Morning Report: Fed “halfway there” in terms of rate hikes 8/21/17

Vital Statistics:

Last Change
S&P Futures 2426.8 0.0
Eurostoxx Index 374.1 -0.1
Oil (WTI) 48.7 0.1
US dollar index 86.1 0.0
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 2.18%
Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA 103.09
Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA 103.97
30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage 3.88

Stocks are flat this morning on no real news. Bonds and MBS are flat as well.

Very slow news day, as the chatter relates primarily to the eclipse today.

The Chicago Fed National Activity index slipped a bit in July, indicating the economy is growing more or less on its historical trend line. Employment-related indicators were a plus, while consumption related indicators were a drag.

Not a lot of data this week, but there will be a conference of central bankers at Jackson Hole this week. The subject will be focused on regulation and financial stability so I don’t expect much in the way of market moving data. Janet Yellen will speak on Friday.

San Francisco Fed President John Williams says the “normal” Fed Funds rate should be about 2.5% or so. In other words, we are about halfway there. To put that number in perspective, it used to be in the 5% to 6% range before the financial crisis.

As we head into September, the debt ceiling fight will take center stage. This has usually been a contentious issue and this time should be no different. Nancy Pelosi is rumored to be demanding some sort of censure for Trump regarding his Charlottesville comments as the price of Democratic Party support. If so, this one could go down to the wire. Remember the last time we had a government shutdown, we were unable to get tax transcripts from the IRS for a couple of weeks. Take this into account and order before the debt ceiling deadline if you can.

The NY Fed bumped up its estimate for Q3 GDP to 2.1% from 2%. Note the Atlanta Fed is forecasting 3.7% GDP growth. Industrial metals have been on a tear, which is a tell for global growth.

Nationstar is now officially Mr. Cooper.

70 Responses

  1. Frist!

    I signed petition to formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organization.


    • idk… I wouldn’t lump them in with terrorist organizations until they start trying to kill people. Nazi Punching doesn’t get to that level.


      • There was the terrorist broad in California that Ace referenced last week, she was clicking people in the skull with a steel bike lock, seems lethal to me. It ain’t for a lack of trying.

        We’re really supposed to wait for some deaths?


        • Yes. Also, has to be the death of someone sympathetic. If they actually “accidentally” kill some Klan members or Nazis, the press will do a media assassination on whoever died’s history. They won’t be saying that the murder was justified, but they won’t exactly not be saying that, either.

          Once they (AntiFa) accidentally take out a liberal activist, someone in an actual power structure, or someone from the press, then there will be problems.

          If this whole nonsense doesn’t peter out, someone in AntiFa will kill somebody. Kind of on-accident-on-purpose. Imagine you are a frustrated young man who hates his life and would like to kill somebody for it, but couldn’t rationalize doing it before. Then there’s AntiFa! Not only can you kill someone now, it would, in fact, be noble to do so!

          That’s the result that a logic system that says “stop people from having opinions we don’t like by any means necessary”, and justifies violence, ends up with.

          I’m sure many of them have no intention of killing anybody, but they make a very attractive group to join for people who totally would like to kill somebody.


        • Jake Tapper did a Tweetstorm on one of CNN’s stringers who received a stitches and a concussion from Antifa terrorists in Charlottesville. I guess they gotta do better to even get significant media condemnation, they probably figure the CNN stringer deserved a good Fisking.


        • McWing:

          Personally I think the “terrorist” label is wielded too broadly. I am not sure I could articulate a fully objective reason for thinking so, but to me hijacking a plane and flying it into a building filled with people has a different feel to it than going to a political protest with the intent of getting into a brawl and clubbing someone or whipping them with a chain.

          That’s one reason I am skeptical of the FBI stats that Mark referenced the other day. I’d like to see exactly what those stats are comprised of, because my guess is that an awful lot of what gets characterized as “right wing terrorism” I would consider just plain old violent, criminal behavior.

          In any event, my opinion of Antifa is independent of whether or not they are according-to-Hoyle terrorists. I think Antifa is a dangerous force however one wants to label them.


        • A group willing to use violence preemptively merely to shut someone up seems terroristic to me. They desire the media coverage because their violence surely means more will shut-up and comply. Terrorism, as we’re so often told, is a tactic.

          Liked by 1 person

        • “I guess they gotta do better to even get significant media condemnation, they probably figure the CNN stringer deserved a good Fisking.”

          My position is the Tapper Tweetstorm was a warning, as were the few other mild references to AntiFa beating on reporters. The message was, of course, if you want to continue to get sympathetic coverage from the press, don’t attack reporters. Their response (“how were we supposed to tell? they looked like Nazis to me!”) was not helpful to the cause.

          If there is serious money behind the provocateurs, then there may be behind-the-scenes PR going on to mollify the press, but that can only go so far.

          In another parallel with the American Nazis, AntiFa is going to consistently prove itself to be its own worst enemy (see the “f*ck your f*cking constitution” lady, blaming other progressives for not being brave and punching Nazis).


        • Fair point, Tapper never called them antifa, just “anti nazi demonstrators”.

          Liked by 1 person

        • “We’re really supposed to wait for some deaths?”

          my neighborhood was trying to get a traffic light installed. someone offhandedly asked that — and was stunned when the state official very matter of factually responded with “Three. you need 3 fatalities to get a light here. you have 2 over 40 years. so 1 more.”

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wow…not even 3 in some limited time span, but just 3 in all of history? That’s some half-assed cost/benefit analysis!

          Liked by 1 person

        • The city of Phoenix did not have left-turn arrows at major intersections until the mid ’90’s because the city’s traffic engineer hated them, had to wait until he retired.


        • McWing:

          The city of Phoenix did not have left-turn arrows at major intersections until the mid ’90’s because the city’s traffic engineer hated them, had to wait until he retired.

          I’d venture a guess that left turns are responsible for more deaths annually than neo-Nazis have been responsible for in the last 6 decades. Antifa should be beating up motorists who cross traffic.


        • my neighborhood was trying to get a traffic light installed.

          Generally, traffic lights are used as tools of traffic management, not necessarily safety. I guess depending on the area.

          I’ve got several awful intersections near where I live. One has a light now (it didn’t 20 years ago, I know, but I didn’t hit it very often before I moved to my current residence). Another is a 5 way stop that is confusing to everybody . . . it needs lights or something. Also, there’s a still-active train track that goes through the 5 way stop. I’m guessing more than 3 people have died there in the past 30 years, probably in the past 20. But it’s so screwed up that people are probably more attentive than normal, given there are 4 other directions for cars to be coming at you from.

          Only place I drive that I feel really could use a round-a-bout. I wonder how many people have to die to get a round-a-bout?


        • @scottc1: “I’d venture a guess that left turns are responsible for more deaths annually than neo-Nazis have been responsible for in the last 6 decades. Antifa should be beating up motorists who cross traffic.”

          I’d guess you’re right. But the list of things responsible for death and assaults wouldn’t stop there. I’d wager that inattentive bicyclists have perpetrated more assaults, bruises, and broken bones on people than the KKK or American Nazis in the past 20-30 years. More people have likely died of direct lightening strikes and being hit on the head by coconuts than have died at the hands of mentally ill LARPers who have deluded themselves into believing their are real, live Nazis.

          But data is never the issue, and statistics are never the issue, unless it’s convenient.

          Although AntiFa is entirely about “hate”–it’s ideas and speech they object to, not violence and/or death. Otherwise, their energy would be better devoted to protesting to bring American soliders back home, protesting gun ownership, protesting police brutality maybe. There are a lot of other areas someone worried about assault and killing could direct their energy.

          Although the reality is, they are primarily protesting people who, like themselves, are essentially Live Action Role-Players with emotional and/or mental problems, because they don’t like the character they chose for their cosplay.

          The real threat of the American Nazi party, as odious as their espoused views are, is practically zero. To avoid being killed, injured, or harassed by a Nazi for your entire life in America, all you have to do is be someplace in the 99.9999999999999999999% of the country where a Nazi currently isn’t.


      • Fair enough, but they seem explicitly, to me, to be attempting to use “terror” to suppress speech. Also, doesn’t hurt to get the message out there that a significant number of people don’t see them as heroes.

        Problem with antifa is that, with such groups, enough is never enough. If they could content themselves with the occasional Nazi punching, I’d be fine with them. But human nature and history tend to indicate that that won’t happen. They’ve already displayed all the red flags necessary to read the likelihood is that actively trying to kill people is only tabled until such time as they have sufficient power and resources and media coverage to pull it off.

        I don’t think they’ll actually get declared a terrorist organization, either. Signing the petition is just a little gentle trolling of the entitled morons who think they are the new heroes for their generation. 😉


  2. Nationstar is now officially Mr. Cooper.

    That’s a very odd name change.


  3. Justifying antifa violence.

    Starts out describing it as “a legitimate response to white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence,” but he goalposts get moved pretty quickly.

    But Bray remained unconvinced, insisting that “a lot of people are under attack” from the far right’s ideology, saying that these people “need to be able to defend themselves” and use violence, if necessary, because “fascism cannot be defeated through speech.”

    This was notable too:

    “And we can see that really the way that white supremacy grows, the way that neo-Nazism grows, is by becoming legitimate, becoming established, becoming everyday, family-friendly, wear khakis instead of hoods,” Bray said.

    The only people who think white supremacy and/or neo-nazism are “becoming legitimate” are the people who keep attempting to re-define previously legitimate political disagreement as white supremacy and/or nazism. Anyone who thinks Antifa violence will be limited to actual nazis is being foolish.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The amount of hand-wringing over a few hundred whackos is simply unbelievable. I guess the left needed something to distract people from the Russian collusion story petering out.


    • “Anyone who thinks Antifa violence will be limited to actual nazis is being foolish.”

      The only people who think that are on the left. And, from their point of view, they are probably right: everyone that disagrees with them is a Nazi, so the violence will be limited (at least, intentionally) to people the left disagrees with. Maybe.

      Although, if they are liberal BUT have a short hair cut or wear a suit and tie (or khakis), maybe not. Can’t be too careful when fighting fascists.

      The true bad actors in this seems to me to be the media and pundits and politicians. All this is doing is elevating the profile of a bunch of violent, emotionally damaged people and giving them credibility and importance they don’t deserve.


    • Starts out describing it as “a legitimate response to white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence,”

      Also, what recent white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence has their been, outside of clashes with AntiFa? Is there something I’m unaware of?

      Or do they mean the violence of expressing odious views?


    • They haven’t in their 100 plus year history, they just get bigger and better organized at exterminating people. Mao>Stalin>Lenin.


      • You’re being too broad. You could just easily say in their 100,000 year history, because there have always been tribal groups seeking power and having no compunction about stealing and killing to get it.

        AntiFa as a group is it’s own thing, and American AntiFa is it’s own thing again, distinct from that.

        I’m asking for the over/under on American AntiFa losing cohesion, sympathy, and dissolving. I think it’s highly likely.

        Emotionally damaged people projecting their emotional problems unproductively on the outside world will always be with us. This specific configuration, however, I think is going to ultimately blow itself up. Uncontrollable anger and resentment for spoiled, entitled, violent white people. It’s a losing proposition. Everyone in AntiFa is a loose cannon.

        They are also highly open to potential sabotage. No organization and a lot of anonymity. Easy to be infiltrated by hostile actors.

        If it self-destructs soon enough (doubtful), some of the founding members will have Nazi-punching stories to tell for decades, and a decade or two from now they will get hagiographic think-pieces on Vox and Slate on what it meant to be an American Nazi Fighter ten or twenty years back. AntiFa will be historically rehabilitated, inevitably, but I think presently they will be about as successful at getting the country on their side as the Weather Underground was.

        Eh, maybe I’m wrong. I just see them having a hard time keeping this up. This ain’t Selma, and what they are fighting is almost entirely in their imaginations. When that’s true, it’s very easy to make stupid mistakes. Which they seem to do every time they appear as a group.


        • KW:

          So what is your over/under, then?


        • Antifa, black bloc, whatever you want to call them, are the shock troops of communtists. The Italian anarchists that killed McKinley were of the same philosophy. The west coast variety live on collectives. I’m guessing 90% plus identify as anarcho-communist. They’ll always be commies and they’ll always be people who get off on violence and murder, it’s just easier to rationalize from the left, as communists and (national) socialist are willing to do.


        • “So what is your over/under, then?”

          It’s a wide spread. I’m thinking over six months, under 4 years, if a Democrat wins the Whitehouse in 2020. If I had to make a tighter bet, I’d say there’s a 50% chance they self-destruct in the next year-and-a-half.

          The stand a good chance of becoming the biggest drag on the DNC campaign to take the house and senate in 2018. Ask Bernie if going up against the DNC is a smart move.

          Which is more to say I think the clock is already ticking. I don’t believe they will be able to shape up, and will just torpedo themselves despite having favorable press coverage and DC politicians (presently) defending them. Like many spoiled children, given everything, they’ll just trash it all.


        • KW:

          It’s a wide spread. I’m thinking over six months, under 4 years

          OK, done on $1 per year. I pay you $1 for every year under 4 years that they aren’t around, and you pay me $1 annually for every year after 4 years that they are around. Now we just need a metric for its implosion.


        • Antifa, black bloc, whatever you want to call them, are the shock troops of communtists.

          True enough. But never before have such shock troops been composed of more spoiled, entitled, lazy, out-of-shape, under-educated brats. With such poor communication skills. Like the American Nazi dude who released a YouTube of himself getting teary-eyed that people don’t like Nazis for some reason (wtf?), the AntiFa folks are ultimately weak and incompetent.

          Doesn’t mean I don’t think people shouldn’t keep their on them. I definitely think they should be arrested every time they break a law. And fined. And arrested again.

          It will cease to be fun, and they will get bored.

          These aren’t your father’s communist shock troops.


        • “Now we just need a metric for its implosion.”

          That’s going to be tough. There won’t be a formal announcement. And it’ll be a long wait until the next major Republican victory that they can protest. First major leftist protests where they all deny being AntiFa, maybe?

          Might ultimately be a cocktail of people trying specifically to seem not-AntiFa (but still against racism) and a clear end of the romance with the press and D.C. Politicians and AntiFa.

          If you have a better idea, I’m open to it. A six-month period with no AntiFa stories?


    • KW:

      Over/Under on AntiFa just eating itself and self-destructing?

      I’ll make it just a shade south of “never”.


      • Just to be clear, I’m not referring to violent leftists who want to achieve utopia through “any means necessary”, I’m referring to American AntiFa used as a concept/self-descriptor.

        I think they’ll practically vanish next time a Democrat takes the Whitehouse, if not before. If nothing else, the press will crush them every time they try to stir up sh*t during the reign of Victorious Democratus the 23rd.


  4. Gotta wonder what’s going on with the pacific fleet. Second collision in a month?


    • They are going to look into it:

      Might just be coincidence. But something seems odd about that.


    • The Strait of Malacca is the 42nd and Broadway of the ocean. I transited it several times, and it can be nerve-wracking. And that was back in the day when we kept track of contacts manually with grease pencil and some sailor writing backwards on plexiglass.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s what makes this so inexplicable. This almost never happens and it’s happened twice in a month?

        You’d think, only a month our from the last one they’d be super vigilant.

        It’s weird.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yeah. Sounds kinda like something must be up. And I don’t imagine anyone is doing it on purpose (I mean, driving one ship into another).


        • I am surprised the CO wasn’t on the bridge… If there is one place in the world where the CO should be on the bridge, the SOM is it…


        • Brent/McWing:

          More on the ship collision…speculation that these are the result of some kind of cyber attack:

          The Pentagon won’t yet say how the USS John S. McCain was rammed by an oil tanker near Singapore, but red flags are flying as the Navy’s decades-old reliance on electronic guidance systems increasing looks like another target of cyberattack.

          The incident – the fourth involving a Seventh Fleet warship this year – occurred near the Strait of Malacca, a crowded 1.7-mile-wide waterway that connects the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea and accounts for roughly 25 percent of global shipping.

          “When you are going through the Strait of Malacca, you can’t tell me that a Navy destroyer doesn’t have a full navigation team going with full lookouts on every wing and extra people on radar,” said Jeff Stutzman, chief intelligence officer at Wapack Labs, a New Boston, New Hampshire, cyber intelligence service.


        • In this instance, I hope it’s incompetence. If it’s China or Russia…


        • China and Russia don’t seem super likely. It seems like something that someone aware of the systems and interested in hacking it could do it, either as an act of terrorism (nobody claiming credit, so not super-likely) or some kind of flavor of anti-military activism. Or something else. If it was China or Russia I would think it would be them getting smuggled versions of the real equipment, testing it until they had a variety of attacks that worked, and then sitting on it “in case of need”. Live demonstrations don’t pay off for them in any real way that I can think of.


  5. Barcelona driver (and supposed mastermind) shot and killed.

    Wearing fake suicide vest, I suppose to encourage police to kill him. Must be hard to get legit explosives in Spain?


  6. Liked by 1 person

  7. If it was a Republican governor doing this in response to leftist violence, after the issues with the policing that caused it to begin with, the howls of “conspiracy” and “fascist” would be deafening.

    “Gov. McAuliffe’s executive order temporarily halts demonstrations at Lee Monument
    by Vernon Freeman Jr.,
    Updated at 07:16PM, August 18, 2017”

    This of course is the best part, when the politician denies what they are explicitly doing.

    “Let me be clear, this executive order has nothing to do with infringing upon first
    amendment rights.”

    The entire point is to infringe on First Amendment rights, under the theory that they are too dangerous to allow to be exercised.


    • All of McAuliff’s actions has to be seen in the context of the 2020 POTID election. If I was running against him, I’d ask the murder victims mother what she thought of his handling of security for the rally. While he’s trying to explain how a governor isn’t responsible, the damage will have been done.

      Though I doubt a white male can win the D POTUS nominee anymore.


    • jnc:

      The entire point is to infringe on First Amendment rights, under the theory that they are too dangerous to allow to be exercised.

      A point that simply cannot be made to the left, since, to the leftist mind, no policy deemed by them to be necessary or even preferable can possibly be an infringement of Constitutional rights.


      • Constitution is living and breathing, and was always meant to be molded, like putty, by your intellectual betters. Now shut up.

        Can’t say I blame McCauliffe (presuming he didn’t take part in intentionally engineering the Charlottesville conflict). I’d do it and say until they can guarantee “peacable assembly”, they’re out of luck.

        Guessing he decided that the Nazi/Antifa conflict doesn’t allow for a clear enough good buy/bad Republicans narrative, when antifa end up attacking journalists and getting asinine behavior videoed and put on YouTube.


      • “can possibly be an infringement of Constitutional rights.”

        I think they are actually dispensing with that argument in favor of “hate speech isn’t speech. It’s violence and shouldn’t be protected.”

        Hence why they turned on the ACLU.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jnc:

          I think they are actually dispensing with that argument in favor of “hate speech isn’t speech.

          They’ve never made that argument explicitly. They always come up with some convoluted, often times transparently false, rationale. And the claim that “hate” speech isn’t speech is just more of the same. It still ultimately derives from a belief that anything they think “should” be done must, by definition, be Constitutional.

          Liked by 1 person

    • The entire point is to infringe on First Amendment rights, under the theory that they are too dangerous to allow to be exercised.

      Always said that aside from abortion, gay marriage, and maybe pot the left simply isn’t all that into the idea of freedom.


      • Human nature. Most people want to consider themselves principled, but their principles are amorphous and fluid, shifting to whatever configuration best serves them and their flattering self-image. They have more general progressive principles of equality and fairness (so-called) that would trump ideas of freedom and liberty (indeed, gay marriage is about fairness, and abortion is also about fairness in many ways). Still, fairness is a broad and flexible concept, and much may have to be done to atone for past wrongs, real or imagined, often perpetrated on people long dead, or for wrongs not done by an individual but by a group, and atonement is done by proxy . . .

        Also, they generally need to be personally immune from the restrictions of fairness, or the fairness enforcement has to be on an issue that does not personally impact them. Because principles are . . . flexible.


  8. OT: So how does everyone feel about Joss Whedon being outed as a (shock!) rich, powerful dude with access to lots of attractive women?

    Because of his espoused feminism, most folks on the right are luxuriating in his hypocrisy. I’ve got a slight different take.

    There is misinformation out there and I feel the best way to clear up the situation is to tell my truth.

    I mean, my hackles get raised when someone says “I am about to tell the truth”. When you say: “I am going to tell my truth”, I am left to assume you are lying at worst, being truthy while leaving things out at best.

    Let me begin by saying I am a very private person and the act of writing this is antithetical to who I am and everything I stand for.

    Untrue, or you wouldn’t be writing anything. Also, if you decided you had to write something, why would you include that? It’s extra stuff you are saying that wastes time getting to the point, and getting this awful thing you don’t want to do over with. I dunno. “The more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

    I met Joss in 1991. I was driving across the country from Massachusetts on a whim, and met him when I was passing through Los Angeles. We fell in love and I moved to L.A. so we could be together.

    Translation: we were both flighty and impulsive, and later I would be surprised that this impulsive person had problems controlling his impulses.

    I was with him when his “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” script was adapted, and the resulting movie released. It was painful to see how his vision was interpreted by the production team and on our honeymoon to England in 1995, I urged him to figure out how to turn it into a TV show. He didn’t want to work in television anymore, following in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps, but I convinced him it was the fastest way to get the experience he needed, so he could direct his own films someday. I had no idea, in that lovely garden in Bath, that it would change everything.

    Translation: all his success is mine. Everything he has achieved is because of me. He’d be nothing without me, do you hear? Nothing!

    There were times in our relationship that I was uncomfortable with the attention Joss paid other women. He always had a lot of female friends, but he told me it was because his mother raised him as a feminist, so he just liked women better. He said he admired and respected females, he didn’t lust after them.

    Translation: When he told me he had no external sex organs and was not, in fact, born a man, it seemed entirely credible to me. I also believe in fairies and unicorns.

    to help me understand how he could have lied to me for so long, he said, “In many ways I was the HEIGHT of normal, in this culture. We’re taught to be providers and companions and at the same time, to conquer and acquire — specifically sexually — and I was pulling off both!”

    Translation: Somehow, I never noticed that he was rich, powerful, and had a penis.

    I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights

    Because (a) that’s a definition of a good guy and (b) liberals are somehow immune from wanting to have their cake and eat it, too.

    I thought we were a couple, a team. I was a powerful influence on the career choices Joss made during the 20 years we were together (we lived together for four years before marrying). I kept him grounded, and helped him find the quickest way to the success he so deeply craved. I loved him.

    Translation: Every success he ever had was because of me! Do you hear me? It was all me! I did it all. He’d be nothing without me, you hear me? Nothing! Also, I was nothing but good and pure in all of this. Nothing!

    Now that it is finally public, I want to let women know that he is not who he pretends to be.

    Good luck with that.

    Editor’s Note: A spokesperson for Joss Whedon provided the following response, “While this account includes inaccuracies and misrepresentations which can be harmful to their family, Joss is not commenting, out of concern for his children and out of respect for his ex-wife.”

    My immediate impression is that Joss has a better grip on how to handle the situation than his wife, and that the assertion that she’s responsible for his success is not particularly credible.

    Also, generally, saying the right things in public and making financial donations count a lot more than philandering. Just ask Bill Clinton!


    • Why does cheating on your spouse damage your “feminist” credentials? I guarantee that broads that identify as femisbts cheat in at least equal numbers to broads that say they’re not feminists and probably in equal numbers to dudes.

      Plus, it’s Hollywood. Who does she think she’s kidding.


      • “Plus, it’s Hollywood. Who does she think she’s kidding.”

        Maybe she wants people to know that without her, Whedon is nothing?

        Also, it proves that people who consider themselves feminists don’t understand how feminism plays out in the real world.

        There is an implication that a real feminist wouldn’t lie about cheating. Wouldn’t everybody?


    • KW:

      My immediate impression is that Joss has a better grip on how to handle the situation than his wife, and that the assertion that she’s responsible for his success is not particularly credible.

      Why is Josh himself not worthy of the same cynical treatment you give her?

      To be consistent, it should be Translation: I can’t really dispute anything she actually said, because its mostly true, so I’ll just allude to vague inaccuracies, and then pull the kid card in order to avoid specifics and make it seem like I’m the selfless one while she doesn’t give a crap about the kids.


      • Why is Josh himself not worthy of the same cynical treatment you give her?

        Oh, lord, he totally is. But he’s getting that pretty well already. Also, he provided almost no material because he said almost nothing.

        That being said: I noticed the dig in there (she harms our family). It’s just a lot less material (which is always the wise course; even less would have been better).

        And the ground is already being well-trod because there are plenty of people on the left and right and center that hate Joss. So their take is all about what a self-serving a$$hole he is. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure he’s a total douchebag.


    • Live by being a woke male feminist.
      Die by being a woke male feminist.

      Whedon has spent too much time lecturing everyone else for me to have much sympathy for him.

      He’ll be fine.


      • Lord, no sympathy for Joss.

        “Die by being a woke male feminist.”

        Like you said, I think he’ll be just fine. I don’t think there’s going to be any dying involved. He’ll have more aspiring actresses and fangirls and hangerons throwing themselves at him now (especially thanks to this piece: it’s paints a target on him saying “you can buy your acting career by seducing this chubby geek”). And he will remain rich and successful. Assuming he continues to crank out hits.


  9. Apparently Jerry Lewis is a celebrity worthy of being shit on.

    At least they waited till the 3rd paragraph.


    • Notable that one of the reasons his reputation “soured” was because he “didn’t hesitate to share his right wing political views.” I wonder if anyone’s reputation has ever been said to have soured for not being hesitant to share one’s left wing views.

      It’ll be interesting to see, when he finally dies, how far into Variety’s Roman Polanski obit it takes before they point out that he was a pedophile rapist. Surely in Hollywood that is a minor crime relative to telling a gay joke.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I wonder if anyone’s reputation has ever been said to have soured for not being hesitant to share one’s left wing views.

        Not in the past 30 years, I’m pretty sure. There’s been some folks turned off by performers airing their shallow leftist opinions at their shows.

        But it’s also wishful thinking. Jerry Lewis always had detractors, and was combative and when you’re that way with the wrong people in Hollywood, it kinda hurts your career. That tends to be the real source of “souring”, although being too out as a conservative in Hollywood remains problematic (see the end of Last Man Standing on ABC, despite good ratings).


      • Regarding Polanski, there’s been some more coming out with accusations against him. He may be moving into Bill Cosby territory.


  10. I love how the MSM can read Trump’s mind when he gives away money, but cannot figure out what motivates someone to shoot up a gay club shouting Allahu Akbar…

    Liked by 1 person

    • They have their narrative, and everything fits into it. They understand Trump’s motivations, because the narrative says they do. To the degree they understand the motivations of Islamic terrorists, the narrative tells them it’s because of the West and Christianity and xenophobia that they respond with acts of terror. Because that’s the narrative.

      People don’t tend to deviate a lot from their personal narrative. Which is fine, if the narrative can encompass a variety of complicated facts. Lots of narratives are all super-clear good guys and bad guys, the obviously smart and the obviously stupid, and facts that don’t fit their narrative are dispensed with.


    • Also, the narrative says that the natural reaction to the passing of an icon is to make it a story about the current hated president.


Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: