Sunday, September 15, 2019

What A Weekend!

This was one of those weekends, to add to one of those months to add, to add to one of those years.

● Spent Saturday night (about 7 hours) in the ER after my father fell. He's alright, so that's good. But he said something that bothered me. I was there with him the whole time of course, but he thanked me for coming. I said of course I would be there, and he said that it seems a lot of people wouldn't do that anymore. This statement bothers me. I've been wondering what he sees in the world that makes him think that's true. Have we become that shitty as a human race that this could be true? I know some people that I doubt would go... that makes me really sad, actually. It seems like the shitty among us keep finding new depths.

● Ric Ocasek died, adding to the toll of dead musicians in the past year. I guess there's a race between musicians and billionaires to see who can pile up more dead this year. I don't miss the billionaires. I do miss the musicians. That actually confirms something to me that I think conservatives have wrong: artists are more important than businessmen.

● Felicity Huffman got sentenced to 14 days in prison for the college bribery scandal. This has brought howls of "white privilege." Ridiculous. The reason she got no real jail time is because her "crime" involves handing large amounts of her own money to a school in the hopes that her kids could enroll there. Who is actually harmed by that? Yes, I know, some other student who didn't make it, right? Yeah, but since she could have donated the money openly and gotten the same treatment, is there really a genuine harm? Now compare that to all the "innocent" young black men we're supposed to believe are in jail because they lack white privilege. (White privilege apparently extends to black women, as they don't go to jail either.) What did they do to get there? First, most (like their white prisoner cousins) have long, long, long histories of violence, robberies, B&E, beating their girlfriends, etc. NONE of them are in on a single charge. And what they did was shoot a fellow black male over drug turf, beat a black girlfriend to a pulp, rob and beat some old black woman for her money, or rape someone. Don't talk to me about white privilege over this. That's BS. A white woman who gives away millions in a bribe to help her daughter is not the moral equivalent of thug who terrorizes his own neighborhood and destroys lives.

● Also on Huffman, I do think that this scandal has exposed the issue with elitism. But I find it rather disturbing that the elitist left is crapping on her as a sacrificial lamb. They're all doing it. They're all rigging the game. They all protect their own across the board for all their behavior. Burning Huffman at the stake will not rid them of that stain.

● I think the Democratic field is set, and much quicker than expected. No outsider jumped in. Starbucks guy bailed out. The fringe freaks are done, even if some are still talking. I think we're looking at Biden v. Bernie v. Warren with a VP lineup of Harris, Buttguy, and (insert accent-wall outsiter here).

[+]

Thursday, September 12, 2019

This Week in Stupidland

I swear people just keep getting more and more stupid all the time. Maybe it's time for another Bible flood or a good plague: "Giant crickets descended from the Heavens and ate everyone with a coexist bumper sticker... and it was good.

● Margaret Attwood, author of the feminist wannabe-victim porn Handmaiden's Tail, which inspired far-left elitist white women to come in costume to Senate hearings to show how little grasp they have on reality, now tells us that she thinks it's "empowering" for women to work at strip clubs. //scratches head Hmm. I'm confused. See, other feminists tell us that forcing women to work at places like that is meant to oppress women (and they're all "forced" by male pressure, btw). Wait, I get it... so the feminist position is that women should be allowed to work at strip clubs so long as men don't enjoy it. Got it. Phew. I'm glad we solved that one!

● Kamala Harris is worried about "segregationists." Seriously. So either she spent the week at a black power rally, or she got stuck in the wayback machine, or she's making that up to try to upset black people... or white women who drive Subarus. Who knows. Let's hope she finds the segregationists she's looking for.

● Biden is worried that Trump is changing the character of the country. Hmm. This is from the king of a group of idiots who want to import vast number of poor brown people who don't speak the language and have no Western tradition, decry every tradition known to man, try to use thought police to change the way people think, want to remove historical figures from history, believe that pledging allegiance to America is racist, want to disarm the military, set criminals free, eliminate meritocracy, ban cigarettes and soda and sugar, take away guns, eliminate the car, ban free speech that doesn't favor them, convert the press into a leftist attack dog, and neuter or omnipowerize the presidency depending on who has it or stack the court or eliminate the fillibuster. And you're worried about Trump? Heck, these idiots have even started swearing because they think it sounds tough. Beto sounds like he has Tourettes now.

● To tell you how absolutely nuts the internet left has gotten, they're furious that they could imagine the stitching in Melania's coat looking kind of like the outline of the body of an airplane, i.e. a tube, if you squint and kind of look at it just right and then do a whole lot of pretending. Clearly, Melania is a monster with some hidden message! Where was she when planes decided on their own to crash into the World Trade Center for no discernible reason? Oh, and Kobe's a monster too for not praising his daughter's team for losing a basketball game.

● The Harvey Weinstein thing keeps getting worse for the #metoo crowd. He just release a bunch of emails from a Netflix producer who claimed he raped her. In these emails, said rapee tells him that she loves him and she praises him profusely even after the rape rape. He also released some Gwenyth Paltrow stuff showing similar praise long after he supposedly assaulted her.

● The game of claiming to be raped or abused as a child or having strange diseases to get publicity/sympathy continues in Hollywood. If you need publicity, pretend to be a victim. Simple. Effective. Just make sure you step your way up. Don't reach for the best stuff at first. This week's "victims" are Demi Moore (rape at 15) and repeat offender Lea Michelle (disease).

● Huh, vaping is dangerous? Nobody could have seen that coming! Yay, Darwin.
[+]

Monday, September 9, 2019

What A Week

Last week was a real head scratcher of a week.

● Joe Biden has "guaranteed" some loser leftist protestor that he will get rid of fossil fuels. Little does she know that his plan is to burn them all. He's going to ban dinosaurs too. Seriously though, what a genuinely retarded thing to ask for and to promise. He might as well promise to feed the world unicorn meat. Someone who could honestly make such a promise lacks the mental capacity to be put in charge of anything.

● I swear to you that Hillary Clinton's newspapers must be two years behind for some reason. Whatever issue she raises is always well past its due date... always. And it's usually a year or so out of date. Well, this week she issued a statement saying that she's "inspired" by Megan Markle. The only problem is that was conventional wisdom a year ago. Now she's seen as a social climbing leftist (though not leftist enough) elitist fame hound who flies on private jets to Hollywood parties and is generally a bad carbon-foot-printed human being. Watch for Hillary to endorse this Alexandria Ocasio Cortex person: "Hillary thinks she's one to watch!"

● The NFL is back and their ratings continue to climb as the whole anti-American thing gets further in the rear view mirror. Leftism doesn't sell.

● Interesting little scandal in Hollywood last week. Second rate sitcom actress Debra Messing declared that she wanted to out Trum supports in Hollywood so they could be blacklisted. This full-in McCarthyism was too much even for her friends, who clearly refer to silently blacklist. She also "liked" an image of a church sign that said that black support for Trump is "mental illness." As so often is the case, the left returns to its Nazi roots.

Capricorn One is on Amazon Prime again. I find that movie fascinating. In particular, I am amazed at the portrayal of the press as respectful, dedicated and hardworking... all things the media is not anymore.

[+]

Monday, September 2, 2019

You Are The Problem

There's a new ad out for some interest group that has a nine year old girl retiring from soccer because she can't handle the pressure. She claims it wasn't what she expected when she joined the sport at age five. The punchline is "If 69% of girls quit one athletic sport before the age of 9, what are we doing wrong?" Well, let me explain it to you.

This one is an easy one, actually.

The number one reason is obvious: this wasn't what these girls wanted to do in the first place. Pure and simple. So rather than lament that something has gone wrong, be thankful that these girls had the good fortune to be able to quit. Isn't feminism supposed to be about choice after all? Or is it about forcing girls to do things feminists want for political reasons? Ok, I guess we know the answer to that.

In fact, I suspect that most of these girls were forced into sports against their will for political reasons, which was then affected with false promises to mothers about their girls becoming leaders and societal pressure pushing these girls through movies and advertisements... "all heroines excel at soccer." The thing is, it's all wrong. Feminists think that pushing girls into sports will somehow give them the same level of aggression that boys have, which feminists think is the basis for leadership. But that's not true. Aggression makes assholes. Confidence makes leaders. What's more, sports don't make boys aggressive. To the contrary, aggression comes naturally to boys and sports are a good way to tame or channel that aggression. So thinking that forcing a passive young girl into soccer will make her aggressive and, even further, a leader is simply wrong. All it will do is make her miserable.

So why are little girls dropping out? Because you forced them into something they didn't want and weren't built for. It's your fault feminists.

So my next question is this: what exactly is this group advocating?

They don't say, but taking the clues they give of too much pressure and parents being too in control and coaches demanding too much, it sounds like they are advocating the elimination of competition in sports. Don't set expectations... don't demand improvement... don't apply any pressure whatsoever. Maybe even eliminate scoring. That worked with the snowflakes, didn't it?

This is so typical of liberalism. To fix a problem that doesn't really exist, and is of their own making in any event, they are advocating the destruction of the thing they wanted or at least the aspects of the thing they wanted it to deliver. To save the village we must destroy the village. To get girls the benefits of playing in sports, we must restructure sports to take away the parts that give the benefits feminists want. Maybe we can just create athletic prowess and team spirit and personal discipline by executive fiat: you have learned discipline by the order of Congress!

I feel bad for girls. They are victims of so much liberal/feminist meddling. Indeed, liberal/feminists just aren't happy with girls and keep trying to re-engineer them into something that doesn't fit their natures, and I've seen the damage in generation after generation. Take the girls of the generation before mine who were told they needed careers and full-time housekeeper skills all the while accepting men as swingers. They ended up overworked, confused and abandoned. Then came my generation who were told to be like boys. They struggled with their femininity and never really became comfortable with it. The next generation was told to be single mothers like Murphy Brown, and those girls all ended up pregnant, single, poor and with out-of-control kids. Then came the snowflakes who were told they deserved CEO responsibilities on intern-level skills and are unemployed and unemployable... and still feel bad they can't play soccer. So now we're doing what to the current generation? Run girls, run.
[+]

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Another One Bites The Dust

More thoughts!

● The Democrats are starting to drop like flies. Colorado Governor Hickenlooper dropped out. He ran as the bland white male governor candidate. Washington Governor Jay Islee dropped out. He ran as the bland white male governor candidate. Now Kirstin Gillibrand has dropped out. She ran as the bland white female sexual harassment fighter. Bland and white is not popular this year. Either way, there are more to come. Some very soon as many aren't qualifying for the upcoming debate. We seem to be headed toward a Biden v. Bernie v. Warren v. Harris primary. Biden v. Neapolitan... red, white and black, I guess. I would not be surprised if they ended up Biden v. Harris. Dumber and dumber.

● Saw something interesting. I saw that lesbians are opposed to Mayor Pete. They would rather have a woman than a fellow gay. This doesn't really surprise me much because lesbians are pretty anti-male, including gays. They have never played well with the rest of the "movement."

● If you believe the polls, Trump is losing big. But I don't believe the polls. The latest thinking is that white women are turning against him. I don't think that's true. The white women who voted for him are conservative voters. They are not "women voters." They don't move back and forth.

● The Epstein thing is pretty stupid. The media seems intent on convicting anyone who ever went to one of his parties of basically joining him in group sex with a chain gang of sex slaves. That's ridiculous. Never believe that the media is at all reasonable.
[+]

Sunday, August 18, 2019


Some things that have come up of late...

● Kathleen Blanco has died. She was the Governor during Katrina. Do you remember Katrina? That was when Dick Cheney conjured a hurricane that targeted only black people, George Bush refused to send troops to New Orleans to save the people who had refused to leave the city as ordered, and Donald Trump raped a bunch of black people in the Super Dome. Blanco, who must have been a Republican, allowed all of this because she was racist... oh wait, she was a Democrat. That's right. She's the one who delayed authorizing the Feds to send in the troops to rescue people. Weird. So she was really at fault? Well, and the dipshits who didn't leave and the thugs who decided to spend their time looting and raping, and the corrupt police overseen by Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin. Wow, now that I think about it, Bush and Cheney really did nothing wrong. So why do they get the blame? Hmm.

● New poll on the Redskin's name. After all the woke sportswriters gnashed their teeth and drew forth tears of great outrage to tell us how racist the name is and how we will all go to racist Hell for even using the word... most of 500 people of American Indian decent in a word association poll responded that the word they think of most when they hear "Redskins" is "proud." Grr. Don't these dumbsh*ts know they're supposed to be offended? A poll in 2016 even found that only 9% of Native Americans were offended by the word with 90% not being bothered. What is wrong with these people? Dammit. Well, never fear. Our team of liberal white sportswriter elitists will keep at it until these stupid people understand they should be offended!

● So Epstein was killed by alien contract killers who work for the Department of Fixing Things after Trump and Putin and AOC and Clinton all signed the contract to have him killed. I hear he was then strangled with his own testicles. Although, I also hear he's not dead and is living in Vegas with Elvis. Either way, he's gone. And now we hear he had a painting of Bill Clinton in a blue dress. Poor Bill. Blue is not his color. Seriously though, barf.

● Beto O'Rourke had his third relaunch... and still nobody cared. You can smell the desperate on that guy.

● Tim Cook of Apple has dinner with Donald Trump. He's also pushing for clean, family friendly films through Apple's production company. And he's talked about the dangers of technology. I'm finding this interesting. Despite being gay, is it possible Cook leans conservative?

● The Log Cabin (Gay) Republicans have endorsed Trump. They didn't before. I think that continues to verify that "gays" are leaving the political process, leaving the door open for both sides to win them individually. Even more, I think it suggests that the poison of the gay issue is disappearing.

[+]

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Killer Control

The Republicans seem to be considering a nod to gun control after the latest round of shootings. I'm actually not opposed. Here's why.

For starters, let me say that I am a huge believer in individual freedom. I am also completely opposed to a liberal favorite: group punishment -- unlike liberals, I don't believe you can stop bad people and bad things by punishing good people and good things. I also know that any attempt to ban guns would be impossible, would tear apart society (the public will not surrender), and will only leave guns in the hands of bad people. I also know that even if we could somehow wish away guns tomorrow, the killing would not stop. If anything, it would get worse as these people start coming up with creative ways to take massive numbers of lives. I could kill hundreds with a simple hammer, for example, were I so inclined. Trust me, there are 300 million guns in the US, if they were the problem, you would know it. And killers kill because they are killers, not because they have guns.

So why would I agree to some form of gun control then? To be frank, there are certain people who just should not be allowed to own guns... criminals, crazy people, Democrats... and they need to be watched.

A law allowing the government to gather information on which persons may have these so-called "red flags" and keep them from owning guns while keeping an eye on them strikes me as both eminently reasonable and narrowly tailored enough not to tread on the rights of the people who should be allowed to own guns.

I know the argument against, which is that the Democrats will try to jam the whole camel under the tent once they get the nose through, but I'm not really a fan of the "the other guy can't be trusted" argument as a means for inaction. I think it is better to organize your society rationally and defend it rather than leaving a bad situation because you fear the other side might exploit it.

I also think that politically, it is much more prudent to be the rational party on this. These mass killings and other gun killings affect people in ways that other crimes simply do not. If you don't let the air out of this balloon slowly, it will pop one day and that will result in an overarching oppressive scheme. It is better to give 5% than lose 100%, and right now I think those are becoming the alternatives.

Lastly, I see this as a good opportunity to try to make some real changes which the left will not like. It's time to allow states to hold crazy people longer than 24 hours, to force mental patients to take their pills, to raise the ratings on video games and movies that use gun violence, to let victims sue media companies for copy-cat crimes, to ban the media from reporting the names of shooters or their manifestos or otherwise make heroes of these guys, to add punishments that might deter them like castration or to give their assets to their victims. None of these is a silver bullet, but each combined will have an effect on this... and each will piss off the left something fierce. They will freak out and fight every one of these, and in the process will expose themselves as not wanting to do anything to stop these killings because all they really want is to take away guns.

[+]

Monday, August 5, 2019

Liberals Behaving Badly

I love it when liberals batter each other, and there's been a lot of that lately. In fact, we just had some good ones.

● Ellen Pompeo, a leftist actress who attacked her own show "Grey's Anatomy" for not having enough minorities on staff, just got shouted down for racism. Ha ha! The irony is rich with this one. See, she was watching the Democratic debate and she didn't like that Kamala Harris was only attacking Biden because she feared that Harris was ignoring the other threats to her. So here's what she said: "She’s overconfident and believes [Biden] is her only competition." Tsk tsk. Such racism!

What racism you ask? Well, according to the internet storm that followed, it is racist to call a black woman "overconfident" because, well, that's racist. Indeed, here's one of the many representative comments slapping her down: “Black women are allowed only a certain amount of confidence. Must always yield something to whatever white man is around.”

As you can see, this is utter nonsense -- as well as being painfully written cynicism. Indeed, there is no reasonable way to read what Pompeo said as racist, and the twisted logic used to get there knowingly misconstrues what she said. What happened here is wishful victimology. These idiots saw the word "overconfident," recognized it as a criticism, realized a criticism had been lobbied at a black woman, got all hot and bothered over a victim fantasy, and screamed racism. It's ridiculously stupid. What makes this so ironically delicious is that their target is someone I guarantee you never thought she would find her back against the wall. She called out her own program for not hiring enough of them!, for Pete's sake! She's pure! She's not a racist like all those other people she criticized! How can anyone think she was being racist? Well, dumbass, because that's the world your kind has cultivated. When the left goes full intolerant, they often burn their own at the stake first, and you've been whipping them into a frenzy of intolerance. Burned by your own mob! Delicious.

And there's more...

● Noted progressive-liberal and Pluto-hater Neil deGrasse Tyson made the mistake of trying to interject some logic into the left's anti-gun tantrum after the shootings this weekend. He point out, quite correctly, that "across any 48 hours, we also lose 300 people to the flu." This is a problem-solver's thought as it attempts to frame a problem and downplay the hysteria surrounding it so a solution can be reached. The fool. The collective did not approve. Showing their shoot-the-messenger ways, scores of leftists screamed at this man on Twitter. Noted scientists and logicians rock band Smashmouth eruditely pointed out: "FUCK OFF!!!! There's your data!!!!" So very helpful.

Two things make me laugh about this. First, that Tyson thought he would be immune from hate even when going against the collective in mob mode. Heck, he's a leftist. He's even black! How can anyone on the left say such things to him?!! Clearly, he does not understand the hate-filled group-think practiced by his colleagues even against fellow leftists.

Secondly, the left loves to claim that the right hates science and they are the party of science, yet they scream down and threaten away any data that doesn't fit their narrative... just as they oppose science that is used for weapons or business, they treat unproven and discredited environmental theories as religious dogma, they treat science/research/studies/results that might lead to data they consider "racist" or "sexist" or anti-whatever-they-support to be taboo, if not criminal, and they ban any bit of science that might offend the wrong people. Not to mention, their mob mentality focuses hate on any solution or proposed solution other than the one they seek. Watch your back Neil, the death threats are next. Oh, and avoid overconfidence, Neil. Ask Ellen about that.

● The sitcom Friends which supported a pro-gay agenda in the 1990's is now being accused of being anti-gay because it used suggestions that one character was less than masculine as a source of humor. All humor will eventually find someone who wants to be offended... only the left gives them the power to push their offendedness on the rest of society.

● According to liberal NYT columnist Maureen Dowd, she and Nancy Pelosi have been smeared as "elites" by the left because during her late July interview she mentioned eating chocolates, wearing high heels, and having a book party for an author friend. Said Dowd, "If the Democratic Party is going to be against chocolate, high heels, parties and fun, you’ve lost me. And I’ve got some bad news for you about 2020." That sounds silly, but it's not. What this speaks to is the vast number of leftists who now turn their pet peeves into political attacks (particularly the body positive whiners and the anti-shamer shamers who attack people for things like not being dour enough, having money, dressing better than their lazy asses want to dress, being too successful, lacking self-doubt, and suggesting that others can succeed -- I'm not kidding, I'll write something about how telling people to fight cancer is hateful later this week). These people are the same as the race-screamers and the harassmentists... they want to remake the world in their miserable image and they see the internet thought police as the means to do that.

● Finally, we have the debate and its aftermath. Oh my. First, they attack Obama's record to smear Biden. Indeed, they hit Obama with many of the things I pointed out throughout his administration about Obama not being a good liberal: deportations, sending young black men to prison for "crimes", supporting big business, Obamacare being a sop to big insurance, etc. This brought out the Obama people to fight back. Then they smeared Biden as a segregationist and public service profiteer: "Biden's family fortunes mirrored the course of his career." Yeah, that's called "graft." They smeared Harris as a racist monster for all the young black criminals she put in jail as a prosecutor. And they smeared Buttguy for allowing racist, killer cops in his police department.

Good times! Did I miss anything?
[+]

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Some Interesting Thoughts

A couple of thoughts on things you may have missed.

Trannies Moving Right: Ok, that may be an overstatement, but a study came out the other day which found that transsexuals are far more conservative than the population at large. This doesn't actually surprise me. For various reasons, in my legal practice, I've had considerable dealings with transsexuals and their community. The thing that always struck me is that transsexuals have a very different view of masculinity and femininity than does the public at large. If I had to describe it precisely, I would say that transsexuals use their parents' generation as the basis for their definition of masculine and feminine, and even a stereotyped view at that. Hence, when they try to transition, they generally try to mimic the rules and styles of that stereotype. Thus, transsexual males-to-females view womanhood as the more submissive version of the 1950's housewife, whereas transsexual females-to-males view manhood as the 1950's Rebel Without A Cause. Hence, they want to be these stereotype people rather than the effeminate males and action hero females of today.

Taking this one step further, think about what this means about their worldview. Despite their class being a modern issue, their attitudes are distinctly "old school." That makes them incompatible in a fundamental way with modern leftism and its mushy "we are all one sex" dogma. Indeed, their views align with fairly hardcore Christianity's views. Interesting.

Naturally, the "leaders" of the movement are fundamental leftists, as always, because those people always try to exploit group membership to achieve power. But the rank and file don't seem to be consistent with that or share their view. What does this mean for voting patterns and the future? I'm not sure yet. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Unhand Me Woman!: There is a Republican candidate for governor of Mississippi who told a female journalist that she couldn't travel with him unless there was a male escort. Wow, did the feminists lose their minds... with good reason. Indeed, the articles on this are insultingly trying to claim that this is an admission that the man can't control himself, i.e. that he's a sex fiend, the reality is that this is the chickens coming home to roost. This is what happens when a vast number of women start making false allegations without proof and the left screams that we need to believe them regardless of age, lack of proof, or even lack of sense, and then destroy the careers of men. When someone proves themselves a danger, you protect yourself accordingly. This is accordingly. This is one of those things that was so obvious it would happen from the beginning, but the left just can't control themselves. And now women get to pay a price for it. Is that fair to women as a group? No. But this is the natural response to what happened... and they have only the left to blame.

As an aside, a huge number of female (leftist) journalists chimed in on this in the most pathetic hand-wringing and insulting ways. They were outraged and horrified, and not one of them admitted that they were also to blame.

Lovely Baltimore: The Baltimore issue shows why leftists cannot solve problems. Once someone points out a problem, they circle the wagons and deny it, rather than fixing it. I've spent considerable time in Baltimore and I can tell you that Trump is understating how sh*tty the place is. Over a six month period, a friend of mine who lived near Camden Yards was robbed, had his house broken into three times and his car six times. He stopped locking doors so the locals wouldn't damage his property when they broke in. He saw a woman pistol whipped in a grocery store for shoplifting. I witnessed numerous drug deals, tons of zombie-like crack heads, saw neighborhoods that looked bombed out, was told by cops to avoid certain neighborhoods, did some construction examinations which revealed the rot that underlies their housing, saw hookers within a few hundred feet of a police station, saw homeless everywhere, got extorted to keep my car safe in a tourist zone, saw cops and politicians arrested for corruption, and saw little in the way of productivity. Yet, no one wants to fix those things apparently. Oh well.

[+]

Saturday, July 27, 2019

Liberal Hit Piece

Yahoo is a nest of leftist sh*ts. If there is stupid leftist opinion to be had, their little collective will hold it and assume that it's the only acceptable opinion. They are relentless in attacking the values of America, Christianity, the middle class. They are relentless in pushing failed leftist ideology, in falsely screaming racism and sexism, in covering up truth, in calling reasonableness hate and promoting hate in the guise of tolerance. That makes them a great representative to understand just how vile and moronic and hypocritical the left is. That bring me to today's topic. Today's topic involves a hit piece they just published.

This hit piece takes aim at Peyton Manning. By way of background, Manning is an incredibly popular former NFL quarterback. Most everyone loves him and by all accounts he's a special human being. He's loyal, devoted to his fans and family. He apparently has been writing letters to people his whole life telling them how he appreciates them. (There was a show about this with dozens of people in tears over getting these letters.) When Katrina hit, he and his brother chartered a commercial jet and filled it with food and water at their own expense and took it down there. He regularly visits sick kids in the hospital and no one who knows him has ever said a bad word about him.

But this is a cynical age and, like all famous people, his name has been dragged around by opportunists. A trainer at the U. of Tennessee claimed he exposed himself to her -- an argument to keep women out of locker rooms, frankly. There was no proof. It was contrary to Manning's character. And her witnesses did not support her. The University settled nevertheless, because they always do. Then, near the end of Manning career, a guy who got caught handing out illegal medicines tried to claim that Manning and other famous clients of the clinic where he worked were secretly taking illegal substances. That fell through too. Despite neither claim being reputable, the sports media has clung to these things as points of frustration that the public ignored them and continued to like him. Indeed, when Manning retired, there was a desperate wave of articles written by the usual leftists trying to smear him with these "scandals." It didn't work.

So the other day, along comes this article at Yahoo with the title: "How long before America turns on beloved QB?" That's a loaded headline if ever there was one. When you read through the article, it's about Manning... for no particular reason. First, you get a brief dismissive statement that Manning has been popular because of his folksy, self-depreciating style. No mention is made of his good deeds or his sterling reputation. The article then jumps into the scandals, wrongly treating them as proven, and basically says that Manning had teflon or else he would have been brought down. There is even a hint of racism involved where the article suggests that the reaction would have been different if the same had been done by "Dak Prescot" (a well-liked black quarterback), though the article then also mentions a disliked white quarterback to lessen the suggestion that race is involved. Then comes the money paragraph. Read this:
Manning has thrived because he has kept his beliefs tucked close. He is, to coin a phrase, sticking to sports. Still, we can rough out the edges of his ideology: he’s a frequent visitor to, and possible member of, Augusta National, for instance. He’s donated to Republican figures, including the recent presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. More recently, he’s played golf with President Donald Trump and spoken at Republican events. (This is observation, folks, not criticism.)
Ah, got you Peyton Manning! You're a Republican. And that's the entire point to the article. There is literally no other purpose to this article than to warn leftists that Manning is a conservative. The author tries to pretend that being a conservative isn't a big deal when he says, "There’s nothing wrong with Manning, or anyone else, voting the way they wish and associating with whomever they wish, of course." But then, why did he write the article?

Think about this.

What is the point to this article? What is newsworthy here? Nothing. The author wrote this because he wanted to tell leftists that Manning is a conservative because he wants them to hate him because that is what the left does. They are incredibly unforgiving about anyone who doesn't share the approved views of the collective. Time and again, we've seen them try to destroy people or deny their achievements because of this. That is the sole purpose of the article. The author even supplies them with reasons to use to hate him by mentioning the discredited "scandals" so they don't need to admit this is all about ideological purity.

That is the left. In fact, the same thing was just done to Mariano Rivera, probably the greatest relief pitcher of all time, because he dares to like Trump. Rivera just got selected to the baseball Hall of Fame as the only player ever to be selected unanimously, and suddenly Yahoo starts writing articles with no information in them except that Rivera has helped out an opioid addiction program created by Trump and he's said good things about Trump. Why does that matter? It shouldn't. But these are leftists and they want to make it intolerable for anyone on the right to openly express their opinions. So if you speak your mind like Rivera, they're going to let other leftists know about your views, relevant or not. Even if you don't openly express them, like Manning, they will write hit pieces that suggest that you might have thoughtcrimes and then suggest reasons to hate you.

Make no mistake, this is thought police crap. This is an attempt to damage reputations in the hopes that future athletes and others will never dare speak an opinion they do not tolerate. It's sick. They are sick.
[+]

Thursday, July 25, 2019

Crash and Burn

Robert Mueller finally testified today. The Democrats were hoping he would come out swinging and take Trump down no matter the cost. Well... that didn't happen.

By all accounts outside of Hollywood, Mueller's testimony was a disaster for the Democrats. They had hoped that Mueller would come to the hearing and just blast Trump. They wanted to hear that while Mueller was constrained by somethingsomething when he wrote the report, the truth was that he was awash in evidence that Putin peed on Trump as he handed Russian spies somethingsomething and they handed him Hillary Clinton's password (BILLSUCKS) as they plotted to pick up underage girls with Epstein. They wanted to hear that Russian banks and Trump's campaign computers were locked together in a love embrace, that promises were made to somethingsomething in exchange for somethingsomething TRUMP TOWERS! And get that bastard son of his too!!!

And none of that happened.

Mueller showed up and was lethargic, timid and prone to memory lapses which suggest that (1) he had little idea what was in the report, (2) he is well past his prime, and (3) he may not be a very bright man. He offered nothing new either. In fact, if anything, he took back his boldest steps. He evaded question after question from both Democrat and Republican. He offered zero evidence beyond the report. He gave no good soundbites. He offered little to support the vendetta. Indeed, the one thing he seemed to offer the Democrats -- the no-brainer idea that it would be legal to indict Trump once he left office -- he took away a little later by saying there was no evidence to do so. And the Democratic collective-woody deflated.

This was a total failure for the Democrats. And they noticed. Most political Democrats remained silent. Most pundits, like 4 out of 5 at Politico, noted that there was nothing new, this was a bad day for the Democrats and for Mueller, and it seems impeachment is stalled. (The fifth was busy wishfully thinking evidence that wasn't offered.) A handful of pundits did continue their sales job that this proved impeachment-worthy, but few others did. Hollywood was a notable exception were a small cabal of anti-Trumps (Chris Evans, John Cusack, Alyssa Milano and a couple more) acted as if something important had been learned and screamed for impeachment. Yawn. (As an aside, Joy Behar got racist, calling Trump's black supporters "blackground.")

Interestingly, the Democrats have now turned on Mueller with a majority believing that the report was rigged from the beginning. I'm surprised they aren't screaming "black flag".

Anyways, the general consensus is that this will do nothing more than cement opinions on both sides. I think that's wrong. I think this will demoralize the Democrats even more -- continued losses do that, energize Republicans to support Trump, and further ruin the main Democratic argument, which is that Trump is somehow evil. I also think this will make the pro-impeachment types even more nuts, which is bad for the Democrats. Not only does that turn off the normals, but it will drive an even bigger between between Nancy Pelosi and the stupid crazy wing of the party.

This won't end the debate as the Democrats never give up a conspiracy or a narrative, but I think it makes it impossible to sell. All told, this improves Trump's re-election chances a good couple percentages.

[+]

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Some Pet Peeves

I often find myself annoyed by television commercials or other things in life. Fortunately, I have a blog. See how that works? ;)

● I am getting increasingly angry at the way business is interacting with customers. In particular, two things bother me. First, I will not go to a restaurant that uses these asinine kiosks. These are like computer screens that sit at the table and customers place their orders on them and pay on them. The purpose is to let the restaurant rid themselves of staff. And you feel it because you will be lucky if you see your waiter twice.

I like dealing with people in service professions. I do not like going through machines. I do not like self-service. I do not like not having someone to chat with and welcome you to the restaurant. I do not like never seeing a refill. In fact, I judge restaurants by the efficiency of refills and refills are rare at these places. Even more to the point, I don't like people being replaced by machines. I will not visit those places.

My local grocery store is trending the same way. They are testing (all over town) carts that automatically ring themselves up. That really bothers me on many levels.

● The second thing that's bothering me with customer payment interfaces is that everyone is starting to use these computer screens that automatically suggest a tip and make you turn it down. F-you. If you deserve a tip, I will give it to you. Do not beg me for a tip or try to shame me into tipping. Moreover, most of the people using these things are not in professions that society deems tipworthy and I will not start. Even worse, the tip screens obnoxiously start at 15% and go up to 30%. F-you. I tip really well, but 20% is for excellent service... beyond that requires something special. To suggest the range is 15-30% is a blatant attempt at a culture change, and it angers me.

● I have to shake my head when I see advertisements for these supplements like Frank "the Big Hurt" Thomas promising you a bigger slong with Slongenix. You know, none of these things work. They just don't. And that's probably a good thing because if they had genuinely active ingredients, they would probably kill you. Interestingly, there's increasing evidence that almost no vitamins or supplements work. Imagine that, you have to get your vitamins and minerals out of foods... not pills.

● I find it funny that the media continues to be so obsessed about who attended parties with Jeffery Epstein as if attending a party with someone makes you a co-conspirator with full knowledge of their crimes. And then there are the Clintons who practically went hunting for sex partners with the guy and the media ignores them. Tell me there's no bias.
[+]

Saturday, July 20, 2019

UpDate on #metoo's Corpse

As I've pointed out before, the #metoo movement was a total failure. Not only did it achieve none of its goals, it actually moved the needle backwards on most of those, reinforcing the requirement for due process and benefit of the doubt going against the accuser. But at least they brought down a whole bunch of sexist men, right?

No, actually. Only a handful were ever brought down and from the sound of it they should have been brought down apart from any movement. But little by little, they've almost all managed to return to what they were doing pre-accusation. Indeed, the only ones who really went down were about three or four top names or the ones who voluntarily stepped down (less than 100 total out of 150 million). Anyone who fought back or learned the #metoo sidestep ("I'm glad you've accused me, because it's good that women can now make these allegations //pats on head, but I'm not leaving.") just kept right on going... not to mention people like Biden or Bill Clinton who get a pass for political reasons.

Well, this week brings us two more high profile examples of #metoo's failure. The first failure involves one of the big two trophies of the #metoo movement: Kevin Spacey. Spacey's "crimes" were so bad that they expunged him from films, literally -- they reshot all the scenes he did in "All the Money in the World," replacing him with Christopher Plummer, and kicked him off of other projects. He was fired from a theater position and became persona non grata. They even put him on trial, like Harvey Weinstein, the other trophy. Personally, I've always considered it ironic that one of the biggest catches of the #metoo movement was a man who sexually harassed and assaulted young boys -- not women, but so be it. When your movement is desperate for trophies, you take what you can get.

The problem is that Spacey hired lawyers and fought back. And now the primary charges against him have been dismissed when it turns out that the accuser was basically shaking him down after a voluntary encounter. Stick another very big fork in the #metoo fantasy. When Weinstein wins, the total legacy of the #metoo movement will be bringing down MEGA a-ole Matt Lauer, at the cost of (1) undoing the college rape hysteria and strengthening due process for men, (2) increasing doubt for claims of harassment and rape, and (3) creating a backlash that makes it harder for women to succeed in the workplace. It might even end up exposing the actresses who invented #metoo in an effort hide the fact they slept with Weinstein to make their careers. Hello Ms. Hayek... and so many more. Ironically, this last one was forgotten or not generally known before #metoo.

Then there is this. After the NFL was caught doing nothing to player Ray Rice after he was caught on video knocking his girlfriend unconscious in an elevator, the NFL went hardcore in the other direction: "From this day forward, any player who hits a woman will be banned for at least six games, if not forever, without proof or trial!! Death by accusation!!" This wasn't a result of the #metoo movement, but the #metoo movement came soon after and this all falls into the same context as it quickly blended. Indeed, if the #metoo movement has any influence at all, then things like the NFL change in policy should become the norm and the NFL certainly should not bend its rules. Well, it just bent them beyond the point of breaking.

Kansas City Chief Tyreek Hill beat his girlfriend and got arrested. He then beat her again. Then he got caught on tape threatening her. The NFL swooped into action and... waited to see what the police would do. When the police did nothing, the NFL swooped in and... waited a few months. Now it's announced there will be no punishment. None. The Chiefs didn't even cut Hill, as has been the automatic public relations response for the past two years when domestic violence allegation arise. In other words, the NFL is back to where it was before #metoo, back before Ray Rice, where it should not be if the #metoo movement had any influence whatsoever. Heck, this shouldn't be the rule even without a #metoo movement. But the fact it is, tells us again that #metoo's legacy is dead.

Now, don't get me wrong. Hill is a sh*t and the NFL should have banned him regardless of #metoo. Spacey is a sh*t by all accounts and also should be shunned regardless of #metoo. But neither is or will be. And the fact they aren't speaks volumes as to the influence of #metoo... or its lack.
[+]

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

He's a RACIST! Yada yada yada

Here we go again. Someone decided Trump was a racist because he criticized a group of women of color... mainly browns and tan with too much makeup to make them less so.

Lo and behold, awakes the great machine:
Did someone say someone was racist?
A great whining noise begins:
HeeeeEEEEEE'SSSSSSS A RACIST! Of course, he is... he's a racist!
A dirty, rotten racist!
He is a most vile creature... a racist!
He hates black people.
He hates Hispanics!
He hates women!
He hates immigrants!
He hates Muslims!
He's such a racist!

//whispers 'Uh... who are we talking about?'
//whispers back 'Trump'

Of course, HE's a racist!
Trump hates blacks!
Trump hates 'brown people'!
Trump hates women! He's a racist rapist!
Trump hates immigrants! He wants to put immigrants in death camps!
Trump hates Muslims because he's racist!

//squeezes out 'anguished tear

When will someone rid us of this evil man? Impeach the racist!

//whispers 'Uh... what did he say?'
//whispers back 'Not sure. Does it matter?'
No, it doesn't. Not really. If Trump criticizes brown people, he is a racist. If he criticizes a woman, he's sexist. But honestly, I don't think anyone cares. This is the left jumping on whatever they can find or invent to hold their little hate-club together. They yell and scream in groupthink and they talk each other into believing what they already tell themselves they believe -- the fact they say and do worse themselves means they don't actually believe it, they just believe it when Trump does it. This is nothing more than a public pep rally.

It's getting old too. I'm sick of hearing it. I'm sick of the fake anti-Trump whining. I'm sick of the whining period. I'm sick of the left trying to turn anything anyone else does into a thought crime. So while the news cycle is dominated now with every sh*thole leftist running to a microphone to scream the sacred word, I really don't want to hear it. I. Don't. Care. What. They. Think. And I won't accept it either. This boy has cried wolf far too often for it to mean anything or for me to care. Honestly, I hope all of you on the left get eaten by a real wolf.
[+]

Monday, July 8, 2019

Summer Slowdown

We seem to be in the middle of the summer news slowdown. This is the period when nothing really happens. Politicians go on vacation. Campaigns struggle to get air time. Journalists recycle old stories so they can spend their days doing God-knows-what... clearly not learning their craft, and bashing Trump. But there are things stirring.

The Democratic Civil War continues. Pelosi is spending considerable time slandering her left wing to try to stamp out their influence. It isn't working though. That's bad for the Democrats, but they can't stop it. Part of this is that the media aligns itself with the left wing and wants to push their agenda. Part of this is that the "moderate" Democratic Party is literally dying off of old age and the progressives are the future, and they don't want to wait to take over.

Standing with Pelosi is Joe Biden, but his numbers just crashed after the debate and landed him in the pile of wannabes. He literally just went from almost 50% support among Democrats to tied with Bernie and Harris.

On the other side, you have the progressives. They're on the attack. They are now lining people up (with the help of billionaire money) to primary-challenge moderate Democrats and Democrats who don't tow the line on various leftist issues. This is spreading fear that many could lose and that the Democrats are about to shoot themselves in the foot. I think that's a given. In fact, the issues they are pushing are getting increasingly freaky.

The latest issue seems to be selling the immigrant camps as if they were Nazi concentration camps. The left wing wants to make this the next big spear with which to attack. The not-so-far-left wing is worried that this will cost them votes. This has been the cause of Pelosi's most recent declaration that their left wing is just a tiny group and not influential. Interestingly, this camp claim is so ridiculous it even brought pushback from Jewish groups, but AOC and her buds don't care. I think the progressive have done the math, as we did, and found that Jews don't matter to them anymore.

Another big new push is reparations for blacks. This is becoming a thing with the candidates because of it. Even Bernie has endorsed looking into it and he originally refused. Harris wants to turn this into a black housing program costing $100 billion, as if that will satisfy this silly claim. (A recent study found that actual reparations -- as if there was such a thing -- would cost $17 trillion. Whoops. That's too much to sell to the public, and even then, that only works out to $442.71 for each black person. I'd want more than that if someone enslaved my grandma.) Needless to say, this is an attempt to attract black anger which seems pretty high at the moment but doesn't seem to be focused on helping the "white left."

Abortion has been big again with the push being to "end the stigma" on abortion. That's leftist speak for "we know we can't win on the facts, so let's make it improper to discuss the facts." They do this on all the hot button issues. This is an attempt to find something to rally women around, but so far nothing has really worked. Over the next few weeks, you'll see them try "Equal pay for women." This will be an issue because a group of lesbians won a soccer game in France against hapless competition which no one watched, and now they want to be paid the same as male World Cup champions who play before billions. Oh, and they don't want male referees... and they don't want male sports broadcast at the same time as their matches... and they don't want anyone criticizing their poor sportsmanship... and they hate the National Anthem and what America stands for and Trump and they think all criticism is sexist. And they want you to respect their sport or else... oh, and $400 million. Either way, look for this to arrive in politics this week and for each of the candidates to announce they "have a plan."

This is really the problem for Pelosi. Her left flank is stuffed with idiots who can find offense in anything and can speak their minds without consequence. So they are free to try to excite the base all they want with insane promises that can't be followed through and which scare the crap out of the public. But no one can make them stop because their very essence is "I am victim, hear me whine," and they don't want to hear that what they want is crap. But Pelosi is in the business of government and she can't function like that. But with the progressives being the future, the war is on and Pelosi's days are numbered.

Did you ever think that Pelosi would be considered the moderate part of their party? These people have gone full retard, and it's only going to get worse for them from hereon out.
[+]

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

More Trumped Up Thoughts

I've had some thoughts on Trump lately, and I thought I would share those.

● First, let me say that I'm seeing more and more people starting to support him as they look at his record. I find that interesting. Personally, I've seen a couple liberals become firm supporters and some libertarians who just like being different. Both groups have said that they really like the stuff he's done "if only he would stop tweeting!" I think this bodes well for him. Not only does this suggest that his support will grow (Obama's was shrinking at this time in his presidency and he would ultimately lose 6 million votes in his second run), but even more it puts the lie to the narrative that Trump hit bottom and kept falling. Trump may very well surprise people.

● Secondly, I think the media continues to be his best friend. Not only will they blow every scandal out of proportion, creating a sort of boy-who-cried-wolf teflon that has most people no longer listening, but the attacks they choose to promote are pathetic. The one that always makes me shake my head is Kelly Anne Conway's husband George Conway. George can be counted on to say something obnoxious every news cycle and the media repeats it like it matters. The thing is, George comes across as the kind of guy who's only worthy of news time if he gets caught jerking off behind a theater. So using him as a weapon against Trump is pathetic.

● Trump has also been lucky that his enemies keep imploding. The #metoo monster has devolved into mud wrestling. The Democrats have picked losers to run against him. The woman who just accused him of rape, not only is pimping a book, not only claims another powerful man raped her, not only kept the coat she was supposedly wearing when Trump did it... but now she's talked about how most people think of rape as "sexy." CNN actually cut off the interview to try to contain the damage, but it got out. She's a nut.

● The Iran thing has me thinking. I always thought Trump was kind of a moron, but his handling of Iran and North Korea both impress me. He's the first president and one of the few in Washington to understand what both countries actually want. Kim in North Korea wants to be able to enjoy his wealth overseas... to party on in cool cities. Trump offered him normal relations to let him do that. He even talked about developing luxury services in North Korea, which must have tickled Kim pink. The situation hasn't solved itself yet, but I actually think it will fairly soon.

Now Trump has said he wants to "Make Iran Great Again." This is actually exactly what Iran wants. Iran sees itself as the great Persian Empire and it wants influence in the Gulf. We've taken that away from it and that's really been the struggle between us. Other Presidents have offered money or vague promises of helping their economy, but that's not what they want. Again, Trump is the first to really understand what they want. What impresses me here is that Trump seems to understand both countries even as our establishment (left and right) remains clueless. I honestly didn't know he had it in him.

I've also come to understand his negotiation style. Step one, you freak the other side out by promising to do the one thing that scares them. Then you offer to negotiate. If things stall, he acts like he will pull the trigger or he may even pull the trigger. Then they back down and a deal is reached that is good for both sides. He's done this with immigration and foreign aid, tariffs and trade wars, sanctions, deportations, and now bombings. It's worked really well for the most part.

He's a good deal smarter than he seems.

[+]

Friday, June 21, 2019

A Couple Thoughts

Ola! First, let me apologize. I've been working some long hours (around 15 hours a day for two weeks) and I lost track of the things I wasn't doing. I shall do more articles. Anyways, here are some thoughts.

● For having Trump in office... for having 20+ dwarves running for President... for us being on the verge of war with Iran... there just isn't much going on right now. Must be global warming.

● Roy Moore is the thing that will not die. He's back to keep Alabama blue. Seriously, dipsh*t, go away.

● It's looking more and more like Beto is done. His poll numbers keep shrinking and he's now outside the conversation in the sense that the media never mentions him when they talk about the candidates. Warren seems to be on the same track but is falling from a stronger position, so she'll last longer. But I'm thinking one or both might be out before the first primary vote.

● There's a new rape claim against Trump. Yawn. Don't believe it. Don't care even if it is true. This time Trump supposedly raped some half-famous would in a department store. Uh huh.

● Actor John Cusak, aka Lane Meyer, has been having a rough go of it lately. He's a hard core idiot leftist and he got caught at a Cubs game not standing for the National Anthem and then he put out an antisemitic cartoon. He claimed he was just slow standing up, but he was literally the only person sitting and everyone else had their hands over their hearts already -- he looked grumpy as hell too. On the antisemetic thing, he say he got tricked by a bot... which doesn't explain it. I bring this up because I like the fact that we are starting to see leftists held accountable in their daily lives and they simply don't know how to handle it. They tend to get outraged that they are being judges. I think that's hilarious.

● Mayor Butt, er Pete, made the claim that statistically we must already have had a gay president. That's false logic. First, gays are 2-3%. We've had 45ish Presidents. So there is no reason to think one of them was likely gay. Secondly, President isn't a general population thing, so statistics like this don't won't... it's a select population. It's the same way we don't expect 3% to be Asian or half to be females. So Pete's logic is BS. That said, we did have a gay one: Obama.

Anything else going on these days?
[+]

Thursday, June 13, 2019

More Hypocrisy From Liberals

I really couldn't care less about women's soccer, but what happened in the game between the US women's lesbian national team and the Thailand women's soccer team at the women's World Cup has proven interesting... for the hoops liberals keep jumping through.

All right, a couple points of background. (1) No one watches women's soccer. (2) Hardly anyone in the US watches men's soccer period, but women's soccer is really the bottom of the barrel. It draws less than 1/10 of the audience of men's soccer, which draws less than almost any other sport. (3) That said, soccer is politically correct. It is politically correct because its followers see it as a thumb in the eye to America... because it's a socialist game in that it's considered a team game rather than an individual game... because lots of girls play it... because it's elitist.

So here's what happened. There are virtually no good women's teams around the world. Hence, the US dominates almost by forfeit. To make the World Cup seem more important (and make more money), FIFA has been trying to get different countries to create new teams. Thailand is one of those teams. They stink badly. But FIFA put them into the tournament because they need bodies. Well, Thailand had the bad fortune to play the US womyn. Those wonderful examples of American lesbianism beat the crap out of Thailand 13-0. Even worse, they celebrated every goal as if it were something incredible.

Lo and behold people reacted negatively.

Imagine that! Why would they react negatively, though? Don't they know this is the US women's team? This is a team full of open lesbians who make leftist political statements? Don't they know these women sued FIFA for not paying them as much as the men get? Good God, how can you criticize them?

Well... because people understand sportsmanship and they knew that burying an inferior opponent is not sportsmanship. They know that celebrating goals in a blowout is even worse sportsmanship. They know a lack of class when they see it. They know bullying when they see it.

The American women's soccer team is shocked. Liberal sports writers are horrified. They must defend these paragons of liberal virtue! So enter every liberal sportswriter in the world. These are the same people who can find nothing good in men's sports. These are the people who are first to scream about men's teams running up the score or excessive celebration... and they are ridiculously defending the US team:
First, they claim we wouldn't hear people complaining if it was the men's team! Actually, we would. Every sport has their scandal along these lines and the public is always outraged by teams that run up the score or rub it in with uncalled for celebrations. One boys football team was even disbanded after blowing out a weaker opponent.

Second, "these are the elite teams in the world, they should have put up a better defense." Huh. That's never been considered a valid defense before... why now? Secondly, Thailand is a cream puff, they didn't deserve to be here, and everyone knows that. Claiming otherwise is lying intentionally. And isn't that blaming the victim?

Third, "men are making this criticism! How dare they!" Ha, nope. That's bullship. You did the deed, you are to blame.

Fourth, FIFA is at fault for not spending money on developing teams in other countries. How does that prevent the US women from toning it down? It doesn't. You made the decision to pour it on, girls.

Fifth, "it would be an insult to have stepped it back. They would have been insulted." Actually, they were crying. I suspect they wouldn't have minded a little face saving.
What this tells us is that (1) the US women's soccer team is a bunch of bullies. They feel proud of themselves for beating weaker teams. That's pathetic. (2) Liberals will again lie and flip their deepest held convictions on their head to defend liberal things. That's even worse. (3) The charge of sexism is again a tool used disingenuously to deflect criticism. (4) Liberals have no sportsmanship. (5) These people have no idea how to win over the public. They live in a progressive little bubble of victimology and nobody likes that.

[+]

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Surprise: Misbehavior Gets Punished

I've talked about the #metoo stuff before. As a general rule, #metoo achieved nothing. And now the backlash is clear.

By way of background, the #metoo thing was an attempt by a bunch of actresses who slept their way to the top to create a national movement as a front for clearing their names by screaming rape. It morphed into a bitch session for hypersensitive women, almost all of whom worked in television or film. Their goals were to (1) change society to create "guilt upon accusation" for "crimes" against women, (2) an end to due process, in particular the allowing of any sort of defense, (3) instituting a social death penalty for these crimes, including permanent unemployment, (4) lowering what constituted such a crime from rape-rape to "he seemed creepy" and (5) eliminating any sort of time limit so that women could now raise allegations decades later.

In the heady days of the beginning, it seemed that they would get these things. A handful of famous well-known bastards were accused, a couple resigned, a couple were forced out by their boards and several actors were brought down. Harvey Weistein was charged criminally for a dozen rapes. Attempts to defend these men were shrilly shot down. Even those claiming innocence pleaded how double-plus-good it was that they had been accused.

But then it all went wrong. People (particularly foreign actresses) called this stupid and defended these men. The automatic resignations stopped as did the automatic firings. Due process not only came back, it came back MUCH stronger than it has been in lieu of the college rape lowering of standards. At that point, the resignations and firings stopped. According to some studies less than 400 men were ever officially endangered and only a handful ever actually punished. Soon, it became clear that all the goals of #metoo failed. Even Harvey Weinstein looks like he's going to get off. In fact, the man who has been hit the hardest (apart from Matt Lauer who went down because he's an ass no one liked) is Kevin Spacey and his crime was preying on young gay men... not women. And even he's coming back.

Then the women running the movement were exposed in big bad ways. One was selling drugs. Another was caught doing the same harassing she was screaming about. Yet another is defending a son accused of rape. Soon they were all in-fighting and making claims and demands that flew in the face of this movement. Add the fact that it barely left Hollywood and this thing was not only DOA, it was counter-productive. Indeed, if anything this movement strengthened the defenses men could raise and increased societal doubt (a natural consequence of any movement going too far). Then they did things like defend Joe Biden using each of the defenses they claimed was invalid. Hypocrisy never plays well.

Now comes word of an even bigger backlash, one that should have been entirely expected, but shocks them nevertheless. A poll last month found that 60% of male manager are "nervous" about interacting with women in the workplace and won't engage in one-on-one meetings with them, won't socialize with them and won't mentor them. That's a rise from 32% before the #metoo movement. Surprise.

Now, as a general rule, you need to take polls with a grain of salt. It's easy to answer "yes" when you wouldn't really do that in the real world. But I think what we can take from this is that men are twice as likely now to be cautious around women in the work place that they think are likely to take advantage of this or women who are hypersensitive. In that end, that's good and bad. It's good if it weeds these women out and keeps them from becoming managers where they can mess things up for everyone. It's bad for other women who are not like these women and still will get caught in the blowback. Unfortunately, this is was group movements cause: they make people view the entire group with suspicion. And lest you think this means nothing, consider what Sheryl Sandberg, Facebooks COO, said. She's a smart and insightful woman, and she worried:
"The vast majority of managers and senior leaders are men. If they are reluctant even to meet one-on-one with women, there’s no way women can get an equal shot at proving themselves. ... We’re in a bad place — no one’s ever gotten promoted without a one-on-one meeting, I feel confident in saying that. Senior men right now are nine times more hesitant to travel with a woman and six times more likely to hesitate to have a work dinner."
That's the legacy of #metoo: (1) a strengthening of due process for men, (2) an increase in societal doubt in harassment claims, and (3) a wedge between male managers and female employees. Nice work, ladies.
[+]

Friday, May 31, 2019

Hmm. Verification

Ola, everyone. I ran across an interesting article yesterday that seems to verify a lot of what I've been talking about lately. Let's discuss.

The article is at Politico (LINK) and it involves a study conducted (on the left) to try to determine what is going on in the Democratic Party. Ostensibly, they are confused why Biden and Bernie would be front-runners and they have tried to investigate it. What they found is this:

● Democratic voters want a female candidate... like I've been saying. They found an overall preference of 7% for a female candidate over a male. Women prefer female candidates by 8%. That doesn't sound like much but when they focus on "liberals" that number goes up to 15%. That's really significant, and I suspect it's even higher among "liberal women." It would not surprise me if it's close to 20% or 25% in that group.

Why does that matter? Well, think of the age thing I talked about the other day. Almost all the "moderate" Democrats are seniors. They will die off. As they do, liberal women will become 60% of the party. That will be an overwhelming advantage for female candidates. As I said, the Democratic future is angry white women.

● What about blacks? The polls finds a 4% preference for blacks over whites. BUT there's a catch. Blacks have a 15% preference for blacks. Take them out and whites only have a 0.7% preference for blacks. So blacks are largely at 0% among whites. In other words, there is a real indifference to blacks among the very white women who will be running the party... as I said. There isn't a hate for them, there is just an indifference, even an ignore-ance. Again, that is why I see this becoming a white woman's party, because they simply aren't thinking about anyone but themselves.

As aside, Latinos have a negative preference for blacks which offsets the 0.7%, not that Latinos really matter to the Democrats at this point.

● What about gays? I've been telling you that gays have left the party and, therefore, have become persona non grata. There is evidence for this everywhere. Now we add this study to the list. Gays are the one group to show a negative preference. In other words, gays get a -1.2% preference overall, but have a -7% preference from religious Democrats and a -6% preference from blacks, who have never been comfortable with gays. So gays, at best, are seen indifferently among white woman (some chunk of whom are likely lesbians -- probably 3%, suggesting a nearly -2% preference among straight white women), and they are seen negatively among all the other groups except high income, nonreligious, liberals (college professors and lawyers).

● Now let's add one more factor. The authors of the study point out a reason why these numbers may be worse than they appear. There is a preference (certainly among leftists) to lie about their own views to virtue signal. In other words, they know it's wrong to not want black candidates or to dislike gay candidates or, frankly, to express any preference. Even choosing women over men, while considered virtuous by many liberals, is still a prejudicial position that many will claim not to support even as they do. So it is very possible that this study understates the pro-woman bias, the anti-black/indifference-to-blacks bias, and the anti-gay bias. These numbers are already significant handicaps. Add another 3-5% in the wrong direction and they become nearly impossible hurdles.

So what does all this mean? Frankly, I think it confirms what I've been talking about. Democrats seem more normal now than they will become. Crazy huh? They are drifting to becoming a party of angry white women who want white women in power by a large number... that means the end of the male facade. Blacks want blacks in power, but no one else does and white women don't think about them. That means blacks get left out. Gays are passe and I think you won't see much energy expended on their issues.

[+]