sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue

November 21, 2016

The Deplorables Versus The Insufferables

Filed under: art, politics, whatever — Tags: , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 5:55 pm

This is going to be your next four years, America. Future Vice President Mike Pence went to see the musical Hamilton, and the crew thought it was necessary to replace the traditional bow, with a short lecture, just to let Pence know that simply because he shelled out a few thousand bucks for the tickets, he shouldn’t expect to feel welcome.

The reaction was immediate and as moronic as the incident itself: Trumpkins nearly broke Twitter, urging a boycott of the sold out show.  A little more than a year ago the followers of the reality star were incensed when the the liberals called for boycotts of his products because they found his words offensive.  Seems like yesterday.

The #BoycottHamilton calls weren’t the worst of it.  An entity that calls itself Bikers4Trump, vowed to block the entrance to the theater to help others boycott the musical:

Can we call them deplorable? Yes, we can.

I am impressed by Stevie Van Zandt’s policing of his comrades:

As a former Republican, I have to shrug.  Trumpists voted in a man notorious for his bullying antics and Mike Pence is his Vice President.  A vote for Trump was not, as some attempt to claim, a vote against political correctness.  It was an overreaction to political correctness and a vote against common decency.  If our president is a clown, what can we expect from actors?

The Hamilton crew’s self-righteousness betrays a lack of confidence.  They made a play about multicultural America, and the play should be a powerful conduit of their ideas.  It should stand on its own, without any editorializing.  I always thought that a rap production about a Founding Father is a bit silly, and the troupe’s behavior only confirms my suspicion about the quality of their art, which I am not going to see. But since the Hamilton movie is in the works, I will probably check it out when it comes out on DVD.  Controversy is generally good for performers (ask Donald Trump) so, I assume, the Hamilton musical stands to gain from the brouhaha.


On the second thought, maybe I’ll pass

In the coming years we will see anti-Trumpism generously recorded by the public.  Additionally, the president apparently being so easily ticked off only guarantees more insufferable behavior on the left.  Poking fun at the potentially least popular president ever is looking to be the new national pastime.  The Left is going to be insufferable. Trump’s election is good for The New York Times who immediately saw their subscriptions rate jump, Hamilton and Alternative Tentacles, bad for Rush Limbaugh and trumsplainers.  The audience interested in tuning in into soliloquies in defense of their special snowflake is rather limited and will diminish.

So far we hear a lot from team Deplorables and team Insufferables, both screaming loudly at each other, but, hopefully, conservative voices will be heard more and more as time goes on.


September 25, 2016

Is Donald Trump A Victim of Predatory Women?

Filed under: politics, whatever — Tags: , , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 10:09 am

I am a strong believer in keeping an eye on the significant others of political figures.  We need to mind the size of their shoes closets, but, more importantly, the choice of partner reveals more about a man’s personality and decision-making than anything in his public life. Also, I’m not above a bit of middlebrow gossip.

That a wealthy man like Donald Trump is able to stage appearances surrounded by an array of hot escorts is not at all surprising.  Admittedly, I know next to nothing about the lives of multimillionaires, but judging by the steadiness with which stories about the likes of DC madame or Trump’s and Clinton’s buddy Jeffrey Epstien pop up, arranging a rendezvous with “a young a beautiful piece of ass” is not an insurmountable challenge in this income tax bracket.

What sets the Donald apart from other rich and famous is the degree to which he very publicly and conspicuously perfects his womanizing image.  Not content with merely sleeping with hotties, he has to established his own bordellos (he’d slept with his Miss USA contestants and his modeling agency’s employees) and then make the reputation for himself as an owner of said bordello by publicizing his affairs.

Some Trump champions, especially at the intersection of the Pick-up and the Artist/altRight, hail him as an “all-American alpha” and vow to support the presidential contender for that very reason: just look at him, he’s wealthy, powerful, and he has the women.  Surely he has a good game, which, in their view, is a manifestation of good leadership skills.


Although the autistic precision with which many PUA’s build their theories of womanizing makes the whole enterprise a bit silly, certain biological rules of courtship doubtlessly exist.  That some men are more gifted at the dating game (or that there are natural born leaders) is obvious at plain sight.  An alpha would have easy and satisfying relationships with the kind of women that seem out of his league, and he’d get the most out of them — and out of life.

This brings me back to the Donald.  At no point did he bed a gal above his social status — or even one at his own level.  For instance, in two of his Howard Stern interviews the tangerine playboy revealed that he’d developed somewhat of a crush on Princess Dianna.  Well, did he get anywhere near her?

The businessman from New York and his now wife Melania once admired the sex tape of family friend Paris Hilton.  (Gross, I know.  But the fact that Trump himself bragged about it and that he would like for us to believe that he’s such a Casanova makes it fair game to mention it.  Also, I’m sure he can take it as well as he gives.)  I suppose Paris just wasn’t that into them.

Although the mogul has a habit of regurgitating the lists of female celebs who arouse him, he sleeps with marginal, ambitious women he dedicated his life to collecting.  Most puzzling, he marries out of his harem — he already has the woman, why does he need to put the ring on her finger? If most wealthy men don’t follow in his footsteps, it’s probably because this is not a good idea.

When he divorced her, Trump’s first wife, a noted gold digger, accused him of rape.  Wife number two played the oldest trick in the book — she got pregnant on him.  According to the official story, the current appropriation accordingly traveled to New York City at the sunset stage of her modeling career. There, she attempted a business connection with Donald Trump, the man who, she was forewarned, would make a pass at her.  When he did, she took his number instead of giving away hers and called him a week later.  In other words, she had him in her sights for a while.

Not to say that Melania and the Donald aren’t made for each other.  The two share the taste for the unironically opulent decor, for instance.  Melania doesn’t nag.  The respective worldviews of this daughter of a nomneclaturish Yugoslav communist and the free world mogul appear to align.  Consider their opinions of the First Amendment.  I previously wrote:

When Pamela Geller organized Draw Mohamed contest, attracting, predictably, jihadist violence, Trump blamed Geller for “provok[ing]” the Religion of Peace.  Likewise, when Julia Ioffe profiled the mogul’s third wife in Vanity Fair in the feature that was not entirely to Melania Trump’s liking, bands of altRight antisemites  barraged Ioffe online.  Melania’s reaction?  “She provoked them.”

One can imagine them finishing each other’s sentences — to the extent to which Melania is capable of formulating sentences in English.

Trump once said that he doesn’t think Nancy Reagan was all that beautiful, provoking the outcry that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  What’s not in the eye of the beholder is that Ronald Reagan is a two-term president and a revered conservative icon.  And what is Donald Trump?  The all-American alpha is currently stuck in a close race with a corpse of a diaper granny.  She’s winning, too, albeit by a nose.  And if she’s bleeding votes, she’s bleeding them not to Trump but to a not exactly charismatic, yet trim and youthful third party candidate who once climbed Mt. Everest.

What Trump seems to be lacking is a trusted adviser, somebody who can say: “Darling, put down your cell. You will not be baited with a tweet” and then makes sure he does.  A real man will marry a woman who will help him to live up to his potential; the thin-skinned Donald purchases arm candies who let him be himself.

In April of this year Liz Mair produced an ad with a photograph of Melania posing in the character of a high society call-girl.  I thought Trump would laugh it off: the picture in question was not pornographic, it was humorous, actually. It accompanied a decade-old magazine piece that the mogul himself approved, presumably, that further advanced the lucky gold digger image of his future wife.  Yet he became incensed.  Why?  It could be because he knew Melania’s porn work will eventually come up.  More likely, however, hiding behind the orange spray tan and the shiny teeth is a lonely man who never found his soulmate.

Why do I get the impression that the closest he ever came to finding a soulmate was in his daughter Ivanka?  Maybe because he makes incest jokes about her, or maybe because he’s entirely comfortable with putting the liberal democrat in charge of high level policy decisions.  Daddy granted Ivanka’s wish to craft the federal maternity leave policy, a government handout staunchly opposed by the GOP. Is it not ironic that at the time conservatives are told by Trump loyalists to put their party above the country and vote for him, Trump is putting his loyalty to family above the party?

For the altRight PUA’s to jump on the Trumptrain is a form of self-congratulation. In their dating science, alphas are attracted to alphas, and, therefore, their conviction that Trump is an alpha proves that they are too. (But wait, what about Reince?)

The flip side of this kind of self-congratulatory thinking is the desire to by 47% of American women.  No less than Rush Limbaugh, a fellow who certainly knows how to hold on to a wife, opined that “real” “wholesome American women” like Trump.  He elaborated:

He’s not PC-whipped. He’s not politically correct-whipped. He stands up for himself.

Remains to be explained: if wholesome women like The Don, how come he never dated any?  What does he have against wholesome women?  And: is our society really so emasculated that We can’t tell a hero from a clown?

In an essay way too good to be written on the occasion of the Donald Trump candidacy, David French wrote about heroes:

Trump’s masculinity is a cheap counterfeit of the masculinity that’s truly threatening to the cultural Left: man not as predator but as protector, the “sheepdog” of American Sniper fame. This is the brave man, the selfless man who channels his aggression and sense of adventure into building a nation, an economy, and — yes — a family. This is the man who kicks down doors in Fallujah or gathers a makeshift militia to rush hijackers in the skies above Pennsylvania. Or, to choose a more mundane — though no less important — example: This is the man who packs up the household to take a chance on a new job, models strength for his family when life turns hard, teaches his son to stand against bullies on the playground, and lives at all times with dignity and honor.

Clowns are different.  Their role is to disobey the normal rules and conventional behavior, to question societal conventions.  Political correctness is something to be questioned, no doubt.  Thank you, Donald Trump, for your service, now please be dismissed because you are right up there with Sid Vicious and Candy Darling with your disobedience.

There is a category of women who like men that constantly embarrass them.  The Squint is one, I suspect — she allowed Donald to drag her into this campaign, something she doesn’t seem to want at all.  Most of us will love a guy who can tell a good joke (or a bad joke), but not when the joke is on us or on him.  When smashing of the idols is in order, we’d love our man to go out and do just that.  What we don’t want our men to do is to make fun of disability or diminish the heroism of others.  We cannot take Donald Trump seriously as a leader.


Global elites: daddy’s girl Ivanka and Wendy Deng, the alleged Putin’s girlfriend.  Ivanka posted the picture of herself with GF to her Instagram account this August

Lack of leadership qualities is important for reasons other than mere optics.  Make no mistake, if elected, Trump will be Putin’s mat.  He will be otherwise manipulated by individuals who know how to properly massage his ego.  And if in 2020 Democrats nominate somebody with a modicum of charisma, that person will win.

August 3, 2015

Forget Cecil, Do You Know Anyone Who Touristed Spain?

Filed under: whatever — Tags: , , — edge of the sandbox @ 10:31 am

What kind of earth-shattering event could possibly force your humble hostess to interrupt her telling her readers what they don’t want to hear about Ukraine?  Why, a poacher killing a lion — because it makes for  pleasant smalltalk.

The twitter outrage over Cecil made me suspect that after SCOTUS established gay marriage and allowed foreigners to vote in the US elections, the Left is out of wish list items — but not of the zeal to punish.

On a positive side, the enviro-freaks are defending a large “magnificent” mammal, which they should not do if they properly and fully deconstruct the great chain of beings theory. Lions are valuable to humans because they are complex creatures and more like us than worms and catfish, but a committed environmentalist should see all species as equally important ecosystem inhibitors.

Behold the beauty of a single-cell organism!

My extended family has an unfortunate tradition of yearly Monterey Bay Aquarium reunions.  Me and DH already decided that the best aquarium is at Mandalay Bay in Vegas, and that the thing to do in Monterey is go to the Dennis the Menace playground, but, I guess, we still have to do Monterey Aquarium, observing exhibit after exhibit of jelly fish.  This year we endured the Aquarium’s lecture about the importance of jellies, about how these types of creatures is so wonderful because they are much more common than humans and, therefore, more representative of life on earth.  And, wouldn’t you like to know, there are so many jellies out there, many of them yet to be studied –if only Monterey researchers could get their hands on more money.  After the end of this dehumanizing ordeal we had to explain to the kids that there is nothing wrong with being rare, and that what makes man superior is his complexity and intelligence.

Because of our superiority to all other creatures, it’s incumbent on us to protect them, hence laws against poaching.  I find it hard to be outraged about the poor Cecil who, at least, died quickly when each year revelers from all over the world visit Spain where they feel obligated to observe corrida, a spectacle of a perfectly fine mammal slowly tortured to death.  Bovines are not endangered — things we eat usually aren’t because we find ways to manufacture more of them for our consumption — what bothers me is the pointless cruelty.

The motives of the Minnesota dentist are easy to discern, but why do tourists flock to bullfighting?  The sport might be traditional in the Iberian peninsula, but tourists don’t partake in or observe an authentic ritual. If that is the goal, they’d be better off eating tapas.

If women today can be persuaded to forgo childbearing to save the bugs of the Amazon forest, is there any surprise that we bleed large mammals to death for no discernible reason?

April 1, 2015

Beyond Religious Freedom

Filed under: politics, whatever — Tags: , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 10:00 pm

Is it just me or is the discussion of recently passed religious freedom legislature in Indiana and Arkansas thoroughly unsatisfying?  As the the state laws was explained to me, it just doesn’t go far enough.  So, allegedly, it enables the Christian businessmen who object to gay marriage to refuse accommodating LGBTQ weddings.  Conservatives are all wound up because the law that purports to protect religious freedom is attacked by liberals, some of whom are bent on violence.  Or depriving conservatives of their livelihood anyways.

I find the scope of the laws in question to be ridiculously narrow.  Our national conversation should be about freedom in general, not just religious freedom.  I know, we can make a strong argument around religious freedom, but why stop there?  Why should any business owner be compelled to serve anyone at all?  Say, an atheist DJ who feels that marriage is an outdated institution and refuses to put records atop of turntables at weddings [except for the gay ones], should he* be compelled to perform at such events or should the bride and the groom cue in an ipad?  Or a dressmaker who opens business to design clothes for his five best friends, should he drive to meet a client out of town simply because they are darker in complexion?

The great irony of the gays versus religious freedom debate is that gays created some of the most exclusive, glamorous and successful subcultures in the United States.  Take the enduring allure of the disco-era Studio 54, a club notorious for denying entry to revelers in last season’s shoes or insufficiently luminous eyeshadow.  Or try to hang with sharp-tongued queens.

Line to Studio 54: No shortage of orgy fodder

And please, don’t try to explain away this behavior by past incidents of bullying because for one it encourages the current bullying of Middle America.  And it’s bully’s bullying, too.  The cliques of ostensibly grown up men and women, like that at Andy Warhol’s Factory, can teach your junior high queen bee a lesson or two.  No surprise there because hard drug use, BDSM, fame and money make superficiality a must in this subculture.  Individuals who composed it are deeply flawed.  As much as I admire Warhol as an artist, his personal flaws, starting with him being a rotten friend, are undeniable.

Pre-fame Madonna at Studio 54. Amazing — I can almost see her humanity in her eyes

Fascism is another thing.  Gays joke about fashion police and dress up in shiny uniforms for their S&M sessions.  Punks took it to another level with actually wearing swastikas.  But really, who is searching for meaning in all the wrong places?

Another thing to consider: leftists complain that corporations are immoral, but if a businessman shows his morality, he gets boycotted by… the leftists!

I’m using he as a generic third person personal.

November 20, 2013

Berkeley Freedom Report

Filed under: Bay Area politics, whatever — Tags: , — edge of the sandbox @ 9:59 am

Last Sunday, I dropped off DH at Golden Gate Fields to bet on the ponies and drove a few blocks south to the very posh radical chic shopping area of 4th Street in Berkeley where the East Bay Anthropologie store happens to be located.  I opted to avoid the congested I-80 both because my rout was so short and because the highway is, well, always congested.  And why is I-80 always jammed?  Well, to drive from a high-trafficked Golden Gates Field and Target area to a fairly high-trafficked 4th Street one needs to cross Gilman, which is nearly impossible.  There is a stop sign on every cross street, but the traffic on Gilman itself practically never ceases.  I’m sure there is a back rout I can take, but all I keep thinking about is that somebody out there has to buy the City of Berkeley a traffic light.

The City of Berkeley can’t be bothered with petty issues like traffic, because those involve cars, and cars are not “the people”, and neither are the drivers.  Bicycles, on the other hand, those are “the people”.  But that, dear readers, is a totally different subject.

The City of Berkeley is preoccupied with significant issues, like whether or not to permit smoking in single family homes — because freedom is something that government allots to individuals.  For instance, it’s been agreed that multi-unit residencies public spaces should prohibit smoking.  But what does the City Council think about family homes?

A City Council member says a proposal to ban cigarette smoking in apartments and condos, where smoke can waft through ventilation systems, is not tough enough or fair.  Councilman Jesse Arreguin says his fellow council members should consider expanding the proposed ban to include single-family homes where children, seniors or lodgers are present. [emphasis mine, –ed.]

Tough and fair, eh?  He is a benevolent ruler, little father, the government.  Is that the kind of thinking that lead this country to the presidency of Barack Obama?

The above exercise in toughness and fairness is not free of charge, of course.  The enforcement of the ban is estimated to cost the city 120K a year, a sum to be offset by a $5 rental unit tax.  (Did I mention that the City of Berkeley is the 4th largest employer in the city of Berkeley?)  And what will the enforcement look like, exactly?  Knocking on doors to make sure nobody is smoking?  Or are the tobacco-related issues going to come up once the individuals residing in family homes file for divorce?

Needless to say, marijuana has long been legal in the municipality in question.  Several “medical” pot dispensaries are located within it’s limits today, and as early as 1979 the residents passed the initiative that made marijuana law enforcement the lowest police priority, effectively legalizing the drug.  Shouldn’t cigarette law enforcement have a lowest priority as well?

Tobacco prohibitionists inflate the dangers of second hand smoke, and, I think, it’s safe to assume that the poorly studied marijuana with its 420 chemical components is probably just as bad for user’s lungs and has the same negligible effect on second hand pot smokers.  Plus the later does have psychedelic effects that may or may not be detrimental to user’s well-being in both long- and short-term.

Berkeley smoking laws only make sense as a power grab.  Run the white male heterosexists Christian patriarchy out of town while replacing it with it’s own brand of new age control apparatus: “Cigarette smoke?  Oh no, can’t have that!  Think about minority children! I have to take my clothes to [eco-friendly] dry cleaners every time I pass by a bar where patrons smoke!  Oh no!  Every time I pass by a smoker, I give him a look!  Good thing we have all the stores we need here, on 4th Street, so I don’t have to venture to cities where people have freedoms and such”.

Handsome and conservative. Hey Berkeley, what’s there not to hate?

And by the way, I don’t know how Asian students are coping with UC Berkeley’s anti-smoking crusade.  Should said students opt to apply to a university friendly to smokers, what will happen to the Cal’s prestigious STEMs programs?

UPDATE: Reblogged on Blackmailers Don’t Soot — thank you!

August 1, 2013

One Would Think The Pythons Were Anarcho-Capitalists

Filed under: politics, society, whatever — Tags: , , — edge of the sandbox @ 4:20 pm

We recently had to review Ministry of Silly Walks for Our Children.

“You see, there is Defense, Social Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks.”  Once upon a time liberals ridiculed the stuffy establishment.  Now they get appalled by the “no-government conservatives”.

July 2, 2013

SCOTUS, The Great and Powerful

Filed under: politics, society, whatever — Tags: , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 9:31 pm

A few days ago I read an essay by Dr. Helen Smith on Puffington Host.  It was titles “8 Reasons Straight Men Don’t Want To Get Married” and was followed by a “clarification”:

From author Helen Smith: “I talked only with heterosexual men about marriage for the book. It did not include same-sex marriages. However the dynamics of same -sex marriage would be a fascinating study for future research.” — HuffPost Eds.

Good thing PuffHo gave Dr. Helen a chance to explain herself.
The federal government should finance a study or two to figure out why gay men don’t want to marry.
According to the Pew poll Dr. Helen cites, 37% of women of childbearing age say that marriage is important, but only 29% of men in that age cohort express the same opinion.  The 8% gap probably* represents a problem to women seeking fulfillment in family life.  On the other hand, if only 2% of gays and lesbians are known to wed, these family-minded queers can date their fellow 2%-ers.  Problem solved.  If there ever was a problem.  Because queers can’t mate with each other (d’oh!) and so rarely adopt other people’s children, the future of next generation is not at stake, and there is no compelling reason why society should insert itself into the legal status of their relationships.
San Francisco City Hall was practically mobbed by “dozens” of same sex couples rushing to get married the day after Prop 8 was no more.  All that pent up demand…  All right, all right, it was during the Pride weekend, so everyone was busy partying.  This year’s San Francisco’s Gay Pride parade boasted record attendance — 1.5 million, or 50% more than 2012.  So, of course, there were plenty of parties to go.
This blog predicts that queer matrimony is going to be statistically negligible, and because it’s so unusual — even though it will be right front and center in the media — gay marriage is not going to influence the lives of American families.  But, hey, LGBT activists got an affirmation.  Woo-hooo!  And the legal and social status of polygamy is something to watch.

San Francisco City Hall lit up in gay pride colors in celebration of the SCOTUS ruling (or merely for the gay pride parade). Wouldn’t it be especially meaningful to get married on Pride week and immediately after Prop 8 was overturned? Or am I thinking like a straight woman?

On the subject of married life, parenting is kicking my behind right now, which is why I haven’t been blogging much.  DH, who toured the US and Europe prior to starting family, recently had an “embarrassingly Freudian” dream in which midgets were committing identity theft against him.  In his waken hours he says that he doesn’t want to play rock-n-roll anymore.
Speaking of rock-n-roll, does George Zimmerman hate whitie?  After all, he said “Effing punks!” in reference to the intruder, and something like 95% of Punks are Caucasian.  The other 5% are white Hispanics, but never mind.  A ska song from San Francisco circa 1980 offers some deep thoughts on that subject:
And speaking of Hispanics, the other morning I heard on Armstrong and Getti that until in an unprecedented display of common sense SCOTUS ruled the whole thing unconstitutional, Monterey, CA was covered under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.  Monterey, really?  “Community activists” are not happy, of course; they must be preparing for amnesty.  We go to Monterey every summer, and I find the two-tier English/Spanish California social structure is especially pronounced there.  Go to a fancy restaurant or a hotel on Cannery Row and see elegant young white servers raking in tips.  Go to Monterey Aquarium and see signs in our two languages and all sorts of people from all over the world — but no Hispanics.  Perhaps they go there on a free for locals day, because there is certainly no shortage of middle age Mexicans in Monterey; they are taking orders in Denny’s.
And to go back to gay marriage, did you know that the majority of gays raising children are not wealthy white urbanites we see on TV, but Hispanics?  LGBT movement needs amnesty more than anyone else in this country.
…The title of this post should really be referencing the very great and very gay (not obviously so to kids) original film and not the very gay (in a different sense) remake.
* Surveys are just surveys.  People don’t admit what they really feel, and perhaps the don’t know how they feel.  Even those men who are adamant about avoiding the nuptials might find themselves at the altar, under the huppah, or in a City Hall.  If men marry at all, it’s because that’s what their women want from them.
UPDATE: Reblogged by Citizen Tom — thanks!
Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: