Category: US Politics

Look, we’re not going to beat around the bush here. This is the dumbest tweet ever posted on Twitter.

In case you missed the story, 11-year-old Frank “FX” Giaccio wrote a letter to President Trump offering to mow the Rose Garden for him. He told Trump, “I’d like to show the nation what young people like me are ready for.”

Trump, a rather successful businessman, invited Frank to drop by on Friday, meet the White House groundskeepers, and get out there with a mower. Frank, wearing work gloves and safety glasses, banged out the job in no time like a pro, drawing praise from the President.

“We’re lucky,” Trump said. “That’s the real future of the country.”

The understated Frank said: “It’s probably the biggest day of my life so far.”

The White House put out a wonderful little video on the day.

But we knew — knew, deep down in our bones — that liberals would find a way to nitpick even THIS, a wonderful story of a young entrepreneur catching the eye of the most powerful man in the world and being invited to the White House.

So, I tweeted out a bunch of made up reactions from liberals — and darned if I didn’t nail this one right on the head.

Greenhouse (as in gases) went on to tweet several more times, saying the “American Academy of Pediatrics says no one under 12 shud use power mower” and “People who don’t think about child labor or job safety don’t realize that young kids & mowers aren’t a great fit.”

Other Twitterers let him have it with both barrels.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed this weekend that she lost the election because women — in particular, white women — caved to pressure from the men in their life, and voted for Trump.

The quintessential modern feminist Clinton says women were too scared to stand up to their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers, who told them to vote Republican, and since, clearly, women have no agency or ability to think for themselves, they listened.

Clinton made the outrageous claim in an interview with NPR, where she also blamed the so-called “Bernie Bros” for bullying Democratic women into avoiding the more moderate Clinton in favor of progressive Bernie Sanders.

“You yourself in the book acknowledge that a good number of young women didn’t vote for you, which is presumably not a sexist choice. They just weren’t inspired by your message,” NPR’s Rachel Martin said during an interview with Clinton, out to promote her litany of excuses…er…recently released book, What Happened.

“I think it’s a lot more complicated than that,” Clinton answered. “I did win the women’s vote. I didn’t win the vote of white women, but I got more white women votes than Barack Obama did,” she said.

But, said Clinton, even though women liked and respected her — an observation American women might disagree with generally — they were too afraid to stand up to the oppressive Patriarchial hand that often forces them to hide their allegiance to womankind.

“Women will have no empathy for you because they will be under tremendous pressure — and I’m talking principally about white women — they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers, and husbands, and boyfriends and male employers, not to vote for ‘the girl,’” she said.

That is, of course, ridiculous. Women are not only capable of making decisions on their own, they’ve been doing it for decades. Centuries even.

The problem is, though, that women who are able to think for themselves eventually realize they are not bound to support candidates simply because they share a similar set of genitalia. The cause of “womankind” isn’t always furthered by every female politician that steps into the arena. And when it comes to the ballot box, women have routinely told pollsters that they vote for the candidate they feel will have the best positive impact for their families.

In the case of the 2016 election, women were looking for economic security and protection from foreign terrorists, things Clinton simply couldn’t provide.

But lest you think Clinton’s ire falls only on those dastardly, oppressed Republican women who live under the thumb of domineering fathers and partners, she extends blame to female Bernie Sanders supporters who she says were cowed into supporting the progressive septugenarian by online bullies.

“And we saw a lot of that during the primaries from Sanders supporters, really quite vile attacks online against women who spoke out for me, as I say, one of my biggest support groups, Pantsuit Nation, literally had to become a private site because there was so much sexism directed their way,” she said.

Pantsuit Nation, by the way, is far from a walled garden; its founder recently received a six-figure book contract, and the Facebook site has become a hub for women-led “resistance.”

But hey, it’s much easier to blame everyone but yourself, right? Feminism!

Boy, the critics do NOT like Jennifer Lawrence’s new movie, mother!

Yes, the movie’s title is lower case (pretentious) and includes an exclamation point. Really. And while it pulls down a respectable 68% on the film rating website Rotten Tomatoes, some of the most renowned critics slashed the movie to tiny pieces.

Most brutal was Rex Reed. Writing for the Observer, Reed emptied his clip — then reloaded like 20 times.

This delusional freak show is two hours of pretentious twaddle that tackles religion, paranoia, lust, rebellion, and a thirst for blood in a circus of grotesque debauchery to prove that being a woman requires emotional sacrifice and physical agony at the cost of everything else in life, including life itself. That may or may not be what Aronofsky had in mind, but it comes as close to a logical interpretation as any of the other lunk-headed ideas I’ve read or heard. The reviews, in which a group of equally pretentious critics frustratingly search for a deeper meaning, are even nuttier than the film itself. Using descriptions like “hermeneutic structure,” “phantasmagoric fantasia,” “cinematic Rorsach test” and “extended scream of existential rage,” they sure know how to leave you laughing.

Reed suggests ignoring the reviews that praise the director, Darren Aronofsky, as some sort of visionary.

One critic says it’s a satire on the chaos the dysfunctional world has been turned into by Donald Trump. Another says the title refers to the role played by Jennifer Lawrence, the director’s current personal squeeze and cinematic muse, whom he slobbers over in endlessly annoying close-ups that emphasize her flaws and rob the viewer of the power of self-discovery. One reviewer says she plays the quintessential Earth mother who works feverishly to restore balance to a planet Earth that is being constantly torn apart by wickedness and savagery. I love the review that compares the movie to the “lancing of a boil.” They all insist mother! is a metaphor for something, although they are not quite sure what it is. …

The New York Times critic arrogantly warns in his review: “Don’t listen to anyone who natters on about how intense or disturbing it is.” Sorry, pal, but a mob that burns a screaming baby and its mother alive, then turns cannibal, eats the baby and rips its heart out to flush down the toilet while Patti Smith sings about the end of the world pretty much fits my definition of both “intense” and “disturbing.” What’s yours?

Nothing about mother! makes one lick of sense as Darren Aronofsky’s corny vision of madness turns more hilarious than scary. With so much crap around to clog the drain, I hesitate to label it the “Worst movie of the year” when “Worst movie of the century” fits it even better.

Ouch.

CinemaScore, which tracks audience reactions on opening night, has given the movie a rare F (only 12 films since 2004 have earned the worst score).

Critic Susan Granger said the flick is just “another instance of pretentious, self-indulgent torture-porn.”

The liberal Huffington Post wasn’t keen on the film, either.

“mother!” is the kind of film where anything and everything is thrown up on the screen. Nothing has to make sense because it is all a matter of interpretation. Some may call that art but I call it befuddlement. There is no central theme to the film because it is all in the audiences’ heads as to what means what.

It is hard to imagine that most members of the audience will face the final scene of the film, if they last that long, and say, “Well that explains everything”. It doesn’t. Aronofsky might have thought by flinging paint against a canvas he made a masterpiece. He didn’t. He made a mess.

Kyle Smith of National Review called the movie “a biblically-infused version of torture porn” and said that “it may be the most vile and contemptible motion picture ever released.”

“To experience the final half-hour is to understand what it must feel like to be a clump of broccoli in a Cuisinart,” he wrote.

Critic Sonny Bunch also ripped the last 30 minutes:

The skill that went into crafting mother! is undeniable — the final thirty minutes or so are as relentless as they are nasty — but so is its unpleasantness, its aggressively nihilistic and misanthropic ugliness. I can’t quite tell whether I hate the movie or just its message, but mother! may be one of the rare artistic instances in which this is a distinction without a difference.

The movie opened on Friday and Deadline.com wrote on Sunday: “Well, it’s clear: Moviegoers officially hate Darren Aronofsky’s Mother! … The bold Jennifer Lawrence pic crashed well below its $11M projections with an estimated $7.5M in third as of Sunday morning. When compared to her wide releases in their first weekend (1,000-plus theaters), it’s the lowest opening for Lawrence, even lower than her 2012 Relativity horror movie The House at the End of the Street ($12.3M).”