Gay Patriot Header Image

Why Do People Love Betty White and Hate Kathy Griffin

Posted by V the K at 9:09 pm - June 2, 2017.
Filed under: Big Hollywood

At the gym, they were playing Kathy Griffin’s sad press conference with Gloria Allred’s daughter. I don’t know what she was saying, since I was listening my workout shuffle of J-Pop and metal. (FWIW, it synched up amusingly sometimes.)

The thing that almost makes me feel sad for Ms. Griffin is that her whole thing is that she wants to be beloved. The beheading of Donald Trump was supposed to win her the hearts of the increasingly violent left; it wasn’t a threat of political violence, it was a glorification of political violence. And when the people, the clique, rejected her… well, she had to try something. So, she does this press conference where she makes another play for the sympathy of the prog left. “I’m the victim of that horrible Donald Trump, and I’ve been a victim of the Patriarchy my whole life.” That venture seems to have come up short also.

For some reason, I started thinking about Betty White. Betty White truly is beloved by people. Why? Longevity, is part of it, roles on two iconic sitcoms twenty years apart. But a big part of it is her demeanor. Betty White is sweet. People like that. And when she does… as she occasionally does… something a bit raunchy, it’s funnier because it’s coming from sweet old Betty White.

You could imagine yourself running into Betty White in a coffee shop and sharing a coffee and biscotti with her. You imagine Kathy Griffin as someone who would be shouting at the barista and loudly talking about herself in order to claim the unwilling attention of everyone in the shop.

Not to mention, Betty White mostly keeps her trap shut about politics.

You would never see Betty White mimicking oral sex on Anderson Cooper. She has enough sense to know it wouldn’t be funny. For someone who alleges to be comedienne, Ms. Griffin has a terrible sense of what’s comedy. Probably because she was raised to believe that it was ‘comic’ and ‘edgy’ for women to be loud and boorish, and she expected that to translate into affection. It does not.

And I know feminists will be saying, “Well, that’s just misogyny. Women can’t get away with being loud, but men are respected for it.” No, not really. Roger Moore passed away last week, and one of the recurring comments on his passing was what a kind, gracious, and classy guy he was. Justin Bieber on the other hand…

Kathy Griffin is a loud, rude, grating, boorish woman completely lacking in comedic instincts who wants more than anything to have the kind of esteem Betty White does. She’s 57-years-old, and she wants the same things a twelve-year-old girl wants. And that’s just sad.

I know in the greater scheme of things, this doesn’t matter. My takeaway isn’t about Ms. Griffin. I couldn’t care less about her (and that’s the most wounding thing to her, nobody cares). But there is, maybe, some sort of lesson about the futility and abject sadness of pursuing fame and esteem as ends in themselves. Even when you succeed, you end up like Madonna; surrounded by wealth and sycophants while your own children can’t stand being around you.

Anyway, if this all bored you, there’s a video of an alt-right guy slamming Robert De Niro after the jump.


Why leftie men often look like cucks

I missed this last week, but here it is now. Study: Physically Weak Men More Likely To Be Socialists.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Brunel University’s Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology. “This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” said Dr. Price. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

So, physical “haves” feel less threatened and enjoy inequality. In other words, they’re dumb jock bullies. That’s one interpretation. But it’s undermined by Brunel’s own evidence:

“When Dr Price factored in time spent in the gym some, but not all, of the link disappeared,” notes The Times, suggesting there may be something to men with capitalistic views hitting the gym.

[ILC stares at his shoelaces, wonders if he should cough] That strikes me as more truthful.

  • Those who go to the gym, tend to be stronger.
  • And they tend to understand the importance of health and strength in daily life: not only in appearing impressive to people, but in actually having more energy, being able to move more easily, having a reliable daily feeling of accomplishment and positive discipline, etc.
  • And they tend to understand accountability for your own results. (Physical training teaches nothing, if not that.)
  • From there, and at the risk of over-generalizing, they often drift into common-sense libertarian-conservative views, emphasizing personal responsibility.
  • The process can also work in reverse: if you believe in personal responsibility, you may find yourself going “Hey, why don’t I hit the gym / get strong?”

At least that’s been my experience. I know some leftie gym buffs – again, you can’t over-generalize – but I live in a super-lefty area. (And the few who like MSNBC for real are always either women or weak, older men.) The percentage rate of being libertarian-conservative seems, to me, a bit higher among gym buffs than the general population. And the link is: philosophy of personal responsibility.

If you’d like to learn about strength training, a good place to start is (No affiliation.) They emphasize perfecting your “form” or technique to prevent injury. And that strength training is something for all people, of all ages. The leader, Mark Rippetoe, is sort of a gruff, dogmatic, ex-power-lifter – and I *think* he’s libertarian-minded, or at least anti-Hillary.

The meaning of Trump’s presidency

With America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, another piece of the puzzle is in place. I think I’m getting a Big Picture.

For a myriad of reasons – economic, financial, demographic – we have been moving into a multi-polar world. As opposed to a world where the U.S. is the one, super-wealthy super-power.

Like an oncoming glacier, the shift is very slow – but unstoppable. I’ve been contemplating it for years – and sometimes discussing it on the blog, as in my old posts (that I keep meaning to update) on the gradual decline of the U.S. dollar as the world’s central currency.

Trump is ahead of this shift, and left-wingers are behind it.

Despite their anti-American attitudes and railing against “white supremacy”, left-wingers take great comfort in the idea that the U.S. is the world’s one, super-wealthy super-power. In many a discussion, when I’ve tried to warn a liberal friend how policy X must inevitably undermine the U.S. position in the world, he or she smirks – yes, smirks – and says “But we will always be on top, because of reason Y.” (We have the best military, the best universities or tech research, Hollywood / the most seductive culture, control of the Internet or SWIFT payment system, whatever.)

I think their belief is basically infantile.

  • The child needs to fantasize that the parent is super-capable and benevolent and will always be there for her, no matter what.
  • And a malicious / narcissistic child fantasizes about being able to dish out endless tantrums and torture on the parent – without damaging the child’s life in any way.

Likewise, the left-winger needs to fantasize that the U.S. will always be the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy And Daddy – no matter how many rocks, bombs or burdens they (the left-wingers) throw at the U.S.

Which brings us to the Paris climate accord. It doesn’t do much of anything good. Just a couple big, bad things.

  1. Uphold left-wing fetishes – environmental extremism, statism, globalism – thus demonstrating leftie supremacy; and
  2. Drain the U.S. of wealth – in the form of payments for the Green Climate Fund, tens of billions of new aid to India and other countries, even more burdens on industry and U.S. energy, etc.

Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is so upsetting to left-wingers because it reverses both of those. Now, what is Trump’s rationale for withdrawing?

  • He thinks the U.S. is already responsible environmentally, and will continue to be.
  • He thinks we need to think a bit more about ourselves. We need to mine our own coal. We need to bring back manufacturing jobs. We need to NOT pay into the Green Climate Fund, billions of new aid to India, etc.
  • Meanwhile, the agreement lets China, India and even Europe burn coal and increase their CO2 emissions. That makes no sense. The agreement puts the U.S. at a senseless disadvantage.

Trump’s actions are consistent with, and helpful in, a multi-polar world where the U.S. stops being the Supreme Mommy and Daddy and instead, “gets real” about what the U.S. needs in order to be a good place to live for U.S. people.

He said it in January – “America First” – and now he’s carrying it out. That, and restoring the Constitution (at least a little). Because withdrawing from Paris de-fuses a constitutional bomb. (As will ending the Obamacare insurance-buying mandate, when they finally get around to that.)

Leftie reactions are telling: It’s the end of the world, the U.S. has “resigned as leader of the free world”, Germany’s Angela Merkel now leads the free world, etc. It’s exactly the tantrum you would expect them to throw – if they had an infantile attachment to an idea of the U.S. as the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy and Daddy, upon whom they could inflict any torture or burden that they pleased.

Trump is turning out to be the Bad Mouth Man who will end it, at least partly. And that’s good.

Oh, Put It Back in The Deck

Posted by V the K at 1:10 pm - June 2, 2017.
Filed under: Annoying Celebrities

Oh, Good Lord. I didn’t want to post on Kathy Griffin because she is a D-list celebrity of no importance. But… from her press conference today.

“I’m not afraid of Donald Trump. He’s a bully. I’ve dealt with older white guys trying to keep me down my whole life.”

The only reason this rates a post… and not much of one… is because of what her pitch reveals about the left. Translated, she’s saying: “I’m the victim here. And I’ve always been a victim. And I’ve been victimized by an old white guy you all hate. And I called him a bully, which was a huge buzzword not too long ago So, all you on the social justice left should be on my side, no matter how horrible the thing I did was.”

And she’s using that strategy because, in her mind, the road redemption is not in repudiating what she did and learning through introspection why it was wrong; but instead to pander to the prejudices of the people she wants acceptance from in hopes of being popular again. That’s what matters to her, getting acceptance from the clique. Not personal growth or learning not to be a horrible b-tch.

Donald Trump is not the reason Kathy Griffin’s career peaked with ‘Suddenly Susan.’ It’s because her voice and mannerisms are grating and her material is lousy. Maybe she thinks its funny for a 57 year old woman to act like a loud, obnoxious teenager. Most of the world, not so much. The reason she isn’t popular is because there is no reason for people to like her.

Maybe KG should go for a walk in the woods with Hillary; I am sure they would have a lot to discuss.

Making America Great Again

Yesterday afternoon’s big news, of course, is President Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.

Trump cited putting the “well being” of Americans first as a motivating factor behind his decision. He said, “This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”

…Compliance with the accord could have cost the U.S. “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates,” said Trump.

…Trump then pointed to a portion of the Paris Climate Agreement that he said allows China to increase their emissions for 13 years…adding that India made it’s participation in the Paris Accord “contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”

The Paris Agreement also essentially blocks U.S. development of clean coal, said Trump. He then said he was going to try to make it to the opening of a new mine in two weeks and noted “Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places.”

…which voted for Trump in the election. Hmm, why?

Trump again pointed to China and India, saying that each country is allowed to add massive numbers of coal plants under the Paris Agreement.

“In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries,” he said. “This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”

I’ll be honest, I may be weak on the accord’s details. But I got the essence: It’s an orgy of left-wing, quasi-religious virtue-signalling that greatly damages the U.S. economy and sovereignty (because we entered it officially in 2016) while boosting globalist bureaucrats with U.S. money.

Reducing CO2 emissions is, of course, its stated reason for being; and not a very good reason. Even under the U.N.’s own (incorrect) climate models, the accord will do little to reduce actual CO2 emissions or future Global Warming projections. That makes it almost the definition of a bad deal: Big pain for small gain.

But it’s even worse because the U.N.’s climate models are broken and greatly overstate the danger of Global Warming. Thus, no matter how you slice it, the stated purpose (CO2) isn’t the real purpose. On the level of CO2, the accord accomplishes only a little toward solving an over-hyped, politically-constructed problem.

The real purpose is to be seen in the accord’s real effects: promoting globalism, U.N. bureaucracy, and the Left’s religions of Environmentalism and Statism, over and against human prosperity, human freedom (the ability to choose fossil fuels and/or products that rely on them, especially cars) and national sovereignty. And making the U.S. pay money for other countries.

As I survey the news this morning, I see the right people’s heads exploding and I gotta be honest: It feels good. Thank you, President Trump!


  • From the comments, PMSNBC’s Chris Hayes has been tweeting “THE AGREEMENT QUITE LITERALLY IMPOSES NOTHING!!!” – to which people reply, “Then why is backing out such a big deal?”
  • Brouhaha over the withdrawal, as such. First: U.S. participation was never ratified by the Senate. And people justify that by saying “It’s an agreement, not a treaty.” Fine. Which then makes it 100% voluntary for each participating nation. Right?

    The brouhaha is in Article 28, which says basically that countries must give a 3+ year notice before their withdrawal can become effective. Thus, provided that we give a crap about Article 28, the U.S. can’t effectively withdraw until 2020.

    But remember: “It’s an agreement, not a treaty.” Thus, participation in Article 28 itself is inherently voluntary. Hopefully, Trump has canceled our participation in Article 28 – along with the rest.

  • Lots of good stuff at Breitbart.
  • Click here for Trump’s full speech.