Patterico's Pontifications


President Obama Campaigning For Another Republican Win In 2020

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:48 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Still refusing to admit that the election outcome was a repudiation of his worldview and policies, President Obama has intently deflected any criticism or responsibility for the Democrats’ stunning across-the-board losses. First, he said he was not responsible for Trump’s rise to power, and then he blamed Hillary Clinton and her weak campaigning and foolish decision to skip showing up in critical states.

Continuing his blame-game denial, Obama is now pointing to Fox News for Clinton’s stunning loss. (One can also assume Fox News is to blame for the Democrats losing 63 House seats, nine Senate seats, 14 governorships and 1,000 state positions as well):

Asked whether he thinks the United States is a progressive country, Obama replied that Democrats are having trouble reaching white working-class voters. “There is a cohort of working-class white voters that voted for me in sizable numbers, but that we’ve had trouble getting to vote for Democrats in midterm elections,” said the president. “In this election, [they] turned out in huge numbers for Trump. And I think that part of it has to do with our inability, our failure, to reach those voters effectively. Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grass-roots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments.”

Show of hands if you’ve been in a bar and watched Fox News at any time in your life. Anyone??

This is just Obama lobbing another derisive “bitter clingers” sneer at Americans who think differently than him, and didn’t buy what he was selling. The same Americans who didn’t take too kindly to his snobby elitism the first time around. And quite obviously, these are Americans whose programming preferences don’t involve watching the President of the United States submit himself to an interview with a woman whose “claim to fame” is sitting in a bathtub filled with Fruit Loops. You know, those kind of Americans.

President Obama spent 8 years pushing Fox News as public enemy number one. In retrospect it might have been smarter for him to have taken advantage of the giant platform available to him all these years and invite interviews, make on-air appearances to explain his policy positions to a less-than-friendly audience, and use the opportunity in an effort to persuade these Americans to actually consider his policies and how they might benefit them. Who knows, if Obama had, maybe Americans in those “big chunks of the country” might have lingered, pulled up a stool, and ordered another round while they watched.


Makeup: What It Hides And What It Reveals, Here And Over There

Filed under: General — Dana @ 4:58 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Yes, people, makeup. But sadly, this isn’t a frivolous girly post. Far from it.

The Washington Post ran an article a few days ago reporting on a Moroccan television station taking a lot of of heat from viewers because a morning talk show host did an on-air demonstration of how Moroccan women could effectively use makeup to hide the bruises on their faces after being pummeled by their husbands:

The smiling woman on the daily Moroccan television show spoke to viewers as if it were any other makeup tutorial, comparing brands and hues of face foundation and demonstrating how to apply it.

Seated next to her was a woman with what appeared to be a black eye and bruises on her cheekbones.

“After the beating, this part is still sensitive, so don’t press,” the host said in Arabic as she applied makeup on the woman’s face, eventually concealing the woman’s bruises.

“Make sure to use loose powder to fix the makeup so if you have to work throughout the day, the bruises don’t show,” she said.

The makeup tutorial, aired Wednesday on Moroccan state television, instructed viewers how to use concealer to “camouflage the traces of violence against women”[.]

According to the show’s host:

“It’s a subject we shouldn’t talk about, but unfortunately that’s what it is,” the segment’s host, Lilia Mouline, said in the tutorial. “We hope that these beauty tips help you carry on with your normal life.”

A normal life. This is what constitutes “normal” over there.

Obviously the video (at the link) is deeply troubling, to say the least. But also troubling, along with the normalization of domestic violence toward women in a country where “nearly two-thirds — 62.8 percent — of women ages 18 to 65 had experienced physical, psychological, sexual or economic violence,” is the Washington Post’s convenient avoidance of pointing to any root cause of this accepted degradation of women. When news outlets in the West choose to carefully apply their own unique brand of journalistic makeup in a willful effort to conceal that which lies beneath the bruising, it’s difficult to not see it as anything other than a tacit approval for that which is abhorrent or a willingness to go along to get along. Both of which reveal a lack of journalistic honesty and backbone. And no application of makeup can conceal that deep of a flaw.

And because we’re talking makeup in a part of the world where it is a powerful tool used to transform a woman’s face from a black and blue wasteland into some illusion of non-abused beauty, it’s worth looking at the truly mind-boggling other end of the spectrum where Hillary Clinton’s post-election decision to let her bruising loss show on her face, is ridiculously, and embarrassingly turned into some sort a holy sacrifice in the name of Freedom:

We shouldn’t be talking about Hillary’s face. The act of mentioning her hair (yet again) is like adding insult to injury after all she’s been through. But we’ve been studying that face for so long, and this shift is so significant — like when she ditched her glasses and cut her hair and took her husband’s name back in the early ’80s. Now, with her bare-faced post-election look, Hillary Clinton is once again a perfect societal inkblot.

Do you see Hillary’s bare face as a grim admission that she’s been striving too hard on the trail, or do you see her choice to forsake hairspray as a cathartic fuck-you to the whole damn operation of being a woman in the public eye? Are her puffy under-eyes an exhibition of grief or, as one callous article suggested, a ploy to stoke our sympathies? Did she send her hair-and-makeup team home or just decide (like a few other celebrities) that she was done living a lie? Maybe she was worried about crying. I know I’ve been avoiding eye makeup since the election for that reason.

“You can’t look at that face and not feel deeply moved by all of this. Whether you like her or you hate her. There’s beaten, and then there’s no-makeup beaten,” says Sharron, a woman of 68. “She’d been looking so terrific. It’s hard to see her just stop.”

Every day of the campaign, Hillary painted on a mask meant to obscure strain and effort, to give an appearance of unending, superhuman stamina. Now that’s been replaced by real stamina — the kind that makes you walk out the door and face the world without a lick of mascara.


The Definition of Insanity. . . [Updated]

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:10 am

[guest post by JVW]

. . . is doing the same thing over and over again yet somehow expecting a different result.

Sure it’s a cliché, but in this case it is entirely apt no matter how much it might cheese off the creeps over at Salon.

Thanks Democrats. The party of the young and the multicultural is now led by a 76-year-old white woman and a 66-year-old white man. You can’t make this stuff up.

The number two House Democrat? Seventy-seven-year-old white male.

The number two Senate Democrat? Seventy-two-year-old white male.

Fixed the bad first link as reported by Patricia. Thanks for pointing that out.


Hillary’s Eye-Opening Tweet Attacking “Racist Hate Speech”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am

Imagine my surprise this morning when I looked at my computer screen and saw this:


On one hand, it seems like there is some trolling going on here. The structure of the tweet is very similar to what Donald Trump tweeted yesterday about stripping citizens of their citizenship for burning a flag.

And yet, the attitude of the person who created this tweet is scary, isn’t it? It’s fairly terrifying that someone with this attitude towards speech could get near the levers of power in this country. Not only is she talking about punishing speech that is protected under the Constitution, but the method of “punishment” she describes seems blatantly unconstitutional, especially when targeted towards a disfavored category of expression.

Trolling or not, the tweet reveals a mindset of someone who should not be president.

Whispered: Psssst. Come over here.

By now, all the Trumpers who never read anything past the first three paragraphs are gone, most likely to rant about Hillary’s tweet on Facebook. Meanwhile, I can let the rest of you in on the joke: there is some trolling going on here, but the perp isn’t Hillary Clinton . . . it’s me. You don’t have to “imagine my surprise” when I saw this tweet, because I felt no actual surprise. I first saw the tweet this morning after composing it on a site that allows you to generate fake tweets.

Yesterday I published a post that called Donald Trump a “dangerous demagogue” for posting this tweet:

The reaction of many commenters was to shrug it off. Most of them dislike the speech in question anyway, and some are convinced that the Court should never have protected it to begin with — or, at the very least, that the minority had a good argument for wanting to ban it. And the punishment proposed by Trump convinced many that he was just “popping off” or trolling people. And even if he was serious, he could never get away with what he proposed. So therefore, the reaction was not “Mr. President-elect, please do not tweet blatantly unconstitutional proposals.” The reaction instead was: shut up, Patterico, with your whining about Trump!

This post, then, is a thought experiment designed to have people imagine their reaction if the candidate they love to hate made a similar tweet about speech.

After all, leftists dislike hate speech, especially racist hate speech. Many are convinced that the Court should never have protected it — or, at the very least, that the minority had a good argument for wanting to ban it. And “Hillary’s” proposal for 100% confiscation of wealth certainly could not be taken seriously.

So: if the tweet at the beginning of this post were real, it wouldn’t bother you. Right, guys?

By the way, I recognize that the sort of argument that I am making here convinces precisely nobody. There is not a single person who defends Trump for his tweet, gets upset about the fake Hillary tweet above, and then engages in some soul-searching about whether their inconsistent reaction results from hypocritical partisanship. Not one! In fact, most Trump defenders who made it this far in the post are now skipping the end to run and write their comments about how the Hillary tweet is totally different, proves absolutely nothing, and by the way Patterico is a big jerk and stupidhead.

So relax, Trump defenders. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m just having a little fun tweaking you.

And anyway . . . are you sure the tweet isn’t real?

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0690 secs.