Patterico's Pontifications

1/21/2017

Ken White on Punching Nazis

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:59 am

So Richard Spencer, a white nationalist, was giving someone an interview yesterday when someone came up and sucker-punched him. Here is the video:

I was in an online discussion yesterday with people who were debating whether this is awesome or bad. The general consensus seemed to be that it was awesome. I said it was bad.

Ken White has written a post about it which you should read in its entirety. He makes several sensible points. Ten in all. Let me quote the first five as a springboard for discussion.

1. Nazis are scum.

2. Principles are in a constant struggle with viscera. I want punching Nazis to be acceptable, and find the spectacle of Nazis getting punched to be viscerally satisfying. Jesus Christ and John Donne aside, Nazi suffering does not move me.

3. We have social and legal norms, including “don’t punch people because their speech is evil, and don’t punish them legally.” Applying those norms is not a judgment that the speech in question is valuable, or decent, or morally acceptable. We apply the norms out of a recognition of human frailty — because the humanity that will be deciding whom to punch and whom to prosecute is the same humanity that produced the Nazis in the first place, and has a well-established record of making really terrible decisions. You — the bien-pensant reader, confident that sensible punchers and prosecutors can sort out Nazis from the not-Nazis — will likely not be doing the punching or prosecuting. The punching and prosecuting will be done by a rogue’s gallery of vicious idiots, including people who think that Black Lives Matter should be indicted under RICO and that it’s funny to send women death threats if they write a column you don’t like.

4. In embracing a norm that sucker-punching Nazis is acceptable, remember that you live in a nation of imbeciles that loves calling people Nazis. Also bear in mind that certain aspects of our culture — modern academic culture, for instance — encourages people to think that you’re a Nazi if you eat veal or disagree with them about the minimum wage.

5. By the way, right now there are tons of people right now who would welcome an emerging social norm that it’s acceptable to punch, say, Black Lives Matter protesters. I know Nazis aren’t remotely comparable. You do too. They disagree. And you’ve handed them the rhetorical tools to defend themselves, and handed the broader populace an excuse to look away. Well done.

Now. I recognize that the comment thread is likely to devolve into a discussion about whether Richard Spencer is a Nazi. Ken White sets forth his points with the assumption that Spencer is one. I don’t really disagree — but if it makes you happier, everywhere he says “Nazi” you can substitute “white nationalist and racial separatist who claims he is not a Nazi but favorably quotes Nazi propaganda and wants to have an all-white state in North America.”

I don’t believe in sucker-punching those guys. What about you?

Media Shows Renewed Promise To Be On Top Of Their Game Next Four Years…

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:34 am

[guest post by Dana]

Grasping for metaphor, indeed:

And as any event involving the combination of garbage, fire, and a large crowd—coupled with its convenient location right outside the office of a major news organization—does, the small blaze caught the attention of seemingly every reporter within sprinting distance.

Untitled

Heh.

–Dana

1/20/2017

Things You Can Count On: Children of Republican Politicians Will Always Be Targeted By Disgusting Human Beings

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:45 pm

[guest post by Dana]

What the hell is wrong with people?? Leave. Children. Alone. How hard is that??

Less than 24 hours into Donald Trump’s presidency and the Left is already confirming that 10-year old Barron Trump will be fair game for them to viciously attack for the next four years. After all, this is the child of a Republican president. What’s noteworthy (for lack of a better term) about these attacks is that one individual writes for NBC’s Saturday Night Live, and the other writes for Fox Sports.

Untitled2

Untitled

We are again witnessing the vulnerability of children simply because they are the offspring of Republican politicians . It’ unfortunate that Mrs. Trump and Barron cannot remain safely ensconced in the familiar confines of New York City for the next four years as a way to avoid putting Barron Trump into the spotlight even more than he already is. Of course, that less public life ended today. At best, his parents can only hope to shield him from most of it.

Anyway, given that NBC suspended one of its anchors for having suggested that Chelsea Clinton, who was 27-years old at the time, was being “pimped out” by her mother’s presidential campaign, I’m sure we can count on them to, at the very least, suspend SNL writer Katie Rich.

Oh. And this:

2

Yep. I do too.

–Dana

[Update by JVW]
Sorry, I generally don’t intrude into Patterico or Dana’s posts, but this is so laughable that I had to add it. Apparently the geniuses writing headlines at MSN have no idea who “Barron Trump” is and assumed that it was Ms. Rich’s pet name for the new President. They got it right in the main article, so I guess the headline writers don’t even bother to read the dreck that the MSN staff writers produce. Jeeze, it’s going to be a long four years with these clowns presuming to tell us what to think.

MSN

– JVW

Just a Quick Reminder

Filed under: General — JVW @ 10:38 pm

[guest post by JVW]

Dissent 2

– JVW

An Instant Inauguration Classic

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:13 pm

I think I could watch this 30 times in a row and never get tired of it.

A New Beginning: Gateway Pundit Gets White House Press Credentials

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:30 am

Pamela Geller tweeted this out last night from the so-called “Deploraball” (eye roll):

You might wonder whether she was trolling, but Oliver Darcy said the same thing:

I am of two minds about this.

On one hand, Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit is, um, not a journalist. To put it mildly. I have described Hoft as someone “whose two-step editorial fact-checking process consists of 1) asking whether a story benefits Trump, and 2) determining how many exclamation points to include in the title.” Kimberly Ross recently wrote a post that laid out some of his past whoppers. You should read that post now if you haven’t already. Let me cite the errors noted by Kimberly and add a couple of my own. (Warning: if you actually click on any of the Gateway Pundit links, close the tab as soon as you’re done, since his site will furiously auto-refresh every second or so until you do.)

  • The “Michelle Obama scrubs Hillary from her Twitter timeline” story, which Hoft had here, and which Sean Hannity apologized for repeating.

So that’s a part of the case against Jim Hoft. Why, then, am I of two minds about this? Because, frankly, if you took most of the major news organizations, you could draw up an equally compelling list of absurdly misreported stories.

Just to take one example among many, I spent years covering the leftist nonsense coming out of the L.A. Times, until I got bored with it. If I started listing examples, we’d be here all day. But you could always go to this link and scroll down to sample some of the year-end roundups I used to do of the numerous errors, distortions, bias, and omissions I documented over the years.

They have White House press credentials.

So do organizations employing reporters who were revealed by Wikileaks to be overly cozy with Democrats.

In other words, Jim Hoft’s standards are non-existent. Indeed, they are much worse than those of most people in Big Media. But there are some in Big Media who are really almost as bad. They’re just a little more genteel, use fewer exclamation points, and (critically) have the opposite world view.

So, when I heard that Jim Hoft has White House press credentials, I’ll admit that I rolled my eyes. But I’m not going to declare the end of the free world.

And, in the end, Hoft is a clown covering another clown. Isn’t that kind of appropriate?

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

1/19/2017

Inaugurations Are Stupid: A Contrarian’s Position

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 pm

As we head into the glorious day of inauguration, allow me to pee in everyone’s cornflakes with a contrarian position:

Inaugurations are stupid.

Yeah, yeah, I get that we have to have a ceremony to commemorate the peaceful transition of power, yada yada yada. But goodness gracious, the level of ceremony that goes into it, and all the emotion and crowds and pomp not to mention the circumstance . . . it’s too much for me.

It seems royalist. Like we’re crowning a king.

But we’re not. It’s just a guy (not a very bright one at that) taking his place in a position with waaaaay too much power.

I don’t feel like making a big deal out of it. I won’t be watching it. I don’t plan to talk about it all day. Maybe I’ll watch a YouTube clip later on, for a minute. And then I’ll go on with my day.

Hey, I become similarly misanthropic during the Oscars, the Grammys . . . pretty much any self-congratulatory ceremony you could name.

Plus I just don’t like Donald Trump as a person, so the less I see of that guy, the better.

Look, I’m a grump, OK?

It’s not you. It’s me.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

The Big Speech

Filed under: General — JVW @ 7:35 pm

[guest post by JVW]

I must like being wrong when guessing the content of upcoming speeches, and apparently I am pretty good at it (at being wrong, that is). So I figured I might as well have another go at it.

At this point there is no doubt that President Obama is leaving office on an entirely ungraceful, self-regarding, and petulant note. Why, after observing him for eight years, would we expect otherwise? He’s done virtually nothing to try to scale back (let alone tamp down) the expected mass protests tomorrow by his supporters alongside of anarchists and other elements of the far left, and he is continually lecturing the majority party against trying to undo the damage he has done, much of it via Executive Order, over the past few years. For a man who spent the 2014 and 2016 elections insisting they were a referendum on his policies — only to see those policies strongly repudiated at the ballot box — to now exit stage far left as some sort of sagacious oracle who brought enlightenment to the dull-minded citizenry whom he graciously acquiesced to server is a level of narcissistic self-regard scarcely believable. But it’s hard to not believe that the soon-but-not-soon-enough-to-be ex-Presdent has rankled his successor in such a way that calls for retribution.

So I am now taking virtual and unenforceable bets on how our Forty-Fifth President of the United States responds in kind. The President-elect has declared that he wrote his own speech and given that he is a man who isn’t shy about settling scores the question remains of how he will treat the outgoing President in his speech. First of all, the new President is more or less obligated to throw out a line thanking his predecessor. Here are some notable examples where the two are of different parties:

Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
[. . .] “The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every 4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.

[to Jimmy Carter] “Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.”

Bill Clinton, January 20, 1993
“On behalf of our Nation, I salute my predecessor, President Bush, for his half-century of service to America. And I thank the millions of men and women whose steadfastness and sacrifice triumphed over depression, fascism, and communism.”

George W. Bush, January 20, 2001
“As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our Nation, and I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace.”

Barack Obama, January 20, 2009
[. . .] “I thank President Bush for his service to our Nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.”

So based upon that I think it is safe to say that tomorrow’s speech will include a blandishment along the lines of “I thank President Obama for his service to our country.” If it is a grudge time, a different phrasing could suggest a harsher tone: “I thank President Obama for all he has done for me. And I mean that.” But it’s probably a safe bet that the new President will fall back on the bland tradition of his predecessors.

Where it really gets interesting is in whether or not our 45th President paints a dire picture of America and implicitly — or, given whom we are discussing, explicitly — blames the 44th President and his policies. Again, here is Obama from eight years ago:

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our Nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the Nation for a new age. Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly. Our schools fail too many. And each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land, a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

[. . .]

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. [. . .] And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet.

In all, a pretty blistering appraisal of the Bush years. Here is what Ronald Reagan had to say about the close of the Carter Era 28 years earlier:

These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.

[. . .]

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we’re too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline.

Interestingly enough, at a tense time in the Cold War the man whose critics all derided him as a warmonger spent only four short paragraphs on foreign policy in his inauguration, promising to support freedom-loving peoples, oppose tyrannies, and always be willing to negotiate for peace. He did not so much utter the words “Soviet Union,” nor did he say “Iran” or “Afghanistan.”

So given the times, the circumstances, the built-up animosity, what do you expect out of tomorrow’s inaugural address? Will our new President name-check all of the ideas and policies of his predecessor that he finds objectionable? Will he instead be a little more arch and measured, and perhaps speak in favor of “the common man” without explicitly deriding the self-declared elites? Keep in mind that the President-elect has characterized his address as being on the shorter side, so perhaps the betting money is that it will be bland and boilerplate. In any case, here is how I see the odds stacking up:

Angry, score-settling address attacking his critics: 3:1 against
Brief, bland address covering well-trod ground from the campaign: 5:4 for
Long-winded recitation of detailed policy plans: 10:1 against
An emotional, heartfelt appeal for national unity: 7:1 against
A repudiation of every position he took during the campaign: 15:1 against (let’s hope!)

Feel free to make predictions in the comments and we can come back tomorrow night and see how everyone did.

– JVW

Fiona Apple Releases Song Protesting Trump with . . . An Amusing Title

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:30 am

These silly protestor types crack me up.

Fiona Apple is gearing up for Saturday’s Women’s March on Washington with a new song, titled “Tiny Hands.”

The singer-songwriter teamed up with composer Michael Whalen to create the minute-long track, which Apple recorded on her phone and released Tuesday. The song, which references Donald Trump, is meant to serve as a chant for protesters speaking out against the President-elect, whose inauguration takes place Friday in Washington, D.C.

Sampling Trump’s own words from the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump made vulgar comments about women, Apple sings, “We don’t want your tiny hands, anywhere near our underpants.”

Here’s the song. It’s . . . not good. Pretty much what you would expect, though.

Hahahahaha.

I don’t care for Donald Trump or the leftists who are protesting him, so watching the two sides get upset at one another is pretty much a joyous event. (When the protestors threaten performers or plan to set off stink bombs, my distaste for Trump gets put aside and I take sides against the protestors, as all Americans should.) I find Fiona Apple’s song silly — except that I know how much it will upset Trump (given how insecure he is, especially about his tiny, tiny hands) and that’s sillier still. So I have to laugh.

There is a serious point to be made, though: as long as this sort of “art” (if you want to call it that) poking fun at our leaders is possible, without retribution from the government, we’re going to be OK.

I recently re-watched the movie “V for Vendetta.” (Minor spoiler alert if you have not seen it and want to.) It’s a story about fighting fascism and governmental evil. It’s based on a graphic novel written about Thatcherite Britain (which shows you how utterly overdramatic the left can be) but its storyline — about a government that creates its own terror attacks and finds a group to scapegoat for them, as part of its program of seizing absolute totalitarian power — arguably applies to Vladimir Putin’s regime.

In one memorable scene, a popular television personality decides to throw the government-approved script out the window and write an episode that brutally mocks the dictator. He thinks that he’ll get a slap on the wrist, but instead he is dragged away by thugs, never to be seen again.

Putin’s regime would likely not tolerate this sort of satire against the Great Leader without some revenge.

But making fun of the “leader” is still allowed in this country. That’s a good thing, and we should appreciate it and fight for it — because it doesn’t have to be that way.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

1/18/2017

President Trump Will Be the Same Man Non-President Trump Was

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:08 pm

I agree with almost every word in this article. Here is the part that resonates for me:

We will not change him—no one can. His children may be able to soften the edges and his most trusted advisers may deflect him off his erratic courses, but nothing will teach him gravitas, magnanimity, or wisdom. Until he is impeached, thrown out of office in four years, succumbs to illness, or lasts through eight years, he is what we have learned he is, and will remain so.

Seemingly unrelated digression that is actually related:

I’ve been listening to The Great Courses lately on Audible — in particular the music courses. (I’ll have a lot more to say about these. It’s a great deal; as an Audible Platinum member you pick up a 24-hour-long course, that sells for hundreds of dollars on the Great Courses site, for less than $12. Try a free trial.) One of my favorite parts of the music courses are the biographical stories — and there are a couple of great stories about the composers Beethoven and Liszt and their attitude towards royalty. I’ll give you links to other sources, but I heard these stories on the Great Courses series of lectures:

The Beethoven stories:

A nobleman once talked during a performance. Beethoven stopped playing and declared, “For such pigs, I do not play!”

He would say to the face of a prince and benefactor,
“What you are, is by accident of birth;
What I am, I created myself.
There are, and have been, thousands, of princes;
There is only one Beethoven.”

Another story, which you can read here, is about Franz Liszt, who was playing a concert in Russia when Czar Nicholas I arrived late and started yammering during Liszt’s performance. Liszt stopped playing and bowed his head. When Nicholas asked why, Liszt replied: “Music herself should be silent when Nicholas speaks.”

Ha!

These really resonated with me because at heart I respect people for their actions and not their titles.

I do not believe Donald Trump the President will be different from Donald Trump the non-President. “We will not change him — no one can. . . . [H]e is what we have learned he is, and will remain so.”

Please do not expect me to start respecting him just because he happens to hold power. I’m a Beethoven fan, and worshiping people because of their titles is just not how my personality works.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1842 secs.