eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Présidentielle américaine: Attention, un sexisme peut en cacher un autre (All victimhood and apple pie: From sexual liberation to the infantilization of women in terms Queen Victoria would find reassuring)

Posté le mardi 11 octobre 2016 par Admini

chippendalesposterslutwalk5slutwalk3slut-walkslutwalkmelbourneNEW YORK, NY - MAY 04: Jay Z (L) and Beyonce attend the "China: Through The Looking Glass" Costume Institute Benefit Gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 4, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images)

misogynistic-album-covers-two-live-crewsopranos3

bubbassexualantics

Vous avez dit le beurre et l’argent du beurre ?

Alors qu’en cette veille de la fête où nos amis juifs se rémémorent l’institution qui donna au monde le terme et la théorie pour débusquer le phénomème dit de bouc émissaire mais aussi l’actuelle fétichisation de la victimisation …

S’acharnent sur le seul Donald  les anciens partisans d’un ex-président qui avait en son temps pas moins d’une quinzaine d’accusations d’abus voire de viols de femmes…

Pendant qu’au nom sacro-saint de la victimisation et avec les conséquences catastrophiques que l’on sait …

C’est, après le coup du premier président noir, celui de la première femme que l’on prétend nous faire …

Comment ne pas voir avec les commentateurs Bill Thornton et Heather Mac Donald …

Tant le deux poids deux mesures …

Que  l’hypocrisie et la véritable schizophrénie …

D’une société qui après avoir revendiqué à grands cris dans l’habillement comme dans le comportement ou le langage …

L’égalité pour les femmes d’une irresponsabilité, sur fond de marches des salopes, jusque là réservée aux hommes …

Prétend aujourd’hui, condamner au nom d’une pudibonderie qui n’aurait rien à envier aux Victoriens …

Les seuls hommes en question quand ceux-ci s’avisent de les prendre au mot ?



Laisser un commentaire


36 réponses à “Présidentielle américaine: Attention, un sexisme peut en cacher un autre (All victimhood and apple pie: From sexual liberation to the infantilization of women in terms Queen Victoria would find reassuring)”

  • 36
    jc durbant:

    Hillary hasn’t suffered because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’

    ‘My philosophy of feminism,’ the New York-born 69-year-old explains, ‘I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’

    Paglia traces the roots of this belief system to American campus culture and the cult of women’s studies. This ‘poison’ — as she calls it — has spread worldwide. ‘In London, you now have this plague of female journalists… who don’t seem to have made a deep study of anything…’

    As for male/female relations, she says that they are far more complex than most feminists insist. ‘I wrote a date-rape essay in 1991 in which I called for women to stand up for themselves and learn how to handle men. But now you have this shibboleth, “No means no.” Well, no. Sometimes “No” means “Not yet”. Sometimes “No” means “Too soon”. Sometimes “No” means “Keep trying and maybe yes”. You can see it with the pigeons on the grass. The male pursues the female and she turns away, and turns away, and he looks a fool but he keeps on pursuing her. And maybe she’s testing his persistence; the strength of his genes… It’s a pattern in the animal kingdom — a courtship pattern…’ But for pointing such things out, Paglia adds, she has been ‘defamed, attacked and viciously maligned’ — so, no, she is not in the least surprised that wolf-whistling has now been designated a hate crime in Birmingham.

    Girls would be far better advised to revert to the brave feminist approach of her generation — when women were encouraged to fight all their battles by themselves, and win. ‘Germaine Greer was once in this famous debate with Norman Mailer at Town Hall. Mailer was formidable, enormously famous — powerful. And she just laid into him: “I was expecting a hard, nuggety sort of man and he was positively blousy…” Now that shows a power of speech that cuts men up. And this is the way women should be dealing with men — finding their weaknesses and susceptibilities… not bringing in an army of pseudo, proxy parents to put them down for you so you can preserve your perfect girliness.’

    Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.

    Camille Paglia

  • 35
    Marock:

    Trump for president !

    Enfin un mec qui en a.

  • 34
    jc durbant:

    In the larger scheme of things, Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said. Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true.

    Ruth Marcus (WP, Dec. 28, 2015)

  • 33
    James:

    Liberals Adored Trump When He Was Winning The GOP Primary

  • 32
    jc durbant:

    Quels deux poids deux mesures ?

    Multiple TV producers across several kinds of unscripted and news programming say outtakes like Trump’s boast that his star status let him get away with grabbing women “by the pussy” are prevalent. But one of the reasons we rarely hear about them is that production companies go to great lengths to let their talent escape the consequences of harassment, producers say in interviews with the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/oct/23/reality-tv-trump-groping-tape-contracts

  • 31
    jc durbant:

    Moi au contraire, j’y voyais une « get out the vote strategy« , dans le style comme le système est pipé contre nous, noyons le de nos voix ?

    Some Trump supporters claim that when he says the election is rigged, he is only referring to critical media coverage. This, however, is not what he is saying. Beyond this, the media has long had a liberal tilt, but Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney didn’t blame the media for their losses. And George W. Bush won twice, despite such media bias. What is unique about the media and Donald Trump is that the conservative media is as critical of him as the so-called “mainstream” media. Newspapers that regularly support Republicans, The Wall Street Journal, The Arizona Republic, The Manchester Union Leader, The San Diego Union, The Richmond Times Dispatch, and a host of others have rejected Trump. So have conservative journals such as National Review and The Weekly Standard and many prominent conservative commentators such as George Will, Michael Gerson, William Kristol,David Brooks, Glenn Beck and Hugh Hewitt among them. The Deseret News of Salt Lake City, a traditional conservative voice, said that Trump was unfit to be president.

    http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/is-trumps-rigged-election-a-get-out-the-vote-strategy-72769/#GyHJqOts2A0ggVdL.99

    Sans exclure, bien sûr en cas d’échec, une préparation pour la suite, comme par exemple, étant donné qu’il a quasiment tous les medias sur le dos – conservateurs compris, une source d’info alternative à la Trump-TV:

    Trump is laying the groundwork for his comeback plan in the months that follow—potentially a conservative cable network of his own. As Vanity Fair’s Sarah Ellison reported in June, the real-estate mogul was weighing the possibility of launching a “mini-media conglomerate” if (or when) the election didn’t go his way. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that Trump’s son-in-law turned campaign adviser Jared Kushner has been in talks with TV dealmaker Aryeh Bourkoff about the launch of Trump TV. If score-settling and grievance-making is to be the basis of the network, then it would only make sense for Trump to begin sowing the seeds of discord now. The idea is far from Trump’s worst for a business venture. Despite the shiny outlook for a Clinton presidency, on Election Day a sizable portion of American voters will still cast their votes for Trump. And after months of their candidate spewing divisive rhetoric and denouncing the media as biased, many will find it impossible to return to the mainstream news sources they feel have betrayed them

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/rigged-election-trump-tv

  • 30
    James:

    Why is it a problem for Trump? Because there’s evidence that the more people are convinced that their political system is corrupt, the less likely they are to vote. Trump is out there every day telling his fans that the election is rigged, sometimes in terms of the media being in the tank for Hillary but in other cases in terms of actual cheating at the polls. I’d bet cash money that Kellyanne Conway has asked him privately to tone that down, not just because it’ll make it harder to put the party back together after the election but because she knows he’s inadvertently suppressing his own turnout. To have any chance at an upset, Trump needs working-class whites who typically don’t vote in elections — “undercover Trump voters” — to feel it’s worth their time to turn out next month. If instead they’re now convinced that the election’s rigged, guess what happens to turnout?

  • 29
    James:

    Huma on Hillary’s $12M Morocco fiasco: ‘She created this mess and she knows it’

  • 28
    jc durbant:

    THE REAL OBAMA LEGACY

    It is hard to think of another American president whose foreign policy initiatives failed as badly or as widely as Obama’s. The reconciliation with the Sunni world? The reset with Russia? Stabilizing the Middle East by tilting toward Iran? The Libya invasion? The Syria abstention? The ‘pivot to Asia’ was supposed to be the centerpiece of Obama’s global strategy; instead the waning months of the Obama administration have seen an important U.S. ally pivot toward China in the most public and humiliating way possible.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/10/20/as-obamas-clock-winds-down-revisionist-powers-pounce/ (merci james)

  • 27
    jc durbant:

    Quel gâchis quand même !

    Donald Trump astounded the entire political class of America by becoming only the third person ever to gain the presidential nomination of a major American political party without having first been an elected official, a prominent military officer, or a cabinet member, and the first to do so in 76 years. (Wendell Willkie, in 1940, never had control of the Republicans and had little chance against Roosevelt.) Senator Rubio was correct to call it “a tsunami that only Mr. Trump saw coming,” but it was also a tsunami that he largely conjured up out of less turbulent air and intensified. He raised the Republican primary vote by 60 percent over 2012, and whatever happens from now on, his achievement is historic and there must have been some astute strategic calculations behind it.

    Yet Trump seems to have no concept of how to press the strategic advantage and stay clear of back alleys and side issues in which he can only dissipate his advantages. Like a not overly smart fighting bull, he allows the Democrats to cause him to charge diagonally past his real targets and squander political capital in nonsense. The presentation of Mr. Khan at the Democratic convention, father of a winner of the Medal of Honor, was squalid and outrageous, as was the subsequent fawning of the media and the bunk about Mr. Khan’s just “happening to have a copy of the Constitution in [his] pocket.” But Trump charged and dove into a trap in which he could not win. He should have said something like “All Americans share in Mr. Khan and his family’s sorrow and in their pride, and in the circumstances it is not appropriate for me to comment on his partisan reflections on me.”

    He should have said, when Mrs. Clinton threw “Miss Piggy” at him, that “that was a regrettable choice of words about someone who had violated her undertakings on entering the Miss Universe contest.” He could have neutralized, or even won on, both issues but failed to see them as the baited traps they obviously were. This does raise questions about his judgment. Four years ago, Peggy Noonan referred to my distinguished friend Newt Gingrich, as he surged against Mitt Romney, as “a human grenade with the pin pulled, saying ‘Watch this!’” Newt is now one of the sources of sound advice around Donald. Among the others are Kellyanne Conway and Melania and the rest of his widely and deservedly admired family.

    Any student of strategy in any field, indeed any intelligent person, knows to execute Napoleon’s precept of application of maximum pressure at the opponent’s most vulnerable point. Mrs. Clinton has many vulnerabilities. No major-party presidential candidate has ever been so encumbered by questions of her probity and ethical suitability to be president. According to the FBI director, she is effectively an unindicted (for political reasons) perjurer, and the open-spigot infusion of cash into the Clinton Foundation by seekers of U.S. government favor makes her a gigantic sitting duck. She did nothing noteworthy in the U.S. Senate or the State Department despite all the prattling about her experience, and did a U-turn in lock-step with Obama on the shameful nuclear and financial giveaway to the terrorism-sponsoring theocrats in Tehran. Her election would flat line the economy, enthrone political correctness, and reduce the judiciary to the same putrefied sardine can of emasculated liberalism and corrupt incumbency that the national media have become.

    Trump started on some of these points and was frustrated to a degree by the biased moderator, who deliberately misled viewers about stop and frisk and Trump’s opposition to the second Iraq war. (Peggy Noonan was also correct last Saturday in the Wall Street Journal to warn the press again that their massive bias against Trump is unprofessional and will seriously alienate the public. It will, and the media are less likely to raise their game than Trump is.) Even after she rallied after the first quarter of the debate, Mrs. Clinton displayed the substantive vacuity of her campaign on the fatuous birther issue: It was never a racial question at all, only a matter of Obama’s constitutional eligibility for election.

    The choice is still between more of the Bush-Clinton-Obama disaster decades or positive change. This is one of the defining moments of American history. If Donald doesn’t exploit the opportunity he has created from public resentment of the Clintons’ entitlement, from the flabby Republican Bush-McCain-Romney loser syndrome, and from Obama’s national power-dive in which two-thirds of Americans now think the country is going in the wrong direction, he will have only himself to blame. He must stop scowling, stop personalizing everything and being goaded like an oaf, and stay on message; if he does all that, he will make history. The writing is on the wall and if Donald Trump blows it now, he will deserve to be deposited on the crowded shelf of the trophies attesting to the political skill, determination, and chicanery of the Clintons and their vast, and now fearful, entourage.

    Conrad Black

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440676/donald-trump-winning-still

    Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn’t happening. The party’s leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn’t want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he’d opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.The Republican Party will now begin the long process of redefining itself or continue its long national collapse. This is an epochal event. It happened because Donald Trump intuited where things were and are going.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/imagine-a-sane-donald-trump-1477004871 (merci james)

  • 26
    Letel:

    Vous avez l’article où il dit pourquoi il ne vote pas pour Trump ?

  • 25
    jc durbant:

    Kraut appelle au vote blanc ?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441300/hillary-clinton-unqualified-presidential-candidate

  • 24
    jc durbant:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9yZqsDUbKI

  • 23
    James:

    La presse n’insiste évidemment que sur la réponse, pas sur l’attaque. Les dés sont bien pipés.

    C’est amusant, parce que le camp démocrate en a fait des gorges chaudes de cette histoire mais lui aussi à joué là-dessus.

  • 22
    James:

    « Michelle Obama fait un discours et tout le monde l’adore, c’est fantastique. Ils pensent qu’elle est géniale. Ma femme Melania fait exactement le même discours et tout le monde lui tombe dessus. »

    C’est plutôt bien vu, effectivement, surtout après la fameuse histoire du discours plagié.

  • 21
    Letel:

    Tout n’est pas perdu dans nos démocraties, il reste le sens de l’humour :
    « Michelle Obama fait un discours et tout le monde l’adore, c’est fantastique. Ils pensent qu’elle est géniale. Ma femme Melania fait exactement le même discours et tout le monde lui tombe dessus. »
    http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2016/10/21/presidentielle-americaine-j-18-le-dernier-repas-de-donald-trump-et-hillary-clinton_5017717_829254.html

  • 20
    Letel:

    « as will Donald’s, assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it. »

    Bon, quel est le pire ?
    La presse n’insiste évidemment que sur la réponse, pas sur l’attaque. Les dés sont bien pipés.

  • 19
    jc durbant:

    Même Stephens se laisse prendre à la manip de la famille Khan et au tour de passe passe démocrate du « caractère »:

    « his casual smear of Ghazala Khan is perhaps the vilest …. This isn’t simply because Mrs. Khan is a bereaved mother. Bereavement alone does not place someone above criticism, especially when it comes to political differences. Nor is it because Mrs. Khan’s son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, died heroically to protect his troops in Iraq. The special deference given to Gold Star parents is, at bottom, a social convention. (…) The central issue in this election isn’t Mr. Trump’s ideas, such as they are. It’s his character, such as it is. The sin, in this case, is the sinner …

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/to-the-go-along-republicans-1470091421

  • 18
    jc durbant:

    Oui, des fois, on a l’impression qu’il se parle un peu à lui-même …

    CLINTON: Well, Chris, I am on record as saying that we need to put more money into the Social Security Trust Fund. That’s part of my commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy. My Social Security payroll contribution will go up, as will Donald’s, assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it. But what we want to do is to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund…

    TRUMP: Such a nasty woman.

    CLINTON: … by making sure that we have sufficient resources, and that will come from either raising the cap and/or finding other ways to get more money into it. I will not cut benefits. I want to enhance benefits for low-income workers and for women who have been disadvantaged by the current Social Security system.

    But what Donald is proposing with these massive tax cuts will result in a $20 trillion additional national debt. That will have dire consequences for Social Security and Medicare.

    And I’ll say something about the Affordable Care Act, which he wants to repeal. The Affordable Care Act extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. So if repeals it, our Medicare problem gets worse. What we need to do is go after…

    CLINTON: But, of course, there’s no way we can know whether any of that is true, because he hasn’t released his tax returns. He is the first candidate ever to run for president in the last 40-plus years who has not released his tax returns, so everything he says about charity or anything else, we can’t prove it. You can look at our tax returns. We’ve got them all out there.

    But what is really troubling is that we learned in the last debate he has not paid a penny in federal income tax. And we were talking about immigrants a few minutes ago, Chris. You know, half of all immigrants — undocumented immigrants in our country — actually pay federal income tax. So we have undocumented immigrants in America who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire. I find that just astonishing.

    http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/presidential-debate-third-transcript/

    Y a aussi le hombres …

    Now, I want to build the wall. We need the wall. And the Border Patrol, ICE, they all want the wall. We stop the drugs. We shore up the border. One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones — we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out. We’re going to get them out; we’re going to secure the border. And once the border is secured, at a later date, we’ll make a determination as to the rest. But we have some bad hombres here, and we’re going to get them out.

  • 17
    Letel:

    Je crois que le ‘such a nasty woman’ va rester, surtout si elle est élue.
    Il répondait à quoi au juste, quand il a lâché ça, j’ai repassé plusieurs fois, mais c’est presque inaudible. Elle lui dit un truc du genre : « Surtout pour vous qui avez l’habitude de vous soustraire à vos obligations. » (allusion à l’impôt). Mais je suis pas sûr.
    Quelqu’un a la formule exacte qu’elle a lancée, en vo ?

  • 16
    James:

    Mais bon, va probablement falloir s’habituer: on en reprend pour huit ans, putain !

    Huit ans ? Tu lui donnes déjà la victoire de 2020 ?

  • 15
    jc durbant:

    Vous avez dit partialité des médias ?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/

  • 14
    jc durbant:

    Oui, mais quelle condescendance et mépris dans ce « Donald » qu’elle lui assène quasi constamment !

    Déjà que je l’aimais pas beaucoup mais là, ça devenait insupportable !

    Mais bon, va probablement falloir s’habituer: on en reprend pour huit ans, putain !

  • 13
    Letel:

    « Bad Hombres » est mal passé aussi, langage familier, usage de l’espagnol désignant bien de qui il s’agit, peu apprécié par les Latinos :
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-debate-socialmedia-idUSKCN12K0I4

    D’une façon générale, les deux niveaux de langage sont très différents, pas la même éducation, Trump est trop familier, langue plus adaptée aux échanges populaires entre potes dans un bar, pas classe, pas châtié, peu présidentiel. L’autre c’est plutôt la Ivy League, et ça s’entend.

  • 12
    Letel:

    « Such a nasty woman!’, après la pique de H. Clinton, 2h01′.

  • 11
    Letel:

    Débat, à partir de 34′.

  • 10
    jc durbant:

    Sur le WSJ:

    After the election, don’t expect a rapid reconciliation. The Trump base, often in nihilistic fashion, does not wish to be part of Paul Ryan’s pragmatic world; and those who identify with the culture of the Wall Street Journal and the Chamber of Commerce have no desire to be seen with the NASCAR and tea-party crowd.

    VDH

    Sur le complot contre l’Amérique:

    A cruder and raunchier America of Miley Cyrus and Beyoncé is now far more sexually sensitive than was the staid America of half a century ago — as if the dirtier we become, the more sanctimonious we end up. Past presidents, such as John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, trumped even Trump in unleashing their reckless libidos on quite young White House staffers, an array of mistresses, and random women. But they were then young, liberal, loved by the media, and skilled incumbent politicians holding the power of the country at key moments in history. Private buccaneer Trump so far has no such mitigating arguments to contextualize his reprehensible private banter. (…) There are still agendas. Despite the defects of the two candidates, as the debate showed, the race still offers two quite different visions of how America might continue after Obama’s doubling of the debt, racial polarization, foreign-policy disasters, health-care mess, and rampant alphabetic corruption of the FBI, IRS, GSA, VA, and EPA. Hillary will double down on Obamaism, not because she necessarily likes Obama, but because as a past Obama servant she is embedded within his legacy and has mortgaged her political soul to the far Left. (…) The turn-offs of the two candidates are a matter of relative taste and ideology: The more conservative message delivered with uncooked vulgarity, or progressivism baked in refined and polished corruption. Oddly, Obama is the real winner: The more the two sling mud, the more an absentee Obama by default looks better — as long as he stays near comatose, out of sight and sound, and leaves us with the idea rather than the reality of his failing presidency. (…) Republicans perhaps delude themselves into thinking that if they had nominated another — and more moral — candidate, there would have been far less exposure to left-wing hits. McCain and Romney were unusually decent people by any standard. They ran exemplary, gentlemanly campaigns. They were political moderates of sober speech and judicious temperament. Both lost. Had Rubio or Cruz been nominated, by this juncture we would be reading of their deplorable personal sins — in the manner of John McCain pseudo-extramarital affair or of Romney’s supposed tax avoidance, slurs about the non-federal-income-tax-paying 47 percent, or his various crudities from dog mistreatment to wearing holy underwear. There is no honor among thieves. The law-abiding right wing has excused WikiLeaks scoundrel Julian Assange as a speaker of truth to power in attacking Hillary. Similarly, Russian hackers are now hardly seen as saboteurs of a U.S. campaign, on the theory that they damage Hillary so far more than they do Trump. Leftists, who pose as protectors of privacy, don’t care that Trump’s private taxes were leaked. No one worries that recordings of his private profanity of more than a decade past were dug up — any more than Obama worried about leaking private divorce records in his 2004 primary and general elections. The ends justify the means. Nothing is private, nothing sacred. All that is different is that unethical disclosures and lies are bragged upon rather than excused. So a repugnant dolt like Harry Reid still boasts that his lying about Romney’s tax returns helped sink his campaign. (…) An expiring Trump has revealed yet another life, and may find yet another with a final strong debate. But barring a news bombshell, the cruder, more conservative candidate will still probably lose to the more dishonest and more liberal candidate. Money, the media, and the establishment in cahoots are hard to beat. Hillary has all three.

    Victor Davis Hanson

  • 9
    Letel:

    Le WSJ enfonce le clou :
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-plot-against-america-1476745874

  • 8
    jc durbant:

    SOMETIMES THAT IS ALL WE GET

    The use of the adjectival phrase “in thrall” has no support in anything I wrote about Trump, my least favorite of the 16 primary alternatives, and reflects poorly on both the reasoning and character of the Angry Reader. Unfortunately, I live in the real world of 51/49% in which there are usually bad and worse choices. In that context, the specter of a 8-year Clinton continuum to Obama’s two terms is truly frightening. I suggest Mr. Nernoff review the latest Wikileaks trove and then collate it with prior hacked Clinton emails and Foundation business. “Unsophisticated and Ignorant” Hillary certainly is not. But I might prefer in our Manichean world of 2016 unsophistication to unconstitutional criminality and inveterate lying. If you seek monuments to why Hillary should not reach the White House, simply look around you from the carcass of the Middle East to a soon to be nuclear Iran to war drums from North Korea to Moscow—all a topping to a wrecked health care system, $11 trillion in new debt, and the corruption of once hallowed institutions from the IRS to the FBI. There is a 51% great likelihood that a president Trump would bring in far more conservatives than would Hillary Clinton; sometimes that is all we get.

    Victor Davis Hanson

  • 7
    Letel:

    « Donald Trump emerged the victor from his debate Sunday night with Hillary Clinton, which means he slightly exceeded expectations by not spontaneously combusting on stage, which means his ardent loyalists have again absolved him of sin. “Congrats to my running mate @realDonaldTrump on a big debate win!” tweeted Mike Pence as soon as it ended. “Proud to stand with you as we #MAGA.”

    That’s “Make America Great Again,” though at this stage in the campaign it could equally mean “Mount Another Genital Assault.”

    The Indiana governor is supposed to be the sober side of Trump-Pence, the guy who keeps cool, knows his policy brief and imposes ideological discipline on a ticket that would otherwise blow whichever way Mr. Trump puffs. But that misreads Mr. Pence’s role in this disastrous GOP season. Mr. Pence isn’t his boss’s junior political partner. He’s his moral enabler.

    I use “enabler” in the psychiatric sense, meaning, as Merriam-Webster has it, “one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior.” The enabler gets the kids to school when you’re passed out drunk, mops up the mess in the bathroom, pays the bills, and makes things seem OK when they aren’t. Enablers like to think of themselves as altruists or heroes. In truth they’re accomplices.

    Mr. Trump doesn’t have substance-abuse issues: His problem is the emission, not ingestion, of poison. As we learned from Friday’s disclosure of his 2005 exchange with Billy Bush, it gushes out of him at nearly every turn, not least in the patter of casual conversation. In the most hideous of Mr. Trump’s now-infamous sentences, it’s hard to decide which part is most repellent: the predatory verb “grab,” the dehumanized object “them,” or the pornographic prepositional phrase “by the p—.”

    Normal people understand this, which is why Mr. Trump’s presidential chances are now next to nil. But his Republican enablers are not normal people.

    Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, variously defended the Republican nominee by invoking Jesus Christ and Monica Lewinsky’s stained blue dress, which is the type of disgusting association you’d expect from a defrocked priest.

    Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council brushed aside the controversy by insisting his support for Mr. Trump rested on “shared concerns” not “shared values.” That marks a milestone: The president of an organization ostensibly devoted to the preservation of family values has endorsed a man who wants to sleep with other men’s wives.

    And then there’s Mr. Pence, a man whose job has been to provide evangelical cover to Mr. Trump’s meretricious version of New York values. That’s the sort of role he could have assumed the way an ER nurse approaches an Ebola patient—out of stern professional duty and through thick rubber gloves.

    Instead, Mr. Pence has thrown himself into the work with relish, constantly vouchsafing the character of “this good man” Donald Trump. About most other politicians the claim would be a throwaway line, but in this case it amounts to something else: part self-deception and part outright deception, till the hope and the lie blur. Like every other enabler, Mr. Pence is desperate to make true what he knows is not.

    On Saturday, after the video eruption, Mr. Pence seemed to have his own moral awakening, refusing to serve as Mr. Trump’s surrogate at an event in Wisconsin and hinting that he might pull out of the race if his running mate didn’t express sufficient contrition at Sunday’s debate. But Mr. Pence’s moment of clarity was as short-lived as Mr. Trump’s remorse. He now claims he never considered leaving the ticket.

    What a shame for Mr. Pence to besmirch himself through dogged fidelity to a candidate whose own notions of loyalty are as one-way as his concept of marriage.

    Then again, maybe I’m being too generous to the Indiana governor, whose dismay at Mr. Trump’s behavior might be as sincere as Captain Renault’s objections to gambling at Rick’s Cafe in “Casablanca.” If Mr. Pence is shocked, shocked to discover Mr. Trump is a cad, then he’s a fool. If he isn’t so shocked, he’s a cad, too. As Benjamin Franklin warned in “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.

    It isn’t clear what all this means for Mr. Pence’s career. The larger question is what it says about the Republican Party that men like Mr. Pence remain willing to carry Mr. Trump to the finish line—and carry his insults, boasts, prejudices, predations, threats and lies with them. My guess is that it means the current GOP is nearly beyond redemption.

    On Nov. 9 Republican voters will likely wake up to the reality that they have lost the White House, again, and that they have nobody but themselves to blame, again. As with every addict and enabler, the surest path to recovery begins at rock bottom. »

  • 6
    Letel:

    Now next to nil … Beyond redemption…

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-and-the-enablers-1476142879

  • 5
    jc durbant:

    Petit rappel des épisodes précédents:

    Barack Obama is the Dr. Frankenstein of the supposed Trump monster. If a charismatic, Ivy League-educated, landmark president who entered office with unprecedented goodwill and both houses of Congress on his side could manage to wreck the Democratic party while turning off 52 percent of the country, then many voters feel that a billionaire New York dealmaker could hardly do worse. If Obama had ruled from the center, dealt with the debt, addressed radical Islamic terrorism, dropped the politically correct euphemisms, and pushed tax and entitlement reform rather than Obamacare, Trump might have little traction. A boring Hillary Clinton and a staid Jeb Bush would likely be replaying the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush — with Trump as a watered-down version of third-party outsider Ross Perot. But America is in much worse shape than in 1992. And Obama has proved a far more divisive and incompetent president than George H. W. Bush.

    Little is more loathed by a majority of Americans than sanctimonious PC gobbledygook and its disciples in the media. And Trump claims to be PC’s symbolic antithesis. Making Machiavellian Mexico pay for a border fence or ejecting rude and interrupting Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a press conference is no more absurd than allowing more than 300 sanctuary cities to ignore federal law by sheltering undocumented immigrants. Is it sober and judicious of the Obama administration to ignore immigration laws and effectively open the southern border wide to all comers? Putting a hold on the immigration of Middle Eastern refugees is no more illiberal than welcoming into American communities tens of thousands of unvetted foreign nationals from terrorist-ridden Syria. Would the Obama administration allow a mass entrance of persecuted Middle East Christians or displaced Ukrainians? In terms of messaging, is Trump’s crude bombast any more radical than Obama’s teleprompted scripts? Trump’s ridiculous view of Russian president Vladimir Putin as a sort of Art of the Deal geostrategic partner is no more silly than Obama insulting Putin as Russia gobbles up former Soviet republics with impunity. Trump’s confusions are reminiscent of Obama’s own, though Trump knows how to pronounce the word “corpsman,” and that there are not 57 states. Obama callously dubbed his own grandmother a “typical white person,” introduced the nation to the racist and anti-Semitic rantings of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and petulantly wrote off small-town Pennsylvanians as near-Neanderthal “clingers.” Did Obama lower the bar for Trump’s disparagements? Certainly, Obama peddled a slogan, “hope and change,” that was as empty as Trump’s “make America great again.”

    Victor Davis Hanson

  • 4
    jc durbant:

    « a walking summation of our present-day cultural principles » …

    Bien vu !

    « Governing for only half the country has been President Obama’s great mistake » …

    Oui, jusqu’au bout, il va rester sa créature et avec sa Clinton, on va peut-être s’en reprendre pour 8 ans !

  • 3
    Letel:

    Le WSJ prend position :
    « Donald Trump has declared himself unshackled from the Republican Party and says he will now campaign as he’s wanted to all along. This raises the question of whose never-before-seen campaign he’s been running for 16 months, but so be it. The self-declared strategy has the virtue of putting the onus of victory or defeat squarely where it belongs: Mr. Trump and those who led him to the GOP nomination.

    “Disloyal R’s are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Tuesday. “They don’t know how to win—I will teach them.” Well, now is his chance. The election is less than a month away, and Mr. Trump can show the pathetic losers in his adopted party how it’s done.

    He’s trailing in the polls, and his campaign is advertising that his comeback strategy is to run almost as an independent to drive turnout among his core supporters. He’s given up trying to expand his appeal to women, minorities and college-educated Republicans. Instead he’ll tear into Mrs. Clinton in an attempt to demoralize her voters and motivate his.

    At least this will be a political market test of the Trumpian wing of the GOP. Going back to Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, the GOP has divided roughly into two strategic political camps.

    One camp wants to reach out to minorities, young people and moderates to expand the GOP electorate. The Republican National Committee urged this strategy in a 2013 report, and candidates like Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner followed it to win in 2014. This makes sense to us on demographic grounds but also because it is what a party should do in a healthy democracy. Governing for only half the country has been President Obama’s great mistake.

    The other GOP camp has disdained such outreach in favor of mobilizing the white working-class voters who supposedly stayed home in 2012. The evidence is strong that most of those voters weren’t in swing states and so didn’t affect the election. But Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the talk-radio gang, Heritage Action and Breitbart.com decided that the path to victory is flogging immigration and trade resentments to mobilize white voters rightly upset with the results of Mr. Obama’s economic policies.

    Ted Cruz and his funders in the Mercer family sold this strategy with data analytics, and it’s no accident that the Mercers have moved seamlessly from the Texas Senator to Mr. Trump. They and Stephen Bannon of Breitbart are now at the center of the Trump campaign and are pushing the white-voter mobilization strategy. We’ve long thought this is a losing political hand, if not in 2016 then certainly in the long run, but now the Trumpians have their chance to prove us wrong.

    They certainly couldn’t get a better year. Hillary Clinton is the second most disliked major party candidate in modern history—after Mr. Trump. Two-thirds of Americans are unhappy with the direction of the country, the economy is underperforming, and disorder has spread around the world in the incumbent party’s second term. The table has been set for a Republican nominee to make the case for change and win.

    So no excuses, gents. The GOP insurgents won the nomination, and now that their candidate is unshackled he can campaign as they want him to. That includes taking responsibility, win or lose.

    Mr. Trump isn’t always clear on this point—sometimes claiming he’ll show the GOP how to win, other times blaming Republicans for not supporting him enough. This week he told Bill O’Reilly of Fox News that “I think I’m better off without their support”—referring to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator John McCain. But he also blasted both men for disloyalty. You can almost see Mr. Trump preparing to blame Republicans if he loses, and perhaps even trying to take the GOP House and Senate down with him if he trails badly in the last two weeks.

    But Republicans didn’t urge Mr. Trump to spend three weeks attacking Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the Khan family and Alicia Machado. They didn’t talk trash about women with Billy Bush, and they didn’t tell Mr. Trump to make the election about character rather than issues. They also didn’t tell him to disdain fundraising and organizing until the final four months.

    GOP leaders bent over backward to respect the voters who nominated Mr. Trump by trying to agree on a common agenda. Mr. Ryan and most other Republicans endorsed him. If they now have to distance themselves from the top of the ticket for reasons of political self-preservation or conscience, the Trump campaign has brought them there.

    A presidential nominee is largely responsible for his own fate, and circumstances were set up this year for a GOP victory. The Trumpians got the candidate and campaign they wanted, and now they have to own the result. »

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-moment-of-truth-1476314696

  • 2
    Letel:

    The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson, writing Oct. 6, on an article about Donald Trump in Vanity Fair by that magazine’s editor, Graydon Carter:

    « One of the weirder aspects of anti-Trump mania is its sniffy tone. And it’s especially weird coming from card-carrying liberal Democrats. For two generations our culture and its institutions have been living under a liberal ascendancy. The country’s elites—the Bigs of the news media and Hollywood and the non-profit world and the arts and the academy—have signed on to a catechism of personal liberation, particularly sexual liberation, and a kind of radical individual autonomy that even lets you choose whether you’re a boy or a girl. We are taught to be “nonjudgmental” in matters of lifestyle and to accept a pristine relativism in metaphysics and morality. . . .

    Carter’s piece raises one further question, coming as it does from a credentialed member of the country’s cultural elite. He calls the Trump ascendancy the “final stage of a dumbed down America.” Who could disagree? Trump’s rise, boosted by the forty percent of our fellow citizens who see him as a plausible president, is indeed evidence of a serious, system-wide failure. Dumbing down is a good name for it.

    The question is, Who did the dumbing down? Our public schools? Our universities? Our entertainment media—television, movies, popular music? The press? Glossy magazines like Vanity Fair?

    Surely all of them share in the blame. And all of them, from the schools to movie studios, rest snugly (I almost wrote “smugly”) in the control of liberal Democrats, and have done so for fifty years or more. If we’re getting dumber, we know whom to thank. How odd is their sniffy contempt for Donald Trump, the purest flowering of the culture they’ve created. »

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-trumps-dumbed-down-america-1476314047

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    Lay, lady, lay, lay across my big brass bed (…) Why wait any longer for the world to begin You can have your cake and eat it too …

    Bob Dylan (1969)

    Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh I’m so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin’) Oh yeah, baby, oh yeah I, ohhhhh, oh, yes, I like that I did not come to play with you hoes, haha I came to slay, bitch When he fuck me good I take his ass to Red Lobster, cause I slay If he hit it right, I might take him on a flight on my chopper, cause I slay Drop him off at the mall, let him buy some J’s, let him shop up, cause I slay I might get your song played on the radio station, cause I slay …

    Beyonce

    You know I thug em, fuck em, love em, leave em Cause I don’t fuckin need em Take em out the hood, keep em lookin good But I don’t fuckin feed em First time they fuss I’m breezin Talkin bout, “What’s the reasons?” I’m a pimp in every sense of the word, bitch Better trust than believe em In the cut where I keep em til I need a nut, til I need to beat the guts Then it’s, beep beep and I’m pickin em up Let em play with the dick in the truck Many chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffs Divorce him and split his bucks Just because you got good head, I’m a break bread so you can be livin it up? Shit I parts with nothin, y’all be frontin Me give my heart to a woman? Not for nothin, never happen.

    Jay Z

    I have used sex as a marketing tool and it has worked. I mean, my TV show is called Inside Amy Schumer. My whole life I found friends that are just like me, young girls that were just like me, like we were all whores.

    Amy Schumer

    Now why might it be that men regard women as sex objects? Surely the ravenous purchase by females of stiletto heels, push-up bras, butt-hugging mini-skirts, plunging necklines, false eyelashes, hair extensions, breast implants, butt implants, lip implants, and mascara, rouge, and lipstick to the tune of billions a year has nothing to do with it. Females would never ever exploit their sexuality to seek attention from men. (…) How surprising that Trump and Bush noticed Zucker’s legs! As documented in the video, she is wearing a skimpy purple dress, with an extremely short hem cut on the bias, a low neckline and fully exposed back. She is in high heels to accentuate her bare legs. The ratio of exposed skin between Zucker, on the one hand, and Trump and Bush, on the other, is perhaps 100 to one. But all that bare flesh must simply be because Zucker has a high metabolism and gets exceedingly warm; she would never want to broadcast her sexuality to men or have men notice her. The fact that she swishes her hips when she walks must just be a quirk of anatomy. (…) If any of these newfound exponents of female modesty felt any comparable nausea at the blatant display of female sexuality and, dare I say it, “pussy,” in Beyoncé’s acclaimed rock video “Formation,” say, they kept it to themselves. Beyoncé and her female chorus line rhythmically thrust their butts, crotches, and breasts to the camera, while Beyoncé brags of her sexual prowess (…) Sounds like a sexual quid pro quo, ripe for a harassment lawsuit. The “Formation” video, which inspired Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime performance in January (to another universal swoon from the entertainment industry), also shows a very young girl engaging in some precocious twerking, a grotesque travesty of childhood. No objections to that destruction of the innocence of childhood from the DNC. President Obama has singled out Beyoncé for praise, and the singer is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, to not a word of protest from Clinton regarding her status as a role model for young girls. Bill Clinton met with Beyoncé and her husband, rapper Jay Z, in September. If Bill or Hillary thinks the lyrics of Jay Z’s “Big Pimpin‘” “horrific,” in Hillary’s words, they are not letting on (…) The Washington Post primly headlined its scoop on Trump’s bus conversation with Bush: “Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005.” The New York Times’ follow-up story also labelled Trump’s remarks “lewd.” If either of those paper’s critics have ever objected to such lewdness in popular culture, it has escaped attention. Have they objected to college campus sex weeks, which routinely invite porn stars to offer how-to demonstrations on S & M sex? Do they squirm with discomfort when campus administrators pass out tips on the use of sex toys to achieve better orgasms? Not on the record, at least. (…) The sudden onset of Victorian vapors among the liberal intelligentsia and political class at the revelation of Trump’s locker-room talk is part and parcel of the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to feminism and sexual liberation. A routine objection to Trump is that he makes, in the words of the New York Times, “gutter attacks on women.” But why should women be exempt from Trump’s gutter attacks on anyone he wants to humiliate? (…) But the feminists can’t have it both ways: declaring that women should be equal to men in all things and then still demand a chivalric deference to female’s delicate sensibilities. Either women are the same as men or they’re not. It is particularly galling to see the selective resurrection of Victorian values from the same crowd that has been pushing transgender locker rooms on the world, in an effort to destroy the last shred of girls’ innate sexual modesty. This opportunistic, on-again, off-again appearance of traditional sexual values characterizes the campus-rape myth as well. Needless to say, actual sexual assault is both criminal and intolerable. But college co-eds insist on the prerogative of maximal promiscuity at the same time that they revert to the role of helpless damsel in distress, when, after drinking themselves blotto to lower their sexual inhibitions, they regret a boozy hook-up and declare themselves raped. The logic is always that the male was responsible for the female’s well-being; the female cannot help drinking herself to a reckless state. It is for the chivalric male to look out for her. Following the release of the studio bus tape, Trump said in his defense that Bill Clinton “has said far worse to me on the golf course.” That may be the most credible thing that Trump has ever uttered. But both Republicans and Democrats are fatally compromised in their responses to the Trump tapes, deliberately released right before the make-or-break second presidential debate. Republicans, having flogged the Bill Clinton sex scandals way past any possible point of relevance, are now not well positioned to dismiss these comments (nor are they trying to), though there is a huge difference between the reality TV star Trump bragging about his libido on a studio bus and Bill Clinton exploiting the power of the presidency to seduce a young intern. But Democrats are the most shameless in their outrage over the Trump braggadocio, having dismissed Bill Clinton’s White House and gubernatorial escapades for years, and standing as the party of maximal sexual liberation, unlike the Republicans. The New York Times rejects the relevance of Clinton’s predatory White House behavior on the ground that “Mr. Clinton is not running for president.” But the Times did not find Clinton’s behavior significant when Clinton was in office, either. Ideally, no man would ever paw a female or push himself on her. The default norm of sexual modesty, coupled with the chivalric ideal that gentlemen should treat females like ladies, used to be the most effective defense against such high-testosterone behavior. Feminism, however, has declared both modesty and chivalry sexist, leaving females to improvise a response to the inevitable excesses of the male sex drive, when they are not trying to leverage it to their own advantage. The only good thing to come out of this tacky episode may be the jettisoning of the ongoing resurrection of the tired Clinton White House escapades by Trump and his supporters. Otherwise, it stands merely as a reminder of how enduring the stance of offended female virtue is, even in the age of crude sexual exhibitionism.

    Heather Mac Donald

    Go beyond the current campaign to the wider culture, and this uproar over Trump’s comments reflects the sexual schizophrenia that for decades has corrupted our understanding of women’s sexuality. When feminism took off in the Sixties, it was all about empowering women to have the same sexual agency as men. All the taboos against female sexual behavior were dismantled, the dreaded “double standard” was discarded, and women started acting just like men. They are free to choose their partners, and the frequency and variety of sexual acts, without judgment from prudish patriarchs and Christian “fundamentalists.” They can go to Chippendales shows and leer and grope the strippers with the same gusto as the wise-guys in the Bada Bing. They can watch pornography on television, and read best-selling soft-porn sadomasochistic novels and then enjoy a girls’ night out to enjoy the movie version. They can drop F-bombs with abandon, objectivize men into sexual commodities, dress like prostitutes, and banter about their conquests. And any criticism of female promiscuity is demonized as “slut-shaming.” Around the Nineties the bill started coming due for this uncritical abandonment of traditional morality. Sexual disease, frequent abortion, children without fathers, and the psychological costs of being objectivized and degraded by men––who were delighted to find that women were now their sexual equals––were all the bitter fruit of liberation. The response to these unforeseen consequences was the new Victorianism, as Rene Denfeld’s perceptive study called it. The sexual freedom would remain, but now men were expected to observe a whole host of minute rules and limitations in order to protect women from the consequences of their own free choices. College students had the right to get drunk at frat parties and make a bad sexual choice of an equally drunk sexual partner, but were absolved by being transformed into victims of sexual predators who were now held to a higher standard––just like in patriarchal Victorian times. Apparently the Victorian feminists didn’t understand that if men should know better, then at some level they are better. Women were now the equal of men, but simultaneously not as resilient or strong enough to own the consequences of their behavior. Our larger public culture is equally schizophrenic. We have easy access to porn, a fashion industry that dresses even pre-teens like prostitutes, television shows and movies filled with casual sex, and an obsession with sexual beauty that drives a whole industry of surgical enhancement. Yet at the same time, we rigorously police our language and jokes for infractions of “sexual harassment,” which is what any woman at any time for any reason believes creates a “hostile and intimidating workplace,” in the words of the law. And we have redefined “sexual assault” to include bad decisions one would think a confident, strong, adult woman would see as a learning experience and try to avoid. Instead we infantilize women in terms Queen Victoria would find reassuring. Democrats promote this identity of victimhood because it delivers political dividends. Remember Obama’s 2012 “Life of Julia” campaign cartoon? The message was the federal government can be a woman’s husband, boyfriend, and father, with the result, of course, that women would be just as dependent as they were in the dark days of patriarchy. Or think of Hillary’s main argument for becoming president: it’s time to elect a woman and correct the continuing injustices of sexism––despite the fact that today on average women are better educated and live longer than the average male. But conservatives should know better and not jump so quickly to validate a dishonest narrative that benefits the other side. True conservatism knows the traditional wisdom that talk is cheap, and that actions speak louder than words. And true conservatism recognizes that freedom is the highest secular good, but that there is no true freedom without acceptance of the consequences of one’s actions. This latest Trump episode illustrates how clearly our sexual schizophrenia marks the decline of conservatism and the dominance of progressivism in our culture and politics.

    Bruce Thornton
















  • Notice: Undefined property: wpdb::$is_admin in /home3/baraka/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 684