day. But the Post is just giving the people what they want, as they say in show biz: Even casual observers will know that Obama is currently very popular, and that his 55% approval rating contrasts starkly with GWB's 34% at the same stage of his Presidency. (I guess WaPo could have done an 18-page "Thanks for the Recession" feature, but what advertiser would have plunked down money for that?) Cripes, even Republicans know this: It's no accident Bush hasn't attended a GOP National Convention since he left office; clearly no one at the RNC wanted to remind the public of how badly they fucked up the country last time they were in charge. In fact, the citizens may have begun to remember what Republicans are all about lately: the incoming Il Douche is at 37% the least-approved incoming President in recorded history. Nonetheless Prestigiacomo feels compelled to cry Liberal Bias, and even Conspiracy:
Perhaps the "fake news" scare was not only an excuse for Hillary Clinton's truly awful candidacy, but a move in a long game effort to get more conservative news suppressed, as if it hasn't been suppressed enough already.
Honey, it's so much simpler than that: If you don't want to get pelted with tomatoes, leave the stage when they start to boo.

•   Robert Tracinski, insufferable culture warrior, bitches out SJW Wars:
In ‘Rogue One,’ The Hollywood Empire Strikes Back 
'Rogue One' is a throwback to the highbrow Hollywood culture that the original 'Star Wars' film rebelled against back in 1977.
Manny Farber he ain't.
Not many people realize that the great conservative filmmakers of our age are George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. Forget about their personal political views, which naturally conform to the left-leaning Hollywood consensus. Think purely in esthetic terms. Lucas and Spielberg collaborated on the two great movie franchises that helped shape the culture of the 1980s: Star Wars and Indiana Jones. 
It’s not just that these films were nostalgic tributes to an old-fashioned style of story-telling, the Westerns and movie serials of the pre-Counterculture era. It’s that the stories were told in bright, primary colors...
But this new stuff is about people who believe in something, which is a drag:
That’s the other thing that’s disappointingly different about Rogue One. There’s a lot of talk in this film about “the cause,” including a scene in which the two lead characters have a tiff about who is more down with the struggle. This probably helps Hollywood leftists feel more at home, because lefties pull this sort of thing on each other all the time. But in the original Star Wars films, there was little discussion of or interest in “the cause"...
It's like when Victor Laszlo told Rick "Welcome to the fight" in Casablanca -- gross, right? It should have ended when Rick got Ilsa to fuck him! That's capitalism, baby -- I stick my neck out for no one! I guess it never occurred to Tracinski that Han joined the rebels for something besides pussy. Or maybe (a stretch, I know) Tracinski doesn't actually give a shit about culture at all, and is just getting with the new realities. Come to think of it, force-choking is a sign of American Greatness!  

• Yet another wan column from Jonah Goldberg, who has been observably demoralized since his Liberal Fascism racket got queered by the election of Republican Mussolini. Or maybe it's not demoralization; maybe he's just taking the opportunity, like other great artists working under constraints, of exploring new frontiers -- in Goldberg's case, of intellectual sloth. The column is mostly "Our Friend The Beaver" phumphering ("With a bullpen of writers like that, it’s no wonder that Washington’s farewell ranks among the great works of literary statecraft..."). Kudos to historian Kevin M. Kruse, however, for noticing this:
Of course, the era of radio and television necessitated — or created the perception of necessity — that presidents address the people directly. Whether that amounted to progress is for others to decide. But until Obama, it never occurred to a president to deliver a televised address from anywhere but the Oval Office.
What a maroon. (Also: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this scale model of the Wall here on my desk in the Oval Office, from which all presidential addresses are given.") Oh, and according to Goldberg Obama's speech was "grandiose" and a "campaign rally." He quotes literally about a dozen words of it. I'll be frank, I don't think he saw or read the speech - I think at best it was on in the background while he was playing Battleship with Jay Nordlinger, or trying to get his fist in his mouth (his own, not Nordlinger's, though you never know, Nordlinger sure isn't earning a salary with his writing). And people think liberals are demoralized! At least we don't have to pretend shit is gold.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017


It's not the piss, it's the mop-up! Amusing as the story is, I think it petered out, so to speak, as a live issue when FISA declined the FBI request to authorize surveillance of Trump's goons -- though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Till then, the reverse-field running of those crazy cucks at National Review will be my primary source for laffs. Today, here's Rich Lowry's terse communique:
My quick two cents: 1) In no universe should it be OK for a journalistic outfit to publish a document containing explosive allegations that it doesn’t believe are credible — this is just outrageous; 2) Until we have some confirmation of verifiable details — and no media entity has produced any yet, despite trying to chase them down — we should consider the most damaging information in the dossier to be garbage based on hearsay and rumor.
Hmmph! Annnnd here's Rich Lowry days before the election when the whole world was yakking about a Hillary Clinton email scandal that would prove bogus:
Before Democrats burn James Comey in effigy, they should think about how the FBI director came to have an outsized influence in the election in the first place.

It’s not something Comey sought or welcomed. A law-enforcement official who prizes his reputation, he didn’t relish becoming an object of hate for half the country or more. No, the only reason that Comey figures in the election at all is that Democrats knowingly nominated someone under FBI investigation.

Once upon a time — namely any presidential election prior to this one — this enormous political and legal vulnerability would have disqualified a candidate. Not this year, and not in the case of Hillary Clinton.
Not sure who's ratfucking in the present case, but some fucking rats are always on the scene.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017


I guess the brethren will be going on for the rest of the week about how Meryl Streep assaulted their snowflake sensibilities by saying it was bad when The Leader made fun of that crippled guy -- and, worse yet, did so using her evil devil-sent acting talents, rather than (as God intended) with high moral stiffness, like a pundit on a Commentary podcast:
On the first of this week’s podcasts, we dilate [!-ed.] upon Meryl Streep attacking Donald Trump and Donald Trump attacking Meryl Streep and how Trump represents a different kind of combative conservative—one who has his own form of pop-culture reach that is beyond the capacity of the Streeps to silence or control.
I'm not going to spend half an hour of my precious drinking time experiencing a dilated John Podhoretz -- that time I braved a Nick Gillespie podcast on how Trump could be good for libertarianism was bad enough. But what a pitch! Trump will not be silenced by the Streeps! He is beyond the Streeps capacity! He's taking it to the Streeps!

There are plenty of these idiots enraged over the mild criticism of their buffoon-king, but so far the worst (to be fair it was always a safe bet, though Dreher is a close second) is David French at National Review:
I have no particular affection for Trump, but I positively loathe the condescension, alarmism, ignorance, and self-regard of the wealthy Hollywood Left, and each of those elements was on full display in Streep’s speech.
As a believing Christian, I can't quite come out and say I love the pussy-grabbing Putin pal, but if there's one thing I positively loathe (you hear me, plain people? Looooathhe) it's elitism, at least as long as the bullshit-populism thing we got going now still plays. (Why he didn't just say "ah don' lahk me no fancy big-city actress nohow" and spit, I can't guess.)

French's arguments against the actual speech are ridiculous. Get a load:
Streep raised the specter that Trump would expel “outsiders and foreigners,” leaving Hollywood bereft of talent. Yet is anyone proposing deportation of legal-immigrant Hollywood actors?
That's even stupider than usual for him, because he's just making shit up -- there is nothing actually genuinely offensive in the speech except what he projects onto it, which is his own stark terror that anyone can claim the attention of an audience who isn't a beady-eyed Witchfinder General like himself or a blow-dried con man like the politicians he serves. And so he does the Whore of Babylon bit to get the rubes quaking:
Hollywood sells the best cultural drugs. Truth is optional, self-indulgence is a virtue, and bullying is bravery. And last night it was all wrapped in Streep’s alluring package, an emotion-laden call to arms that stirred the hearts of millions.
The humans -- she makes them feel things -- it must be the drugs! French rails about the baleful power of "culture" not because he knows what it is, nor why the human mind and soul invented it, but because he senses its power and sees it as a threat to his own.

What a sad way to live.