Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Playboy Comes to DC
Playboy Enterprises just announced that it has purchased a table at this year’s White House Correspondents Association Dinner. Swell. Just what we need.
The dinner, as you’ve probably heard, is an annual ritual of narcissism in which leading press figures don black tie and hope to see, or better yet, be seen with Hollywood stars. Like much of politics, much of journalism has become entertainment, and though journalists dub the dinner the “nerd prom,” the self-deprecation becomes more strained with each passing year as journalists themselves have become, literally and otherwise, “beautiful people.”
In 2011, President Barack Obama took the podium at the dinner to mock a particular guest – Donald Trump. Admittedly, Trump fired the first shots by seizing on the “birther” conspiracy, but even unprovoked, Obama had a weakness for scorn, and he ladled it on liberally. The cameras caught Trump glowering with no pretense of being a good sport. Seth Myers, the evening’s other entertainer, piled on: “Donald Trump has been saying he’ll run for president as a Republican, which is surprising as I just assumed he was running as a joke.”
It’s traditional for presidents to respond to the ribbing with a speech of their own, taking gentle swipes at the media and, ideally, themselves. Nancy Reagan was able to transform her image as a snooty Marie Antoinette when she performed a skit wearing rags and singing “Second Hand Rose.”
In 2017, President Trump, who has called the press “the enemy of the American people,” declined to attend, and says he will skip this year’s fest as well. It’s traditional for the president’s speech to be disarmingly self-deprecating, an unfamiliar mode for Mr. Trump.
Most will shrug at the inclusion of Playboy among the evening’s hosts. “The Bunny Beacon will be beaming from Washington” proclaimed the Washington Post, quoting Cooper Hefner’s diagnosis that “D.C. has a tendency to be sort of high-strung.” There were the pro-forma invocations of the First Amendment. The Post nodded to “Hugh Hefner’s clear interest in a free press,” but wondered why Playboy has waited until now to participate in the Correspondents dinner. The Hill’s reporting sheds some light on that. The invitation reportedly read: “Playboy has always been a passionate fighter for the First Amendment and for a free press in general.” Playboy’s participation this year will serve as an “appreciation for the work [journalists] do with a wink and nod to the culture and politics of D.C.”
Ah, so it’s a victory lap. The grandfather of porn, Playboy, is holding this party now to celebrate its triumph in every realm of American life. The “wink and nod” can be interpreted in many ways, but at least one immediately leaps to mind: The party of family values has elevated a man who has been featured on a Playboy cover and proudly displayed it in his New York office. Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, Jr. and his wife posed in front of that cover with Trump, all three making the thumbs up sign, which, in context, was a gesture of surrender to the libertine culture Falwell’s father burned to resist.
And while the mostly liberal Washington press corps has a more benign view of pornography than evangelicals do, they do have some standards, don’t they? The White House Correspondents Association could have declined to include Playboy. After all, the supposed true purpose of the organization is to raise money for journalism students, though there are accounts suggesting that fewer and fewer of the proceeds have lately been going to scholarships. But simply for their sense of decorum and whatever seriousness of purpose they purport to uphold, they might have rejected Playboy’s money. They have been awfully censorious toward Sean Hannity (justifiably) for blurring the lines between journalism and sycophancy, so you might think they’d want to draw a line between what they do and what Playboy does. Sorry, I seem to have slipped into a reverie. Who are we kidding? Who doubts that some mainstream news organization will invite Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal? As for Playboy, they’ve already invited Anthony Scaramucci, which is about perfect. Sleazy meets disgusting. I’ll leave it to you to decide which is which.
Published in Politics
That’s impossible. No one ever allows their bias to influence the exercise of their duty. Not on any grounds whatsoever. And even if they do, they are always sussed out. Always, apparently.
But if it’s against the interloper all is justified, to some. No mark against professionalism and good faith then. #resist
I think the point is, not that they ever don’t act faithfully (adhering to their oath of office), but that we should not presume that they always do so – or even sometimes.
Who is presuming that they always do that?
Moderator Note:
The first statement is off-topic and seems to be a jab at some of our libertarian members.I always find it weird when self described libertarians become defenders of the state and tradition.Just because someone is a judge does not make them above criticism.Or it is just possible that this is what people do in political discussions. The Courts, from District Court injunctions to the Appeals and Supreme Court, continue to play a role in politics. Whenever there is a ruling in a high profile case, people from the left, right and center, look at who the judge is that made the ruling. There is virtually a cottage industry devoted to predicting what the liberal and conservative justices on the Supreme Court will do, based on their backgrounds and prior rulings.
It would seem perfectly in bounds for political discussions before Trump, to discuss the Judge on a high profile case. Who appointed them (Reagan), an attempt to join a Presidential Cabinet (Clinton) or a prior high profile case (Milkien) or her personal character (multiple divorces, breaking up a marriage, former Playboy bunny).
An argument could be reasonably advanced that her personal past is irrelevant. That her prior rulings were all reasonable/ responsible. That her relationships to the Clintons and Soros were irrelevant. This might take some work, but it is possible.
Or I guess you could go the the route of dismissing these conversation, that have happened for years as, : sycophants of the “Glorious Leader”. The people engaging in these discussions clearly aren’t rational actors, behaving in Good Faith, just dupes. Don’t know how you apply that argument to discussions of Judges that happened before Trump or how you will apply it to these discussion after Trump is gone.
You don’t have to agree with a comment, you can even find in out of bounds and say why. What you should not do is insult people as being mindless followers of a “glorious leader”
Being a friend of the Clintons is notoriously problematic. Soros probably has too much fire power to worry about a pip-squeak judge.
I think you are, by this comment.
Moderator Note:
This is a bad faith argument, Fred.Okay, I don’t know what libertarianism has to do with tradition, so we can just set that aside.
Look, if you want to have a serious discussion about reforming the legal and/or criminal justice system, that’d be a great conversation. I’m all in favor of that.
But that conversation is different from Trump supporters engaging in anomaly hunting and concern trolling about a federal judge who ruled against their glorious leader to prove that his self-serving tantrums about conspiracies and witch hunts are true.As usual Fred, your capacity to employ strawmen and totally absurd but defamatory accusations is unparalleled. My hat is off to you.
I’m already in favor of the next two wars.
Regards,
Jim
It is totally dependent on a moral people to work.
The count is now up to four, but the usage ratio has fallen to a disappointing one mention every 271 minutes. Still, with four mentions in the last five posts, that’s a healthy 80% “glorious leader” per post figure.
Moderator Note:
As has been mod-noted in the past, if you find an argument to be in bad faith, please flag it so the mods can handle it instead of attempting to moderate yourself.So as long as Trump is involved, there can be no good faith discussion of Judges who make rulings in cases that have a political impact?
You think people are reaching improper conclusions regarding the Judge. A perfectly reasonable position to advance. Slurring those you disagree with as unthinking drones, who simply support their “glorious leader” is not a good faith discussion.
This is sort of related to that. Government is how we steal from each other. No one in the GOP has done jack about it in 60 years.
Here, let me explain something. This is what the Code of Conduct says about good faith:
That’s means we’re supposed to assume other people are arguing in good faith. It doesn’t means that people are supposed to endlessly be on Good Faith Patrol looking for people to lecture about not arguing in good faith and then try to rules lawyer them into silence.
I don’t need people to try to throw the CoC in my face. I know what it says, better than most. It’s like throwing pebbles at a tank. Just stop, please.
Moderator Note:
Please see mod note on comment #42.It’s not good faith and you should know that.
Just flagged your earlier comment. We’ll see. Hey maybe the moderator was appointed by a NeverTrumper, and if you aren’t redacted, us Trump worshippers will have another judicial conspiracy to ruminate in.
Fred, the whole glorious leader thing doesn’t help you make any points.
You realize in instances where terms like that are used there is a completely controlled media spouting propaganda to support the glorious leader.
We have approximately 90% of all media including sports, random tv shows including sci-fi and fantasy, no less than 3 Comedy Central shows Dedicated to trashing Trump, his supporters and his family.
Meanwhile any place other than Fox news, such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, conservative voices, let alone Trump supporters, are struggling and often failing to remain uncensored.
You are not fighting the good fight, sir. Your attempted point about a glorious leader is completely unfounded and hollow.
What you are witnessing and attempting to deride is a classic American trait of rooting for and defending an underdog.
Rules lawyer you into silence? I have no idea where you could get that from my comments. I admitted that your point has merit. I have not asked in any way that you not comment or not comment in opposition to others.
What I have suggested is that a smart guy, that is a good writer, could make these points without taunts about “glorious leaders”. If you can’t make a point without a taunt, someone else is trying to silence you?
You are wrong then.
Indeed. Talk about tantrums.
Ah … Dr. Gawron … we have noted the same thing, it would seem. Good show.
Yes, yes. The billionaire underdog. Donald Trump, the victim. Someday I’ll write a post about Donald Trump and the victim mindset. After all, Donald Trump’s entire campaign was based on telling people they were victims.
Let me clarify something: Donald Trump is not a victim. Donald Trump is a predator.
For his entire life career, he has been a predator. He’s been a con artist, a bully, and yes, a sexual predator.
He may claim to be a victim, but he is most certainly not. I myself have a weakness for underdogs Donald Trump is most assuredly not one. He’s an amoral conman. Don’t buy into his schtick.
Read David Stockman’s and Breitbart’s book and get back to me.
I never did understand how this thread got diverted from Mona’s initial commentary about Playboy.
But since it did, I want to put in my two cents that you are absolutely right, Fred. And, no matter how much good he does (and I do believe that much of his policy prescriptions and appointments have been excellent), Donald Trump’s convincing his supporters that they are victims is not good for conservatism. Nor is it good for our country.
Can you get them a cut of the Keynesian graft in D.C.? Can we really run at zero interest rates and a mega bloated Fed when so many are losing wages to trade? How’s identity politics and cultural Marxism working out for the “victims”?. Trump is a symptom.
The GOP is worthless.
David Stockman
David Stockman #2
Angelo Codevilla
This is quite interesting and thank you for your heartfelt words.
First, the underdog is something entirely different from ‘victim’. These are different concepts.
Donald Trump didn’t tell people they were ‘victims’, his supporters elected him to do what they wanted implemented long, pent-up political desires unfulfilled. I assure you his supporters don’t feel like victims, if you’re using the term as a psychological sense.
But it looks like your world consists of predators and victims.
What is a predator, Fred? Can we get some examples?
I don’t see Trump claiming any victimhood whatsoever. On the contrary he’s being aggressive, like a predator perhaps, (awaiting your definition) Like a male person with mother-nature’ pure testosterone.
As an amateur anthropologist, I fail to see where men for the last 200,000 years didn’t fundamentally act like Donald Trump, and the vast majority of the men in the last 200 years simply pretended and likewise tried to be, different from their nature, often failing and looking like idiots.
To expect people to be different than they fundamentally are, including yourself, is a bad approach. Before you can really see the problem, you have to accept every aspect of it. We must accept who we are to determine what to do next.
We have formulated a game whereby smarter, harder-working, more creative, more endowed, both physically and financially, innovative people will more likely prosper. Yet when someone succeeds, this is seized upon as some atrocity of exploitation. He’s a con-man, but no one else is? Not Mitt Romney? Not Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Paul Ryan, not Barack Obama? They’re all con men. And worse in some cases.
Hillary isn’t a predator?
And aren’t you a victim of the world being so unlike what it should be?
Can a person engage in business at high levels and be moral? No lying misrepresenting, exaggerating, even if you are in sales and promotion? Ha!
Everything is about seizing the political system, now and cultural marxism. The GOP has no idea how to lead us out of this mess in the Reagan-esque sense. They just want to get past the next election.
Cool story, bro.
Trump has clearly had some unethical business dealings. I don’t get how he’s a “predator” in any other sense. Seriously.
He’s pretty clearly one in Newspeak due to some of the accusations leveled at him by women.
Predatory? I don’t see it.