Monday, May 30, 2016


It gets tiresome:
We get an especially creepy version of that last stage from Claudia Rosett at PJ Media:
No, Obama did not explicitly apologize for America's dropping of the atomic bomb. Rather, he worked around to it by implication, stripping the act of almost all historical context, lumping together all civilizations and nations, and all wars -- whatever the reasons -- in one big stew, and urging, as his solution for the planet (imperfect America included), a "moral revolution" of which he evidently considers himself the prophet...
On and on she goes with this elevated yak ("one of Obama's prime rhetorical tools, here on full display, is the logical fallacy," yecch) for thousands of words, eventually getting to this:
Obama ended his speech by calling on the world to choose a future "in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare, but as the start of our own moral awakening." 
I'm That's a neat rhetorical flourish, a dollop of whipped cream on the narrative jello. It's also an apology for America. It resets the world's clock to Obama-time; implying that Truman was morally asleep when, as this narrative has it, out of the blue sky he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima. As one more slap at America from America's own president, it is far more likely to embolden America's enemies than to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
So, an anodyne sentiment at a public event encouraging men of good will to look to the future is reinterpreted as a gesture of contempt toward the past. Stands to reason -- if you think things might get better, then you must think everyone who came before you was stupid, fighting World War II was a mistake and Truman was an asshole! Well, you can do what you want to us, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!

No one will have attentively read Rosett's whole skein, but true believers will scan the end and see that someone who knows big words said Obama's speech was "an apology for America," and that's what they'll remember, even years from now in their survivalist bunkers -- that time Obama apologized for Hiroshima, between the time he made Islam our national religion and the time he got a judge to go after a perfectly innocent Donald Trump.

One of the good things about this wretched election cycle is that the propaganda has gotten so shitty, if it still works we'll know there's no hope.

Friday, May 27, 2016


Yo La Tengo does John Cale. What's not to like?

•   Not yet feeling the holiday weekend zest? Then figuratively haul your sorry ass to The Sherman Oaks Review of Books which has plenty of fresh-enough content including a bagatelle by me and other yukworthy objects including "John Fogerty Doesn’t Understand This Thing Called Rain" and others. If that doesn't work, there's always liquor.

•   Just the other day Jonah Goldberg was telling us how he'd never vote for Trump but Hillary was worse than Trump but he would never vote for Trump, wink fart. This appears to be his #NeverTrump modified limited hangout route for the election cycle.  Today Goldberg offers another example:
From the earliest days of this [email] scandal — and it is a scandal — Clinton has lied. Unlike Donald Trump’s lies, which he usually vomits up spontaneously like a vesuvian geyser, Clinton’s were carefully prepared, typed up, and repeated for all the world to hear over and over again.
I would think this is an important distinction.
Really? Why? (Besides this is how you ever got a job in the first place.)
Neither of the candidates is worthy of the office in my eyes, but voters might discount many of Trump’s deceits as symptoms of his glandular personality. Much like Vice President Joe Biden, who always gets a pass for launching errant fake-fact missiles from the offline silo that is his mouth, Trump is often seen as entertainingly spontaneous.

Meanwhile, Clinton — who lives many time zones away from the word “entertaining” — is marketing herself as the mature and upstanding grown-up. She does nothing spontaneously. And that means all of her lies are premeditated.
At least it'll be fun boy Hillary whattabitch huh fart.

Thursday, May 26, 2016


Sometimes you have to wonder... 
Obama’s Fancy New Mansion Is Located 1,000 Feet From The Islamic Center Of Washington DC they really mean it? Can they really mean it?
The mammoth, multi-million-dollar mansion where President Barack Obama and his family will reportedly live after the first family exits the White House is located 1,096 feet from the Islamic Center of Washington — one of the largest mosques in the Western Hemisphere...
I mean, can anyone intelligent enough to write complete sentences be that stupid? This has to be a willful impersonation of a stupid person, yes? So as to attract people like the person he's pretending to be?
The Tudor-style residence is just a 10-minute drive from Sidwell Friends School, Sasha Obama’s school. (RELATED: The School Lunches Malia And Sasha Eat Vs. The Crap Michelle Obama Has Foisted On America)... 
Or is there another explanation? Maybe "education editor" Eric Owens is new, and being hazed by his colleagues?
In addition to the Islamic Center of Washington, the embassy of Oman and the former embassy of Iran are very close to Obama’s new mansion. 
Could it be that their cynicism goes even deeper? That not only the editors but also the readers know that they're full of shit? That somewhere along the line the Daily Caller just decided, you know what, there isn't even any point in trying to make it look good -- hell, let's just make these propaganda stories ridiculously obvious, so obvious no one could take them seriously, and we'll all just have a laugh about it and then punch out at five and go on with our lives?
Follow Eric on Twitter. Like Eric on Facebook. Send crazy conspiracy theories and tinfoil to 
We must consider the possibility, overgenerous as it may seem.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016


That Egyptian river ran through Columbia Heights today:
Don't Blame the Republican Party for the Rise of Trump
Because he's the Democratic nominee presumptive? No. Because he's the nominee presumptive in some other party that isn't the Republican Party? No. Because [throws a handful of dirt in your face, runs]. This may be the worst thing McArdle has ever written. Seriously, look at this:
Or maybe those liberals shouldn't be forgiven so easily. I’ve been pondering these theories -- advanced by everyone from Barack Obama and Harry Reid to Bill Maher -- and the thing is, they don’t make a heck of a lot of sense. They seem to posit a Republican electorate that is, on the one hand, so malleable that the GOP leadership could create the emotional conditions for a Trump candidacy -- and on the other hand, a Republican electorate so surly and unmanageable that it has ignored the horrified pleading of conservative leaders and intellectuals, in order to rally behind Trump.
That there is some bullshit, and not just because what she presents as either-or choices are not mutually exclusive, but also because both the "either" and the "or" are gibberish. GOP voters don't have to be "malleable" to turn from covertly pyscho to overtly psycho: They only needed to suffer through two Black President terms, bookended by the humiliation of George W. Bush (hey, wonder if the Republicans will finally invite him to a convention this year?) and the recent Gay/Trans Apotheosis, for their psycho-sap to rise and run over all by itself.

Neither is there anything weird about the Trumpenproletariat "ignoring the horrified pleading of conservative leaders and intellectuals." Who, aside from some National Review cruise-goers and Inner Circle party donors, has ever cared what Jonah Goldberg and Billy Kristol said or thought? The Republican rabble has always been ready for a true shitheel to step up -- hell, they were hot for President Sarah Palin until she decided to run a safer grift. And before Ronald Reagan's elevation to sainthood, he was just a talking doll with a nice smile and strong appeal to the Strom Thurmond wing of the Party -- which wing never went away, but only got older, grimmer, and mad that they can't say the n-word anymore because of political correctness.

The rest is also crap and who has time, but I will say that anyone who writes "triple-distilled balderdash … high-test twaddle … self-congratulatory swill … nonsense on stilts" ought to be sent to a young-fogey rest home and given plenty of sedatives.

Believe it or don't, McArdle was still out-crazied -- but, less surprisingly, by David French:
The American people need the chance to make a better choice. Given the stakes of the election, to simply leave the race to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is to guarantee a terrible presidency marked by incompetence and cronyism. There is just one hope — however slim — of avoiding this national disaster: America needs a third option.

And at this point, Mitt Romney is the only man who combines the integrity, financial resources, name recognition, and broad public support to make a realistic independent run at the presidency.
Does French actually think Romney has a chance in hell? He has at least enough brain cells left to be sneaky with his answer:
A third-party Romney bid would introduce the chance of a different outcome, giving millions of Americans the important option to choose a man of integrity as their president.
Similarly, millions of Americans had the important option to choose windshield washer fluid over Coca-Cola as their beverage at lunch. It could happen!

But the goo-goo ga-ga winner is David Marcus at (where else?) The Federalist:
How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism
Long story short, liberals are talking about bad things white people do, and how else can a rational honky react except by going neo-Nazi?
White people are being asked -- or pushed -- to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more.
I see a crying cowboy in Oklahoma, who can't watch TV no more without seeing them Key and Peele fellers talking down His People -- and since you libtards injected race into things, this is forcing the cowboy to "identify with it more." Marcus laments:
This is a remarkably bad idea. The last thing our society needs is for white people to feel more tribal. The result of this tribalism will not be a catharsis of white identity, improving equality for non-whites. It will be resentment towards being the only tribe not given the special treatment bestowed by victimhood.
When we start lynching people, remember who started it! Why must you always provoke us.

Monday, May 23, 2016


...about rightbloggers' slow, shuffling shift from #NeverTrump to accommodation. It's not like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, so much, as like what happens in real life to people when they convince themselves that, say, $4.49 a pound isn't too much to pay for tomatoes. Except, you know, sinister.

UPDATE. I am delighted to see my column promoted in a tweet from the John Hospers Foundation. Now that's a name I'd not heard in a long time! The preface to the Foundation website begins, "Ayn Rand and John Hospers had a stormy intellectual love affair," but alas it does not deliver on that racy promise. I can tell you, though, these cowboys are not going Trump.

Thursday, May 19, 2016


So, why are conservatives all het up over Facebook and its alleged prejudice against them? I don't normally give much credence to the totally mental Glenn Beck, but something in his whining coverage of the meeting Zuckerberg arranged over the affair with prominent wingnuts struck a nerve:
I sat there looking around and heard things like:  
1) Facebook has a very liberal workforce. Has Facebook considered diversity in their hiring practice? The country is 2% Mormon. Maybe Facebook’s company should better reflect that reality.  
2) Maybe Facebook should consider a six-month training program to help their biased and liberal workforce understand and respect conservative opinions and values.  
3) We need to see strong and specific steps to right this wrong.  
It was like affirmative action for conservatives. When did conservatives start demanding quotas AND diversity training AND less people from Ivy League Colleges... 
What happened to us? When did we become them? When did we become the people who demand the Oscars add black actors based on race?
"What happened to us?" Oh Glennda, where have you been? Conservatives are constantly demanding affirmative action, and have been for years. They want affirmative action on Ivy League faculties. They want affirmative action in the mainstream media. They want affirmative action in Hollywood. And so on. Whenever they don't dominate a field, they shriek and wail that it's because they're being oppressed by all-powerful liberals.

And the funny part is, what's really going on is they just can't compete in those marketplaces. If conservatism were what everyone wanted, then they wouldn't need to force Harvard to hire more wingnut professors -- they could just put a little more money in the marketing budgets of Bob Jones, Liberty University, and various other Bible colleges, and watch them become the new Ivy League. This solution to the "Academic Discrimination against Conservatives" that guys like David French of National Review complain about is obvious, indeed self-evident, and completely consonant with supposed free-market values -- surely the Invisible Hand will reward wingnut schools over socialist ones? -- yet they never even bring it up for some reason.

Same's true with Facebook. Why are conservatives blubbering over their underrepresentation on this corrupt liberal social media site they hate so much, anyway? Hasn't the current crisis alerted The People to Facebook's communist provenance? And since The People are with the Right, surely they'll abandon these commie sites toot suite for rightwing ones. Look, here's Freedombook -- which started as Reaganbook and came back in 2014 with its new, freedom-loving name. Since America loves conservatism, surely citizens must be abandoning Facebook in droves -- especially now that they know it's prejudiced against the comedy stylings of Steve Crowder! -- and flocking to Freedombook. Yet I haven't been reading about this new social media phenomenon,  even in National Review and Commentary. Why not?

Because they know it's bullshit, that's why not. Yet everyone, including Zuckerberg, indulges them, because it's easier to make believe they have legitimate grievances than to tell them, "If you don't like it, fuck off to Freedombook and see how far you get," and bear their tantrums afterward. Sigh! This political correctness will be the death of us all.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016


"Yes, Sir, welcome to Mellor's, what can I do for you?"
"It's Miss."
"Excuse me?"
"It's Miss, thank you."
"Nah, I'm going to keep calling you Sir."
"You look like a dude to me. I'm not calling you Miss."
"Well, that's rude."
"Take it or leave it, Mister."
"I'm going to report you to the HRC."
"Shriek, wail, you're oppressing me."

"Seriously," Rod Dreher complains of the requirement that New York businesses refer to the customer by his, her, or (why not) hir pronoun of choice, "how does a business owner operate under these conditions, even a business owner who wants to do the right thing?" I suppose for Dreher just not being a douchebag isn't an option.