Patterico's Pontifications


Dennis Quaid Reveal

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:37 pm

This is too good to relegate to a mere comment or update. The obviously fake Dennis Quaid freakout video was . . . fake. Here is the amusing reveal. Thanks to Gazzer.

The Patterico Music Project (Hopefully) to Continue on Monday; UPDATE: It’s a Go!

Filed under: General,Music,Music by Patterico — Patterico @ 8:50 pm

I’m just securing permission from the artist to share his work. I am cautiously confident that the permission will be forthcoming.

The cover is (in my opinion) very, very entertaining. It is, in many ways, very different from my original song, but in a way that is whimsical and delightful and utterly satisfying. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

In the meantime, enjoy this utterly unrelated video by an artist who may or may not be the man who covered my song.

P.S. If reader Rich Horton is not immediately and painfully envious, I will consider all of this to have been in vain.

UPDATE: Permission secured.

Rich Horton has heard the song and seems to like it. All is right with the world.

Hillary’s Fake Meeting With Everyday Iowans

Filed under: General — JD @ 3:00 pm

[guest post by JD]

It seems that practically everything since Hillary’s shocking announcement that she is running for President has been scripted, staged, faked, and/or recycled. The “spontaneous” van trip with the same stupid nickname almost 2 decades old was the exact same campaign stunt she used when she first ran as a carpetbagger for Senate. Then we were treated to MFM gushing about how real she is being by doing such things as stopping for gasoline, and eating, as though doing things that are routine and required somehow makes her Presidential. Ironically, she didn’t interact with the staff, and wasnt recognized at Chipotle, so her campaign tipped off the NY Times to go look at the security footage at the restaurant so they could talk about how fun and real it is that she ate a burrito. Then, to top in all off, her informal spontaneous roundtable meeting with ordinary everyday Iowans at a coffeeshop was a scripted event, with customers that just happened to be there as a result of having been screened by the prior Iowa Dem party chair, who has since moved on to work for the right pointing hospital sign campaign. Read the linked article below to see what they consider to be everyday Iowans. Literally nothing has been real. yet the MFM orgasm persists.

At this point, she should abandon all pretenses of trying to connect, simply ward off any Dem challengers, and allow the MFM to carry her home for the win. She is awful at politics, and the more she tries to be something she is not, the worse she will do.

– JD

No Name, We Need Your Help

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:29 am

No Name,

Today is a very important day for your federal government. We need your help to keep it going, and we need you to send a sizeable portion of your annual income to make sure it does. Just think of all the things that your federal government does for you. Things like:

  • Tax you
  • Spend your money on things people wouldn’t voluntarily buy themselves
  • Borrow money
  • Fail to secure the border

And so much more!

Last year, with your help, we raised over $3 trillion in taxes. To exceed that limit, we need your help.

We want you to be able to look into your children’s eyes and know that their future in America is going to one burdened with a crushing and unpayable debt. No Name, in order to make those dreams a reality, we are asking for your immediate support. To be honest, we’re not asking for it. We are demanding it.

Won’t you stand with us on this federal income tax day and make your contribution of 10%, 25%, 35%, or even 39.6% of everything you make?

No Name, we’re not going to run your typical kind of federal government, full of smokescreens and empty promises. We promise to regulate businesses into submission, rewrite tax provisions so that they bear no relationship to what Congress wrote, and manage the economy with a group of elites headed by a political appointee. These are not empty promises, No Name. You can take them to the central bank, where we will redeem them in pieces of paper that we promise will lose more value every year.

Remember: the other countries around the world are watching our intake like hawks. The amount we raise over the next 24 hours will be scrutinized and viewed as a symbol of the strength of our country. That is why we urgently need your support right now.

Thank you for your devotion and commitment to taking back our country. And remember: if you don’t make your voluntary contribution, men with guns will be at your door, to take you to a room with locked doors and no windows, to spend a few years with a violent rapist.

So won’t you make your contribution today?

Who Is Your Pick for President, and Why?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am

At this point, if you had to vote for someone for President, who would you vote for?

First vote in this poll, which has some of the major contenders. Don’t think of it as a commitment; just a question of who you like best right now.

Who is currently your favorite candidate for president?
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Ted Cruz
Bobby Jindal
Rand Paul
Rick Perry
Marco Rubio
Scott Walker

Poll Maker

Then leave a comment telling us more. Who would you vote for, who would you give money to, who would you like to see run — whatever. Name names and give specific reasons. Even if it’s a libertarian, or a Democrat, or a Green Party person, or whatever. Someone not in the poll? Fine. I don’t care. Tell us.

One rule for comments in this thread, though — and I warn you: it will be tough to follow.

Only positive comments are allowed in this thread. That means — for this thread only — no comments criticizing another person’s choice, or saying who you don’t want as President, or explaining why someone can’t win.

This is not about censorship. It’s an exercise designed to make you think in a way you might not be used to thinking. We’re looking for positive reasons to vote for somebody, not criticisms, so you have to turn off the part of your brain that says “so and so can’t win” or “candidate x is an idiot.” Just tell us why your guy or gal is good.

Also, I’m just not interested in your opinion that it’s too early to know. I know that’s how some of you feel, and that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with having that opinion. What is wrong is telling me that opinion in this thread — because I just asked you not to. Tell us all about your desire to wait to form a judgment — just do it in another thread. Not this one. OK?

The only negative comments allowed in the thread will be from me, heaping abuse on people who can’t follow simple directions. I don’t plan to be nice to such people — but I think well enough of you that I don’t think I will have to insult too many people. Hopefully none.

So: who do you like and why?

UPDATE: The votes for Rick Perry appear to have been manipulated. After getting only a handful of votes for the first few days, all of a sudden he is in a commanding (if totally phony) “lead.”

And a spate of pro-Perry comments sprang up out of nowhere, from never-before-heard-from commenters who aren’t answering my polite questions about how they got here — and whom I suspect we will never hear from again.



Media Swoons Over Dear Leader (To Be)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:38 pm

Today in North Korea, the national press followed around Dear Leader. The most important news outlet in the country wrote odes to his supposed common humanity, even though the world knows he lives a life of luxury that far exceeds that of the peons he pretends to bond with. The same state propaganda organ dwelled on the food he ate. Another state-dominated site praised his Great Skill at making videos. And when it looked like he might make an appearance, everyone ran like mad, like a herd of crazed sheep, just for the chance to spend a moment somewhat near the Dear Leader.

Scary and creepy, these places with a cult of personality. Sheesh.

Oh, wait. That wasn’t Kim Jong-un. That was Hillary Clinton.

NYT: Hillary Clinton, Just an Unrecognized Burrito Bowl Fan at Chipotle

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign is all about “everyday Americans,” she made clear in announcing it on Sunday.

On Monday, she showed how unassuming she herself could be.

NYT: Hillary Clinton’s Chipotle Order: Above Average

On Monday, Hillary Rodham Clinton ordered a burrito bowl at a Chipotle outside Toledo, Ohio.

. . . .

At the time of this writing, much about Mrs. Clinton’s order was still unknown. We do know that it was a chicken bowl (with guacamole, according to ABC News). Less known, but critical: Did she get rice and beans, which are free with the order? What about fajita vegetables, or more than one kind of salsa? Even more important, from a calorie perspective: Did she include cheese and sour cream?

(Yes, yes, it was “tongue in cheek.” It was still a full-length piece in the New York Times.)

Vox: Review: Hillary Clinton’s announcement video is surprisingly bold, fascinating filmmaking

Hillary Clinton’s video announcing her run for president in 2016 is a fascinating piece of filmmaking, and it does something I haven’t seen a political campaign ad do in quite this way. . . . [I]t could change how these sorts of announcements are approached for the foreseeable future.

Journalists run — literally run — towards the rather luxurious-looking “Scooby Van”:

Benny Hill Vine version (make sure to turn on the sound for the Yakety Sax).

Hillary’s campaign manager explains the strategy, courtesy of Steven Crowder:


P.S. Have you seen Chelsea’s $10.5 million apartment? It’s across the street from hubby’s $4 million “starter pad.”

She’s just like you and me!!!!

Dennis Quaid’s Likely Fake Tantrum

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:53 pm

TMZ breathlessly declares: “Dennis Quaid went absolutely berserk on the set of a movie.” Video (language warning):

“Dopey the Dick,” you say? Kind of hard not to think of this:

Consensus is that this time, it’s not Ellen calling the shots, but probably Jimmy Kimmel.

TMZ does cover its posterior a bit, conceding at the end of the post: “It’s possible the whole thing is fake … he’s an actor, after all.” And as Fox News drolly observes:

It’s not clear when the video was taken, and according to the International Movie Database, Quaid currently does not have any movies in production.

You don’t say.

UPDATE: And the reveal. H/t Gazzer. Don’t blame Jimmy Kimmel. Credit goes to Funny or Die.

It’s Now Been One Year

Filed under: General — JVW @ 8:44 pm

[guest post by JVW]

On this day one year ago the evil Islamic militants of Boko Haram abducted 276 schoolgirls from a government school in Nigeria. Though 53 of them later managed to escape, to date the other 223 remain unaccounted for. Our own Dana covered the issue a couple of weeks later. In addition, sympathetic parties here in the U.S. led by our influential celebritocracy responded with a massive hashtag campaign waged on social media to convince the militants to return the girls.

BringBackOurGirls 2

Amazingly enough, Boko Haram has turned out to be unusually resistant to this coordinated tactical maneuver conceived by the cream of the Washington-Hollywood power elite.

Sarcasm aside, the facts are this: the world can be an ugly place, and is probably at its ugliest where Islamic radicals feel they have free rein to impose their backwards beliefs upon all whom they encounter. Whether it is the kidnapping of schoolgirls or the slaughter of Christians, this crisis can’t be addressed with snappy hashtags delivered by actors who are practiced at looking dour and concerned as they flit their way from exclusive event to exclusive event. And that should go double for our elected leaders who ought to have no real excuse for such perfunctory theatrics except for the fact that today we seem to elect them based upon the most superficial of criteria.

As Dana reminded us last year, these girls deserve to remain in our prayers.


Jack Dunphy on the South Carolina Shooting

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:36 pm

Jack Dunphy:

I’m in no way suggesting that witness Feidin Santana planned it this way when he shot the video, but the video is timed precisely to show that portion of the incident most damning to Slager. As the video opens we can hear the sound of a siren and that of a Taser being activated. We hear a voice, presumably Slager’s, saying something inaudible, followed by “I’ll shoot you.” When Slager and Scott come into view, at about 0:17 into the video, the two are an arm’s length apart, with Scott appearing to turn away and Slager reaching for his holstered pistol. The Taser wires, which connect the device to two darts fired from it, can be seen extending between Scott and Slager, and the Taser itself can be seen landing on the ground five to six feet behind Slager. Feidin Santana has said that Scott did not grab the Taser, but if he didn’t, how else to explain how it ended up on the ground behind Slager?

I suspect that Slager’s defense will be to claim that Scott did indeed grab the Taser, a claim not entirely unreasonable given where the device landed before the shooting. And I suspect he moved the Taser in a panicked attempt to bring the evidence into conformance with his mistaken perception of what had occurred. If a suspect gains control of an officer’s Taser and is preparing to use it against him, deadly force can be justified in defense. But once the threat has ended, so too must the use of deadly force. I think when Slager drew his weapon, he truly believed Scott still had the Taser. He had made the decision to fire, and he was unable to process the change in circumstances that made the use of deadly force unreasonable and therefore unlawful.

And this is where Slager all but shredded his only potential defense. If he had left the crime scene undisturbed, if he had allowed the evidence to speak for itself, any presence of Scott’s DNA on the Taser could only be explained by his having grabbed it as Slager claimed. As things now stand, if Scott’s DNA is found on the Taser, prosecutors can argue it was transferred by Slager’s handling of it after handcuffing Scott. In acting as he did, Slager not only destroyed his own credibility, he tainted the very forensic evidence that might have supported his already weak claim of self-defense.

Whatever Slager’s crimes, there is still a moral distinction to be made between a cop who errs, even as catastrophically as he did, and someone who kills in the course of a robbery or a gang feud or some other act of depravity. When the process has run its course, he will have earned the punishment the law prescribes for him. He has tarnished the police profession and made our job more difficult, but I cannot bring myself to hate him.

There is also a legal distinction between someone who kills in a premeditated fashion because, say, he hates rival gang members, and someone who uses deadly force unreasonably with an honest belief that he needed to use it. The former may be guilty of first-degree murder, while the latter may be guilty only of voluntary manslaughter. (Whether Slager had such an honest belief depends on the entirety of the evidence, but it is not an absurd notion.) These is also a distinction between a killer with no job-related duty to detain the decedent, who encounters no physical force from the decedent, and someone like Slager who does have such a duty to catch bad guys, who seems to have encountered resistance and force along the way.

To me, there are still unanswered questions. I have seen posts such as this one claiming that perhaps the Taser wire in the video was hanging off of Slager and not Scott — suggesting that Scott may have Tased Slager. The post in question has a picture of Slager with his left pants leg rolled up, as if he is showing an injury. I don’t know whether the analysis holds water or not, but it’s worth thinking about. I am not aware of whether Slager claimed that he was actually Tased himself (I see people confidently asserting what his claims are, or are not, but I am not sure what the basis for these confident assertions are), but I think that issue could be relevant to his state of mind. So yes, I persist in stubbornly refusing to leap to the confident judgments that most of the rest of the world has leapt to.

I think Dunphy has good insights here, but then, he always does.

Chuck Todd Reprimanded by World for Claiming Recycled Hillary “Scooby Van” Stunt Was “Spontaneous”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:40 am

In short order, Zeke Miller at TIME resurrected this quote from Daniel Halper’s book Clinton, Inc., about Hillary’s 2000 Senate run:

They were driving around New York in an armored brown van, “which we had called the mystery machine, the Scooby Doo van, which was an interesting thing to drive and learn to manipulate,” the agent tells me in an interview. That’s because Hillary and her staff objected to the customary limo the First Lady would normally use. They complained the “optics” weren’t right for an aspiring senator who wanted to look like she was a woman of the people—and not a product of the White House.

Yeah, nothing says “spontaneous” like a recycled stunt done for reasons of “optics.”

A few people let Chuck Todd know. I piled on, because justified piling on is fun:

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1821 secs.