Literature

Lionel Shriver Doesn't Care If You Hate Her Sombrero

The author of We Need to Talk About Kevin and The Mandibles pulls no punches when it comes to race, sex, or economics.

|

When Lionel Shriver took the stage at the Brisbane Writers Festival this fall, her speech was billed as a talk on "community and belonging." And in a way, it was. Modern writers, she argued, have been put in an untenable position. In our age of "super-sensitivity" about identity politics, we insist that novelists populate their books with diverse casts of characters, while simultaneously warning that writing a character from a different background than their own may carry the taint of "cultural appropriation." Shriver raised the specter of being "obliged to designate my every character an aging 5-foot-2 smartass, and having to set every novel in North Carolina," which would surely make for dull reading. "We fiction writers have to preserve the right to wear many hats," she said in closing.

She then produced a sombrero, popped it onto her head, and left the podium.

Shriver has made a career of writing about things she's not supposed to write about. Whippet thin, she chronicled her sibling's morbid obesity in 2013's Big Brother. Childless, she explored what it means to dislike and fear your own offspring in We Need to Talk About Kevin, which won the Orange Prize for Fiction in 2005 and was subsequently made into a chilling film starring Tilda Swinton. In 1994's Game Control, she sends her white protagonist to Nairobi with a modest proposal to deal with overpopulation. Her most recent book, The Mandibles, is a near-future dystopia in which the United States has finally, and catastrophically, defaulted on its debt.

In a mode that is reminiscent of Ayn Rand, the characters in The Mandibles claw, bite, squabble, and sulk over the economic and political world where they find themselves, struggling with what they are allowed to say—and what they are allowed to think—about the people they live with and among.

In October, shortly after the Brisbane speech, Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward spoke with Shriver about gender politics, the likelihood of economic collapse, and coming out as a libertarian in The New York Times.

Reason: Talk about why you wrote that New York Times piece—rather brutally titled "I Am Not a Kook"—about, essentially, being a libertarian.

Shriver: Out of frustration. Because I think there are a lot of people that don't regard themselves as libertarians who, if you take their views apart one by one, belong in that camp. But because the word has become associated with some rather strange views, and even stranger people, a lot of the people to whom it would naturally apply disavow membership.

This whole business with being fiscally conservative, preferring a more effective but less ambitious government that takes a smaller piece of the national pie, but also being socially liberal, so I have no problem with gay marriage, I want abortion rights, I would legalize recreational drugs rather than have a war on drugs that doesn't work and puts a lot of fairly harmless people behind bars, many of them minorities—I just think there are a lot of people who have those same views. And the truth is that the libertarian rubric of "You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone" is the core concept of the United States of America, and something that we should be proud of.

So every time a national election comes up I get frustrated, and I think I have a lot of company in that frustration. Because the Democratic Party meets some of but not all of my liberal social agenda, but it's still the party of taxing and spending. And yet the Republicans are nuts, and very religious, which I am not.

I was absolutely shocked that every single one of those 16 candidates that ran originally on the Republican primary ticket was anti-abortion. And, OK, some of them talk a good game about restricting the size of government and keeping taxes short of confiscatory, but I can't vote for their social agenda.

In your professional universe, the more literary end of your spectrum, do you find there are other people who share your views?

I definitely find fellow travelers, and constantly have people come up to me quietly after events and say, "I agree with everything you say."

Lionel Shriver. Photo by Michael Birt/Contour by Getty Images.

When you're working on a book like The Mandibles, how conscious are you of saying, "I want this to be something people write think pieces about"? Or is it more just a literary exercise?

I don't think it's very profitable to think how people are going to receive you before you have even written the book.

I am first of all trying to tell a good story, and in this case a plausible one. I wanted to put together a sequence of future history events which made economic sense. The focus of the novel is the implosion of the economy as a consequence of overloading of U.S. sovereign debt.

I am never deliberately controversial. It just turns out that way. I'm often dumbfounded by what people find controversial these days.

You favor putting cocaine in vending machines and people say, "Ah, that's an interesting idea." Then you say at the Brisbane Writers Festival, "I think maybe I should be allowed to write Hispanic characters sometimes," and everyone loses their minds. How do you account for why one is so shocking and the other isn't?

I have a hard time. I thought the point I was making in that speech in Brisbane was tame to the point of boring. I worried that I was taking on a paper tiger, because the concept I was addressing myself to had so little merit, it was so easy to knock out of the water, that it was a little bit, to mix our metaphors, like dealing from a stacked deck. Maybe I should have taken on something more challenging, like legalizing drugs.

My only regret with the way it became this international incident is that I worry in the very act of dismissing a concept with no merit, I helped to perpetuate it. I heard from lots of writers and people in publishing who were very supportive of me, as they should be. But I worry that we have given "cultural appropriation" more legitimacy in the very act of proclaiming too loudly its illegitimacy.

That said, there is a larger issue. This is just one more [instance of] chipping away at freedom of speech, and one more assault on our ability to say and write whatever we want. And I do feel strongly about that, and I will go to bat for that, and on that point I am not regretful.

I'm afraid that freedom of speech is under such ceaseless assault these days that that is a battle that we're going to have to keep fighting. It's getting to the point where if you're not among your closest circle, you just don't open your mouth about anything along these lines [of race or gender]. There is a long list of subjects that you feel like you can't talk about anymore, and that depresses me.

Do electoral politics have any impact on how this trend develops?

I certainly am not going to pretend it doesn't matter who wins the American presidential election, in this election of all elections. Yes, it matters, but what we're talking about is not so much to do with which party is in the White House. What we're talking about is much broader than that and is not just a matter of laws but also a matter of self-censorship, which is being installed in the culture on a very deep level.

The stakes are often very high. It's not just a matter of someone not liking you. I learned this term recently, have you heard this? It's being denormalized.

What does denormalized mean?

It's not just saying you can't speak at this college because we don't agree with everything you think. It's putting word out that you are not acceptable anymore anywhere. And it's effective. Especially in academics, because universities are cowardly and don't want to invite trouble.

"I am never deliberately controversial. It just turns out that way. I'm often dumbfounded by what people find controversial these days."

Do you think that's happening to you? Do you fear that it will?

I haven't before, but I have to say that after having a few encounters in Australia…Groups of people who become pumped up with their own righteousness have a mob character and are anything but self-examining. And I think some of them could be capable of physical violence in the name of virtue. People who believe themselves to be good make me extremely nervous.

Let's return to the economic world of The Mandibles. In particular, I was struck by the idea that complex systems collapse catastrophically. Is our economy such a system?

I think so. It almost collapsed in 2008. We think that we went through a catastrophe at that time and we didn't. We propped everything up. But I think that there are all kinds of signs that we have simply—the British use this expression incessantly—kicked the can down the road. I think that the bullet we dodged in 2008 is still whizzing around the planet and is going to hit us in the head.

When the currencies aren't worth anything and the stock market is crashed, what's left?

Are you tempted to draw policy proposals from these insights?

I'm glad it's not my problem to come up with solutions. [But] I am very anxious about quantitative easing and I would stop it. This whole thing of pumping the world full of money is not going to end well. It's going to be one of the things that drives the world economy over a cliff.

It just seems out of control to me, in the same way that the nature of government is out of control. I was talking to my husband about this at dinner just the other day. I think it is in the nature of government to infinitely expand until it eats its young.

I am charmed by this vision of your domestic life—you and your husband sitting at the table delivering libertarian manifestos to each other.

I've been criticized, especially in reviews of this book for the fact that I have people sitting around the dinner table talking about economics, which some critics think is artificial. But that's the way we talk in this house every night, so it seems totally normal to me.

As a teenager, you changed your name from Margaret Ann to Lionel. If a young person in 2016 said, "I'm Lionel now," do you think that would be received differently than it was in your case?

Yes, that is well-observed. I hadn't thought about that.

I never much liked my given name. I took my first alias at 8 years old. I decided to be called Tony. So there was a certain pattern of preferring male names. And then my family moved from Raleigh to Atlanta when I was 15 and that was my opportunity. I assumed the name of Lionel, and nobody knew me as Margaret or Margaret Ann so I got away with it. It was a nice clean break, and I have not looked back.

What's more interesting is what it would have meant nowadays.

I have a young daughter and I can guarantee if she showed up at school tomorrow and said, "I want to be called by a boy's name," the cascade of intervention would be epic.

Well, I'm relieved to have been spared the cascade of intervention.

I published [an essay in Prospect magazine] this year. That was the one that I thought was going to get me shot. I said that I was a tomboy, I didn't like wearing frilly dresses, and I didn't especially identify with the female world. And then I called myself Lionel, and my parents, if this were today, probably [would have ended] up taking me to see a therapist and possibly putting me on hormones. I might have been a candidate for gender reassignment, and I am very glad they didn't.

I don't think that I've been significantly more unhappy, because where I have tended to move toward is a sense of myself which is beyond gender, which is fundamentally androgynous. Which doesn't mean I don't nowadays still enjoy wearing a dress. I'm really impatient with our obsession with gender now, and the whole thrust of that essay is that we're going backwards culturally. When I was growing up, women's liberation as it was then being called was all about getting away from gender as a way to understand yourself, and now we're busy stuffing [people] into pigeonholes.

And isn't it interesting that the thing that created a tempest around you is not that thesis? Wearing a sombrero is what did you in instead.

I'll tell you, I was commissioned to do two speeches while I was in Australia, and the bigger one was for Melbourne. I gave the closing address and I used the Prospect essay as the basis for that talk. And I was braced for really getting a lot of shit for that one—that was the one I expected to get me into trouble, and the Brisbane one was kind of a sideline. I wrote [the Brisbane] speech very fast, and I had no idea that I was saying anything that wasn't self-evident.

"Maybe the left has been too successful.…Maybe they're giddy with their own power."

Do you think your experience tells us that people are more freaked out about talking about race than about sex and gender?

No. I think it was a sheer accident. I think it just so happened that there was one indignant audience member who decided to make a stand, who kicked the whole thing off [in Brisbane]. And I might have been similarly unfortunate in Melbourne…but as it happens, the dice rolled otherwise.

Do you think of yourself as a contrarian, or do you think of yourself as someone who says sensible things that other people react to weirdly?

I'm afraid that sensible me is becoming contrarian because I'm contrary to the culture. But I didn't start out that way, and it isn't the way I think of myself. Maybe that just means I'm getting old and crotchety, but I feel that someone has to hold the line for common sense.

I am dismayed that the left in the West has abandoned freedom of speech and the only people who are sticking up for our ability to say what we want are conservatives. It's a weird swapping out that has taken place over my lifetime, but it's the leftists who are now the enforcers of conformity. I just don't get it. Maybe the left has been too successful. They've prevailed on race and gender, they've won a lot of the culture wars, and maybe they don't have enough left to fight for, or maybe they're giddy with their own power.

Do you think free speech is important for its own sake? Or do you think the value is pragmatic?

Oh, I'd definitely say it's both. Certainly it's important in principle. It is one of the reasons the U.S. was founded [and] I think we underappreciate how easy it is to lose. There aren't that many examples of places that truly embody and encourage free speech.

But there are practical benefits, and I think there are vast intellectual benefits. I prefer to live in a world where people disagree with each other over practically everything and they are willing to say so. I like a sharp-elbowed, rambunctious public square.

I think that language, both verbal and written, is a safe outlet for emotion and opinion and ideas. It means we're not beating each other up. So it's really important for us to be able to disagree with each other in print or across the dinner table, and even for the argument to get heated, as long as nobody hits anybody. And I'm even against the whole codification of hate speech because I believe if something is truly hateful, or truly encouraging hatred of whole groups, then it looks bad self-evidently and these people hang themselves.

Let them sound like racist assholes. I would rather let them tar themselves, so we know who they are and what they think, than have them self-censor and keep it to themselves, and then it just becomes more poisonous.

I kept hearing [Trump's] supporters talking about, "Well, at least he says it how it is." And they clearly have found it a great relief to have been given permission to vent and to express opinions that they've been prevented from airing. Now, maybe not all those opinions are great, but it's better that they feel free to express them than for it to turn into this stewing, violent resentment.

I do have one final thought: We have lost sight of that old schoolroom chant, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me." We have entered a cultural universe where we think words are injurious and therefore dangerous, and equivalent to acts of violence. And that is unfortunate.

This interview has been edited for style, clarity, and length.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

244 responses to “Lionel Shriver Doesn't Care If You Hate Her Sombrero

  1. Civilization began when the first person threw an insult instead of a stone.

    1. You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

      1. Ugly is only skin deep. Stupid goes all the way to the bone 🙂

      2. I may be ugly, but you’re stupid and tomorrow I’ll be …… well, I guess I’ll still be ugly, but tomorrow you’ll be …. well, I guess you could learn something and not be stupid, but …… okay, well, I may be ugly but I might be stupid, too, and …… something, something, something, SHUT UP!

      3. Your mother smells of elderberries.

        1. I fart in your general direction.

          1. Now, go away, or we shall taunt you a second time!

            1. i’m french and this is cultural appropriation.

    1. S.E. Hinton is still around?

      1. I was going to say, the most surprising thing about this is that S.E. Hinton is still alive.

        1. I was surprised by that, too. I’d always mentally lumped her in with Judy Blume and just assumed she started getting published when she was middle aged, but she was just barely in college when The Outsiders came out. She’s only in her 60s now.

    2. And funny that she’s going through the flip side of what Shriver is. SJWs are a bunch of fucking totalitarians.

    3. “HETEROPHOBIA: ‘Outsiders’ Author SE Hinton Says She’s ‘Being Attacked for Being Heterosexual.’ As she says, want a great gay novel? Write it.”

      All novels are gay. In fact, *reading* is gay.

      Exception: Tom Clancy novels

      /kidding

      1. Basically, more syllables and more dialogue means gayer.

        1. GAY (from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice)

          “Remember, Eliza, that he does not know Jane’s disposition as you do.”

          “But if a woman is partial to a man, and does not endeavour to conceal it, he must find it out.”

          “Perhaps he must, if he sees enough of her. But, though Bingley and Jane meet tolerably often, it is never for many hours together; and, as they always see each other in large mixed parties, it is impossible that every moment should be employed in conversing together. Jane should therefore make the most of every half-hour in which she can command his attention. When she is secure of him, there will be more leisure for falling in love as much as she chooses.”

          LESS GAY (From Biff Heman, Tank Commander)

          Biff shot the bad guy. Then he had sex. With a woman.

      2. want a great gay novel? Write it

        One of the pleasures of reaching a certain age – for a normal person – is not giving a shit about what other people think any more.

        1. The issue is partially funny because it’s people bitching about books she wrote in the freaking 60s and 70s. I mean, if I was someone in my late sixties and had some punks on social media saying “YOU DIDN’T FILL OUT MY SOCIAL JUSTICE CHECKLIST IN THE BOOK YOU WROTE IN HIGH SCHOOL” I’d laugh my ass off.

          1. and then punch them right in the fucking mush…

    4. I like the comments about how if she did include Gay or black characters, that she would have been attacked for cultural appropriation. That’s the thing about fascists. I think she’s being way too nice about it. My response would be ‘fuck you’ if I gave any response at all.

      1. I like the comments about how if she did include Gay or black characters, that she would have been attacked for cultural appropriation.

        By the exact same fucking people. Here’s the thing to realize about social justice cadres – there’s nothing you can do to satisfy them because they really aren’t out to influence anyone’s behavior. No more than any other bully. It’s the act of coercing that they’re after. Whatever bullshit cause they’re parading around today is nothing more than a useful pretext.

        1. And they will eventually eat each other.

          *pulls popcorn from microwave*

      2. What AJB said. Good for Shriver to laugh at it.

  2. “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but woodchippers? Ouch.”

    As she says the left has abandoned freedom of speech and the right is sticking up for it but in a weird, churchy way. If you get too far outside the circle, both sides will pillory you.

  3. Great interview. Thanks!

    “We have entered a cultural universe where we think words are injurious and therefore dangerous, and equivalent to acts of violence. And that is unfortunate.”

    Unfortunate is an understatement. PC and SJW-ism must die. Like yesterday.

  4. OT: Cops are stupid. You are stupider if you don’t understand that and confuse them.

    Cops break window of car containing frozen old lady. After hours and hours in the morgue the mannequin still had not thawed out.

    “It is my understanding that the owner was incredulous that we took action in this matter. He apparently was quite vocal and vulgar to my Sergeant. Just to clear the record, all citizens of Hudson should be put on notice that if you park your locked vehicle on the street on a sub-zero night with a life size realistic mannequin seated in it?we will break your window. I commend everyone who responded with the intentions to help an elderly woman,” said Chief Edward Moore.

    My emphasis.

    1. “…all citizens of Hudson should be put on notice that if you park your locked vehicle on the street on a sub-zero night with a life size realistic mannequin seated in it?we will break your window….”

      Sign:
      HEY DUMMY! THIS IS A DUMMY!

    2. Did they charge him with fraudulent use of an HOV lane too? Nobody needs a life size realistic mannequin in the passenger seat.

      And what’s a non-life-size, unrealistic mannequin? Super Man or Barbie dolls?

    3. I found this in the comment section of another media outlet’s coverage:

      “A CPR training device? We are being hoodwinked by someone looking to cheat the HOV highway lanes. A CPR training device? REALLY? And it travels in the passenger seat with a seat belt instead of in the trunk? This situation stinks badly of wrongdoing on the part of the dummy owner. Thank you to the police for trying to do what was right. A CPR training device? This person should be fined for causing a public panic when none was really needed.”

  5. The Mandible sounds pretty good. Added to wish list. Maybe I’ll be through my list of unread fiction books I already have by the time I get it. Need to take more breaks from programming books. We need more writers like this.

    1. I recently read it based on a recommendation from a Hit & Run article. I am glad I did since it was a good read. It has a few flaws but I recommend it.

      1. Nuce. Thanks.

  6. The facebook comments for the lost of this there are…predictably fucktarded.

  7. I am dismayed that the left in the West has abandoned freedom of speech and the only people who are sticking up for our ability to say what we want are conservatives. It’s a weird swapping out that has taken place over my lifetime, but it’s the leftists who are now the enforcers of conformity. I just don’t get it.

    I haven’t been around all that long, so maybe there really was a time when things were different. But, what is there to not get? My understanding is that the left has been doing this shit going back to at least the late 60s (Weather Underground), and likely before that, if you include the eugenics movements in the early 20th century, etc. The SJW mob is just the maturation of those concepts, tactics and goals. They have always been obsessed with conformity and have always justified the means with the ends. Things like abortion are just proxy wars.

    1. Well said.. Other than a couple of thoughtful souls like the late (as of yesterday) Nat Hentoff, the left’s advocacy of free speech is and always was a chimera.

      1. Budd Schulberg (Oscar-winning screenwriter of On the Waterfront) named Communists in the early 50s, justifying it by saying he was amazed how the Communists supported free speech until you said things they disagreed with.

    2. I’d say that when there was actual censorship against communists, socialists, union people, birth-controllers, and envelope-pushing novelists, there was a group of pro-free-speech leftists, who saw the big picture and sought to protect free expression for everyone.

      The ACLU used to contain a lot of these people, though now the ACLU itself has gone soft.

      Then many leftists realized that people were “abusing” free expression by such things as: picketing abortion clinics, spending too much money on politics (without the authorization of a media outlet), telling off-color jokes in the workplace, adopting controversial positions on college campuses, etc. So then came time for the Great Leftist Debate on free expression.

      There were the types who said “we should support free speech for everyone, even these awful right-wingers,” but those types have been losing out to the “hate speech isn’t free speech” crowd.

      1. There is the fact that a lot of leftists have academic or writing jobs, where they are hit over the head constantly with the importance of the First Amendment – so there’s a constituency even among leftists for a strong 1st Amendment position – but often even a person in a job involving the exercise of First Amendment rights will say that First Amendment rights are for me not for thee (as Nat Hentoff put it).

        1. I think we’ll see hate speech legislation within the next 20 years. Hopefully, the Supremes will hold the line.

      2. “There were the types who said “we should support free speech for everyone, even these awful right-wingers,” but those types have been losing out to the “hate speech isn’t free speech” crowd.”

        I think that’s probably accurate. I think the trend line has been going that way for a long time and clearly there were a lot of hard core Leftists who were always against actual free speech. However, it seems to have become the majority Leftwing view in the US sometime between the 1990’s and today.

    3. I agree, I think the difference is that the internet has not only magnified their derp exponentially, but it has given them newfound power to shut people up and punish.

      1. Exactly that. Now you don’t have to be ballsy enough to throw together a pipe bomb or be seen on national television picketing with a ridiculous poster. Now if Kurt Schilling steps out of line, there are 100,000 anonymous mini-fascists to attack him on Twitter and scare his employer to death.

    4. A lot of people still don’t understand that the left was never in favor of ‘free speech’.

      The ‘free speech’ they wanted in the 60s is the same type of ‘free speech’ they want today–the freedom to scream in your face as much as they want while you are constrained from replying.

      They wanted to spout leftist dogma without ever having to defend it or show that it could actually work.

      And they won.

      The succeeding increasingly moronic generations are the proof of that. They demand ever tighter restraints on their thought processes all while believing that they, and they alone, have open minds.

  8. You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article..
    Click this link.

    ===========http://www.joinpay40.com

    1. See, now that’s much better than the old “until i saw the checks” or ” my sister’s aunt is making” adds. So, does this mean that addbot has evolved the ability to learn? How long until it develops self awareness?

      1. I’m more worried about bots gaining ability to print money, and that it may already have happened.

        1. It seems to me that you areworried aboutthings.

  9. I really don’t see how anybody could have a valid criticism of “cultural appropriation” since you can’t actually steal an idea – it’s not like Mexicans don’t have tacos because Americans stole them all – and even if it were somehow insulting or demeaning or whatever to the culture being borrowed from, my culture has a long history of stealing other people’s shit so why is not condemning cultural appropriation an intolerable attack on my culture? I have to just believe that anybody that starts spouting any nonsense about “cultural appropriation” knows full well they’re full of shit and isn’t actually making a good-faith argument. A punch in the head is a perfectly valid counter-argument to somebody making an argument they know full well isn’t any more valid an argument than a punch to the head.

    1. I wouldn’t go as far as a punch in a head, but if tuning them out or mocking them is an option it’s probably what I’d do.

    2. Cultural appropriation is one of the biggest loads of horseshit that has come out of a lot of loads of horseshit from the left. I was sure it parody the first few times I heard it. Alas, it was not.

      Everybody appropriates everyone’s else’s culture. Duh, you pack of fucking retards. It actually helps bring cultures together, provides an Avenue for people of varying groups to learn something from the other. It’s actually a good thing as it serves a small purpose in closing the divide between cultures.

      Closing the divide between cultures is however not a desire of the left. They need fractured groups in the population to be resentful toward one another in order to win support. They need racism, class envy, disenfranchised minorities, and poverty in order to justify their existance. That’s why none of their policies do anything to alleviate these problems. They are not trying.

      1. It’s almost as if Progressivism is evil….

    3. it’s not like Mexicans don’t have tacos because Americans stole them all

      Jerryskids doesn’t care about the sanctity of Mexican Tacos.

    4. “Cultural appropriation” is a bullshit collectivist attempt to leach of the achievements of others. The only person who has any claim of ownership of any cultural achievement is the person who achieved it. The only guy who might have any say on whether anyone can make a taco is the first guy who thought it would be a good idea to stick sauteed meat in a tortilla (and even that is dubious). Anyone else deigning to comment is simply trying to palm off others’ achievements as their own. That fact that your ancestor happened to be a neighbor of that guy gives you no more ownership of that achievement than anyone else.

    5. Almost all of the developments the Romans were credited with were culturally appropriated from others around them and eventually, their conquests.

      That’s what they were really good at. Conquest. Then take all those good ideas like building stone roads, and put them into Roman culture for use in more conquests.

  10. Lionel Shriver – Most Interesting Woman in the Universe

    Good interview, KMW.

  11. A point no one seems to have made re: the recent national pants-shitting over John Podesta’s falling for a phishing scam (aka “hacking the election” lol)

    We have general consensus from “all the intelligence agencies” that there is an Ubiquitous Russian Cyberthreat and their penetration of political parties is a sooper big deal….

    …. (even tho none of the information that was exposed was of any security value or influenced the election in any way)…

    …but yet somehow we’re supposed to simultaneously believe that the Secretary of State’s choice to route all of her government communications through an insecure private server for a few years was somehow “not a big deal” and one big nothingburger which was totally overblown.

    The cognitive dissonance between these two postures seems to affect absolutely no one in the media.

    1. There are a ton of frustrating things about the media regarding the DNC leaks. The cognitive dissonance you speak of is absolutely one, and why doesn’t anyone bring it up? No idea. Every time some talking head uses the phrase “hacked the election,” whatever token rational person they’re debating needs to say “Oh you mean when the world found out that you have intellectual 3rd graders working for you?”

      There are so many effective counterpunches for all of this, but instead everyone lets it devolve into “Well, it didn’t really impact the election and Trump had nothing to do with it!”, essentially conceding that the election was “hacked.”

      1. right. i just think its amazing how the media manages to simultaneously pretend

        “Russians snooping on low-level campaign jerks like podesta” is a big friggin’ deal (with a Capital Friggin’)…

        while

        “cabinet level US diplomatic officials violating communications security protocols for years on end, compromising vast swaths of govt intelligence”

        is like a total nothingburger which like, people need to totally get over already

        1. Even more amazing has been multiple recent op-ed stances that there was “far too much media attention paid to the non-existent email scandal instead of to the serious issues of the campaign,” and that’s why Trump won.

          As if. What I recall most media doing during the campaign was, everything they could to suppress the email server story, mostly with “hey! look over there!” -type stories.

          1. “It was still too much!!”

    2. The Russian-hacking report hadn’t been done back when Hillary was developing her server.

      If she’d survived the Russian hacking and been elected Pres, she would have been so relieved at the close call that she would have never done anything risky with her information again.

      How’s that?

    3. *disclosure =

      i happen to be on this topic because i’m listening to friday’s 5th column

  12. OT: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..h-44618432

    “You never know when something as huge or as phenomenal like this will happen again, so I was like ‘I’m not missing this for nothing,'” said Umar Ibrahim, 28, who took the day off from his job as a city bus driver to snag a ticket, waking up at 3 a.m. to start the trek to the convention center.”

    I live in Chicago, so I heard about this event from acquaintances and had to keep my opinions to myself. Say what you want about former President G.W. Bush, as soon as his term was over, he got the fuck out of DC and flew to Dallas and never interfered nor voiced his opinions about the political climate.

    This guy though, is doing his damnest to make sure Trump’s transition is as difficult as possible and making sure that we will never forget him.

    1. i think its fitting to give the speech in Chicago, since its the city that has suffered worst under his regime. He can gloat.

      1. But yet they love him here.

        1. wasn’t there a thing a few years ago (2012-2013 ish) where there was a group of ‘activists’ in the chicago area who all spoke out pointedly against Obama’s admin?

          i can’t remember exactly when it was, but it got a lot of circulation in the comments (maybe there was even an H&R post about it)

          but there was a period where it seemed the general sentiment about Obama in the “urban black community”* was actually looking pretty shaky

          (*i don’t really think there is such a thing, and its just a term for ‘what people are willing to say publicly’)

          none of these things are exactly what i remember, but they seem to be on the same theme

          The criticism seemed to come before the 2016 election, but then got significantly toned down, assumedly because people expected hillary to win, and there wasn’t much sense bad-mouthing the party that pays the bills.

      2. Hmm. Perhaps Hillary will run for mayor of Chicago.

        1. I mean we can’t do any worst then what we have now.

          1. Ed,

            Your comment reminded me of a particular word/idea: Jinx.

    2. That’s different, you see, because G. W. Bush was an illegitimate President like Trump and his positions were bad so if anything he should have left the political scene even earlier than he did.

      Whereas Obama embodies the popular will and, if it wasn’t for the racist 22nd Amendment, he’d have gotten a 3rd term, plus his policies are good and he should continue to share how good his policies were and are.

      /sarc

    3. I’m sure that there will be much wailing and knashing of the teeth. More proggie tears to feast upon.

      1. Or is it gnashing? I think it’s gnashing but knashing looks familiar?

        1. Yeah, it’s gnashing. That’s what I thought. Not sure where the k came from?

          1. Stop replying to yourself, that’s so annoying!

            1. That’s why I do it. To annoy you:)

          2. gnashing knishes.

            1. Kashi gashing.

              1. Knute Rockne

                THAT’S RIGHT, PEOPLE. THE “K” IS NOT SILENT.

      2. I thought about going purely for that reason, but fuck getting up at 5 AM to get tickets so I can hear a has been have a gloat fest.

      3. Aren’t you glad he wasn’t assasinatated like Kennedy? Now he can be remembered for the failed hack that he was, instead of joining the pantheon of socialist martyrdom.

        1. Just wait until the history books are written. Greatest President ever.

          1. That was assumed before he was ever elected. He also
            got the Nobel Prize before he had ever done anything.

    4. Say what you want about former President G.W. Bush…

      Like his successor, he required a teleprompter yet failed to make use of it?

      1. “Like his successor, he required a teleprompter yet failed to make use of it?”

        No, that’s bullshit. No President requires a teleprompter and they should all be pilloried for using one. I can deal with a President not being perfect far easier than I can someone who never says anything off of a carefully crafted script.

        1. No President requires a teleprompter

          Just a pen and a phone.

  13. This week in “That’s Why You’re the Dolphins” those wacky Fish travel to Pittsburgh and find out how football is professionally played.

    Starring Matt Moore as The Floormat and Ndamukong Suh as Capt. Irrelevant.

    1. And now Rothlisberger gets hurt…why is he out there in this game situation?

  14. I can’t wait for the media to condemn Obama for “encouraging” this sort of behavior towards Israel.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..killing-4/

  15. Guess I’ll get my P227 or HK45 with a threaded barrel. Leaning torward the Sig but do like the cocked and locked option on the HK.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ppressors/

    1. JB,

      How many lists do you think that you are on, as of (very early) 2017?

      1. Well, I just got done reading a book on Isis so I was googling a bunch of names of Isis related names and places. I’m sure I was already on a bunch of list before that 🙂 Havent flown for about 3 or 4 years so next time I do could be enlightning.

        1. JB,

          Clearly, your activity to protect The Homeland by means of unapproved research could be considered toward your benefit. Think upon this.

  16. between “crazy” and “ISIS” lies the ocean of doubt

    Motive of Florida airport killer remains a mystery – USA TODAY

    Is it really that confusing? is there some expectation that they’re going to find a manifesto in his luggage?

    1. Well, schizophrenia+PTSD is more of a “cause” than a “motive”.

  17. CA discovers the charms of federalism after years of trying to coerce the entire country, hires slime bag to make the point:

    “California Legislature hires Eric Holder to fend off Trump”
    […]
    “”It’s very important to prepare California in the event there needs to be a legal fight to protect the policies that have made California the fifth-largest economy in the world,” de Le?n said [LIED] in an interview Wednesday.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics…..834911.php

    1. Ugh, as if their crazy ultra-left policies are doing anything besides trying to destroy that fifth-largest economy (which is largely the result of amazing weather and terrain, the modern tech industry springing up around Stanford U., and Hollywood, certainly not the 13.3% state income tax or sanctuary cities).

      1. Can’t remember where I read it, but the claim was pretty much self-evident: NY can’t get away with truly ridiculous regs and taxes, since you can easily move across the river.
        Moving from coastal CA to Neveda means a complete re-start, so CA gets to make you pay.
        But the question remains; does that idiot REALLY believe that the polices help the economy? What possible mechanism could do that under what conditions?

  18. There’s a new book out, and you’ll never guess who its about (hint: rhymes with Babe Bincoln).

    1. Jabe Crinclin?

    2. Labe Wrinklin?

      1. Cabe Shrinklin?

    3. Abu Ghraib Inkling?

    4. Hey Blinkin?

  19. My only mistake was to have too much faith in America!

    “Post-election, here was the shock for me: It turned out that I, too, was an American exceptionalist. I deeply believed that our country was simply too special for The Donald…

    “…I couldn’t shake the feeling that it couldn’t happen here. In actuality, the rise to power of Trumpian figures ? Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, Vladimir Putin in Russia ? has been a dime-a-dozen event elsewhere and now looks to be a global trend. It’s just that I associated such rises with unexceptional, largely tinpot countries or ones truly down on their luck.

    “So it’s taken me a few hard weeks to come to grips with my own exceptionalist soul and face just how Donald Trump could ? indeed did ? happen here.”

  20. Aaron Rodgers is just unfair….

    1. How’d Tirico do?

      1. That’s a mute point.

  21. From the Des Moines Register

    “What white people should do about systemic racism

    “[By] The Rev. Derrick Keith Rollins Jr….

    “And here we are: Donald Trump has become president-elect. Some disagree, but central to his campaign were messages of hatred toward women, their children, people of color, the elderly, prisoners of war, veterans, immigrants, people that aren’t Christian and especially the environment. How, in this country so full of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, has this happened? I think there are two reasons.

    “First, we’ve refused to talk about it….

    “To our detriment, what resulted from “color blindness” was the quick erosion of the hard-fought progress from the civil rights movement of the 1960s and ’70s within the span of a generation. It was systematically disassembled….

    “An awakening is happening. The question has been asked of me many times: “What can white people do about systemic racism?” If you take a look at what has brought us here, I feel the answer is self-evident.

    “The first step is to talk about it.”

    1. “Speak out for us during those moments where there are only white brothers and sisters. You have been there for those moments. Moments where an opportunity is taken to make disparaging remarks, a joke is made, a thinly veiled insult is spoken….

      “If you work at an organization that is largely white (straight, male and Christian), ask, “Why is everyone that works here the same?”…

      “The time is now. There is no tomorrow. Trump’s election is proof that our dichotomy of silence and piousness is not working; that seeking to be inoffensive and “color blind” has allowed a campaign whose platform is regressive, hate-filled and violent to take hold. A campaign whose slogan hearkens back to a time where America boasted loudly from atop the backs of those disenfranchised.”

    2. Yo, Deacon..I’m not doing shit for you. Fuck off.

      1. Reverend, deacon whatever…

    3. central to his campaign were messages of hatred toward women, their children, people of color, the elderly, prisoners of war, veterans, immigrants, people that aren’t Christian and especially the environment

      and somehow half the country agreed with him? OK, bud.

      “Dear White People” editorials are so 2014

      1. What we need are more videos of celebrities earnestly beseeching us to do prog stuff.

    4. “. . . central to his campaign were messages of hatred toward women, their children, people of color . . . ”

      I think Trump is a buffoon, but for the luva gawd, what did he ever say that is evidence of a hate of women, children, and people of color? I want to see a quote so that I know what these people are talking about!

    5. we’ve refused to talk about it

      Right.

    6. I think electing Trump was an attempt by white people to address systemic racism, as found in universities, SJW thought, and affirmative action programs throughout the country.

  22. Couple living in Chelsea (NYC) apartment rent-free since 2010

    The couple were month-to-month tenants before June 2010, when the state expanded the Loft Law, which is intended to protect people whose apartments are in mostly commercial or industrial buildings.

    Bennett and Nourse, who have two children and run a video content company called KZ Films, claim they don’t have to pay rent because the building doesn’t have a residential certificate of occupancy, according to court papers.

    “This building does not comply with the Loft Law,” said their lawyer, Margaret Sandercock. “The owner is not entitled to collect rent and my clients are not required to pay rent.”

    It has been 80 months since the two paid rent or electric charges, the landlord ? 513 West 26th Realty LLC ? said in its Manhattan Supreme Court filing against the couple.

    1. I had a landlord once that explained that it was really weird how bad tenants of his had really bad luck…

    2. I guess they can afford a good lawyer after six years of squatting. But I might have advised them to lay low rather than splashing their photo and location around the media lest something “happen” to them.

    3. the building doesn’t have a residential certificate of occupancy,

      Then the city should evict the shits at gunpoint.

  23. Lee Daniels is firing back at backlash after stating that he created the show, STAR, so that white people “feel good about being white.” Speaking to TMZ Friday (Jan. 6), Daniels explained that casting a white lead among a predominately black cast is a nod to improving race relations.”

    Wait, who’s Lee Daniels?

    1. The latest version of Tyler Perry

      1. Who’s Tyler Perry?

        1. What you get when you cross the lead singers of Aerosmith and Journey.

          1. Except I would actually watch that.

  24. I see Mark Wahlburg is in a new movie where they’re going to normalize all those unconstitutional searches that Bostonians had to endure after the Marathon bombings.

    I’m sure there will be one scene of someone objecting and the hero cops walk all over his rights and I’m sure this scene will get applause in the theater.

    1. Wasn’t Mark Wahlburg some kind of musician?

        1. So I guess I’m using a very broad interpretation of the term “musician.”

          1. I was going to point that out, but figured it was obvious enough.

      1. Wasn’t Mark Wahlburg some kind of musician?

        Some kind of musician? He was the leader of the funky bunch.

        TW: You will feel an urge to come on, come on, and feel it, feel it.

        Soon after the Canadians answered with this.

        TW: A licky boom boom down.

    2. PATRIOTS DAY!

      For two dip shits.

    3. I once had the cops ask to look in my house for a fellow that had escaped from prison. He snuck away from his detail while they had him at the hospital nearby. I held the door open about one foot and politely declined. Just as the cop started his secondary ‘asking but not really asking’ I interrupted him with “Look, if he shows up here I will call you. Bring a bucket.”

      The cop laughed, apologized for bothering me and they left.

    4. This really terrified the shit out of me at the time. It still does. 🙁

    5. I saw that and was repulsed by it.

      Boston Weak.

  25. Upthread, Gilmore made some comment about how dangerous it was for Hillary to use her homebrew server for SOS e-mail stuff and a thought occurs to me*. Hillary assures us she never sent nor received any classified material on that server – which raises the question of where then did

    1. ….go on.

      1. Too late, they got to him, please send donations in his name to my foundation – use unmarked bills, please.

    2. Dammit – close the tags!

      Where then did Hillary send and receive sensitive info? She didn’t have a government account, did she? So if she didn’t send or receive any sensitive stuff on her homebrew server and she didn’t use a government server, did the SOS for 4 years just never once send or receive any classified e-mails? And is that normal, or is it just that nobody trusted Hillary with any sensitive information because they knew she couldn’t be trusted?

      1. Jerryskids, I am so pleased to learn you are still alive! I am changing the name of my foundation from the Jerryskids Memorial Foundation to the Hooray Jerryskids is still Alive Foundation – but please, as before, send your donations in unmarked bills.

        1. I’ll have my people contact your people.

          My people are Prince M’bouko and they’re gonna need your bank account information.

      2. Interesting indeed, though the question has been raised before. I don’t recall HRC ever being asked by, say, Andrea Mitchell, “Miz Clinton, how does a Secretary of State do her job for four years without sending or receiving classified material?”

      3. Gilmore also mentioned he was thinking of that because he was listening to The Fifth Column, which I had seen others mention. I had been meaning to get that podcast. It was good. In the latest episode Gilmore gets a shoutout for wardrobe advice. I knew there was a reason I took notes on his recommendations. Most of my clothing has a Carhartt label.

        As to Sec Clinton, I think she did use a secure system as well, (so she claimed) but also got busted in email dumps asking the underlings to strip classification labels and send things to her unsecured email.

        1. Ah, ok – so she did have other accounts.

          I never really paid attention to that because I always thought the “classified info” thing was always a red herring (fake news the MSM could focus on so as to avoid looking into the real story) to cover up the real issue that we all know the reason she had her own server wasn’t so she could send and receive classified info, it was so she could avoid any FOIA requests snooping into what she was up to that was nobody’s damn business as far as she was concerned. She sees no distinction between her business and state business, l’etat c’est moi.

          1. Don’t take my word. I just vaguely remember something about her saying she used in house systems for classified material. Comey, in his testimony to congress, did say she had sent and received classified material on her server. But I don’t think an honest person could doubt the whole arrangement was to get around FOIA.

        2. They need an RSS podcast.

  26. Senate Bill 199 to give more control for concealed-carry holders at Ohio airports

    http://abc6onyourside.com/news…..o-airports

    1. Governor John Kasich is also peaking the interest of many.

      Pique interest, dammit.

      The bill, which becomes law in a few months, would allow concealed-carry license holders the right to carry weapons in common areas of Ohio airports and other places like daycare centers

      This makes a ton of sense. At the airport, it’s legal to have a gun outside the airport and everybody has been checked after the security checkpoint. But there’s this weird buffer zone between them – baggage claim, etc., where there is a “gun free zone”… I’m actually a little surprised there haven’t been more of the Ft. Lauderdale style of shootings because everyone in the buffer zone has voluntarily disarmed or checked their weapons. I’m happy to see Ohio coming up with some “common sense” gun legislation.

  27. Hey look, Canada’s Foreman Trudeau has a little foundation scam of his own going.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/n…..ysis-shows

    Look up ‘Adscam’ to see the corruption embedded within Canada’s ‘natural governing party’.

    1. It might be easier to list the Pols that aren’t using some charitable foundation to launder bribes. Clinton has brought so much attention to that that they may have to shitcan that scam.

      1. It’s weird that the press doesn’t bitch more about this in general (Hell, R’s do it too). It’s a component of how politicians have salaries of ~$200k and walk away 10 years later with a few mil in the bank. The charitable foundation essentially pays for a significant chunk of their living expenses, leaving all of their legit income for investment/saving. I wish I could do the same thing, but I don’t have any influence to sell.

        1. The legal ability to trade on insider info is enough to make anyone wealthy.

          Pols, their staffers and both their families are exempt from trading on the info they handle on a daily basis.

          If one of them didn’t increase their wealth under those standards you would have to accept that they are stupid.

    1. Whew – for a second there I thought a hockey game would break out.

    2. Holy moly. That was a smash.

    3. Don Cherry’s erection is still throbbing!

    4. Rufus that shit happens two or three times on every NFL snap of the ball.

      Nothing special about this.

      1. That was a clean, fantastic open ice hit. Old time hockey.

    1. Ugh. So many ‘I felt for the very first time in my life…’ Even Seinfeld went there. Ugh.

      ‘My favorite Obama moment’ insert ’emotion’ here. He just made me feel so…like…like I want to throw myself off a roof for him!

      Comment:

      “I have never seen so many uninformed ignorant people than I have seen in these comments. BHO is by far the worst president this country has ever seen and that is exactly why Democrats have lost so much power in this country. I can’t think of a single thing this man has done in 8 years that was successful for America. The only legacy he has is that he is Americas first Black president and nothing else. What did he do for Blacks? Where is all the new infrastructure? Why is terrorism getting worse while this man opens the doors to our invaders and eventual conquerors? You people are fucking morons. You’ve had your 15 minutes it’s over and America will never be fooled again. Get over it.?”

      1. “The only legacy he has is that he is Americas first Black president”

        That’s the American voters’ legacy, not his, for better or worse.

    2. My favorite Obama moment hasn’t happened yet.

      1. My favorite Obama moment?

        That he’s leaving office.

        1. It’s like you are reading my mind.

      2. Jan. 20 is taking FOREVAH.

    3. Loved Di Caprio stroking his goatee saying signing the Paris Accord was important not for this generation but ‘for all future generations’. Got that? ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS MUST SUBMIT TO CLIMATE CHANGE!

      Which begs the question: Are they serious about *solving* or *ending* it? My guess is not because it’s a neat cottage industry at this point.

      I couldn’t watch much beyond this.

      Clearly these people don’t keep a clear and observant eye on politics.

      Fucken Tom Hanks.

    4. *** puke ***

    5. Mine will be when the shithead finally leaves office.

    6. More seriously, my most memorable moment will be from the week of the Boston Marathon bombing, when the post-Sandy Hook gun legislation failed. Obama had a temper tantrum in the Rose Garden about it, saying something to the effect of, “If these common-sense [sic] regulations can save the life of only one child, don’t we have an obligation to try?”

      That’s where it finally dawned on me to point of that “If concentrating kids in camps where only government-approved adults look after them could save the life of even one child, don’t we have an obligation to try?”

  28. Every game this weekend was won by the home team by two or more scores.

    1. Thanks Mr. Elias Bureau.

  29. Hillary Clinton, who has kept a relatively low public profile since losing the presidential election two months ago, on Sunday showed up at the final performance of the Broadway revival of “The Color Purple,” reveling in the story of a beleaguered woman who triumphs over the oppressive men in her life (and, along the way, discovers a love for colorful pants).

    “Mrs. Clinton, accompanied by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea, received several ovations from the sold-out audience as she arrived, and then another round of applause when she was acknowledged by the cast after the show….

    “Jordan Serpone, 33, an audience member from Boston, said that spotting Mrs. Clinton was a surprisingly moving experience for him.

    “”I was having every emotion I’ve tried to get rid of over the past few weeks,” he said during intermission. He shook her hand, but said he is still filled with frustration over her loss. “She shouldn’t be here. She should be planning her cabinet,” he said….

    “”The Color Purple” tells the searing story of a young black woman abused by her stepfather and her husband in rural Georgia in the early 20th century. The musical is an adaptation of a best-selling 1982 novel, by Alice Walker, which was awarded the 1983 Pulitzer Prize for fiction.”

    1. “She shouldn’t be here. She should be planning her cabinet,”

      Or her defence.

      But whatever.

    2. “”Jordan Serpone, 33, an audience member from Boston, said that spotting Mrs. Clinton was a surprisingly moving experience for him.”

      So is norovirus. Similarly, for me.

  30. I am boycotting the Fifth Column until the three hosts retract their disgraceful statements about the revolting commenter Gilmore.

    For shame, sirs. For shame.

    1. one love to all my homies up in the 5th, TI-style represent

  31. I miss old school liberals like Shriver. Even if you disagreed with their ideas, you knew they weren’t going to destroy you for committing some ‘thought crime’.

    The old liberals need to run those tyrannical Leftists out of their ranks.

    1. I wouldn’t miss Pam Shriver. I’d like some more neutral tennis commentators.

  32. Joanna Andreasson is an attractive lady.

  33. Not sure if posted yet. Video of when airport shooter pulls out gun and begins his rampage.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2…..ting-video

    1. When the police take that guy down, it will be the mother of all nutpunches.

      1. ALTERNATE JOKE: That guy is nuts.

  34. This was a great interview. I agreed with her about pretty much – if not – everything.

  35. I am dismayed that the left in the West has abandoned freedom of speech and the only people who are sticking up for our ability to say what we want are conservatives. It’s a weird swapping out that has taken place over my lifetime, but it’s the leftists who are now the enforcers of conformity. I just don’t get it. Maybe the left has been too successful. They’ve prevailed on race and gender, they’ve won a lot of the culture wars, and maybe they don’t have enough left to fight for, or maybe they’re giddy with their own power.

    I don’t know if if there has been a “swapping out”. At least as long as I have been paying attention. The leftists have always been the jack booted thugs. Normal people never gave a shit about “culture wars”. The leftists said if you did not give a shit about race, gender, sexuality or whatever, and treated people the same as best you could, you were some sort of ‘ist because you did not recognize that you should really give a huge shit, and since you didn’t you are a bigot and have hatred for someone or something. Someone or something you had no idea you were bigoted about. I think it simply comes down to people wanting to feel superior to others. Those drawn to leftist ideology use culture wars as a club to swing at people who really don’t give a shit and see people as people.

    1. In 2016 the culture war was two sides. Sure, the left was the cause, but the right is almost as bad.

      1. In 2016?

        I mean, I can understand the outrage even as recently as the pre-2003 horror, when there was a nonzero (but close to zero) chance that gay people could be prosecuted for consensual adult sodomy committed in private.

        I can understand the outrage if we’re blaming the drug war on “right wing culture warriors” (like Wilson and FDR?).

        I can perhaps understand the horror at the possibility that somewhere, at a high school football game or commencement, some student or speaker might mention Jesus.

        But what in 2016 was “almost as bad” on the Right’s part as compulsory cakes, Title IX abuse, and the whole nine yards?

        1. You’re being far too specific. Specific issues or polices matter far less than you think they do. I do think there is an eventual accumulation that has an impact, but what I was referring to is the “us vs them” mentality that currently exists in politics. They are “libs,” we are “conservatives.” We are “right, they are racists.” Two teams fighting it out over cable news and social media. Us vs them! They bad, us good!

          1. OK, even I think that sometimes goes too far.

            There is, though, a group of ideologues who (so far) have had power to work a number of changes for the worse, and these ideologues haven’t been on the Right.

      2. Some on the right have serious issues, no argument there. I just think they are such a small minority they are all but insignificant. I guess it is perception. The left gets to hit you from everywhere if one is not “aware” enough. Academia, media, the White House. To me it seemed over the top.

        1. But Trump won partially as a response to the “us vs them” mentality. I think Hillary Clinton being Hillary Clinton was a bigger factor, but “they bad, me good” played a huge role.

          1. But Trump won partially as a response to the “us vs them” mentality.

            I agree. But I don’t think it was a, “they bad, me good” thing. I think a lot of it was a message to the progressives to STFU with their idiocy. Not that they have or will, but at least it has made me chuckle a few times.

            1. I think a lot of it becomes one tribe vs the other tribe. It is Lord Of The Flies, but via social media.

    2. If your fundamental operating principle isn’t “Don’t fuck with someone who isn’t fucking with someone else”, you’re gonna fuck with someone else eventually. I love me some tautologies and triple negatives.

      1. I have no idea what that means, but I learned a new word.

        1. Just a goofy way of explaining the NAP.

    3. It’s a weird swapping out that has taken place over my lifetime, but it’s the leftists who are now the enforcers of conformity.

      The broad, never-ending struggle between right and left in this country can be compared to two people playing Battle. One guy will have most of the cards, then the guy who was short begins to win the bulk of the deck because he was down to his kings and queens. Then it bounces back.

      Neither man is committed to the inherent correctness of his cards; they only care that those cards are better than the other guy’s.

  36. You wanna chip in and give HM his dream flight?

        1. I remember back in the day when the boys who laughed hardest at BnB were the boys who looked exactly like them.

          1. Yeah, it wasn’t nice for MTV to make fun of its own audience.

            1. But I never watched the videos unless they were part of one of the Beavis and Butthead episodes.

              1. So the only reason I was part of MTV’s audience was because I was watching MTV make fun of the audience…wow, deep.

      1. THAT is how you steer into the skid.

  37. News flash!
    Lefty rag prints news about dumb cab driver instead of dumb Uber driver:
    “In Oakland, rescue divers were dispatched to the estuary near Oakland International Airport around 8:30 a.m. after a taxicab was seen in the water. They found the body of the driver, 57-year-old Jarnail Singh of San Leandro, in the submerged vehicle. He was believed to be the only person in the cab, which was identified on the side as belonging to Raj Cab of San Leandro.
    The incident happened along Doolittle Drive at Langley Street. The cause was not immediately known, but “it’s very likely the weather had something to do with it,” said police Officer Hector Chavez. “The roads are wet, and he most likely slipped off the road.””
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..843478.php

    Yes, folks, the streets are wet. You do NOT have to drive at 5MPH, but for pete’s sake, have some idea of whether your tires are in contact with the pavement.

  38. GM “We won’t change production plans despite Trump threats”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..story.html

    1. Go tell someone who gives a shit, turd.

    1. Evel Knievel proved years ago that there was a difference between bravery and stupidity. Unfortunately, he proved it to those watching him rather than learning it himself.

      1. Grew up in a hunting family. My dad would shoot me himself if he saw me trying that trick.

        1. Mine wasn’t a family that hunted; just me and my brother plinking at squirrels (hear that, Reason skwerzzle?!) barn rats and rabbits (with a single-shot 22LR!). But the gun was treated as loaded, was never aimed at anything you didn’t want to shoot (even at some distance; one mile was considered 22LR range) was safed until you were ready to shoot, etc.
          Play games with guns like that, and I’m not gonna waste time looking for my sympathy mask. Got better things to do.

          1. Oh, and crows. But those suckers ALWAYS landed on the populated side of the field.

  39. Holy crap, did you hear Meryl Streep on the golden globes?

    Combined with her introduction (which was almost exclusively about the presenter, not Streep), it was the most self-indulgent, narcissistic and fully unaware moment in recent TV history.

    Oh, but now that Trump is president, she’s in favor of the press holding power accountable. So there is that.

    1. None of the Peanuts watch faggy Hollywood award shows. This is more of a Monster Truck or Tractor Pull crowd like real flyover Trumptards do.

      1. The Big Lebowski is on HBO but I have the volume down so I can listen to Personality Crisis on WREK

      1. The Hollywood celebs are going to be insufferable for the next 4 years.

        1. You’re entirely too optimistic.

          1. Seriously.

            She claimed victimhood status for Hollywood celebrities…. because they are so vilified.

            And she proclaimed the death of art if there were no immigrants. As if the argument over illegal immigration was the same thing as “kicking out all immigrants” (which is what she actually said, no kidding)

            And she tacked on “without us they would only have football and MMA fighting to watch.” Which isn’t art, so isn’t valid entertainment.

  40. “You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone” is the core concept of the United States of America, and something that we should be proud of.”

    John Stuart Mill’s articulation of the harm principle is so dangerous–because it seems to get it right. The problem is that progressives can use that same formulation to to justify inflicting their authoritarian solutions on the rest of us.

    You’re free to do anything you want–so long as it doesn’t contribute to climate change? You’re free to open up a business–so long as you don’t take business away from someone else? You’re free to say whatever you want–so long as you don’t hurt anybody’s feelings?

    Just about everything we do (or don’t do) is harmful to someone else in some way. Every time I go to a restaurant, I am depriving every other restaurant in the area of my business. Every time I criticize a restaurant for their food or their service, I am hurting that restaurant’s business.

    If we’re only free to do things that don’t hurt other people, then we are free to do precious little.

    We should be free to do things that hurt other people.

    We should be free to do anything–so long as we don’t violate anyone’s rights.

    1. “John Stuart Mill’s articulation of the harm principle is so dangerous–because it seems to get it right.”

      He didn’t contribute to it, but the same vague BS applies to the constitutional “promote the general welfare”, ignoring the limitations thereafter.

  41. Hey, baggers! Increasing the minimum wage, works!

    Increase the minimum wage now, it works!

    /shreek approves of this message

    1. “Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro speaks next to children toys during his weekly broadcast “En contacto con Maduro” (In contact with Maduro) at Miraflores Palace in Caracas, Venezuela December 18, 2016. Miraflores”

      That hag Pelosi managed to find some guy who I’m sure she promptly planted in a chair, to show how O-care was wonderful!
      The guy has done fine for 28 years of diabetes, but O-care gave him (something, something)!
      BTW, years ago Skeptical Inquirer did a bust of Popov the faith healer. You can tell if the chair belongs to the person by whether it’s customized for them; stock chair? Fake, Pelosi. FAKE!

    2. The hot winds of economic vitality blow from the south!

      1. You stole that from Tirico, didn’t you?

        1. He’s added nothing to this thread!

  42. bloop, blop, derp

    /shreek approves of this message

    1. ‘Objectivists strangely silent on this matter.’

      jk

  43. Lionel Shriver went to Grady High School in the ATL. A friend and co-worker of mine is a Grady grad (and like Ms.Shriver, the offspring of Emory faculty) but he would have been a freshman when she was a senior. He did graduate in the same class as war hero, congressman, and race traitor Allen B West.

    She’s a good writer and it’s nice to see she identifies as a libertarian. She’s down with the “Republicans are religous nuts” spirit of Reason but her strong advocacy for zero population growth/zero net migration is the kinda “socially liberal” thinking which clashes with the whole cosmotarian thang.

    1. Did you get cuckolded again?

  44. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  45. I wonder what she thinks about cracking down on bullying in elementary and high school.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.