Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Was part of an interested twitter exchange that will make a better post than what I was going to write:

It started with my reply to a Mollie Hemmingway tweet:

A fellow (or lady) by the name of Still following took umbridge at my suggestion that the left would consider the murder of a justice who opposed them a good thing:

I’ll give him/her/it full marks for suggesting that the protests (which are illegal under federal law) are wrong but his attempt to pivot to “republicans support the murder of citizens is so weak and such a standard response by the left that it’s almost not worth fisking, but I had the time…

I then started to note this piece at powerline rather than the tweets quoting the piece let’s just quote it directly:

What do the Democrats think about attempted assassinations of Supreme Court justices? To my knowledge, neither Schumer nor Joe Biden’s handlers have commented. I surmise that the Democrats are hoping for one or more assassinations to take place before Biden is hustled out of the White House, so that his handlers can appoint a successor.

The attempt on Kavanaugh’s life has only emboldened the Democrats’ efforts to intimidate conservative justices. Thus, the dark money group called “Ruth Sent Us,” which has been behind much of the publication of justices’ home addresses and threats against their families, is calling for action against Justice Amy Barrett:

why not double down if there is no push back:

Barrett attends church “DAILY”? The horror!

What I would like to know is, who funds “Ruth Sent Us”? I hazard a wild guess that it is not some fringe group, but rather mainstream Democratic Party donors like, say, George Soros. I think the campaign to expose conservative Supreme Court justices and their families to the risk of assassination is not “extremist,” but rather has been orchestrated by the leaders of the Democratic Party–Joe Biden’s handlers, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and so on. And I think they hope that one or more assassins will succeed so that Biden’s handlers will be able to nominate one or more justices.

Let me remind you that this is the opinion of John Hinderacker. A lawyer who has a long steady record and not someone who just shoots his mouth off: He continues:

Does this speculation seem beyond the pale? Once, I would have thought so. But, apart from open advocacy of assassination by Democrats as in the tweet above, Democratic leaders haven’t done anything to rebut it.

And I can’t think of an alternative explanation of why Merrick Garland and other Democratic Party authorities have failed to enforce laws against demonstrating outside judges’ homes. I can’t think of another explanation of why leaders of the Democratic Party can’t bestir themselves to condemn an assassination attempt. I can’t think of another explanation for why the Washington Post buried news of the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh deep in their “local news” section.

The “local news” bit is of course in line with DaTechGuy’s 3rd law of Media Outrage but the Merrick Garland business reminds me of how lucky we were not to have this evil asshole on the court. My apologies for the language but I can’t think of something worse description to use that is printable. He concludes:

Nor can I think of another explanation of why leaders of the Democratic Party haven’t called off “Ruth Sent Us” in the wake of the Kavanaugh assassination attempt. Could they do so? I am pretty sure they could. But let’s find out! Who, exactly, is financing “Ruth Sent Us”? How do those people (or maybe just one person) relate to assassination-inciter Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party generally?

Inquiring minds want to know. The effort to intimidate or, better yet, assassinate Supreme Court justices didn’t begin with marginal characters like Nicholas Roske, just like the idea of assassinating the House Republican baseball team didn’t originate with James Hodgkinson. The leaders of the Democratic Party are in the dock. Can they defend themselves?

So far, they haven’t even tried.

In fairness even if they wanted to speak I believe that there are two factors here preventing them:

  1. The people who are funding these guys have things on the left to shut them up
  2. They are afraid of they murderous loonies on their side because unlike us on the right they know they’re willing to kill

But there is one more reason while the argument of Still Following fails and this is it:

Nobody is claiming that the Uvalde shooter murdered those kids in protest over gun control o the fellow who shot up his surgeon did so because he objected to limits on magazine sizes or that the gang bangers in Chicago, Baltimore or Philadelphia are basically having a “national day of gunning down people in support of Heller”. For his argument to have the slightest bit of rationality that would have to be true.

But that’s the left for you. it’s all about the narrative and the political goals.

Yesterday I was at Workers Credit Union at the Twin City Mall. It’s the only branch of that bank I now go to because it’s the only one that is still manned by actual human beings not behind a television screen.

While I was there a man at the counter with the teller was commenting on how like me he only goes there because there are real people. The teller commented that they are thinking of converting this branch as well. When I got to the window she said the decision hasn’t been made yet but it’s a cost issue but their branch is constantly swamped BECAUSE they are the only one with real people and actual tellers at the windows.

She seemed to miss that in terms of profitability the fact that this branch is attracting customers tells you all you need to know about if getting ridding real people is a smart move.

This came to mind instantly when I read this from Stacy McCain’s piece on our mutual friend Dave Weigel who has been suspended from the Washington Post:

 I feel obligated to point out that Dave is an actual honest-to-God reporter, the kind who goes out on the road, talks to real human beings and takes notes, rather than sitting in front of a laptop making up phony narratives about people on social media, which seems to be Taylor Lorenz’s job description.

It was the same way a dozen years ago, when some of Dave’s “friends” on the Left decided to get him fired from the Post because he had the audacity to defend Ron Paul. Some of my conservative friends were doing a sack dance over Dave’s firing, but I called him up and offered him some advice: Where you go next, make sure that a travel budget is part of the deal. He signed on with Slate a few weeks later and, sure enough, a travel budget was included. Because that’s what Dave does best, really — The Man on the Scene, in an era when every other “journalist” in America seems to spend most of their time ranting on Twitter.

There is still a need for basic shoe-leather reporting in America, and that’s what Dave Weigel is best at. So this suspension from the Washington Post ought to be seen as an opportunity for some other news organization to grab Weigel and put him to work with (a) a guaranteed travel budget and (b) a promise he’ll never be fired for RT’ing a joke.

If you want actual reporting that people would find interesting the example of Dave Weigel actually going to places and talking to people rather than just sitting and pontificating might be a clue, particularly when you see the response to Salina Zito.

Of course there is a disadvantage that Dave has in the sense that last think the left wants is either for people of the right or their own people to be seen as they are in person.

Emily de Rean on How to End up Alone with Cats

Posted: June 7, 2022 by datechguy in culture
Tags:

Well yeah she says it’s actually: “I quit my job to be a full-time girlfriend: Get fit, cook and you can too” but the reality is this is basically being a kept woman:

Emily de Rean, 37, previously worked as a financial analyst, but now lives off her boyfriend’s money after realizing she was unhappy climbing the corporate ladder.

“You don’t have to just be a stay-at-home mom, you can aspire to be a young child-free woman and not work,” the Dallas beauty declared in an interview with Southwest News Service. “I spend my hours doing what I want and have time to look after my body, cook nice meals and spend quality time with friends.”

Note what she is saying here, don’t become a mother, don’t be a wife, just say fit enough and a man will keep paying your way.

her top tip to becoming a stay-at-home girlfriend is to date a man who can afford to fund that lifestyle.

“There is nothing wrong with a man who wants to be a teacher but if your goal is to be a stay-at-home girlfriend then he’ll never be able to provide for that,” she claimed. “You have to be choosey and only date from pool of men that meet your requirements.

“They need to be financially viable for your needs,” she continued. “You don’t know how a man is going to end up even if he has potential. You should date the finished product.”

All of this is rather hilarious to me because she is forgetting one key point.

In a relationship like this with no commitment nor any family to solidify it means you are expendable. There is always a new crop of 20 somethings who have decades in front of them who can replace you and the law of diminishing returns combined with the natural aging process means you have to work twice as hard to try to maintain yourself to the standard he has become accustomed to.

It reminds of an old class get together a decade ago. There were three woman who in high school would have been considered out of my league sitting with me and my wife (also from the same class). The were complaining that they couldn’t meet a man to their standard and got upset when a classmate came in with a woman 20 years younger.

All of this is transitory. And eventually she will find herself discarded and alone, no kids, no family just another 40 or 50 something woman whose biological alarm has rung it’s final chime

Of course she may find a rich 70 something man who would rather have a compliant 50 something with experience than a 20 something who doesn’t but the supply of 50 something women who are alone is likely vastly greater than the supply of 70 something rich men looking for one.

May she be happy in the life she has chosen but I wouldn’t advise you to follow it.

Via Sarah Hoyt at Insty who notes

Listen to the advice of someone who has read a lot of historical biographies: before you give up the day job, make sure you have a ring and a license. Or at least a contract. Not only didn’t you invent this, your reinvention of the wheel is square.

By John Ruberry

On occasion I get accused of living in a right-wing silo, or if you prefer, bubble.

But it’s left-wingers who are more likely to dwell in their own political silo. And it’s hurting their side. 

Good.

And because many people, particularly leftists, are terrible listeners, I have to repeat myself yet again.

Here we go.

Even if I wanted to, I can’t remain in a right-wing silo. Besides–broadcast and cable media, as well as streaming services, are dripping wet with liberal and woke bias. And I can’t always avoid them. Last year, Mrs. Marathon Pundit underwent a minor medical procedure. In the waiting room I had to sit through ABC’s Good Morning America, hosted by Clintonista George Stephanopoulos, and then, on the same network, The View. 

Earlier this year I had some complicated dental work done. My dentist has TVs in front of each chair. What was on? The View. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was one of the show’s guests. 

“John,” my dentist calmly said to me as she drilled, “tell me if you experience pain.”

Conservatives–and if you are a regular viewer of MSNBC or CNN this will shock you–are more tolerant of people who hold opposing views.

It’s an old study, but Pew Research found that liberals were more likely to block or unfriend a conservative than the other way around. 

The mainstream media, the Biden White House, and big-city governments are leftist monocultures. Big tech too, but I’ll attack them again, I am sure, in a future blog post.

When you live in an echo chamber, you are bound to inadvertently come up with ideas that outsiders will mock. Or even, like a lit stick of dynamite with a long fuse, have them thrown back at you. 

Last month, a contender–and oh my, is the competition steep–for worst Biden cabinet member, Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, revealed the formation of the Disinformation Governance Board. Conservatives immediately pounced, and almost in unison, called the group “Orwellian” and labeled it “the Ministry of Truth,” which is where reluctant liar Winston Smith toiled in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. When it was revealed that a disinformationist, who had cast doubts on the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop, Nina Jankowicz, was the head of that panel, the Orwell analogy was complete. 

One rule of politics, one that the woke ignores because of what Ben Shapiro calls the left’s “unearned sense of moral superiority,” is that when (not if, because the right errs too) you make a whopper of a mistake, you must immediately correct it. So rather than eliminating the Disinformation Governance Board as soon as Mayorkas acknowledged its existence, “the Ministry of Truth” and Jankowicz dangled for three weeks. During that time the Orwellian memes of Jankowicz flooded social media, and an embarrassing TikTok video of Jankowicz, singing to the tune of “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” emerged, which gained her the nickname Scary Poppins.

Anita Dunn, who in 2009 cited the genocidal Mao Tse-Tung as one of her favorite philosophers, which led to her departure from the Obama White House, worked on the 2020 Biden campaign. She was briefly a senior White House advisor to Biden. Dunn is said to have been behind the president’s recent use of not only MAGA as a pejorative, but the heretofore unheard moniker “Ultra MAGA.” Conservatives on social media immediately and proudly declared themselves as “Ultra MAGA,” mirroring the response in 2016 when Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump supporters “deplorables.” During a speech earlier this month, Biden referred to his predecessor as “the great MAGA king.” On Truth Social, Trump struck back with a Lord of the Rings-themed meme as he gleefully adopted the nickname.

If Dunn didn’t live in a left-wing bubble, she would have seen all of those snarky responses coming.   

On the local level, last month Chicago’s inept leftist mayor, Lori Lightfoot, declared that the summer of 2022 will be “the Summer of Joy.” John Kass has derisively referred to the Summer of Joy in several of his columns and he poked fun at it in his most recent podcast. Hey Jackass, the sarcastic yet accurate tabulator of Chicago murders and shootings, is selling Summer of Joy T-shirts and coffee cups. Now that Memorial Day weekend has arrived, every time there is a mass shooting in Chicago–and we only have to look back a few hours to find the most recent one–bloggers and right-leaning social media users will quip something along the lines of “Wow, here is more ‘Summer of Love’ Chicago carnage for you.”

All Lightfoot would have needed to prevent this mockery is to have a politically moderate advisor–she would never hire a conservative–who would be bold enough to say, “I don’t think ‘Summer of Love’ is a wise idea, and here’s why.”

As Mary Poppins, not Biden’s Scary Poppins, said in that classic movie, “Sometimes a person we love, through no fault of their own, can’t see past the end of his nose.”

Such is the status of liberalism in 2022.

Which is why it will be a glorious election season for the right this year.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.