Patterico's Pontifications

10/31/2015

Happy Halloween, I Think…

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:29 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I don’t know about where you live, but in my neck of the woods, Halloween is a community effort (and elevated art form) resulting in amazing hundred-year old Victorian homes decked out like massive pirate ships with skeletons at the helm, haunted houses with ghosts flitting across big front porches and giant spiders creeping down from rooftops, as well as cackling witches popping up from behind headstones in front yards transformed into cemeteries. In other words, it’s a fabulous night where the community turns out in all its ghoulish finery, ready for a howling good time. And because everyone seems to be having such a great time, no one much seems to care what anyone else is wearing.

But, never a group to waste an opportunity, the Social Justice Warriors have been out in full-force as they once again instruct the public about Halloween costumes and being culturally sensitive. At the top of the Costume Hall of Shame list, of course, is the Caitlyn Jenner costume, because it “marginalizes the entire transgender community. Not only does it mock a living person, but also trivializes the struggle of 0.3% of the U.S.’s adult population.”

Untitled-4

A few more unacceptable costumes, in all their absurd glory:

Untitled-2

Untitled-1

Perhaps most offensive frightening of all: the sexy Donald Trump costume. Yes, it’s a thing:

Untitled-5

And just so Patterico readers don’t show up at a Halloween party wearing their Cultural Ignoramus costume, you can watch this instructive video:

Anyway, you get the picture. But you know what costume isn’t considered socially offensive and doesn’t make any list of social awfulness? Uber- ghoul Lena Dunham tells us:

Untitled-3

Because nothing screams newsy, sexy and cool like a baby butcher. Of course, those most hurt and offended are dead and unable to voice their objections.

–Dana

Two White Privileged Males School Melissa Harris-Perry

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:28 am

[guest post by Dana]

Earlier this week, I posted about SJW Melissa Harris-Perry, who cautioned executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, Alfonso Aguilar, about describing Paul Ryan as a “hard worker”. To SJW Harris-Perry, Ryan, a white, male Republican basking in the luxurious lap of his obvious top-tier privilege, “hard worker” couldn’t possibly be accurate. Because everything must be filtered through the lens of “relative privilege” (see: political identity, gender, power and race). Hence her “image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.”

The Washington Post’s Eric Wemple took issue with Harris-Perry’s scolding of Aguilar and looked at transcripts from her show to see when “hard work” was used by her without any qualifiers:

On Sept. 12, Harris-Perry played a clip of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton saying, “If we women stand together and fight together, we can make our country stronger, we can make our country fairer. We women are not afraid of hard work. And that’s good because we’ve got some hard work to do.”

* On Sept. 6, Harris-Perry, in a discussion about race and policing, said, “What I don’t want to miss is that policing is in fact actually hard work, and there are things that make policing a more dangerous or less dangerous job. And I guess, part of what I’m interested in is, what those sort of facts are, what actually makes it harder or more dangerous to be a police officer.”

* On Aug. 30, Harris-Perry addressed whether a work ethic was critical to the advancement of retired brain surgeon and Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson: “I don’t know whether or not he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. My suggestion to be actually is that’s probably is not the full story,” said Harris-Perry. When challenged on that assertion, Harris-Perry defended, “I think that hard work is necessary but insufficient condition for success. Which is simply to say, must we work hard? Absolutely. But does hard work necessarily lead to success? No. And so I always want to think about the other side.”

* On Aug. 9, Harris-Perry interviewed actor O’Shea Jackson Jr. from “Straight Outta Compton.” Jackson said, “This is a big-time film that could make or break [producer F. Gary Gray]. He’s not going to just let it go to just appease his friends so they put me through the ringer and all that hard work is building confidence within me, if they needed me I’d do it again.”

* On May 30, Harris-Perry addressed the corruption scandal at FIFA and took this clip from organization President Sepp Blatter: “I will not allow the actions of a few to destroy the hard work and the integrity of the vast majority of those who work so hard for football.”

* On May 3, Harris-Perry highlighted the work of a Baltimore program in which teenagers serve as liaisons to the police. Addressing the youngsters, she said, “Thank you for the work that you are doing on the ground there. Stay safe, stay positive, and keep doing the hard work.”

* On Feb. 28, Harris-Perry focused on labor issues in Gov. Scott Walker’s Wisconsin, and interviewed a union activist who attacked the governor for his policies: “He should apologize to the hard-working men and women of Wisconsin.”

Do you see a pattern here? It’s not difficult. As Wemple points out:

In none of those instances did Harris-Perry uncork any lectures about the historical context of hard work or hard workers. Perhaps that’s because those discussions didn’t fit into the framework of “relative privilege,” which the host cited as the trigger for her outburst against Aguilar.

The lesson, of course, is nothing new: if one’s political identification resemble Harris-Perry’s, you can be deemed a hard worker. But clearly Republicans don’t meet the criteria. And God forbid you are a white, Christian male. From there you can do the identity math.

Also responding to Harris-Perry was Mike Rowe, whose show Dirty Jobs recognized the hard working men and women of our country who are unafraid and unashamed to take on the dirty jobs that keep the American wheel turning:

Melissa Harris-Perry appears to be put off by the suggestion that “hard work” is too often linked with success. She doesn’t like the fact that many hard-working individuals have not enjoyed the same measure of success as Speaker Ryan, who was being acknowledged on her show for his excellent work ethic.

To me, it sounds as though Melissa is displaying images of slavery or drudgery in her office to remind herself of what hard work really and truly looks like. That’s a bit like hanging images of rape and bondage to better illustrate the true nature of human sexuality. Whatever her logic might be, it’s difficult to respond without first pointing out a few things that most people will find screamingly obvious. So let’s do that.

First of all, slavery is not “hard work;” it’s forced labor. There’s a big difference. Likewise, slaves are not workers; they are by definition, property. They have no freedom, no hope, and no rights. Yes, they work hard, obviously. But there can be no “work ethic” among slaves, because the slave has no choice in the matter.

Workers on the other hand, have free will. They are free to work as hard as they wish. Or not. The choice is theirs. And their decision to work hard, or not, is not a function of compliance or coercion; it’s a reflection of character and ambition.

This business of conflating hard work with forced labor not only minimizes the importance of a decent work ethic, it diminishes the unspeakable horror of slavery. Unfortunately, people do this all the time. We routinely describe bosses as “slave-drivers,” and paychecks as “slave’s wages.” Melissa though, has come at it from the other side. She’s suggesting that because certain “hard workers” are not as prosperous as other “hard workers,” – like the people on her office wall – we should all be “super-careful” about overly-praising hard work.

I suspect this is because Melissa believes – as do many others – that success today is mostly a function of what she calls, “relative privilege.” This is fancy talk for the simple fact that life is unfair, and some people are born with more advantages than others. It’s also a fine way to prepare the unsuspecting viewer for the extraordinary suggestion that slavery is proof-positive that hard work doesn’t pay off.

But of course, given the “relative privilege” of the two people involved in criticizing Harris-Perry, you might want to take it all with a grain of white salt.

–Dana

10/30/2015

Democrat Debate: Bad Lip Reading Version

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:27 am

They make more sense in this version than they did in the real one.

10/29/2015

Justin Amash: I Was for Daniel Webster

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:59 pm

Sounds like Justin Amash was one of the people in the House Freedom Caucus who did not contribute to the supermajority for Paul Ryan:

As noted, the primary concern of the House Freedom Caucus in choosing a new speaker has been the candidate’s dedication to an open process, not his commitment to a particular ideology or specific policy outcomes. After several discussions with the candidates and among our members, a supermajority of our caucus determined that the Republican Conference nominee, whether Dan [Webster] or Paul [Ryan], deserved an opportunity to serve as speaker with our support for the remainder of Speaker John Boehner’s term.

On Wednesday, the Republican Conference held its nominating contest for speaker. I joined the House Freedom Caucus in voting for Dan, but Paul secured the greatest number of votes, earning the nomination of the Republican Conference 200-43-1-1. Following the vote, Dan stated that he would not formally vie for speaker on the House floor in today’s constitutionally prescribed election. Dan is an honorable man, and he has earned my admiration and more for his principles and effort.

Paul now has a chance to show that he can restore respect and order to our institution. The House must work as a deliberative body that reflects the will of the American people and defends the Constitution. I look forward to working with Speaker Ryan and all my colleagues to make that happen.

I like Justin Amash.

Incredible Interactive Map Shows Migration Patterns to Europe

Filed under: General — JVW @ 8:41 pm

[guest post by JVW]

I’ll be really lucky if this embeds properly, but a site called Lucify.com has a truly awesome interactive map which tracks migration into Europe from North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Persian Gulf. If it doesn’t show up below, go to the site on their page here.

lucifyEmbed(“lucify-Ey8udBOWg”, “http://www.lucify.com/embed/the-flow-towards-europe/”)

UPDATE: Ah, no such luck on the embed. Go to the site to see the tool; it’s well worth it.

– JVW

GOP Debate Catch-Up

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:31 pm

I am slammed at work and only tonight am I getting to watch last night’s debate. (Hey, if you want me as a full-time pundit and you are a multimillionaire with money to burn, call me, babe. Otherwise, work comes first.) I have read almost nothing about it (except what I see here!), so you’re getting my unfiltered views. I am one hour in and so far I have clapped at three moments:

1) Ted Cruz pointing out how biased the questioners are.

2) Ben Carson talking about how bogus PC nonsense is the problem.

3) Ben Carson saying moments later, concerning the moderator’s incredible bias (which prompted booing from the audience): “See? They know.”

Great stuff. Enjoying it so far. Especially enjoying watching some pushback on the total hacks running the debate.

Anyone who thinks it was a mistake letting the leftist hacks moderate the debate is overlooking one key factor: the mileage the candidates get from exposing the moderators as leftist hacks.

Onto hour two! (Thanks, Donald, for saving me an hour of time. I owe you, buddy.)

UPDATE: Bill H. asks where you can watch the debate if you missed it. You can watch it on patterico.com, is where you can watch it.

Marco Rubio: Hillary Clinton Exposed As A Liar; Charlie Rose: You Can’t Say That!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:12 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Although I have reservations about Marco Rubio, he had a couple of terrific moments last night at the debate. And he was back at it again this morning, much to the annoyance of a befuddled Charlie Rose on CBS.

Here’s what happened: last night Rubio made this comment in response to Donald Trump’s comments on H1B visas:

I know the Democrats have the ultimate SuperPac. It’s called the mainstream media who every single day…and I’ll tell you why. Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, “Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.” She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It was the week she got exposed as a liar. It was the week that she got exposed as a liar…

This morning, Charlie Rose confronted Rubio about his claims, and made a concerted effort to get the audacious Rubio to take back his words. In spite of using his I Am A Professional Journalist voice to challenge Rubio, Rose clearly misjudged the young upstart who punched back twice as hard. (Notice the priceless look of sheer disbelief on Rubio’s face as Rose continually misfires.) :

Here is the “Hillary exposed as a liar” moment:

–Dana

10/28/2015

Ted Cruz: Let Me Tell You Why The American People Don’t Trust The Media

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:29 pm

[guest post by Dana]


CRUZ: “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate, illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. And if you look at the questions, Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do the math? John Kasich, can you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues — “

QUINTANILLA: “Does this count? Do we get credit for this one?”

CRUZ: “And Carl, I’m not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every fawning question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and wise?”

CNBC: “Let me say, you have 30 seconds left to answer should you choose to do so.”

CRUZ: “Let me be clear. The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Menchavicks. Nobody watching at home believes that any of the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primer. The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive — “

CNBC: “I asked you about the debt limit and got no answer.”

It’s unsurprising that those who are a part of the media that Cruz neatly nailed to the wall are hellbent on denying that any evisceration took place.

–Dana

UPDATE: Last night’s biggest loser, moderator John Harwood’s post-debate observation:

John Harwood

@JohnJHarwood

moderating GOP debate in 2015 enriched my understanding of challenges @SpeakerBoehner has faced and @RepPaulRyan will face
5:34 AM – 29 Oct 2015

GOP Debate Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 4:26 pm

[guest post by Dana]

The top-tier debate starts at 8:00 pm ET from the University of Colorado’s Coors Events Center, where 10,000 of the 11,000 seats will be empty . It will air on CNBC.

Debating in the top-tier will be: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie.

And to add some amusement to this tragicomedy, Rand Paul and Chris Christie’s campaigns are complaining about their greenrooms being dominated by toilets. Also, let’s not forget that this debate will be moderated by the ever-impartial and unbiased John Harwood of CNBC.

–Dana

Paul Ryan Will Support Autocratic Budget Deal With Its Spending Increases

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:38 am

More spending for all? Hey, supporting that is all about being a team player!

After sharply criticizing how it came together, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan announced he would support the budget deal Wednesday.

“What I’ve heard from members over the last two weeks is a desire to wipe the slate clean, put in place a process that builds trust, and start focusing on big ideas,” Ryan said in a statement. “What has been produced will go a long way toward relieving the uncertainty hanging over us, and that’s why I intend to support it. It’s time for us to turn the page on the last few years and get to work on a bold agenda that we can take to the American people.”

Look for more of this “bold agenda” of business as usual going forward.

UPDATE: The New York Times says the budget deal is a win for Obama, since the tiny sequestration caps are history:

The deal is the policy equivalent of keeping the lights on — hardly the stuff of a bold fiscal legacy. But it achieves the main objective of his 2016 budget: to break free of the spending shackles he agreed to when he signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, an outcome, the president allowed Tuesday, that he could be “pretty happy” about. . . . The result was a deal that would raise spending $80 billion, or about 1 percent, over the next two years while enacting an array of cuts that Democrats found palatable.

. . . .

“This shouldn’t be mistaken for some overarching grand bargain, but there’s a lot in here the White House likes and not much they don’t,” said Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and now a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. “Most importantly, if the deal prevails, they won’t have to deal with budget nonsense for the rest of the term, which has got to look pretty sweet.”

I think our new Speaker should definitely be on board for something the Democrats think is “pretty sweet.” As long as Barack Obama is “pretty happy” then what more can we ask for?

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1887 secs.